Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Not too many people called for wiping out Occupy protesters

Were you under a rock in 2011?

Yeah, he has to have been. Just on this forum we had a whole bunch of people saying it was dangerous, and that they should all stop being so dangerous. There were quite a number of people invested in discrediting the movement, and using false flags to break them, use of false charges to arrest as many as they could, use of anti-terror rhetoric to get them off the streets. There was a whole hell of a lot of trying to wipe them out, and trying to deny it now is blatant historical revisionism.

I saw plenty of disperse them with Bearcat calls. I didn't hear any serious disperse them with tanks and hellfire ones.

... Yes, I did hear tanks though. Just not hellfires because they were in the middle of a very wealthy district with lots of collateral targets around them.

Also, Strife, do you understand what hyperbole is? Do you know we're not literally calling for hellfire missiles to be launched at you? Do you understand that we are not attacking you? Because I am having a very hard time with your defensiveness on this issue. We get it. You're a conservative. We're not attacking you. We're not trying to take your guns. Were not attacking you, Strife. You can calm down. We're not launching hellfire missiles at you. You can calm down.

I'm feeling particularly attacked nor especially uncalm?

[Willfor]

I'm feeling particularly attacked nor especially uncalm?

Well, you keep bringing up hellfire missiles as if people are firing them at you now or in the near future. I was just worried that you thought that was the case. Because you keep bringing it up, over and over again.

[Strife26]

That's the convenient metric for "holyshitgovernmentisovertheedge"

[Willfor]

That's the convenient metric for "holyshitgovernmentisovertheedge"

That's a very strange difference to set. Occupying a park is fine, healthy protesting but occupying a federal Park isn't? What level on protesting is okay, then?

Can I refuse draft summons? Refuse taxes? EPA emission guidelines? Local grass length laws?

Knowing when I've reached the eat a hellfire point is reasonably important to me.

I'm just worried that you don't actually know where the line is.

[TheDarkStar]

And there's a deep history of authorities going HARD after anyone left-leaning who engages in or threatens any sort of violence or property destruction.

I don't think political leanings of any kind will save those people now.

Also, Willfor: Strife.. doesn't appear to be unreasonable here. He gave a normal response to "non-seriously call for airstrikes".

[Strife26]

That's the convenient metric for "holyshitgovernmentisovertheedge"

That's a very strange difference to set. Occupying a park is fine, healthy protesting but occupying a federal Park isn't? What level on protesting is okay, then?

Can I refuse draft summons? Refuse taxes? EPA emission guidelines? Local grass length laws?

Knowing when I've reached the eat a hellfire point is reasonably important to me.

I'm just worried that you don't actually know where the line is.

I certainly don't! Does anyone at this point?

We know that "be Anwar al-Awlaki" is sufficient, but everyone underneath him is still grey area. At least we'll have a better idea after this protest reaches its conclusion.

Edited to include quotation for clarity.

[WealthyRadish]

I'm not calling for violence, I'm just saying that this logic only holds up when it's either liberal or non-white by nature.

I think there's a regional aspect some people are missing, by judging this situation with the same standards as police brutality and large protests in New York. The demographics in the mountain states and pacific northwest are very different from the rest of the country, and we have both

1) an abundance of right wing nutters who join "militias" like the one here, and apparently make national news
2) an incredibly small relative black population, with little evidence (that I've seen) of systemic racial discrimination in the justice system, except possibly against the much larger hispanic populations

So the whole leftist minority victim thing (while it may be valid elsewhere, or even in some the larger cities in this region) isn't exactly relevant in, say, Oregon, when its staggering 1.8% black population doesn't exactly invoke comparisons to Ferguson and other cases of police racial violence. I grew up in a city with 150,000 people (a verdant metropolis), and we have like 0-2 murders a year.

If it's the federal response that you're more concerned about, I don't see much evidence that they're handling this with a bias that validates a comparison the the Occupy protests and events like Ferguson. It's a bunch of hicks in the middle of nowhere, Burns has a population of 2,806. If the police are taking it slow, it may be because the department consists of 3 cops (shared with another town) and an office assistant.

Edit: 16 replies jesuschrist

[Toady One]

(there was a report, so just reiterating the call for continued calm and so forth)

[TheBiggerFish]

They're also threatening anyone who tries to stop them with threats of death, which was... entirely contrasting to Occupy.

Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?
Good GRIEF.

