Jump to content

Menu

So, a group of armed terrorists has occupied a federal building


redsquirrel
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is concerning:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/03/armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take-over-federal-building-in-rural-oregon/

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/02/3735576/150-armed-militia-members-take-over-federal-building/

 

 

 

They have posted videos on Youtube explaining that they are ready and willing to die for this "cause", whatever it is.  I mean, I know what spurred this, but I still don't understand what their demands are. I have read as much as I can, their statements etc and there doesn't seem to be a real point to any of it. They are calling for other terrorists to join them in this action and asking them to bring their weapons. They claim they are prepared to stay there for years.  Which, I admit, is great containment policy. If they are there having fun with their guns (and how long before one of them 'second amendments' one of their buddies by mistake?) they aren't causing problems anywhere else.

 

 

I find it odd the almost total lack of coverage by the mainstream media or comment by the government. I know its a holiday weekend and newsrooms are empty, but it happened last night. I was expecting front page stories this morning, at least a breaking news alert over my phone, but...crickets.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if they weren't white men? Can you imagine if a bunch of Black Lives Matter activists had a massive amount of weapons and food and took over a federal building?  A bunch of Muslim Americans brought heavy duty guns and piles of ammo onto federal land, claiming it was a peaceful protest, but calling for other armed Muslim Americans to join them?  How do you think that would go down?

 

But a bunch of radical white people do it and the response is, 'meh, what's the big deal?'

 

Is this the new normal? Are the friends of Timothy McVeigh calling the shots now? Are we just going to be ok with this as a society? Because they are white men, we let them have their little temper tantrum for the next three years, until they run out of venison jerky and red bull, and they they get to go home?

 

 

  • Like 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I find it odd the almost total lack of coverage by the mainstream media or comment by the government. I know its a holiday weekend and newsrooms are empty, but it happened last night. I was expecting front page stories this morning, at least a breaking news alert over my phone, but...crickets.

 

It is covered. I have seen it on the cnn and abcnews websites.

It is even covered internationally; I saw it on the main German news website.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, many people are commenting on how the National Guard was sent out in Ferguson and Baltimore.  If they were Muslims, the SWAT teams would already be in place.

 

Even the guys who they are supposedly protesting/occupying in honor of, have said they plan to peacefully report back to prison tomorrow.

 

Mr. Bundy's offspring have learned that this sort of thing pays.  Daddy can ignore laws and take on the federal government, so why can't they? So I'm not surprised they're doing this.  

 

 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd the almost total lack of coverage by the mainstream media or comment by the government. I know its a holiday weekend and newsrooms are empty, but it happened last night. I was expecting front page stories this morning, at least a breaking news alert over my phone, but...crickets.

 

It's the top story on NBC.com., or it was this morning. I read news sites first thing while having my coffee, and it was there.

 

 

But a bunch of radical white people do it and the response is, 'meh, what's the big deal?'

 

And they're not called what they really are - terrorists. They're called patriots.  :001_rolleyes:  :banghead:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS covered. It is even covered internationally; I saw it on the main German news website.

 

I know there is some coverage. I head it on BBC world news.

 

But, no screaming headlines, no news scrum, no 24 hour news cycle coverage, "all militia all the time' type thing.  That is what I would expect if this were brown people or some other marginalized group. 

 

I expect it will happen, but it sure is taking longer than I expected

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is happening in my state, so I've seen a fair amount of coverage. What I'm trying to figure out is how it is financially feasible for them to be involved in prolonged protests. Do they not work and just rely on fundraising? Are they independently wealthy? Or do the occupiers rotate in and out and use vacation time from jobs?

 

I also find it interesting that the father and son going to jail don't really want them there nor do many in the community. Like many very rural counties, the government is one of the biggest employers in Harney County and the militants accused the citizens of being too reliant on the government. Citizens are also very concerned about the militants inciting violence. Already, schools that were scheduled to open tomorrow are closed for at least the next week.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not easy to get to Burns, Oregon and we are having a dusting of snow in Portland which shuts the city down. Driving from Portland to Burns normally takes 5 hours and you have to cross the Cascades. Portland has the only big airport, journalists could fly from Portland to Bend, anyway it's not easy.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is happening in my state, so I've seen a fair amount of coverage. What I'm trying to figure out is how it is financially feasible for them to be involved in prolonged protests. Do they not work and just rely on fundraising? Are they independently wealthy? Or do the occupiers rotate in and out and use vacation time from jobs?

