• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

Two words: They're white.



If they're armed, then as far as I'm concerned, they're terrorists.

95 years ago the folks at Blair Mountain were heroes to a lot of people.
 
If I lived in Burns, I would waltz up to the occupiers and tell them to go the **** home. These anti-American pieces of ****s need to be taught a lesson.
 
Calling them terrorists is noting but a steaming pile of political hacktivism. All of them will be, and should be, in some serious legal hot water at the end of this but calling them terrorists is really rather moronic.
Ordinarily, I would not use the term terrorist due to them not having done violence as of this point.

But when they are training guns at federal agents claiming "if they move, they're dead", that sure seems like it's getting close to crossing the line.

No?
 
There we go all the links google did not want to find for me. I was kind of skeptical, being a rigth wing militia with bundy in it just sounded way too much like a hacksite hoax to be true at first glance.


But seeing other souces as well, I would say as long as the militia does not actually attack anyone, it will probably end peacefully. The police will block all entrances and exits from the area, to ensure they have no supplies, and force them to hunt and scavange to survive, which will only hold out as long as they have ammo. They would likely surrender before that.

Now if they took the offensive, it would definetaly not end well. It only takes a spark to start a revolution, And even though the police and swat can easily outgun them, the backlash could cause others to try the same stunts. For police they will most likely try to avoid violence and likely try not to instigate other people to join their cause.

I agree with you, but only to an extent. This is not a cause. This is about a couple of ranchers who committed arson, burning down more than 140 acres of national forest. What makes this bad is that they served their sentence that was handed down by the court, only to have the Federal government say that this was not enough, so 4 years was added to each of their sentences. The arson was committed because of "invasive species" which were encroaching on their land, and they do feel bad that their fire had gotten out of control, and do NOT want anything to do with Bundy and the band of treasonous assholes. They are peacefully going to report to prison, even though the arbitrary additional prison time is a travesty. As for Bundy and his faux patriots, they should rot in prison for inciting insurrection against the government. If they are looking for a war to fight, I am sure that our National Guard troops will be more than happy to give them one. However, surrounding them and forcing an eventual surrender is the right move at this time. If they start shooting at Federal agents, as they have claimed they will do, then kill 'em all.
 
Last edited:
They armed themselves, then entered and unlawfully occupied a federal facility and these people are still standing?

How and why are the first two questions that come to mind.

Well I don't see you rushing to kick them out.

The reasons are several, The remoteness of the location (i've been the area many times, it's ours from the nearest large city and lightly populated) The fact that what local residents there are sympathize more with the militia then the government (because the extremist environmental policy the BLM has undertaken in the last several decades has resulted in high unemployment and loss of income for the local communities) in the past stand off set of turn violent like Ruby Ridge in Waco have resulted in severe backlash against the federal government, and possibly the fear that they may not be able to control the outcome if it turns violent.

And let's say they go big and ugly, Will juries that by law I have to include people from these localities that are more sympathetic to the militias then the government even be willing to convict anyone who survives in his arrested and prosecuted?

If you look up the ruby ridge stand off in Idaho in 1992, one of the suspects shot and killed United States Marshal and a jury acquitted him For self defense.
 
It is a delicate situation, but mere death threats are not enough justification for an assault on the whole group, the backlash will be too great. Heck even during the civil war the union stayed fairly quiet until fort sumter was attacked, and the south attacked because they feared imminent attack from the north stationing troops and supplies, and the north stationed supplies and troops due to fear of imminent attack.


Sometimes it is better to play it out rather than try to intimidate yourself through a situation, I can imagine in many past situations had govt shown some restraint the scenario could have ended with less bloodshed.

Like the "ghost dancers" of the Sioux. All the government had to do was wait until the next spring, and they would have see that nothing happened, and the whole movement would have been discredited. But Noooo, they had to go in, guns blazing, that winter.

Same with WACO. They recognized the sheriff , so all he had to do was arrest him when he went on his morning jog, but Nooooo, they had to go in with guns blazing.

I feel because of these past federal abuses of power, and 7 years under Obama's "rule". A whole lot of people are mad, and getting madder.