It's been 4 years, pardon me if I don't remember every little bit of bullshit that was going on when I was still in high school.

I was more reacting to the "threatening death" part, Ispil.  I was not aware of that.

[TheBiggerFish]

No.  Not at all.

[RedKing]

And there's a deep history of authorities going HARD after anyone left-leaning who engages in or threatens any sort of violence or property destruction.

I don't think political leanings of any kind will save those people now.

Also, Willfor: Strife.. doesn't appear to be unreasonable here. He gave a normal response to "non-seriously call for airstrikes".

Correction: I was entirely serious about calling for an airstrike. It's in a remote area, so you don't have to worry about collateral damage. Presumably, all Federal personnel have been removed from the area, so anyone still remaining is either part of this armed rebellion or materially assisting the rebellion. Give them fair warning ("You have 24 hours to disperse and leave the premises, or we will terminate with extreme predjudice") and then level the place. Doesn't have to be a Hellfire, I imagine a pass or two from an A-10 would work nicely. Or they could bring in a couple of F-15s from the Oregon Air National Guard.

The government's first mistake was in backing down against Bundy the first time. They think they're dealing with a weak White House and weak DoJ that won't do anything (unlike in the 1990's, when the FBI and ATF were willing to enforce laws against right-wing militias) and they're getting emboldened by it. Last time it was some cows, this time it's a wildlife building. What about next time? A Federal courthouse? A National Guard armory? You already have them claiming that the United States has no jurisdiction in this particular county.

I fail to see much difference between these dipshits and the Ukrainian separatists, other than these guys aren't getting backed by Canada as part of a plan to reclaim Greater Columbia for Queen and Country.

@Ispil: Yeah, I don't have an issue with the Hammonds. I even sympathize with their situation. But they're not the ones stoking this. If anything, Bundy and his ilk are hijacking their case as their casus belli against the United States. Thin out the herd a bit, and the next batch of rednecks looking to invoke "sovereign citizen" bullshit to get out of obeying the law might think twice.

[Frumple]

We know that "be Anwar al-Awlaki" is sufficient, but everyone underneath him is still grey area. At least we'll have a better idea after this protest reaches its conclusion.

Though, strife, I think you'd probably be mostly okay protesting whatev' as long as you're not walking around with a gun threatening to kill people, particularly police and government officials. Mostly passed the "protest" point with that and in to something that's going to see you in a cell or in the grave. It's... a fairly clear line in the sand. I'd think that'd be kinda' obvious?

Sure, this lot may not get killed for it, but it's fairly likely most or all are going to be seeing jail time, at the minimum. And they kinda' should, shit's beyond the pale regardless of where it's at. You want to protest, fine, you want to show up armed and saying you're going to start killing people if they approach, not so much.

And isp, so far as I'm aware the hammonds don't really have anything to do with the armed occupation of federal property. They're just arsonists (and a couple other things, iirc) these other idiots are threatening to kill people in an attempt to get 'em off the hook. Somehow.

[Strife26]

I think it'd be helpful if everyone (especially me) was quite clear in who and what we're replying to.


To no one in particular, I figure we have three main classes of possible responses, all pretty much at the onus (and therefore blame) of the government.

Option 1: Best case scenario
Government lays nice, general cordon around the area and settles down for a pleasant, non-violent siege and negotiation for whatever it is these guys actually want. Assuming they're actually going with the fortress of anti-governmental forces option (which I place as unlikely, because it's pretty stupid), continue general cordon. 1-6 months.

Result: Protesters important argument, that the government is going tyrannical in using force to restrict people's rights is shown to be mostly false. Concerns assuaged for rational populace. 50% increase in ammunition prices, plus whatever happens with gun control. Occupiers probably get a few years for trespassing.


--Bearcat Line--
--Waco Line--

Option 2: Government dun fucks up
There's some sort of battle involved in clearing them out. People get killed, but the government can claim that they had a reason. Unless it's something really silly, like the occupiers trying to break through the cordon, it's going to be the government's fault, because initiative is, once again, there's in this case.

For my money, the most likely initial incident for this is going to be a particularly bright FBI or ATF guy try to infiltrate the occupiers, then try to shadily sell them C4 again, followed by the bearcats rolling in an attempt to rescue him.

Result: Conspiracy theories abound (likely justified, because I sincerely doubt that the government cordon is going to get assaulted). Opposition among hardliners increases, but general populace and semi-hardliners can mostly except the excuses. Life ticks on like it did after Waco. Ammunition costs up 100%, expect dark days ahead, especially if State/Local/Federal government compounds it with something stupid. People dead. Surviving Occupiers get significant jail time.