 

I also find it interesting that the father and son going to jail don't really want them there nor do many in the community. Like many very rural counties, the government is one of the biggest employers in Harney County and the militants accused the citizens of being too reliant on the government. Citizens are also very concerned about the militants inciting violence. Already, schools that were scheduled to open tomorrow are closed for at least the next week.

 

My main thoughts have been with anyone who is there. I am very sincere in that. It must be so scary. I know the townspeople called a meeting expressing their concerns about violence. One of them pointed out that it will be them left to clean up the mess. 

 

And I have wondered the same thing, about how they are managing this. I am guessing they have been planning this for a long time and they families are ready to go without their salary etc..or they are self sufficient and can carry on without them.

 

But I am guessing that if this goes on much longer there will be no people allowed to come and go freely, here will be blockades etc and to come out means arrest etc. 

 

 

It's not easy to get to Burns, Oregon and we are having a dusting of snow in Portland which shuts the city down. Driving from Portland to Burns normally takes 5 hours and you have to cross the Cascades. Portland has the only big airport, journalists could fly from Portland to Bend, anyway it's not easy.

 

I get that. I saw one story from a freelance reporter who sometimes works for The Guardian US, and he went out there late last night. He was able to drive right up to the building. He said he saw no more than a dozen vehicles and about that many people. It was daylight and he had pictures. They 'strongly suggested' he leave right away and he did.  But he said he wasn't seeing the numbers they were claiming. But, it was during the day and more could show up.

 

But from the pictures I could see the snow and I know how remote those places can be.  And I follow a number of reporters on twitter and my TL is filled with MANY people complaining about being stuck in airlines, cancelled flights etc. So I understand it will take a while for journalists to get out there.  By then, I am assuming the gov't will have set up a perimeter and will be controlling access. 

 

 

I tend to think it might be better if the media would ignore this story.  I'm guessing their 15 minutes of fame is a really big part of what they're after.

 

But yes . .. . a definite double standard in how these things are handled.

 

 

They WANT an armed confrontation with the gov't. They WANT to spur some sort of uprising with themselves as the martyrs. This is what they have been dreaming about. I think the worst thing the country can do is give them that.

 

But, again, do we as a society just let it go on?  Maybe the answer is yes. And how to we reconcile that with our responses to other groups.

 

I keep thinking of parenting techniques for dealing with a power struggle with an irrational four year old...who is holding a semi-automatic weapon and sitting on a mountain of ammo.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there is some coverage. I head it on BBC world news.

 

But, no screaming headlines, no news scrum, no 24 hour news cycle coverage, "all militia all the time' type thing.  That is what I would expect if this were brown people or some other marginalized group. 

 

I expect it will happen, but it sure is taking longer than I expected

 

This is such a non story because...

 

1) NO hostages

2) NO mass shooting of people

3) NOT a major federal building

4) NOT a hotly debated political issue

 

Its a snooze fest of a story that is why it isn't getting a big reaction.  And it shouldn't.

 

Stefanie

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a non story because...

 

1) NO hostages

2) NO mass shooting of people

3) NOT a major federal building

4) NOT a hotly debated political issue

 

Its a snooze fest of a story that is why it isn't getting a big reaction.  And it shouldn't.

 

Stefanie

 

Do you think if the players were different it  would no longer be a "snooze fest".

 

And I think it's quite important that heavily armed radicals have occupied public land for their own and are claiming control over it.  They have made online statements claiming they are willing to die for their cause, saying goodbye to their families. They are asking others to join with them and bring their weapons. I am assuming some will. What about those families who see family members pack up to join the radical cause?

 

How is that a non-story? Who radicalized them? What radical groups do they belong to? Where does their money come from? Are they engaged in illegal activities to fund their radical agenda? How many other people are members of those groups? What are their ties to other radical groups? What are their ties to other seemingly non-radical groups? How many weapons do they have and what do they think they need them for?

 

 

Why do you think it shouldn't get a reaction?

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think if the players were different it  would no longer be a "snooze fest".

 

On the basis of the facts of the events, yes, the story would still be a snooze fest.

 

And I think it's quite important that heavily armed radicals have occupied public land for their own and are claiming control over it.  They have made online statements claiming they are willing to die for their cause, saying goodbye to their families. They are asking others to join with them and bring their weapons. I am assuming some will. What about those families who see family members pack up to join the radical cause?

