White Terrorists take over Oregon federal land and nothing happens? WTF

Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I bet if black people or some other minorities engaged in something like this the outcome would be far different.

hypocrisy and the double standards ?

 
Finger_Shocker said:
I bet if black people or some other minorities engaged in something like this the outcome would be far different.

hypocrisy and the double standards ?
Click to expand...
Finger_Shocker said:
I bet if black people or some other minorities engaged in something like this the outcome would be far different.

hypocrisy and the double standards ?
Click to expand...

It would be hard for black people to do that in Burns, Oregon because it is 0.3% black. How soon we forget about Baltimore?

I think occupying a territory of less than 3,000 people is different then a major city. You have to address unrest in a metropolitan area because that affects millions. No need to give this that type of attention.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "terrorist" activities in Burns directed solely towards the government versus the mob mentality we've seen over the past few years where anger is directed towards anything or anyone?

Hypocrisy is Cosby being called a "Coon" or "Uncle Tom" one minute and then being labeled a martyr the next. Hypocrisy is people believing that a priest is guilty of molestation when a mass of people come forward years later but an entertainer is obviously being setup.

Let's be honest though, for everyone one minority that cares about this particular issue on social media, a dozen are roasting white kids for dabbin' (dancing) in bad taste. Priorities.

 
No deaths, no destruction of property.  Not hiding in the shadows or trying to hide their intentions.  If these guys are terrorists, they are the most inept terrorists ever.

 
Terrorism is the use or threat of violence to instill fear and create change of a political nature. Now, they haven't committed any overt acts threatening violence yet, but taking over a federal building while heavily armed is certainly closer on the spectrum of threatening violence than not.

If these guys had been brown guys with head scarves everyone and their damn uncle would be tripping all over themselves asking why these terrorists haven't been brought to justice.

Furthermore, this group has significant connections to a group that has already organized a heavily armed, militia response to the federal government in the past which is certainly more than being mass shooters who got revenge on coworkers and happened to maybe be ISIS sympathizers such was the case in San Bernadino or 2 dumbass kids who were terrorist sympathizers and built a bomb out of a pressure cooker.

The outlook and messaging has to be consistent or terrorist means nothing more than Arab looking guy who committed violence.

Do I think this group is a joke? Absolutely, but that shouldn't give them a pass and it shouldn't be any reason to doubt that they have the capacity for violence to further their political message.
 
RedvsBlue said:
Terrorism is the use or threat of violence to instill fear and create change of a political nature. Now, they haven't committed any overt acts threatening violence yet, but taking over a federal building while heavily armed is certainly closer on the spectrum of threatening violence than not.

If these guys had been brown guys with head scarves everyone and their damn uncle would be tripping all over themselves asking why these terrorists haven't been brought to justice.

Furthermore, this group has significant connections to a group that has already organized a heavily armed, militia response to the federal government in the past which is certainly more than being mass shooters who got revenge on coworkers and happened to maybe be ISIS sympathizers such was the case in San Bernadino or 2 dumbass kids who were terrorist sympathizers and built a bomb out of a pressure cooker.

The outlook and messaging has to be consistent or terrorist means nothing more than Arab looking guy who committed violence.

Do I think this group is a joke? Absolutely, but that shouldn't give them a pass and it shouldn't be any reason to doubt that they have the capacity for violence to further their political message.
Click to expand...
One of these isn't like the others

A: San Bernadino, CA; Boston, MA; Burns, OR

B. 14 Killed / 22 injured ; ~ 3 Killed / 264 injured; 0 killed / 0 injured

was the federal building they took over occupied? Were people harmed in the process?

What they're doing is illegal, and will be dealt with in time, but swarming in is unnecessary and will have unnecessary results. Now is it illegal for a bunch of LEGALLY armed citizens (is there any proof these people are not supposed to possess a firearm?) to organize? Do you seriously think no consequence will be issued?

 
GBAstar said:
One of these isn't like the others

A: San Bernadino, CA; Boston, MA; Burns, OR

B. 14 Killed / 22 injured ; ~ 3 Killed / 264 injured; 0 killed / 0 injured


was the federal building they took over occupied? Were people harmed in the process?

