Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

I think that is his point. What could possibly come of this that is considered a success? They hold the building until the government relinquishes their claim on it? How likely is that?

If the feds kill all of them, the overwhelming majority of Boobus will cheer and it may incite them to call for their masters to crack down on all anti-government sentiment. They could be martyrs too, but to whom? The local militias up there don't even want them involved.
Actually, from current reports, the police aren't even on scene as they are afraid of the response they might receive. "Anti-government militia analysts" on CNN are saying that a heavy handed response would be strategically foolish. They know the world is watching and regardless of what particular militias think about these protester's methods, they are currently backing down the feds. Now what will happen? They'll probably be left there until they leave. So while before it'd have been riot police with batons, dogs, bean bag shotguns, and tasers, that is not happening here. I wonder why?
 
It looks like the "wildlife refuge" has been bad, bad from the very beginning. Having been on the defensive end of an attempted land grab myself, I tend to believe what Ammon Bundy, Breitbart, etc. are saying. However, these battles can only be won if there is broad local support, which it looks like they don't have.
The only good I can see coming from this is awareness of the outrages committed by BLM et al. Even if that is the outcome, I still don't like the method. An unarmed occupation would have a clearer path to that goal simply because the people that need to be reached are just too stupid to understand "self defense" when the government is the illegal aggressor.
 
Actually, from current reports, the police aren't even on scene as they are afraid of the response they might receive. "Anti-government militia analysts" on CNN are saying that a heavy handed response would be strategically foolish. They know the world is watching and regardless of what particular militias think about these protester's methods, they are currently backing down the feds. Now what will happen? They'll probably be left there until they leave. So while before it'd have been riot police with batons, dogs, bean bag shotguns, and tasers, that is not happening here. I wonder why?

I would say that the "militia analyst" are saying what they are saying because, even though other militias don't appreciate this Op, they have stated that a heavy-handed approach would in turn force their hands. I don't know whether it was Mike V. or Rhoades that stated that Bundy has written a check that he expects other militias to cash. They do not appreciate being put in that situation.
 
Yawn.

No, practically every progressive on the Internet was calling for everything from a storming of the ranch to a drone strike. Same as they are now.

Your opinions are just that: opinions. Or do you have a scientific measurement to quantify the exact progress and regression of the militia movement? You throw out a lot of numbers which, from here, sound like complete bullshit.

You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.

I can see it with my own eyes. During the Bundy Ranch standoff barely anyone I knew in FB was hostile. Now my fb is lit up with calls to bomb them.

This call to let them be and do something else is insane.

I see a man jamming a fork into a wall outlet and I speak up to say "that's a bad idea" and you are going to tell me to find my own light socket to play with? Really?

What Ammon Bundy is doing is actively harming the militia movement in America. I care about the militia movement. Hell, I'm a member of the militia movement.

You don't get to auto-magically assume that what Bindy is doing is somehow good just because something is being done.

Why would you go batshit at people who recognize that what they are doing is counterproductive unless you actually WANT to see harm done to the militia movement?

I mean, if you were being rational here, you would be acting like Anti-Fed. He disagrees with me, but acknowledges that I at least have a rational argument and a valid point. He's not trying to shut dissent down via the use of dubious sophistry.

What Ammon Bundy is doing is actively harmful to the militia movement. You want me to shut up. I will not. I care about advancing the American militia movement. I now will have to double down on secrecy with my own group lest we end up under surveillance.

If someone is going to be an idiot and actively bring harm to the American militia movement, I am going to call them out on it. You don't like it? Tough cookies. Deal with it.
 
You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.

I don't get why I've seen multiple posts in this thread expressing something like this, as if exchanging opinions is out of place in an internet forum.

If there were something positive I could do that would effectively convince these militia members to back down now, I would. As it is, merely stating here that I think they should will have to do.
 
Last edited:
While I don't think they are in the right for conducting this Op in other militias backyard I don't think you can quantify the effect this has had. At least not yet. It certainly has done a bang up job of dividing the militias and independent operators. I don't know if that was the purpose though or why they would do such.

I do not think it was intentional. I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong. If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.
 