 

I don't.  No one said not to have consequences, just that it shouldn't be a major news story.  All the other stuff, you are aware of the concept of attention seeking are you not?  The media has made it very clear that if you want your 15 minutes of fame from them you should bring as many guns as you can carry and be as loud and as asinine as you can be.  It fits their agenda.  Heck, if you widen the scope, it practically describes TV media these days......be as loud, asinine and out of control as you can and maybe you can get your own reality TV show.

 

 

How is that a non-story? Who radicalized them? What radical groups do they belong to? Where does their money come from? Are they engaged in illegal activities to fund their radical agenda? How many other people are members of those groups? What are their ties to other radical groups? What are their ties to other seemingly non-radical groups? How many weapons do they have and what do they think they need them for?

 

McCarthyism much?  That is a whole lot of defaming assumptions. 

 

 

Why do you think it shouldn't get a reaction?

 

You get what you incentivize. 

 

Stefanie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I have asked any inappropriate questions. They are the same questions that get asked about other radical groups and people in this country. How is this any different? I don't see how what they are doing, an armed takeover of a federal building, publicly stating they are willing to kill and be killed, can't be considered radical or extreme.

 

 

Here is more of a round up, with some videos and interviews

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/3/10703712/oregon-militia-standoff

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read about this in various news outlets and it's really interesting to see how it's getting portrayed in different places.  This is a hotly debated issue in some parts of the US.  My uncle was an federal agent for decades in Idaho and while this is an extreme case, it's not isolated or unique even though stories like these rarely get much press if they're a bunch of white men doing it. I have zero doubt that the story would be seen differently by many Americans if a different group of people did the exact same thing.  A group of armed Muslims would never be allowed to take over a government building, no matter how remote or without people being killed, for any reason without a large segment of the media going crazy about how Islam is going to destroy the US. But Bundy (the dad) is still grazing his cattle illegally on federal land because no one wants to deal with the confrontation and now the son is taking over a government building to protest a mandated sentence for someone who set fire illegally to federal lands.  The Hammonds, the people who are actually in jail, have said they want nothing to do with the Bundys.

 

I wish that instead of occupying a federal building, that they'd try to create a discussion about mandatory minimum sentencing (and not just for this specific case, but for all types of crimes).  There are a lot of times when allowing the judge more flexibility in sentencing is a good thing. Also, a discussion about federal lands and who should control them would be worthwhile But those are issues that need to be taken up with law makers in this country and not through terrorist acts. Even with the most limited definition of terrorism Bundy is acting as a terrorist because he is using violence to further his political agenda.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) NOT a hotly debated political issue

 

Wait... are you seriously saying gun rights (which, as I understand it, is one of the main issues here) is NOT a hotly debated political issue? Or the proper limits of the federal government? I seems to me that both of those are hugely big political debates being discussed among mainstream Americans.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... are you seriously saying gun rights (which, as I understand it, is one of the main issues here) is NOT a hotly debated political issue? Or the proper limits of the federal government? I seems to me that both of those are hugely big political debates being discussed among mainstream Americans.

 

Or use of public lands.  That is a HUGELY debated issue in the west.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a detailed article that sees the situation different.

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

Interesting reading.  It appears this dispute has been going on for a while.  Lots of history.  

 

:patriot:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... are you seriously saying gun rights (which, as I understand it, is one of the main issues here) is NOT a hotly debated political issue? Or the proper limits of the federal government? I seems to me that both of those are hugely big political debates being discussed among mainstream Americans.

 

Its about land rights, not gun rights.  Not a hotly debated national political issue worthy of the level of national news spaz that several posters seem to want.  In fact, it seems the primary indignation in this thread isn't about the event itself, but about trying to warp it into something else.

 

Should the feds do something, well yes, because this behavior should be met with consequences, but no, I don't think it's worth a 24/7 media fest to glorify and reward stupid people who are doing this in order to attention seek. 

 

Stefanie

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a detailed article that sees the situation different.

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

Interesting reading.  It appears this dispute has been going on for a while.  Lots of history.  