What they're doing is illegal, and will be dealt with in time, but swarming in is unnecessary and will have unnecessary results. Now is it illegal for a bunch of LEGALLY armed citizens (is there any proof these people are not supposed to possess a firearm?) to organize? Do you seriously think no consequence will be issued?
Click to expand...
threat of violence
 
So you think schools around the area has been closed because there is a armed militia stalking around isn't harming someone?

Also that land is part of the Native Americans in that area

 
Finger_Shocker said:
You are a absolute moron if you think Bundy is anything like the Founding Father or even anywhere close...
Click to expand...
Did founding fathers not call for an armed revolution after they stopped believing that Britain represents the interests of the people?

I also recommend you stop the name calling, keep it civil kid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
Did founding fathers not call for an armed revolution after they stopped believing that Britain represents the interests of the people?

I also recommend you stop the name calling, keep it civil kid.
Click to expand...
The gov't is totally out of control because it don't want people randomly burning shrubs and plants on protected land and requires a armed response ...ummm ok there buddy

Meanwhile people protest the gov't Bailing out rich people: Totally not deserving of a armed response

Police murder over 1,200 people per year ( 2-3 persons a day are killed by a police officer across the USA on average ) : Again not worthy of a armed response

Not name calling when the word accurately describe the person

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Did founding fathers not call for an armed revolution after they stopped believing that Britain represents the interests of the people?

I also recommend you stop the name calling, keep it civil kid.
Click to expand...
orly-1.jpg





mrsilkunderwear said:
Pick a topic. Lets see how you hold up.

I am not pillsbury and do not rely on memes to defend myself.
Click to expand...
:roll:


mrsilkunderwear said:
Oh the hypocrisy. I love it!
Click to expand...
You said it, kiddo.

Btw, the Bundy's only care about their own interests and their own personal usage of the land they dispute at the previous standoff. They don't give a shit about emancipating the land at their current standoff for anyone but themselves and individuals that subscribe to the same socio-political ideology. It's not like they're doing for the Native Americans.

Now...

technoviking.jpg
 
The yeehawdists are just a bunch of idiots occupying an unoccupied building.  All they have to do is starve them out of there.  Problem solved.

They already said that they would not fire the first shot, so nobody needs to be shooting.

 
Finger_Shocker said:
The gov't is totally out of control because it don't want people randomly burning shrubs and plants on protected land and requires a armed response ...ummm ok there buddy

Meanwhile people protest the gov't Bailing out rich people: Totally not deserving of a armed response

Police murder over 1,200 people per year ( 2-3 persons a day are killed by a police officer across the USA on average ) : Again not worthy of a armed response

Not name calling when the word accurately describe the person
Click to expand...
First of all I never said if I support these people, what I did say is that perhaps people stop believing that their government supports their interests and therefore they do have a right to either petition the government or use armed response. It is up to the society to question their actions and motives within the scope of the law.

If you have a problem the way protesters were handled in NY then blame the democratic leadership.

I do not know why you bring up the police when I clearly never defended them and personally do believe that they have been militarized and are in need of major reforms.

If you want to continue blabbing like some kind of animal then no problem, ill start going through your posts and tear up your Bernie loving lala land logic. But then again you have been a butt of a joke since you first started posting on these forums so perhaps there is no need.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I guess the founding fathers were terrorists as well.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I couldn't let this one slide. There's a very valid argument that they were in fact, terrorists. Americans often find themselves supporting all the founding fathers did for our country without acknowledging the fact that they too rounded up British sympathizers.

Terrorism is only using fear to get people to support a cause. You don't have to be of another origin to be a terrorist.
 
Yea too bad Bundy militia isn't fighting for freedom for everyone, they are just white supremacist dresses like guys from Brokeback Mountain

They could care less about the Constitution but for more than White Power, oh yea and they are typical right wing republicans too

So don't kid yourself

 
movie2cats said:
Sorry, I couldn't let this one slide. There's a very valid argument that they were in fact, terrorists. Americans often find themselves supporting all the founding fathers did for our country without acknowledging the fact that they too rounded up British sympathizers.

Terrorism is only using fear to get people to support a cause. You don't have to be of another origin to be a terrorist.
Click to expand...
What about the US government?

 
So members of various forums have been ordering sugar-free haribo gummy bears for those fine folks in the refuge and I stayed up really late last night reading the various reviews laughing my ass off trying not to wake the kid. I must've burnt 10k calories from all the laughing.