It looks like the "wildlife refuge" has been bad, bad from the very beginning. Having been on the defensive end of an attempted land grab myself, I tend to believe what Ammon Bundy, Breitbart, etc. are saying. However, these battles can only be won if there is broad local support, which it looks like they don't have.
The only good I can see coming from this is awareness of the outrages committed by BLM et al. Even if that is the outcome, I still don't like the method. An unarmed occupation would have a clearer path to that goal simply because the people that need to be reached are just too stupid to understand "self defense" when the government is the illegal aggressor.

Clearly the BLM and this "wildlife refuge" is wicked wicked evil bad. Opposition to what Ammon is doing does not imply support for this wicked government.
 
Last edited:
I do not think it was intentional. I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong. If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.

On Ammon Bundy's part I agree. There is not just a little amount of speculation about Ryan Payne from the Oathkeepers and III%'ers. I don't know if it was the intention from the beginning to seize the Wildlife HQ. If it was it should have been co-ordinated which casts some speculation about how such a proposal would have been received and why one continue with a plan that would not garner acceptance. Then again it might just have been a spur of the moment idea since the Hammond's were going to peacefully submit and the whole episode would have blown to the winds as a simple peaceful march.
 
I don't know if anyone saw this, but #YallQueda waging #Yeehad in reference to these guys in Oregon is hilarious no matter what side of the issue you are on.
 
On Ammon Bundy's part I agree. There is not just a little amount of speculation about Ryan Payne from the Oathkeepers and III%'ers. I don't know if it was the intention from the beginning to seize the Wildlife HQ. If it was it should have been co-ordinated which casts some speculation about how such a proposal would have been received and why one continue with a plan that would not garner acceptance. Then again it might just have been a spur of the moment idea since the Hammond's were going to peacefully submit and the whole episode would have blown to the winds as a simple peaceful march.

Oh, yeah, there is definitely a better than zero chance that this Payne guy is crooked as a three dollar bill. At this point I'd be more surprised if Payne wasn't a stooge than if he was. I wasn't thinking about him when I responded. I totally think he's dirty as hell.
 
I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?

I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.

Seems like an Ammon Bundy fame grab. Too bad lives are at stake. No support from me.
 
JFYI

George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party

Also- many are ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished TWICE for the same offense- completely unconstitutional and against Common Law. Not only that but the land that was "arsoned" is in much better condition because of the fire, AND the BLM sets fires continually to land and sometimes it has spilled onto private property- but hey it's the gov so who cares, right?

And, as I stated earlier, I believe the only reason that the Hammonds are going peacefully off to prison for the 2nd time, is that a threat has been made towards their families.

I don't know if Bundy is being smart or not but I DO know that this forum screams continually about "doing something" and when someone does, everyone goes ballistic.
 
JFYI

George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party

Also- many are ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished TWICE for the same offense- completely unconstitutional and against Common Law. Not only that but the land that was "arsoned" is in much better condition because of the fire, AND the BLM sets fires continually to land and sometimes it has spilled onto private property- but hey it's the gov so who cares, right?

And, as I stated earlier, I believe the only reason that the Hammonds are going peacefully off to prison for the 2nd time, is that a threat has been made towards their families.

I don't know if Bundy is being smart or not but I DO know that this forum screams continually about "doing something" and when someone does, everyone goes ballistic.


in this case, its become a pissing contest between militia groups. Not good.
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-showdown-militiamen-respond-they-are-ready-f

In the latest development in the ongoing saga of Ammon Bundy's seizure of a Federal wildlife refuge office in Oregon, the members of the militia said they're ready to fight, but they won't say what they would actually do if federal authorities try to remove them by force as reported in the clip below.



However, while we noted the shortcomings in Bundy's latest standoff last night, what is even more notable is that as Shepard Ambellas of Intellihub points out, Montel Williams he tweeted that the National Guard should be mobilized to “kill” protesters who have currently overtaken the federal building in Burns, Oregon.
[...]
Moreover USA Today has reported that “militia members used the ranchers as a ruse,” in what I and others feel may be the planed catalyst to start a civil war in America.

Monday, Rick Jervis wrote:

The Oregon sheriff whose county is at the heart of an anti-government call-to-arms said Sunday the group occupying a national wildlife refuge came to town under false pretenses.

Sheriff David Ward said protesters came to Harney County, in southeastern Oregon, “claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers.” In reality, he said, “these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

In a statement issued Sunday afternoon, Ward said he was working with local and federal authorities to resolve the situation as quickly and peacefully as possible.