 

:patriot:

 

 

There's really not any question that the Hammonds did what they were convicted of- setting fire to public lands. The article you link doesn't make sense in some parts- why would the judge push for a terrorism conviction if he wasn't going to give them the mandatory minimum sentence?  There also aren't any sources at all to back up this version of the convictions.  Personally, I have a problem with a lot of mandatory minimum sentences and this case is no different.  It's Congress that needs to change these laws, or the terrorism conviction needs to be appealed so that minimum wouldn't apply. There are legal and non-violent options here.

 

The history regarding the conflicts between ranchers (and many other people living in the western US) and the federal government are often long and complicated.  People in those states feel underrepresented in the federal government with good reason and have a hard time making their voices heard.  There are legitimate concerns out there, no question, and there are many different factors that have to be balanced. I think that Congress needs to do a better job at listening to these concerns (when presented non-violently, of course).

 

That doesn't make what Bundy and crew are doing any less stupid or wrong- especially since the Hammonds apparently don't want him to do this.  It's terrorism if you use violence or the threat of violence to try to further your political goals.  I don't think the government should go blow Bundy and crew up, but let's call it what it is and deal with it in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, that makes it clear to Bundy that he can't do things like this, and that begins to deal with the problems of mandatory minimum sentences and issues surrounding federal lands in the western US. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its about land rights, not gun rights.  Not a hotly debated national political issue worthy of the level of national news spaz that several posters seem to want.  In fact, it seems the primary indignation in this thread isn't about the event itself, but about trying to warp it into something else.

 

Should the feds do something, well yes, because this behavior should be met with consequences, but no, I don't think it's worth a 24/7 media fest to glorify and reward stupid people who are doing this in order to attention seek. 

 

Stefanie

 

My understanding is that this group asked people partly based on land rights, partly on general "government power" and that they're well known for their advocacy of gun rights in general. I do think all those things are big issues. The land issue, which is the main thing, not as much in the east, but it's big out west. Plus there's the question of whether issues that are "sexy" should be the issues that get more coverage. With capitalist media, it's inevitable to some extent, but land rights is pretty important even if school shooters are better for ratings. Bah.

 

I have mixed feelings about whether or not there should be a media fest for them... I mean, it certainly didn't help situations like this and the goal should be de-escalate and clear them out - regardless of whether or not you think they have a point about the larger issues or what - I think we can mostly all agree what they're doing isn't okay. But I'm also sick of the double standard in how situations like this are dealt with (as in, white, militant Christian terror groups) versus how the media talks about Muslim terror groups and how the police deal with white people with guns versus non-white people with guns. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be clear, I don't want this to get a crazy amount of media attention. I want to point out that if these were not white men this would be playing out very differently.

 

If a group of armed Black Lives Matter organizers, or Muslim Americans, or Native Americans, etc, etc did exactly what this group is doing, if they posted videos stating they are ready and willing to kill and be killed, saying goodbye to loved ones, asking others to gather their weapons and join them... the media response, the law enforcement response, the response from our government would be very, very different.

 

And I am so glad that so far no one has been hurt or killed...but so many other people in this country haven't been given same forbearance.

  • Like 28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have mixed feelings about whether or not there should be a media fest for them... I mean, it certainly didn't help situations like this and the goal should be de-escalate and clear them out - regardless of whether or not you think they have a point about the larger issues or what - I think we can mostly all agree what they're doing isn't okay. But I'm also sick of the double standard in how situations like this are dealt with (as in, white, militant Christian terror groups) versus how the media talks about Muslim terror groups and how the police deal with white people with guns versus non-white people with guns. 

 

Not sure why you would refer to them as Christian...I saw no such reference in the linked articles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you would refer to them as Christian...I saw no such reference in the linked articles.

 

In Bundy's call to other like-minded people to join him he says that God called him to do this. At one point he said, "I am asking you to come to Harney County to participate in this wonderful thing that the Lord is about to accomplish…"

 

His group is Christian. I don't think that's really at issue. And Bundy's religious views - in his own words - are part of what is driving him to do this.

 

ETA: Which is not to say I think by any stretch that he represents all Christians. As if. He clearly doesn't. It's just that he gets that privilege from the media to not have to represent all Christians while Muslim inspired terrorists are implied to represent all Muslims.

Edited by Farrar
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Bundy's call to other like-minded people to join him he says that God called him to do this. At one point he said, "I am asking you to come to Harney County to participate in this wonderful thing that the Lord is about to accomplish…"

 

His group is Christian. I don't think that's really at issue. And Bundy's religious views - in his own words - are part of what is driving him to do this.