--Tank Line--
--Hellfire Line--
--Ohfuckohfuckohfuckohfuck Line--
--Tear up the Constitution Line--

Several options for this one! Pick your favorite flavor!

• Government ignores the Posse Comitatus Act and calls in Federal troops, drones, and tanks!
• Government conducts overwhelming assault without a good enough cover story (it would have to be a very bad one that's concluded as false by the generally concerned populace)
• Government links things with serous push on gun control including any sort of confiscation measure (probably not additional background checks, which would just go up in Option 2 inflammatory things to do)
• President Obama declares State of Emergency, disbands Congress & the Supreme Court, and cancels 2016 elections.

Result: Serious chance of bad things happening. Ammunition prices increase 500+%. Goats and Gold also experience significant upticks in price. Occupiers probably dead. Many saner people begin serous innawoods preparations. God help us all. Republic at genuine threat.


There's also an option 1.5 where the occupiers do something obviously stupid a few get popped for it. It's basically option 2 with a completely believed cover story.


Fortunately the last scenarios seem to be pretty unlikely, and I'd certainly argue that, if they were to happen, the resulting conflagration is both unavoidable and probably needed.

[TheBiggerFish]

Okay, but what the heck is a bearcat?

[Strife26]

And there's a deep history of authorities going HARD after anyone left-leaning who engages in or threatens any sort of violence or property destruction.

I don't think political leanings of any kind will save those people now.

Also, Willfor: Strife.. doesn't appear to be unreasonable here. He gave a normal response to "non-seriously call for airstrikes".

Correction: I was entirely serious about calling for an airstrike. It's in a remote area, so you don't have to worry about collateral damage. Presumably, all Federal personnel have been removed from the area, so anyone still remaining is either part of this armed rebellion or materially assisting the rebellion. Give them fair warning ("You have 24 hours to disperse and leave the premises, or we will terminate with extreme predjudice") and then level the place. Doesn't have to be a Hellfire, I imagine a pass or two from an A-10 would work nicely. Or they could bring in a couple of F-15s from the Oregon Air National Guard.

The government's first mistake was in backing down against Bundy the first time. They think they're dealing with a weak White House and weak DoJ that won't do anything (unlike in the 1990's, when the FBI and ATF were willing to enforce laws against right-wing militias) and they're getting emboldened by it. Last time it was some cows, this time it's a wildlife building. What about next time? A Federal courthouse? A National Guard armory? You already have them claiming that the United States has no jurisdiction in this particular county.

I fail to see much difference between these dipshits and the Ukrainian separatists, other than these guys aren't getting backed by Canada as part of a plan to reclaim Greater Columbia for Queen and Country.

@Ispil: Yeah, I don't have an issue with the Hammonds. I even sympathize with their situation. But they're not the ones stoking this. If anything, Bundy and his ilk are hijacking their case as their casus belli against the United States. Thin out the herd a bit, and the next batch of rednecks looking to invoke "sovereign citizen" bullshit to get out of obeying the law might think twice.

You're cool with executing American citizens on American soil, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, for a protest about people who have broken very minor laws, done effectively zero in property damage, and hurt no one?

I can't say that that's cool to me. Ft. Sumter didn't shoot first.

We know that "be Anwar al-Awlaki" is sufficient, but everyone underneath him is still grey area. At least we'll have a better idea after this protest reaches its conclusion.

Though, strife, I think you'd probably be mostly okay protesting whatev' as long as you're not walking around with a gun threatening to kill people, particularly police and government officials. Mostly passed the "protest" point with that and in to something that's going to see you in a cell or in the grave. It's... a fairly clear line in the sand. I'd think that'd be kinda' obvious?

Sure, this lot may not get killed for it, but it's fairly likely most or all are going to be seeing jail time, at the minimum. And they kinda' should, shit's beyond the pale regardless of where it's at. You want to protest, fine, you want to show up armed and saying you're going to start killing people if they approach, not so much.

Alright, that's coming down to a poorly defined hellfire line, again. Can you roll in the bear cats if a few guys at an Occupy protest have rifles slung? One guy?

One guy in his house refusing to pay his property taxes?


I'd argue that in, all of those cases, unless they're shooting at someone, police shouldn't be aggressing things.