Intellihub adds that its staff has identified a few suspicious individuals who claim to stand with the militants which may attempt to provocateur, escalate, the situation further. As we noted last night, this also is a distinct possibility.

Finally, in an interesting tangent, the WaPo, which admits that there "are gun rights issues, religious overtones, broad strains of anti-government sentiment and even the tactics of the Occupy Wall Street movement" as underlying motives behind the seizure, focuses on "very particular question of how much land the government controls in the state -- the same question that animated the dispute with rancher Cliven Bundy in Nevada two years ago -- and that helped motivate Bundy's son Ammon to take a lead role in the Oregon standoff."

It then provides several charts, alongside the following analysis, to show this curious aspect of what may be the core motive behind Bundy's actions. To wit:
[maps illustrating government greed]
The conclusion: "The fight isn't new, as the Congressional Research Service report notes. What's new is the way in which the broader political moment has cross-pollinated with longstanding objections to how the government manages land out West. The takeover in Oregon has its roots in the Sagebrush Rebellion. They way it's being manifested, though, is as modern as it gets."

* * *

It remains to be seen if the National Guard will take up Montel on his "shoot to kill" advice.
 
Seems like an Ammon Bundy fame grab. Too bad lives are at stake. No support from me.

meh...its possible that many so-called Patriots who are opposing this are actually lying Feds behind their keyboards. It's what they do.
 
JFYI

George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party

Also- many are ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished TWICE for the same offense- completely unconstitutional and against Common Law. Not only that but the land that was "arsoned" is in much better condition because of the fire, AND the BLM sets fires continually to land and sometimes it has spilled onto private property- but hey it's the gov so who cares, right?

And, as I stated earlier, I believe the only reason that the Hammonds are going peacefully off to prison for the 2nd time, is that a threat has been made towards their families.

I don't know if Bundy is being smart or not but I DO know that this forum screams continually about "doing something" and when someone does, everyone goes ballistic.

No, no one is ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished twice for the same offense. I firmly believe that had Hammond asked for protection that most, if not all, of Oregon militias, various III% militias from Oregon , Idaho and other states and the Oathkeepers would have all responded to the call.
He did not want their help. What were they to do? Chain him in a barn until his intentions matched theirs?
 
This totally makes my point. After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will. Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.

Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.

Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things worse, then do something else.

Gunny,

I usually agree with you, but "making things worse" is very subjective. They folks barricaded in that govt building probably think what you're doing (by denouncing their actions) is worse. So, the bigger question: Does a militia have to ask you for permission before they feel they need to act?
 
Gunny,

I usually agree with you, but "making things worse" is very subjective. They folks barricaded in that govt building probably think what you're doing (by denouncing their actions) is worse. So, the bigger question: Does a militia have to ask you for permission before they feel they need to act?

I can't speak to what Gunny believes, but I believe that an out of state militia should at the very least run their plan by the local militias. At least have that simple courtesy.
 
As I said, the Bundys didn't do a damn thing during the Bush II even though the dispute with the Feds goes back to 1993. But now they want to play Johnny Reb? Hmmm, I wonder why? War against West? You think it started yesterday? Ever heard of the Sagebrush Rebellion? This has been going for 40 f'ing years! The Feds are supposed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Bundys to avoid Waco-style bloodshed while others are gunned down in the street by the local cops and videos are suppressed. You may think it has nothing to do with race but this lack of empathy with other people's struggle's with oppression only makes the disputes between ranchers and the BLM petty by comparison. If you don't believe in broad front again repression by any form of the state, not just the federal government, then don't be surprised at how isolated your cause will become. As I said, the Bundys didn't speak up after Ferguson, who is going to speak up for them other than the same people?

So why don't you go to your next local militia meeting and suggest that you take on one of your suggested projects?
 
Gunny,

I usually agree with you, but "making things worse" is very subjective. They folks barricaded in that govt building probably think what you're doing (by denouncing their actions) is worse. So, the bigger question: Does a militia have to ask you for permission before they feel they need to act?

By what right do you think they have to waltz into someone else's state uninvited and unwanted and set up armed camp? They don't have wildlife refuges in their own state? This isn't about my permission, it's about the militias of Oregon who do not want them there.
 
Back
Top