 

ETA: Which is not to say I think by any stretch that he represents all Christians. As if. He clearly doesn't. It's just that he gets that privilege from the media to not have to represent all Christians while Muslim inspired terrorists are implied to represent all Muslims.

 

 

Gotcha...I see your point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is happening in my state, so I've seen a fair amount of coverage. What I'm trying to figure out is how it is financially feasible for them to be involved in prolonged protests. Do they not work and just rely on fundraising? Are they independently wealthy? Or do the occupiers rotate in and out and use vacation time from jobs?

 

I also find it interesting that the father and son going to jail don't really want them there nor do many in the community. Like many very rural counties, the government is one of the biggest employers in Harney County and the militants accused the citizens of being too reliant on the government. Citizens are also very concerned about the militants inciting violence. Already, schools that were scheduled to open tomorrow are closed for at least the next week.

As far as wondering how these guys are funded I can tell you right now that they don't need money. My dad is not one of them, but he could be. He had a seriously messed  up deal with the EPA (a bunch of thugs worse than these guys lol) and lost his ranch. But that aside, these guys can live off the land, on very little for a long time. I know guys like these. Vacation time is something that these guys never had. Like, ever. The occupiers can live off rice and beans and whatever game and farm animals are around indefinitely. Due to the EPA my dad went years without any income on a piece of property that is not productive unless it is used to graze cattle. He managed to catch enough fish, grow enough produce, and not drive anywhere for a long time. I can imagine that these guys are going to do the same thing.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I want to point out that if these were not white men this would be playing out very differently.

 

 

 

 

 

....and if they had videos of themselves shooting someone else's holy book............... dot dot dot dot dot dot dot dot

 

"with a pink f **cking rifle..." ...cause yanno, girls ha-ha. ..."But it just didn't, you know, FILL ME UP..."

Edited by OKBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I understand this...

 

There's been a longstanding conflict between a wildlife preserve and local ranchers, and the ranches have been eventually selling land to the preserve -- under pressure and in what they consider unfair circumstances. The family in question has not sold, and is something like a lone holdout.

 

At present, it's no longer as it was historically: ranching area with free herds, public grazing land, and watering areas: it's just the one ranch and the public land that is now a preserve. The family still has some (diminished) legal grazing, water, and through-transportation rights -- but the wildlife people don't want the cattle in the preserve, especially the water (preserving waterfowl). There have been challenges, conflicts, pre-emptive fences and roadblocks -- what might be called 'dirty tricks'. Legal challenges have gone either way.

 

At some point, there were two fires: started intentionally on private property, spreading into the preserve. One was a 'prescribed burn' presumably intended for the private property --the family notified the preserve in advance, but it spread anyways. The second was a 'backfire' during a wildfire, which the family considers successful, and the preserve considers damaging. These fires can be considered in the context of the 'dirty tricks' to have had questionable or mixed motives.

 

The two family members were tried for arson, but there is some sort of terrorism act that was applied to the case also, which has a minimum sentence. Somehow the two were not sentenced to much time at the time that they were convicted. Recently, in another possible 'dirty trick' the two men have been re-sentenced to 5 years for those original fires: to start tomorrow.

 

The men intend to turn themselves in. In longstanding anger and in protest of this recent re-sentencing, the local (?) community of men have staged an armed 'occupy' protest at the building associated with the wildlife preserve. They don't intend violence, but they do intend to stay put.

 

So, do I understand it?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I have asked any inappropriate questions. They are the same questions that get asked about other radical groups and people in this country. How is this any different? I don't see how what they are doing, an armed takeover of a federal building, publicly stating they are willing to kill and be killed, can't be considered radical or extreme.

 

 

Here is more of a round up, with some videos and interviews

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/3/10703712/oregon-militia-standoff

 

Of course it is, it's radical and extreme attention seeking.  Not only that, the gov't seems to have cultivated this particular behavior from these two masterminds by allowing their father to get away with something similar.  Why shouldn't they want to get their 15 minutes in as well?  After all, its a relatively "safe" and something they can get away with, in their experience.  It's also clearly a symptom of delusional thinking.

 

Those questions are valid for a terrorist attack being investigated by the authorities but generally are not appropriate for the media to be pursuing in the manner that they do.  I just happen to believe the media cares more about making witch hunts these days than presenting factual news stories.  We'll just have to agree to disagree, I don't see this as terrorism.  A particularly stupid choice of protest, I hope they get the consequences they deserve, but not terrorism, and certainly not worthy of being yapped about 24/7 for the next 3 days. 