The funniest thing to me about Ritzcrackers is the fact that he neatly arranged the hate packages on the table, only to push them onto the floor to make a disorganized mess. I can't imagine how many takes the guy took to get that little speech right and I picture him picking everything up and stacking them again. Like, there's an easier way, dude!

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
What about the US government?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, sure. There are definitely government officials that have qualities of terrorists. I don't believe that the ENTIRE government can be classified as a terrorist organization but there are nefarious ne'er-do-wells.

We live in a society driven by power. Most people who seek office do it with a sense of duty but I have to imagine it's easy for those lines to be blurred. Even on a smaller scale, I can attest to personally changing my own ethics when I became a manager over an entire labor force. After 2 1/2 years I stepped down after seeing some changes in myself that I didn't like. Ten years later, I still have no desire to lead because of that.

So, in answer your question, no one is exempt from being called a terrorist. Imo.
 
I really don't understand what's going on in Oregon - and while I'm not naive enough to think race/class/politics has no pull in this case, I don't understand how these folks are allowed to leave to pick up mail/supplies, then return. Why not just a law enforcement barricade around the buildking. Nothing in, nothing out unless the person is in handcuffs?

Does the local LEOs/government support the political stateent these guys are trying to make?
 
UncleBob said:
I really don't understand what's going on in Oregon - and while I'm not naive enough to think race/class/politics has no pull in this case, I don't understand how these folks are allowed to leave to pick up mail/supplies, then return. Why not just a law enforcement barricade around the buildking. Nothing in, nothing out unless the person is in handcuffs?

Does the local LEOs/government support the political stateent these guys are trying to make?
Click to expand...
No. I live about 3hrs away, and everybody in Oregon...OK, that's a generalization, the vast majority of Oregonians wish these assholes would go back to Nevada. We're also annoyed because it makes our law enforcement look like a bunch of flaming hypocrites for not forcibly removing them from the building. The residents of the city are irate because it has impacted the operation of schools, and brings unnecessary media and attention to a small, rural town.

They aren't welcome, they are a dangerous breed of idiot who is looking for a cause to go fight for, and want to lay their lives on the line to do it. I'm hoping the feds find some way to step in and mow them down. They had their chance to be useful members of society and squandered it. They are an invasive species.

 
berzirk said:
We're also annoyed because it makes our law enforcement look like a bunch of flaming hypocrites for not forcibly removing them from the building.
Click to expand...
While your speech went a little dark there... I wanted to ask about this. I mean, logically, most of us know the local law enforcement officers aren't going to risk sending in a SWAT team or such - but why aren't they simply blocading them in? Arresting them when they leave for supplies/mail? Why *aren't* local LEOs doing anything at all?
 
UncleBob said:
While your speech went a little dark there... I wanted to ask about this. I mean, logically, most of us know the local law enforcement officers aren't going to risk sending in a SWAT team or such - but why aren't they simply blocading them in? Arresting them when they leave for supplies/mail? Why *aren't* local LEOs doing anything at all?
Click to expand...
I think they're so worried that this could escalate into another Waco, and while the asshats are so far only destroying public property and threatening violence if law enforcement approaches them, they just don't see a winning strategy here. I think they're waiting it out, and hoping eventually the Shmore Schnopps run dry, and everybody goes back home before Cartman can suggest a new cause to get behind.

They're on federal land, and I'm not sure the state or local guys want to waste more of their resources than they already have, and it's just a lose-lose scenario. In terms of supporting the principles and philosophy behind Bundy and his quacks...the vast majority don't...and this town is a very, very conservative values area.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't recommend sending them sugar free Haribos. Think of the underpaid janitor who has to clean that mess. You know those fuck boys are always up to no good.

I was listening to Fresh Air today and the main interview was about HItler's rise to power, starting from that pivotal year in 1924, when he got sentenced for leading a group of militiamen into the town square in Munich. He could've been sentenced to life in prison for that act of treason, but the judges who sentenced him sympathized with him, knowing that he had the ability to make Germany great again. They practically wanted to reverse all the charges, but instead gave him the minimal jail time to have their cake.  As this Oregon militia unfolds, I can't help but feel the cops are being derelict at their jobs because of this same feeling, especially because these Y'all Qaeda guys are White Patriots. History does repeat itself, and the human race willfully chooses to play ignorant.

