What's Going on at the Bundy Ranch?

Carlybee said:
Sounds like at least a veiled threat. Not to mention these guys were volunteers. How can a volunteer there of his own free will be a deserter?
Click to expand...

Because Militia,, though volunteer is acts as a military.. and has some aspects of military disciplines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice
Acts of cowardice have long been punishable by military law, which defines a wide range of cowardly offenses including desertion in face of the enemy and surrendering to the enemy against orders. The punishment for such acts is typically severe, ranging from corporal punishment to the death sentence. Cowardly conduct is specifically mentioned within the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Click to expand...

However it was NOT a threat. They were discussing a meeting to take with and resolve the issue with those involved,, but saying that a simple "I'm sorry" was not really good enough.

And I also notices that Jerry is there at the meeting,, and apparently earlier conflicts with him had been resolved.
 
Last edited:
phill4paul said:
As I mentioned in my various sources "An video of which only memory will serve, because it has been taken down..."

I cannot open the file you posted because I don't have whichever program it says I need. I will take your word on it and change the original post to reflect that.
Click to expand...

Here ya go. Listen again,,



Oh,, and .flv should work in any media player. I have a Media Player plugin for my browser,,,

The only "threat' is near the end. That they are to stay out of the camp "under fear of fist fire".
 
Last edited:
phill4paul said:
Members of Rhodes O.K. had been ASSAULTED by DeLemus' men. Personally, I believe, they could have used deadly force to stop said assault. Could you have imagine how THAT would have played out in the media?
Click to expand...
I agree ...I would've knocked someone's you know what in the dirt. They showed a lot of restraint. Probably why I would not be a good candidate for one of those organizations :D
 
pcosmar said:
Because Militia,, though volunteer is acts as a military.. and has some aspects of military disciplines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice


However it was NOT a threat. They were discussing a meeting to take with and resolve the issue with those involved,, but saying that a simple "I'm sorry" was not really good enough.

And I also notices that Jerry is there at the meeting,, and apparently earlier conflicts with him had been resolved.
Click to expand...

From what I gather conflicts between DeLemus and Payne had been resolved after their first confrontation over vetting. And I'm sorry, it was agitation. No more than that. Something no one in an authority position should be doing. It inflames emotion rather than allow cool heads to work through a situation. IIRC, others had chimed in agitating against the O.K. and then a cooler head mentioned that there were still O.K.'s among them as individuals helping out and everybody calmed down a bit after that.

edit: Thanks for the video link...re-watching.
 
Last edited:
phill4paul said:
Members of Rhodes O.K. had been ASSAULTED by DeLemus' men. Personally, I believe, they could have used deadly force to stop said assault. Could you have imagine how THAT would have played out in the media?
Click to expand...

Really,,
DeLemus was an Oath Keeper.. Interviewed by Rhoades when he got there..promoted to position by another Oath Keeper.

so they got assaulted by some of their own? That is interesting,, (if it even happened)
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04...bundy-ranch/jerry-delemus-new-hampshire-9-12/
 
Last edited:
I can't copy and paste now but on the OK Facebook page under the Elias response is a statement by Robert Casillas..the ex marine in the debriefing video....if his account is correct then Pete you are calling OK liars basically.
 
phill4paul said:
That links date shows April 16th. So he joined after getting there?
Click to expand...

And he also explicitly stated that he was NOT militia,, had never been or had any contact with Militia.

He also said a few things in that interview with Rhoades that were false..

Perhaps he was just another confused individual (Becks 9/12 group) and just recently found himself..
Or perhaps not.
 
pcosmar said:
And he also explicitly stated that he was NOT militia,, had never been or had any contact with Militia.

He also said a few things in that interview with Rhoades that were false..

Perhaps he was just another confused individual (Becks 9/12 group) and just recently found himself..
Or perhaps not.
Click to expand...

Who knows? I still do not know how he could have come to a command position. Yes, he is ex-Marine (1972) I get that. But, is that the only qualifier needed? Surely there were others among the militia with prior military experience? Perhaps, it was the simple fact that he had no militia connection and therefore was looked upon as having no favorites to play. That might make sense.
 
phill4paul said:
Bullshit. I'm just trying to suss this out from any data I can find regarding it. I have chosen no sides. Though apparently you have.
Click to expand...