 

Bottom line:  You get what you incentivize.  The media does a lot of incentivizing for this kind of crap, from stupid stunts like this to full blown terrorist attacks, with the "screaming headlines, news scrum, 24 hour news cycle coverage, you should be so outraged over this we're going to plaster it everywhere to show you how outraged you should be over this" type of coverage. 

 

Stefanie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these people do get what they deserve, though. Aren't they still using land they aren't supposed to be using because the government didn't want a big deal? Is that wrong or is that really still happening? There seems to be a definite problem with how these types is people are treated vs how another group would be treated. To pretend otherwise is silly.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as wondering how these guys are funded I can tell you right now that they don't need money. My dad is not one of them, but he could be. He had a seriously messed up deal with the EPA (a bunch of thugs worse than these guys lol) and lost his ranch. But that aside, these guys can live off the land, on very little for a long time. I know guys like these. Vacation time is something that these guys never had. Like, ever. The occupiers can live off rice and beans and whatever game and farm animals are around indefinitely. Due to the EPA my dad went years without any income on a piece of property that is not productive unless it is used to graze cattle. He managed to catch enough fish, grow enough produce, and not drive anywhere for a long time. I can imagine that these guys are going to do the same thing.

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I guess I thought some of them might also have ranches or farms that needed their attention or families that needed their financial support.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this is not a major concern for most people, and it is not even really the TOPIC of this thread, but Burns, Oregon, is at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.  This is a nationally and ecologically important bird refuge...it's a major stop for  a tremendous variety of birds on their migratory paths.  It's a Top Tier Birding Destination, for people from all over the world.  

 

I'm not really following the story that IS the topic of the thread, but it burns my bacon that these guys are burning this habitat to make a point...destroying who knows what.  Grr.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like the cowboy conservative version of occupy wall street meets earth first. Not terrorism until they actually terrorize. I tire of the hyperbole.

 

Peaceful civil disobedience does not = armed resistance and destruction of federal reserve.

This is pretty foul smelling. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, this.  My dad is a depression-raised, old-school farmer, and he once told me that all a person needs to live is arable land or land with game, a basic shelter, and a heat source.  He was dead serious, and I;ve no doubt he could live indefinitely that way, and would probably prefer it to city/suburb living.

As far as wondering how these guys are funded I can tell you right now that they don't need money. My dad is not one of them, but he could be. He had a seriously messed  up deal with the EPA (a bunch of thugs worse than these guys lol) and lost his ranch. But that aside, these guys can live off the land, on very little for a long time. I know guys like these. Vacation time is something that these guys never had. Like, ever. The occupiers can live off rice and beans and whatever game and farm animals are around indefinitely. Due to the EPA my dad went years without any income on a piece of property that is not productive unless it is used to graze cattle. He managed to catch enough fish, grow enough produce, and not drive anywhere for a long time. I can imagine that these guys are going to do the same thing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The men intend to turn themselves in. In longstanding anger and in protest of this recent re-sentencing, the local (?) community of men have staged an armed 'occupy' protest at the building associated with the wildlife preserve. They don't intend violence, but they do intend to stay put.

 

So, do I understand it?

 

Well, as I understand it, they brought a lot of guns for people who don't intend violence. They want to provoke a conflict with the government that ends in shooting and gets them the notariety of something like Ruby Ridge. The government is wisely waiting to do anything for now.

 

As the ranchers (who apparently don't want the help of these militia guys, by the way) were convicted, I think it's fair to say that what they did was arson, though I don't know enough about the case to say for sure... but it seems to allege otherwise implies that they didn't get a fair trial.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be clear, I don't want this to get a crazy amount of media attention. I want to point out that if these were not white men this would be playing out very differently.

 

If a group of armed Black Lives Matter organizers, or Muslim Americans, or Native Americans, etc, etc did exactly what this group is doing, if they posted videos stating they are ready and willing to kill and be killed, saying goodbye to loved ones, asking others to gather their weapons and join them... the media response, the law enforcement response, the response from our government would be very, very different.

 

And I am so glad that so far no one has been hurt or killed...but so many other people in this country haven't been given same forbearance.

 

I actually don't think it would.  The media has their pet narratives and generally gloss over anything that doesn't promote that meme, except the things so big they can't ignore.  No shootings = not a big deal. 

