It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


First...I don't have a husband to stand behind me. If I did have a husband, I'd expect him to stand beside me.

Second...it's more than turtles or cattle at stake here...you appear to only want to look at a microscopic picture. I'm looking at the the big picture.

Sure, I'd be proud to stand with them...damn proud.

Des




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by Davian
 


oh he's not from the US? are you f'in kidding me?


That's a bit xenophobic isn't it?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 



So..you are advising me...as a Woman. To run and hide and shake in my little boots, based on horribly bad decisions by my government in the past?

Yes I am...
But clearly you never read what I said properly M'Lady!!!
Past Government is Present Government is Future Government, so play the game!!!

Men, Women & Children will die...
So now put yourself in their shoes...
You as a woman would put your children at risk because of a sh***y Ranch???
It's advisory for all "grown ups" to grow up... Because the children are the ones in danger & without a say!!!

History repeats itself... & we better damn sure live in fear of it... It's an indiscriminate murderer!!!

Peace Destiny!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Yes. BESIDE you.

That's not what the plan was though, was it?

It was women at the front, to die on national tv, to make a point and to garner sympathy.

Nothing but cannon fodder.

So you agree the plan is morally wrong then?

If so, why are you disagreeing with me?

I'm confused why so many think the plan is ok? So much resistance against me for taking a stand against using women as cannon fodder.

Anything goes, as long as it's against the government?





edit on 15-4-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


One of the saddest things I've ever heard!!!
Already knew it was bad, didn't think it could be worse...


That's why my prayers are aimed to the Heavens for these people on both sides, no one wants dead children or orphans to be the leftovers of this... A God forsaken Ranch!!!


Peace Undo!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I would stand beside you Des and I know my wife would as well.
I couldn't die more honorably!



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 


Then, you should hop on a plane and come to our side of the pond, to show us how to live in fear of our government.

That is all I have to say on that matter...

Des



edit on 15-4-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


No need to hop anywhere!!!
Western Government is Western Government... Play the game!!!
Don't try to be the game, because game get hunted!!!

You're obviously very firm in your stance...
But you ignored my question of the children...
So you should have said much more!!!

By the way... I said fear the Past, not the Government!!!


Peace Destiny!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


well there's the problem. we don't know if his cattle were illegal because he already had a contract with the state or something, wherein he had paid the requirements and received a legal holding for the land inperpetuity. but fed gov stepped in later, and claimed imminent domain under the guise of protecting the turtles from bundy's cattle


this is what the problem appears to be.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

undo

you already did and i told you how i felt about it. i'm a woman. you threaten my family, you bet i'm gonna try to defend them. doh. what kinda wacked out place are you coming from that you think women wouldn't defend their families? i'm not some wilting flower, afraid of her own shadow. i don't own a gun but son of a turkey brain, i would not let you kill my husband or children without defending them.

it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.




Not that this reply was to me and I am just randomly posting in this thread.....

But I think the issue for some is that the Militia/Bundy's crew decided that to stop the Government shooting at them, they would put the women at the front so if they were shot at, then the world would know that the government shoots unarmed women.

If this militia went to this ranch and wanted to take firearms and have it out with the government and defend the ranch, then why not just go ahead and do that? Why try and come up with cowardly tactics, used by terrorists to somehow try and paint the government in a much worse light?
Why peek your weapons out from behind the body of "your women"

If they're just talking about the ladies fighting side by side with their men and all being armed and fighting then that is totally different, but that is not what the quotes that have posted suggests and that is not what it appears was proposed.

Nobody as far as I can see is saying women are delicate, weak flowers who cannot and would not defend their families.... they're saying that if these guys rolled up at this place wanting to duke it out with the police and get into a firefight, then do it... go ahead, but do not start planning how you can somehow use women as a tool and as a shield.... because that, as people have pointed out in this thread, is cowardly and sick.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


This site explains the back story a bit

aattp.org...

Make what you will of it.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


i realize this but the underlying psychological warfare is that

1. militas are cowardly wussies that use women like "terrorists" do, thus allowing them to be associated psychologically, with terrorism.

2. that such women are just brain washed terrorists who either need to be shot or medicated with brain farcking drugs (as if those will help a woman who is not actually crazy, just being a mom or wife -- hello ? ? ? HELLO IS ANYBODY OUT THERE?)

3. that the sheriff's words and his admonition that "they" discussed this as a viable tactic, is evidence that they are all guilty by association

this whole scenario wreaks like a big stinking pile of horse manure.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

AlphaHawk
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 


The sheriff can answer some of those for you..

"To show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot."

I would have put my wife and daughters there and I would be screaming bloody murder to watch them die"

I'm not afraid to die here, but the best ploy would be to have women at the front"




A man who hides behind the skirts of women is a coward. I THANK GOD my husband would do no such thing. I thank God my husband pays more than lip service to the words I love you!

As for you men who hide behind women and children... your worthless scum.


edit on 15-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


alpha hawk

shut up and go sit in the corner. this isn't yours (or my) business, nor is it the business of any who are not the actual family members of the people being threatened.




edit on 15-4-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)


I agree with you wholeheartedly, except the part telling AlphaHawk to sit in the corner, that's just childishness stick your fingers in the ear tribble, not too mention quite rude.

You are absolutely right however, as the actual family members being threatened, Sheriff Mack's wife should take his daughters and leave, going far far away from this psycho threatening them.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


blah blah blah i thank god i'm not like that fool over there blah blah blah.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by blupblup
 


i realize this but the underlying psychological warfare is that

1. militas are cowardly wussies that use women like "terrorists" do, thus allowing them to be associated psychologically, with terrorism.



I think the point about terrorists was made earlier because you know... these "patriots" like to say how cowardly people in other countries are when US drones bomb them or US troops shoot up a village and lots of women and children die and the excuse given is that "well they were using women as human shields, hiding behind them" and how cowardly this kind of act is.... but when these brave Cattle Saving Heroes are contemplating doing the same thing, all manner of excuses come out and all kinds of BS gets said about how brave and heroic it is to do this.

IF and I say IF it was suggested, by these militia men that they should put women to the front so that they would get shot first so as to cause outrage and condemnation of the US government, then they are no better than terrorists IMO and not only no better but they are SCUM... the lowest of the low.





edit on 15/4/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Uh...you guys do know that no women ended up "placed in front of everyone else" and the asshat that said it wasn't really there having gotten there "late" and he really isn't in charge of anything, right?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


yeah well i disagree with that too! i'm not a proponent of the death penalty, anywhere on the planet. i don't agree with death. death can kiss my shiney white hiney and then - bugger off - as the brits say or is that the aussies?

anyway, i firmly believe that love is literally, the only solution to this mess but we the people cannot be the only people displaying it. it's not an one-sided affair. everyone has to get involved so the healing can begin. and by everyone, i mean everyone. we can't wish death and destruction on people we disagree with, just because we disagree with them and expect the world to be a better place afterwards, it won't be.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have been around those I would call terrorists in my life, factually speaking. And today, you all just proved no better than that which I HATE. Today, you just proved yourselves as bad as the worst type of person I have ever met.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Destinyone
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


First...I don't have a husband to stand behind me. If I did have a husband, I'd expect him to stand beside me.

Second...it's more than turtles or cattle at stake here...you appear to only want to look at a microscopic picture. I'm looking at the the big picture.

Sure, I'd be proud to stand with them...damn proud.

Des


What pray tell, do you see as the big picture? The whole thing is because one rich millionaire rancher doesn't recognize the forfeiture of lands too the Federal Government that happened when Nevada joined the Union (in 1864, 150 years ago) and ratified it's constitution. Everything else is complete cow pie, and disinfo, per Cliven Bundy himself, the words of which you can read for yourself.

So, you agree with him about that? Even so, I'd hardly call that a "big picture" because its bat-guano insane, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the real world who contests such ridiculousness. Per Glenn Beck, please read, or is he "too liberal of a source" BIG BIG SCARY PICTURE


Glenn asked him to clarify since in the Nevada State Constitution that land Bundy’s cattle are grazing on was given over to the federal government.
Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM do not have jurisdiction on the land.

“So I think this is very clarifying to people,” Glenn said.

“It’s not BLM land. It’s Nevada land,” Bundy said.

“That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know,” Glenn said.

Based on the conversation on the radio show, Bundy’s fundamental issue isn’t with an out of control government taking control of his personal land, but that he disagrees with how that land became federal land when Nevada was founded in 1864.


You can click the link above to read it in Cliven's own addled words.
edit on 37America/ChicagopmAmerica/Chicago104 by seaez because: added actual date of land deal Bundy contests for emphasis



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join