Well, OK. And yes,, I suppose I have. I have long supported the Militia.

and I make a strong distinction between oathkeepers (Those men that actually do stand by their oath) and The Oath Keepers organization,, Which is a political and educational organization.

This was a Militia event and a Militia Victory. And "Oath Keepers" have never been supportive of the Militia. Some of them antagonistic of it, some of them dismissive of it..

And a lot of Militia and militia supporters have been offended by the Oath Keepers in the past,, and have no use for them.

I see this as an attempt by the OK leadership to put Oath Keepers in the headlines and not the Militia Victory.
And now, because of this bullshit, it is damaging to both.


Oh,, and btw,, since this is about the Bundy Ranch and it's defense,, I look to what the Bundy's are saying,,and not saying.
Their Web Page and their FB page mention and praise the Militia,, but make no such mention or the Oath Keepers.
 
Last edited:
One thing I think we can all agree on is that it shouldn't have been played out in the public eye. Even though I suppose we are contributing to that here. It's a shame it came to this even if we disagree on particulars and motives. I guess one benefit is that it could be looked at as a trial run. Hopefully lessons have been learned.
 
pcosmar said:
Well, OK. And yes,, I suppose I have. I have long supported the Militia.

and I make a strong distinction between oathkeepers (Those men that actually do stand by their oath) and The Oath Keepers organization,, Which is a political and educational organization.

This was a Militia event and a Militia Victory. And "Oath Keepers" have never been supportive of the Militia. Some of them antagonistic of it, some of them dismissive of it..

And a lot of Militia and militia supporters have been offended by the Oath Keepers in the past,, and have no use for them.

I see this as an attempt by the OK leadership to put Oath Keepers in the headlines and not the Militia Victory.
And now because of this bullshit it is damaging to both.
Click to expand...

I agree, there is fault ALL around. Rhodes for releasing the drone strike information after the decision to hold off on releasing it. And again Rhodes for operating outside of boundaries that the organization was not created for. He should have stuck to logistics (donations, supplies) and PR. Had he done that then none of this would have escalated as it did.
And also on whoever allowed the Bundy meeting tape to have been released for public consumption.
From a PR standpoint, a nightmare all the way around.
 
Last edited:
klamath said:
Prime examples of why militias get their asses kicked through most of history.
Click to expand...

True, but is not the fault of the individual militia member, unless he voted for someone incompetent to lead his unit in a unit that votes for its leadership.

Militias perform poorly because of bad commanders who are not capable of performing the task. (This weakness is not limited to militias, but probably more difficult to remove the commander of a militia unit and appoint a competent replacement). A bad commander will have a poorly trained and disciplined unit, which will fail under stress. While the active army fans pointed to the poor militia performance during the Revolution, War of 1812, and so on, there were notable exceptions.

In the battle of Bladensburg (1814 near DC), the only units to not break and run before the British Army on its march to Washington, were a detachment of Marines and the 5th Regiment, Maryland Militia. This militia regiment, actually advanced across the field, and drove back the 44th Foot of the British Army, and retreated only on order, to prevent itself from being surrounded as other militia units broke and ran. In a subsequent engagement, the 5th Regiment killed the commander of the British Army that had sacked DC. In the War with Mexico, the Mississippi Rifles, commanded by COL Jefferson Davis (yes, that one) played a key role in at least one major victory.

Militia units need highly competent leadership, and as a rule they do not have it. But, in the active duty army, at one point even they admitted that they only got it right two times out of three for battalions commanders, too. For success, the system has to have a way to replace commanders that can not do the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mtr1979
Ton of videos with FAFO on youtube
Replies
0
Views
64
mtr1979
mtr1979
Voluntarist
Experiment: Will People Pay For 'Made In USA'
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
382
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Evil Hypocrisy of Government 'Elections' Is at Levels Beyond Imagination
Replies
1
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
J
Breaking - New J6 Video Shows Pelosi Capitol Police Agent Lied to Frame Up Oath Keepers
Replies
6
Views
814
James_Madison_Lives
J
Voluntarist
Invaders From Within (Derby Day)
Replies
0
Views
21
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
Back
Top