 

 

Stefanie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like the cowboy conservative version of occupy wall street meets earth first. Not terrorism until they actually terrorize. I tire of the hyperbole.

I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was a sit in style protest. The protesters did not resist law enforcement efforts to arrest them, they peacefully submitted to the legal penalties for their actions.

 

The Bundys brought enough guns to pose a threat to everyone in their vicinity. I don't think any police officer would consider them as anything but a lethal threat if they have to go in and try to arrest them. They are terrorizing their town. They are terrorists.

 

I don't think it's an overreaction to call them a radical organization and use anti-terrorism measures to trace their contacts. Remember that a small group of similarly minded radicals bombed the OK City Federal Building. We can never forget that these anti-government extremists pose a real and present danger to all of us.

 

(If you need a heartrending reminder, scroll down on this page:

 

http://web.mit.edu/drb/Public/PhotoThesis/  )

Edited by chiguirre
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was a sit in style protest. The protesters did not resist law enforcement efforts to arrest them, they peacefully submitted to the legal penalties for their actions.

 

The Bundys brought enough guns to pose a threat to everyone in their vicinity. I don't think any police officer would consider them as anything but a lethal threat if they have to go in and try to arrest them. They are terrorizing their town. They are terrorists.

 

I don't think it's an overreaction to call them a radical organization and use anti-terrorism measures to trace their contacts. Remember that a small group of similarly minded radicals bombed the OK City Federal Building. We can never forget that these anti-government extremists pose a real and present danger to all of us.

 

(If you need a heartrending reminder, scroll down on this page:

 

http://web.mit.edu/drb/Public/PhotoThesis/ )

They were anything but peaceful in my town. They threw feces at the cops and resisted removal with bodily harm. I guess it just depends on where you live. These guys are packing and talking crazy talk but they are still doing an occupy protest and not terrorism at this point. I doubt they've even flung their poo at anyone, yet.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is concerning:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/03/armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take-over-federal-building-in-rural-oregon/

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/02/3735576/150-armed-militia-members-take-over-federal-building/

 

 

 

They have posted videos on Youtube explaining that they are ready and willing to die for this "cause", whatever it is.  I mean, I know what spurred this, but I still don't understand what their demands are. I have read as much as I can, their statements etc and there doesn't seem to be a real point to any of it. They are calling for other terrorists to join them in this action and asking them to bring their weapons. They claim they are prepared to stay there for years.  Which, I admit, is great containment policy. If they are there having fun with their guns (and how long before one of them 'second amendments' one of their buddies by mistake?) they aren't causing problems anywhere else.

 

 

I find it odd the almost total lack of coverage by the mainstream media or comment by the government. I know its a holiday weekend and newsrooms are empty, but it happened last night. I was expecting front page stories this morning, at least a breaking news alert over my phone, but...crickets.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if they weren't white men? Can you imagine if a bunch of Black Lives Matter activists had a massive amount of weapons and food and took over a federal building?  A bunch of Muslim Americans brought heavy duty guns and piles of ammo onto federal land, claiming it was a peaceful protest, but calling for other armed Muslim Americans to join them?  How do you think that would go down?

 

But a bunch of radical white people do it and the response is, 'meh, what's the big deal?'

 

Is this the new normal? Are the friends of Timothy McVeigh calling the shots now? Are we just going to be ok with this as a society? Because they are white men, we let them have their little temper tantrum for the next three years, until they run out of venison jerky and red bull, and they they get to go home?

 

We were at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in October. It's so beautiful there and the buildings are very nice. I hate the thought of out-of-stater idiot boys with toys taking the place over. They'll destroy it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was a sit in style protest. The protesters did not resist law enforcement efforts to arrest them, they peacefully submitted to the legal penalties for their actions.

 

The Bundys brought enough guns to pose a threat to everyone in their vicinity. I don't think any police officer would consider them as anything but a lethal threat if they have to go in and try to arrest them. They are terrorizing their town. They are terrorists.

 

I don't think it's an overreaction to call them a radical organization and use anti-terrorism measures to trace their contacts. Remember that a small group of similarly minded radicals bombed the OK City Federal Building. We can never forget that these anti-government extremists pose a real and present danger to all of us.

 

(If you need a heartrending reminder, scroll down on this page:

 

http://web.mit.edu/drb/Public/PhotoThesis/  )

 

They aren't terrorizing their town. My understanding is that they are primarily most if not all from out of state. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were anything but peaceful in my town. They threw feces at the cops and resisted removal with bodily harm. I guess it just depends on where you live. These guys are packing and talking crazy talk but they are still doing an occupy protest and not terrorism at this point. I doubt they've even flung their poo at anyone, yet.

Armed occupation of a federal building seems kind of terroristic to me.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

 

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N)Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2148.)
 
Remind me again, these dudes are "patriots," right?
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

 

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N)Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2148.)
 
Remind me again, these dudes are "patriots," right?

 

 

**something something** Traitor in the White House! **something something** They want to take our [insert one or more: guns/land/freedom/flag/country] **something something** Muslims! Illegals! **something something**

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in the western US and I know of at least three fourth-generation ranches that were taken by city and state governments using eminent domain laws. The laws are written so that the homeowner/landowner has to sell, or the gov't can just take it.

What I think many Westerners seem to overlook is that eminent domain happens all the time in the East too. Towns use it to expand roads or change land use to reflect changing needs. Most people accept the fair market value and move. When they do resist eminent domain, people use the courts and public protest to overturn decisions they oppose. The Bundys like to get out their arsenal and threaten both the police and the civilian population instead.

 

If you bring your guns, it's not a peaceful protest. You have the power to kill many people including the police. They MUST treat you as a lethal threat. As unruly as Occupy might be, the police didn't have to worry about sparking a massive firefight. They very much have to worry about that with this crew. This is more Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian and not so much Zuccotti Park.

Edited by chiguirre
  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Now, the federal gov't under this admin. is taking land (or forcing a sale) of ranches and open spaces that has been used for many generations. The gov't calls it federal property, or a nature preserve in this case, and then arrests ranchers who dare to continue to use the land. Ranchers just don't have the money to fight the govt. in court.

 

The govt calls it federal property because it is federal property, and always has been, and the ranchers know that, because they have rental agreements to use it as grazing land.  There are people who dislike the system but let's be real.  This is not private property being seized.

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eminent domain is a difficult thing. I can see both sides.

 

Arming themselves to the gills changes things from a peaceful protest to a serious threat. They are saying with their actions that they are willing to harm law enforcement and there is nothing patriotic or noble about that. They are lucky they are white and Christian; they will have a much greater chance of getting away with it without tragedy.

 

I can't even imagine what would happen if a group of Muslims felt wronged by the government and so they armed themselves and took over a federal building and called for other armed sympathizes to join them. The mind boggles. Even if they did it completely unarmed, the perceived threat would be off the charts.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its very accurate to describe this as terrorism, and it was probably an abuse to charge them with terrorism rather than other more appropriate kinds of charges.  At this point is seems pretty clearly like civil disobedience to me - sit-ins in government buildings are nothing new.

 

 It's not IMO a good thing that they brought their guns and it could lead to all kinds of problems, but it isn't far out given the way people carry guns around in public in the US, and given their political identification I would say that is really what it is about - making a point about their understanding of citizen rights.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The govt calls it federal property because it is federal property, and always has been, and the ranchers know that, because they have rental agreements to use it as grazing land.  There are people who dislike the system but let's be real.  This is not private property being seized.

 

I think the question is what is the proper role of government in administering public land.

 

I think a preserve of that kind is a good and important use, but I also think that traditional uses for things like grazing are important, and when you look at it in terms of the way government has treated families involved in teh agricultural sector generally, it is hard not to see a pattern of them subsidizing coporate agriculture and feed-lots over family based agriculture and grazing.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its very accurate to describe this as terrorism, and it was probably an abuse to charge them with terrorism rather than other more appropriate kinds of charges.  At this point is seems pretty clearly like civil disobedience to me - sit-ins in government buildings are nothing new.

 

 It's not IMO a good thing that they brought their guns and it could lead to all kinds of problems, but it isn't far out given the way people carry guns around in public in the US, and given their political identification I would say that is really what it is about - making a point about their understanding of citizen rights.

 

I think when someone is posting videos to their family, saying they will kill or be killed, it isn't civil disobedience. 

 

The whole point of civil disobedience is to be unarmed, to not pose a threat, to not resist arrest. 

 

These people have said they will use violence and they have the weapons to back it up.  How is that in line with civil disobedience?

  • Like 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...