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: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

undo
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.





Totally agree.... but the guy lost a court case, this is all over some cattle and a disputed section of land?
And these people want to lay down their lives?

With quotes like this being posted


All men are mortal, most pass simply because it is their time, a few however are blessed with the opportunity to chose their time in performance of duty.


www.americasfreedomfighters.com...

So essentially rallying people to go and get in a deadly confrontation and lay down their lives? And the lives of their sisters, wives, daughters and whoever else? Just to score political points and allow some cattle some extra grazing room? And not pay taxes?

It all seems crazy to me.

Like you, I'm ALL about the love... not the killing.

So they need to TALK and end this situation, not dream up tactics and decide where the women should be placed and rally on the internet to get everyone to get their guns and go down to this ranch.

I understand people are frustrated with big government and all the rest of it... but this is not the fight.
The fight is when police are shooting protesters and taking away people's freedoms and detaining people without cause.
There are reasons to stand up to the government for sure, this just seems like such a waste and I think some in this militia have ulterior motives and are looking and itching for confrontation.

That is not good.




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

undo
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.


Bundy did not pay the grazing fees if he had then there would have been no problem with his cattle grazing there. Also the government didn't need to claim emanate domain because the land was federal land emanate domain is used when the person owns the land and Bundy didn't own the land.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

blupblup

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.



To those that keep saying "the Militia/Bundy crew" made a decision to do this ..... please listen to what was actually said. This was a SUGGESTION MADE BY ONE MAN, namely the man being interviewed. Has it occurred to those of you that are so outraged by this idea that he is a government plant, there specifically to give the public the impression that the militia agreed to do this? Apparently the militia never agreed to do this. It didn't happen and no militia members "hid behind women". Please let's get the information correct before we start accusing people.

As far as I am concerned, the militia did not "strategize to put women up front". This one man, a former sheriff( hmmm former government employee?) came up with the idea and then tried to paint it like the militia came up with it and all agreed to it. My opinion, he is lying and trying to make the militia look bad.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
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.


i don't approve of men forcing women to be their meat shields.
i also don't approve of psychological warfare. i also don't approve of saying "thank god i'm so much better than ________" because it isn't true. you still eat, defecate, procreate and ruminate, like the rest of the species. no you aren't better. you're the same. get over it.

the problem is, there's no evidence that this was the position of the bulk of the people at bundy's place. we have no idea, we (that's you and I) weren't there, but we do know the sheriff said he and some mysterious "they" discussed it. why? i have no idea. but that doesn't mean the people at bundy's ranch did it or that they even approved of the idea. in fact, i see no evidence that they did. and if i was a woman and they were threatening to shoot my husband, you know i would defend him. and you would do the same, wouldn't you?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaleesi
 


Exactly Khaleesi. What people are losing sight of in this thread is this. The title of this thread, started by a person who is not even a member here anymore.

"Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields"

The title is an outright lie to begin with. This thread was made on the basis of a lie. Many posting in this thread are posting personal feelings on something that NEVER happened.

Des



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaleesi
 



He was the guy interviewed and willing to speak? Are you saying he is not affiliated with the Militia? That he is just some lone nut who is making stuff up? I highly doubt it considering he is a former sheriff and is clearly part of the militia.



“It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff. He continued by saying that he would risk his own life as well in taking a stand.

“I would have been next. I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here, I’m willing to die here. But the best ploy would have been to have had women in front because one, I don’t think they would have shot them. Two, if they had it would have been the best thing to show the rest of the world that these ruthless cowards will do anything they are told. If they are told to shoot they will shoot. Just like when they shot Vicki Weaver when they blew her head off in front of her little girl while she was holding a baby.” says Mack.



benswann.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Davian

nenothtu

Davian

Besides - someone HAS to be left to sere the coffee for the men who are playing cards and sitting this one out while the boys hide behind momma's aprons. You don't think that coffee is gonna make itself, do you?


I can't even begin to describe the hypocrisy propelling itself at fifty zillion to the cuol of googolplex from yourself right now...


Hypocrisy? Isn't that some sort of inconsistency in position? How am I being inconsistent? You'd rather your wife be put up before a BLM firing squad?

I think perhaps the word your are floundering for is "hyperbole", rather than "hypocrisy".




You said you'd knock your wife out. No man would ever hit a woman, and if I ever saw you do it I'd knock YOU out, and recommend your girl find a better man who won't treat her like a subhuman dog.


Damn straight. If she were out of her mind enough to volunteer to catch bullets, I'd do whatever it took to get her off that battlefield. Evidently your mileage varies, and you'd be shoving her forward INTO the mouth of the cannon. Being as how that is who YOU are, I have not the least worry that you'd work up enough testicular fortitude to even attempt to "knock me out".

Ain't no ten men like you that would or could. You might send your women in to give it a shot, though.

You've not got a firm grasp of the concept of "hyperbole", have you?

Probably hard to read a dictionary when you've got to do it through skirts.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

blupblup
reply to post by Khaleesi
 



He was the guy interviewed and willing to speak? Are you saying he is not affiliated with the Militia? That he is just some lone nut who is making stuff up? I highly doubt it considering he is a former sheriff and is clearly part of the militia.



“It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff. He continued by saying that he would risk his own life as well in taking a stand.

“I would have been next. I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here, I’m willing to die here. But the best ploy would have been to have had women in front because one, I don’t think they would have shot them. Two, if they had it would have been the best thing to show the rest of the world that these ruthless cowards will do anything they are told. If they are told to shoot they will shoot. Just like when they shot Vicki Weaver when they blew her head off in front of her little girl while she was holding a baby.” says Mack.



benswann.com...




Look at the first sentence of the quote you used from him.




“It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff.


It was his idea and it was apparently rejected. He wasn't even there. He's the head of the militia and he wasn't there?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




I've been loving your posts in this thread man, absolute sense and decency while all others just keep digging themselves holes and burying their heads.




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

buster2010

undo
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.


Bundy did not pay the grazing fees if he had then there would have been no problem with his cattle grazing there. Also the government didn't need to claim emanate domain because the land was federal land emanate domain is used when the person owns the land and Bundy didn't own the land.


Actually, thats not the only problem with greedy Bundy, he's also over-grazing the lands by having 10 times the amount of cows per acre then legally allowed for the tortoise habitat link to lawsuit

So this scummy rancher is not only over grazing federal lands (no wonder he doesn't want all these cows on his private lands destroy sustainability) but he's bilking the tax payers out of $1,000,000 in grazing fees.

But, it's not because he hates tortoises, its simple greed folks, imagine these numbers, but with the Tax Payers (us!) paying to feed his cows???


How much is he making from us, the tax payer? Lets find out. He now has 900 cows (all above numbers are fact easily found in the numerous articles) how much is each cow worth?

I nfo on the economics of a cow

From the link above:


Income

4.7 calf crops @ $948/ year = $4455.60

Cull cow sale = $910.00

Total income with 3 percent death loss adjustment = $5204.63

Expenses

Pasture for 4.7 years @ $216/year = $1015.20

Winter feed for 4.7 years @ $252/year = $1184.40

Yardage for 4.7 years @ $90/year = $423.00

Total expenses = $2622.60

Net income over life of cow = $2582.03



900 cows * Net Income over life of cow = $2,323,827

That is over 2 million dollars in cows he has on OUR federal land, meaning his costs are far less because we the tax payer are subsidizing his costs for feeding the cow over it's lifetime. You do realize this is Federal land don't you? As in, not his, ours? His family has rented it for generations, legally, but 20 years ago he got greedy and stopped paying. He owes a bill that now totals over $1,000,000 while he has been making a lot of money. The numbers above are for lifetimes of cows, average lifetime of a cow fro3m link above is 5.7 years, generously that's 3 cow lifetimes.

$2,323,827 per cow lifetime (generous profit not taking into account FREE LAND, our land) * 3 cow lifetimes = $6,971,481

Even with that low number, subtract the $1,000,000 he should OWE as part of his opperating expense, and he's still up almost $6 million dollars.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Destinyone
reply to post by Khaleesi
 


Exactly Khaleesi. What people are losing sight of in this thread is this. The title of this thread, started by a person who is not even a member here anymore.

"Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields"

The title is an outright lie to begin with. This thread was made on the basis of a lie. Many posting in this thread are posting personal feelings on something that NEVER happened.

Des


yep, like i said, psychological warfare. it wasn't even a real issue, just some idea the sheriff came up with, and i'm not exactly sure why. it bugs me to think that this is already being used to accuse people of being evil terrorists, even people who disagree that it was a real issue to begin with and instead had some underlying theme that seems more than a little bizarre.
edit on 15-4-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaleesi
 




What? Who said he was head of the militia?

Also why does he need to be there to orchestrate things and discuss tactics and put forward suggestions?
Ever heard of radios? Cell Phones??

Seriously... stop trying to deny that this wasn't discussed and considered.
It was and these people are not right in the head.
edit on 15/4/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

blupblup
reply to post by Khaleesi
 




What? Who said he was head of the militia?

Also why does he need to be there to orchestrate things and discuss tactics and put forward suggestions?
Ever heard of radios? Cell Phones??

Seriously... stop trying to deny that this wasn't discussed and considered.
It was and these people are not right in the head.
edit on 15/4/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)


how does it jump from "his idea wasn't accepted" to all the militia people agreed with him and are wussies? dude, quit yanking my chain. how can i make a decision on the topic if you keep ignoring the evidence?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Lots of talk...

Big question would be:

Who's MORE in the wrong? Those that put the women up front, or those that shoot them?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

undo

how does it jump from "his idea wasn't accepted" to all the militia people agreed with him and are wussies? dude, quit yanking my chain. how can i make a decision on the topic if you keep ignoring the evidence?




I'll refer you to my last post so I don't have to keep typing the same thing over and over



blupblup

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.




There ya go.

It didn't happen.... nobody has been shot and certainly no women.
This whole discussion is hypothetical.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


you're the one that quoted the reference where the sheriff said it was his idea and that it wasn't accepted by the milita guys.
so why are you accusing them ? who's idea was it? the sheriff's. did the militia guys do it? no they didn't. so why are we even acting like this is a real topic? it isn't.

don't lie to me!

that goes double for you nenothtu
edit on 15-4-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

blupblup
reply to post by Khaleesi
 




What? Who said he was head of the militia?

Also why does he need to be there to orchestrate things and discuss tactics and put forward suggestions?
Ever heard of radios? Cell Phones??

Seriously... stop trying to deny that this wasn't discussed and considered.
It was and these people are not right in the head.
edit on 15/4/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)


Look at the OP please. Quoting from the OP:




Militia leader, Richard Mack, told Fox News he wanted to use woman as human shields in his effort to help Cliven Bundy's violent violation of a Court order mandating Bundy get his cows off of Federal land.


This was a quote used by the OP from the article he used as a source for the thread. Don't blame me. Blame the OP and his/her source.

Please do not talk down to me. Yes I've heard of radios and cell phones. Typical that you would get snarky. Guess my father taught me differently. A leader leads, so YES he should be there.

As for this actually happening? You claim this as a matter of fact? You were a third party to the phone call? You know for a fact that this happened? In the interview he CLAIMS this happened. Have you heard a recording of the phone call he claims happened? I haven't seen any PROOF that this phone call happened.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

gspat
Lots of talk...

Big question would be:

Who's MORE in the wrong? Those that put the women up front, or those that shoot them?


The women were never put in front. The incident never happened.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by nenothtu
 


maybe you can answer this for me, since no one else appears to be able to:

the deeper message of the man's suggestion of using women as human shields, is the obvious political debate that would spawn, the discussion board debates that would arise as a result, and the slow but sure brain washing of millions of people that if a woman tries to defend her family she is either crazy or being abused by her husband (this mindset is being established now as a result of the man's suggestion in the first place).



There is a difference between "defending your family", and just going out to be cannon bait. My wife defends me constantly (especially, apparently, when I get myself into nonsensical discussions like this), but she isn't set up for war. I am. It would be irresponsible in the extreme for me to send her out to do (or allow her to go out unprepared if she volunteered to get into something she knows nothing about, and which WILL kill her) what I thought I couldn't.

Sure, women CAN fight wars - they are some of the meanest mothers (literally) in the valley... IF they are prepared for it. Otherwise, might as well send your toddlers in, too. Women, when geared for war, are utterly ruthless, and have no mercy. They'll do things that make men puke just to watch in a battle.

If it eases your mind any, I wouldn't use a man as a human shield, either. That's not how wars are won. Wars are won by closing with and killing your enemy. Hard to do that with all those bodies in the way.




this reminds me of union factories. women would go picket if women worked there. my mom stood in front of a tractor to try to keep it from crossing the picket line. she was 4 foot 11 inches tall and wore a size 4 shoe. i didn't see any libs getting bent out of shape that my dad wasn't there to stand in front of the tractor instead.

so which is it buddy? either be consistent or go sit in the corner with alpha hawk.



Piss on unions. This ain't a union brewing, it's a WAR. People get killed permanently dead, crap gets torn up. It's not a video game. There are no do-overs or respawns when your number is up. Your dead. Permanently. You're not any less dead if it's just a little war. I couldn't give less of a damn what libs do. they're the ones that fire these messes up, and then run off to watch. If your dad wasn't there, well, that's between him and your mom. I wouldn't have been, either - I'd have been getting her the hell away from that union if I had to do it with her kicking and screaming.

This is what I think of unions:



ETA: Theses women are not, in any way, shape or form, "defending their families". They are defending some cat's "right" to run his cattle on Federal land. They are cannon fodder, pure and simple, and he will laugh about it all the way to the bank if they prevail. They are being used, and apparently some do so willingly.

Used is used, whether in the pages of a men's magazine or on the evening news.

Tell me how you feel about it once you see their dead carcasses on the evening news, battered and bloody, with their innards having become outtards.




edit on 2014/4/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 




It was discussed and considered.



Sheriff Mack says several women he personally knows who were on the scene volunteered to move to the front of the line.




“I know they are willing to do it but because of all the press we had out there watching, that they would not have done it. It was a tactical ploy on my part. I didn’t get my suggestion in on time but I told it to plenty of women including a lawyer friend of mine who came up to help. She told me that she would have moved to the front of the line and she thought it was a good idea.”



So it wasn't in on time...


Who knows? None of us are there.... which is why I said this is a hypothetical discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join