When I lived in AZ, I talked to a few guys that went to the Bundy Ranch. Believe me, they are much better shots than the feds....but....they do not have tanks and aircraft. TACTICALLY, they are committing suicide if they "push it".

Unless they bring some dynamite, and .50 caliber weapons, they are screwed.
 
Last edited:
Ordinarily, I would not use the term terrorist due to them not having done violence as of this point.

But when they are training guns at federal agents claiming "if they move, they're dead", that sure seems like it's getting close to crossing the line.

No?

I don't necessarily agree, by that standard every resistance to any government was terrorism. I always consider terrorism to be more of targeting unarmed civilians to achieve a political point by creating fear.

That said this cannot be tolerated or it will encourage future events, but at the same time you cannot refuse to address the issues that led to this point or it will simply validate the sentiment that the government does not care about their concerns.

If Obama wanted to be a peacemaker here, he could either partner commute the Hammonds sentence, stop them from spending more time In prison, without that moral authority hanging over their heads, you negotiate with the occupiers promising deferred prosecution if they leave and don't pull this again in the future
 
Why is it that when students seize a building its considered a protest and their voices should be heard but in this situation people here are drooling at the prospect of a bloody federal assault to free up a ****ing bird refuge in Oregon in the middle of the ****ing winter?
 
Two words: They're white.
Historically, out West, that matters a lot. See Wounded Knee 1973 for reference.


If they're armed, then as far as I'm concerned, they're terrorists.
Only if they use the weapons in a threatening manner.
 
Sounds like they threw pennies and flowers. They were in their rights for a peaceful protest.
 
I fail to see any similarity between an unarmed group of economic protesters and a bunch of radicals who boast about the firepower they possess.

You don't see any at all? Both have decided to take over property that is not theirs, without permission. In this case, it is federal property, so they can at least say that they have some right to it as taxpayers. The OW crowd was taking over private property, as I recall. But there are certainly some similarities.
 
I hope these assholes are caught alive and spend a LONG time in prison. So sick of the Bundy troublemakers.

What trouble are they making?
 
They armed themselves, then entered and unlawfully occupied a federal facility and these people are still standing?

How and why are the first two questions that come to mind.

Because.....they are white.

Meanwhile a 12 year old gets shot and killed in under a minute for having a pretend gun...
 
Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

First we need to get the nomenclature correct. These are armed millitant extremists, a.k.a., terrorists. They need to be removed and arrested for this illegal act, preferably peaceably but that's up to them. I realize they want to provoke the government into a gun fight in the hopes of triggering other like minded radicals to violence and to some extent that goal needs to be thwarted but not to the point where these criminals don't have to start paying for their illegal acts.

And the involvement of Bundy spawn is no surprise:

Among the occupiers were Ammon and Ryan Bundy, two sons of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who became a symbol of anti-government sentiment in 2014, according to The Oregonian.

And, as is often the case, these criminals have acted without the support of the people on whose behalf they pretend to be doing this:

“Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family,” the lawyer, W. Alan Schroeder, wrote to David Ward, the Harney County sheriff.

The Bundy's and their criminal extremist ilk have gotten away with far too much already. I hope no one has to die for this crackpottery but if they choose not to yield peaceably, so be it.
 
Because.....they are white.

Meanwhile a 12 year old gets shot and killed in under a minute for having a pretend gun...

There ya go. Send a few Cleveland and Chicago cops to Eastern Oregon. Watch this end quickly.
 
Mr Obama, time to send a strong message like Clinton did with abusive, hateful gun-nut branch davidians in 1993.
 
Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

Out of curiosity, when the Occupuy Wall Street crowd took over that park in NYC did you call them terrorists?

To your way of thinking is the only difference between a "terrorist" and a "peaceful protester" whether or not they are armed?
 
Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

First we need to get the nomenclature correct. These are armed millitant extremists, a.k.a., terrorists. They need to be removed and arrested for this illegal act, preferably peaceably but that's up to them. I realize they want to provoke the government into a gun fight in the hopes of triggering other like minded radicals to violence and to some extent that goal needs to be thwarted but not to the point where these criminals don't have to start paying for their illegal acts.