PS, also heard the review for the Benghazi movie. Michael Bay actually made a decent movie, but he won't bury Hillary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Every once in awhile I have restored faith in humanity.  Dildos and lube sent to a punch of pussies is one of those times.

 
Tarp Man was the one that was killed. Man, I was really hoping it didn't end in bloodshed, but like they say, "he was no angel and an armed thug that should've been compliant."

edit: Ugh...just watched Mr. Daddy Swore An Oath!! post a video hugging his kids before he gives himself up to the feds. What a motherfucking piece of shit fucker. This guy enrages me on so many levels. It'd be one thing if he was making bank off the SHTF morans, but all of his problems is the result of his own stupidity. Dude is a real terrible parent and CPS needs to check out the mother.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch said:
I feel trashy for watching so much of this stuff but god dammit I can't look away.
Click to expand...
These stupid fucking hillbillies terrorists. The only unfortunate part of all of this is that the feds haven't killed them all. I nailed it several posts back. They want to die, they're calling for it. Give them what they want. Hopefully no LEO's get hurt or injured in the process.

I've been kinda lukewarm on the notion of comparing these guys dead-on to a murderous cult like ISIS, but this video is as offensive, as stupid, and as violence-inducing as anything else. Unbelievable.

 
I mean, they're just outright inciting violence at this point. If we're at the point where ISIS sympathizers who go on a shooting rampage are full-blown terrorists, why can't these guys be too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I felt like I was watching a cross of Larry the Cable Guy and Reno 911. I was waiting for one of the rednecks to hump a tree in small shorts.
 
The FBI's put out a video of Lavoy Finicum's death. There's no audio and it's from long range, but it appears to back up their version of the events (Finicum sped away from a stop, crashed into a snowbank as he swerved to avoid a roadblock, and was shot after leaving the vehicle and reaching into his pocket, though he did not charge at the officers as had been rumoured - unless you count nearly hitting one of them with his vehicle). The video blatantly contradicts some of the early accounts circulating about the shooting - that he was lying down with his hands in the air. The popular new theory floating around militia/Sovereign Citizen/etc. circles is that he was shot in the stomach after he left the vehicle, causing him to reach towards the wound - not to the gun the FBI says was in his pocket - at which point he was shot in the head and killed. There's not a whole lot you can say about that one, given the lack of audio and the distant camera.

Anyway. Finicum wrote a book, Only Blood and Suffering. In it, a traitorous US government allows the country to be struck by nuclear weapons. The book focuses on a survivalist rancher and his children who had squirreled away supplies for just such an event. They come into conflict with federal authorities, and, uh...

I'd like to clarify: this isn't a "haha, look at this idiot" kind of deal or a "you got what you deserved" post or whatever. It's just... y'know, I can't help but gawk at this month-long car wreck, and this particular detail really caught my eye so I figured I'd share it. Anyway:
tN2CuSC.jpg


PRuoD0L.jpg

I have no fuckin' idea where "Spalmed" comes from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again another needless death at the hands of our fine shoot first ask questions later LEO.   While I'm known to hate the usual right wings racist conservatives republicans, there was really no need to murder the guy.  Did he deserve to be shot, maybe in the nuts but not killed. 

Point is compared to a heavily armed police with ballistic armor against a guy with a pea shooter, there was no reason he couldn't be taken alive. 

But of course the sheriff and all LEO came out to apologize how sorry they are to have to shoot the guy, would they have done so for the numerous unarmed blacks that was killed in this country this past year

 
I never like when police have to use deadly force but in this instance he did make it abundantly clear he had no intentions of being sent to prison; the logical continuation being that he had no intention of being taken alive. It's unfortunate but this is a far cry from other recent high-profile police shootings. As much as I disagreed with their methods and message I never wanted to see any of them killed.
 
So in the end, after this "terrorist" act, one dead which was one of the so called terrorists who collectively never fired a single shot through this whole ordeal, minimal damage to public property.

Worst terrorists ever.

 
dopa345 said:
So in the end, after this "terrorist" act, one dead which was one of the so called terrorists who collectively never fired a single shot through this whole ordeal, minimal damage to public property.

Worst terrorists ever.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, the guy who screamed into the camera, "If any LEO tries to stop you from getting here, KILL THEM!" was overwhelmed with fear that his wife might lose her job over this.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top