And the involvement of Bundy spawn is no surprise:



And, as is often the case, these criminals have acted without the support of the people on whose behalf they pretend to be doing this:



The Bundy's and their criminal extremist ilk have gotten away with far too much already. I hope no one has to die for this crackpottery but if they choose not to yield peaceably, so be it.

I found no mention of them being armed mentioned in your link to support the likelihood of a gun fight. I guess the mention of "militia members" is supposed to indicate some sort of armed rebellion is in progress. So far, it seems like a "sit in" type of protest affair is going on.

“We pose no threat to anybody,” Mr. Bundy said. “There is no person that is physically harmed by what we are doing.” He added that if law enforcement officials “bring physical harm to us, they will be doing it only for a facility or a building.”
 
Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

First we need to get the nomenclature correct. These are armed millitant extremists, a.k.a., terrorists. They need to be removed and arrested for this illegal act, preferably peaceably but that's up to them. I realize they want to provoke the government into a gun fight in the hopes of triggering other like minded radicals to violence and to some extent that goal needs to be thwarted but not to the point where these criminals don't have to start paying for their illegal acts.

And the involvement of Bundy spawn is no surprise:



And, as is often the case, these criminals have acted without the support of the people on whose behalf they pretend to be doing this:



The Bundy's and their criminal extremist ilk have gotten away with far too much already. I hope no one has to die for this crackpottery but if they choose not to yield peaceably, so be it.

They're NOT terrorists, obviously. Why? Because if a conservative does something that would be considered terrorism if it were done by anyone other than a conservative, it canNOT be terrorism...'cause conservatives simply can't be accused of such. It's not as if they fear and hate the U.S. government, y'know....:doh
 
Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

Maybe is they looted and burned the town down as with Ferguson they would gain more sympathy.

The Bureau of Lang Management (BLM) the EPA and other agencies have been using the power of the government in ways that are unconstitutional in my opinion. Ranchers, famers and land owners in general are powerless against these Nazi like tactics. If you choose to fight one agency almost always others will step in including the IRS. This has been the norm since the Obama administration took office.

At the core, this protest is about the treatment of the Hammond’s and the tactics of the BLM in general. I can’t excuse what the Hammond’s did but keep in mind people have been back burning as a fire break or to enhance the grazing land in this area since it was settled. Let’s also keep in mind how remote this area is, population was never in danger. In fact, the BLM uses this same back burning on a regular basis or gives out permits for land owners to do so.

This not only happens in these ranch areas, I have a brother that had to replace an earthen dam in NH that happened to be on a remote part of his property and it cost him $500,000. This dam was 100 years old on a body of water (pond) that he had no control over. Just down stream from this dam there is another, this home owner didn’t have the funds to fight or fix his small earthen dam and he is about to lose his home because of this. The insulting part, even after they take his home the Feds are not planning to fix this dam with the proceeds from the sale of the home, they intend to let this small pond go dry.


Link: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Supreme Court.

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Ha...for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Filed-June-17-2013.pdf
 
Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

Out of curiosity, when the Occupuy Wall Street crowd took over that park in NYC did you call them terrorists?

To your way of thinking is the only difference between a "terrorist" and a "peaceful protester" whether or not they are armed?

Yes if the occupy wall street crowd were heavily armed then I would have considered them terrorist.
 
Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

Out of curiosity, when the Occupuy Wall Street crowd took over that park in NYC did you call them terrorists?

To your way of thinking is the only difference between a "terrorist" and a "peaceful protester" whether or not they are armed?

Or when the Longshoremen seized property and took hostages....
 
Here's an article about the backstory to this whole thing. I recognize that many will not care for the source but the intellectually honest ones among them will at least make an effort to determine the validity of the claims.

Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution… | The Last Refuge

One of our other members was kind enough to dig up a link to this current petition to the Supreme Court which discusses the sentencing of the Hammonds. - http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammond-v-United-States-Oregon-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Filed-June-17-2013.pdf



Many on this forum express concern regarding government overreach when it comes to drugs or sentencing of racial minorities. I merely ask that those same folks give honest consideration to whether that same type of overreach could possibly extend to the departments that oversee the land, water and natural resources of this nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom