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: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

undo

AlphaHawk
reply to post by diggindirt
 


It's abundantly clear that I have no idea about protests because I think putting women on the front line of an armed confrontation for sympathy is wrong?

Ok....



the least you could do is accuse the right person. it was the sheriff who said it and it was the sheriff who said they wouldn't do it, even though he tried to convince them to.


Sorry to butt in here, but it's NOT "just the sheriff". There are people IN THIS VERY THREAD trying to defend this indefensible notion. THAT is why I'm here, not because of a sheriff.

The very idea is wrong on so many levels, yet people here are just OK with it.

I'm not.




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


it's already been proven that they will kill the women anyway, so what was the point of the sheriff bringing it up as a potential solution? koresh putting women and children in the waco ammo bunker didn't stop the atf and company from dropping a bomb in the room (made a huge hole in the roof), and melting them into a puddle of goo that didn't resemble human life much less women and children. so it's clear that putting their women out front wouldn't stop a thing once it reached that point. therefore, the narrative is not whether women would be used as human shields but how to sway public opinion into thinking that such things as dead women and children is always the fault of the men in their lives.


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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


my defense of this indefensible notion is, that i know if someone attacked my family, i would try to get between them and the attacker. period. end of the story. i wouldn't use force but i would try to defend them with my life if necessary. that's just the way it is. some things will never change.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


love Bruce Hornsby and the Range, and that tune is one of his best.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I'm accusing everyone in this thread who sat and defended the notion like it was some great idea.

PS. Nenothtu is my husband. And he is GREAT. better than any of your men I promise you.

I am also Muslim ( I am - he is not, its an interfaith marriage) ... my whole life I have seen American military men as being above the rest, morally. The government sucks a lot, but if you have ever seen a man on a battlefield care more about the enemies women and children than his very own life... you know...these are an admirable and upright people these Americans.

and then and there, in that moment, you can separate the things the government does from the heart of the people.

The extremists, they don't mind dressing up as women to escape, they don't mind putting their own women and children in harms way for additional support... but Americans.. they are different.. morally above the rest somehow.

Yet in this thread, I have watched some of those same men say they would be willing to throw their women in front of a bullet for additional support and sympathy for the cause... the cause means more to them than their own wife.

It's a slap in the face... its the antithesis of all I have believed. When facing your enemy, its more than just admirable to be morally superior.

All you people have done is to show you can be worse than the government ever thought about being. The government has yet to do that, use women as human shields... yet, you all claim its a wonderful act and something you would be proud of. Well you be proud...

And I am positive it wont bother you at all what I feel about you.






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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
What several folk here have apparently failed to see---this was a protest. It was not a war. It was a protest, pure and simple, against the militaristic tactics of the federal government in a civil matter. Whether it was over grazing rights or selling raw milk, it was a gathering of the people to exercise their right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of wrong.
At any such gathering there will be armed officers of the law so there will be a chance of those guns being fired. At any protest. Do you understand this?
Protests don't just spring up like spring dandelions. They must be planned. Those planning them must make the best use of any resources available to get their message across. I've been there and done that. Often. I've marched at the front and I've marched in the second row as a watcher to warn others of which cop isn't looking peaceable. I've marched at the back to keep the little old ladies and gentlemen with canes and those in wheelchairs company and watch out for their safety.
Lots of ideas are tossed around during these planning sessions. You might be amazed...if you were ever involved enough or cared enough about an issue to do more than sit and type on your keyboard.
The paternalistic attitude I see on this board absolutely disgusts me. The idea of a partnership in marriage seems alien to those of you who are slandering the men and women who are out there doing what needs to be done.
My great-grandmother campaigned for 30 years before she saw laws passed that allowed her to vote. I've been at this activism for change for over 40 years. I've had some victories and a few defeats. But one thing I can say with certainty---the keyboard warriors didn't get anything done, it was the people with their feet in the streets, making the noise who got the attention of the slime in their state capitals and DC.
So I will close my dealing on this thread with a quote from another famous western writer and attorney, Gerry Spence.



The people of a nation are enslaved when, together, they are helpless to institute effective change, when the people serve the government more than the government serves them. Ch. 1 : We, the People, the New American Slaves, p. 8



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


well dear, i'm so glad neonuthtu is your hubby. he sounds like a good protector. and for my part in offending your sensibilities, i do apologize, but no you can't prove your hubby is better than mine. mwahaha. nope, not gonna happen. they also eat, defecate, procreate and ruminate the same as the rest of the species. so no, they are not better than each other. they are the same. get over it. get ovvver it already. get over it.

secondly, i am not anti government, so quit accusing me of that.
i'm not a militia member. i'm an american seeing americans talk badly about each other without proof and ignoring whole swaths of what proof that does exist. read the quote. the sheriff tried to convince them to use their women, they refused. this does not, in anyway, mean they accepted. it means they refused and it can't be spun any other way without lying to yourself.

next, welcome to america, assuming you're in america. please understand the usa is not a nation of women who wait for their husband's approval and many american men can attest to this. this is why i defended the idea of defending my family, because i would!!!!

not hard to understand!!!!!


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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I love the attitude of some men, acting as if women would need their permission to go stand in the front. Or acting as if they have the authority to stop them should they have chosen to stand in the front. The women that attend these protests, are not women that would seek permission, or allow themselves to be strongarmed into doing something they don't wish to do, or to not do something they wish to do.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yes, they WILL kill even the women and children, as was demonstrated as you point out, in Waco and at Ruby Ridge.

I happen to be among those who believe that making it an easy shot by putting their targets right out front - or even on the battlefield at all - is a bad, bad, bad idea.

You don't "save the ones you love" by putting them in the line of fire and getting them killed. If they get killed, that whole "saving the ones you love" didn't work out quite right.

Why do they even allow "the ones they love" to be present at an attempted defense of some rich guy's cows anyhow, knowing it could turn into a bloodbath over CATTLE?

If you learned nothing else at all from Kent State, you should have learned that it only takes ONE shot fired, it doesn't even matter by whom, and it's on.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


nenothtu

oh i know, and it's entirely logical to not only avoid situations like bundy's, but also to not bring your loved ones along for the ride, but if your loved ones are adults that may be as invested in the situation as you are, asking them to sit at home hoping you aren't riddled with holes because of their naivete' or gender, is going too dang far. if you know this ahead of time, and you would in this situation, you'd be sure they were capable of defending themselves. i'd want to be in there trying to convince the other side not to shoot but only for that reason, and i would be trying to convince the militia not to shoot as well. no more death. we don't need any more deaths, anywhere, on the planet.

death is a mean guy who lives on the moon. tell him he's not welcome here anymore so we can move ahead as a species and leave all this political, financial and religious supremacy crap, behind us. otherwise, we are gonna keeeel the landlord till there's no one left to live here.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Android616
 


Obviously, it was the cowboys up in the front. But there were volunteer women behind the cowboysl, but the women were not in the front line. The video clearly display this.

The set up was perfect. U don't want to put a bunch arm guys it the front it would look too threatening.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

diggindirt
What several folk here have apparently failed to see---this was a protest. It was not a war.



Well now, I admit freely that it's been many, MANY years since I've been to a protest, since I saw how ineffective they are. I HAVE been on the sharp end of things when the bullets started flying, but those were anything but protests. they meant for folk to die. Since I've not been to any actual protests in so long, please tell me - when did it become proper etiquette for "protestors" to show up armed?

Obviously, that change occurred sometime in the interim, since this was alleged to be a "protest", and not a young war brewing with militia and government staring at one another through the wire, and all armed to the teeth.




It was a protest, pure and simple, against the militaristic tactics of the federal government in a civil matter.



Protest against militaristic tactics? How does one do that by using... militaristic tactics? Does one fight fire with fire, or dos one use water instead?




Whether it was over grazing rights or selling raw milk, it was a gathering of the people to exercise their right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of wrong.



Redress of grievances. "Wrong" was determined entirely in the other direction, and appears to b sort of subjective in this case.




Lots of ideas are tossed around during these planning sessions. You might be amazed...if you were ever involved enough or cared enough about an issue to do more than sit and type on your keyboard.
The paternalistic attitude I see on this board absolutely disgusts me. The idea of a partnership in marriage seems alien to those of you who are slandering the men and women who are out there doing what needs to be done.



Son (I add that to emphasize my "paternalistic attitude"), I've done a good bit more than just type on my keyboard. There are more options than just walking in the streets carrying a sign and yelling, alternated with bouts of furious typing. I may have gone a different route than you, but I've not just been sitting on my ass wondering where the "any" key is.

"Partnership in marriage" would imply to me... a partnership. When both of you do the same things, one of you is entirely unnecessary. There is a division of labor in a partnership, and each does their part, what they do best, for the good of the whole. they don't butt heads both trying to pull the same lever.

Doing what needs to be done? For whom? For Bundy, or for his cows? To quote Clint Eastwood, "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy". Dying for cows, probably scrapes near the bottom of the barrel for causes worth dying for. Dying for a rancher who's throwing a snit because he didn't get his way in fattening his herd on the public dime probably doesn't rank much higher.




My great-grandmother campaigned for 30 years before she saw laws passed that allowed her to vote. I've been at this activism for change for over 40 years. I've had some victories and a few defeats. But one thing I can say with certainty---the keyboard warriors didn't get anything done, it was the people with their feet in the streets, making the noise who got the attention of the slime in their state capitals and DC.



See above for what I think of your "keyboard warriors" assessment. They're right up there with the "sign toting warriors" for effective. Have you ever heard the phrase "never bring a knife to a gunfight"? I guess paper cuts from the sign wielding "warriors" CAN be pretty nasty.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


you kinda are arguing with yourself. first you say, war can't be averted with weapons.
then you say, war can't be won with protests. so i take this to mean you have given up or you
have reduced your capacity to recognize your own thoughts. if war can't be averted no matter
what, i'm sure the rest of the planet won't mind while we sit here like caesar and let rome burn.
(we can just blame it on some little old grannies, most of whom are praying christians, those heathens)

your thoughts seem to only allow your own world view to have a protest or war worthy cause and everyone else should just do nothing, else we might do things like defend our families or show evidence of having skills that are not always gender based. oh i know a guy would win in a fist fight, but he's gotta go to sleep eventually. hehehe ....hehe....he.... nation full of amazonian females and you want them to stand there and let you shoot their hubbies. what a concept. sounds like a fairy tale from THE DARK AGES.
edit on 15-4-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

nenothtu

undo

AlphaHawk
reply to post by diggindirt
 


It's abundantly clear that I have no idea about protests because I think putting women on the front line of an armed confrontation for sympathy is wrong?

Ok....



the least you could do is accuse the right person. it was the sheriff who said it and it was the sheriff who said they wouldn't do it, even though he tried to convince them to.


Sorry to butt in here, but it's NOT "just the sheriff". There are people IN THIS VERY THREAD trying to defend this indefensible notion. THAT is why I'm here, not because of a sheriff.

The very idea is wrong on so many levels, yet people here are just OK with it.

I'm not.







Says the woman beater.
2nd.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The military has allowed women to serve in front line combat roles with the left's blessing. But its not okay for them to protest at home the actions of the government and risk being shot by government agents. Anybody else think how ridiculous and idiotic it is to try to spin this the way the left is trying desperately to. I saw the videos and some of the most vocal protestors were ladies who were right up front. More power to them, I won't tell them to shut up and stay at home.
If you don't like protests, go to Russia, Putin would be glad to have you.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by nenothtu
 


you kinda are arguing with yourself. first you say, war can't be averted with weapons.



You're right. War is not averted with weapons, it's won with weapons, not averted. Weapons sort of escalate and aggravate the situation. They are, generally speaking, what makes a war a war.




then you say, war can't be won with protests.



Correct.




so i take this to mean you have given up or you
have reduced your capacity to recognize your own thoughts. if war can't be averted no matter
what, i'm sure the rest of the planet won't mind while we sit here like caesar and let rome burn.
(we can just blame it on some little old grannies, most of whom are praying christians, those heathens)



I make a distinction between "giving up" and "picking your battles". A fight over someone else's cows is not a battle I would pick - unless they pay me an AWFUL lot to pick it. Conserving your resources for a fight that matters is not "giving up", any more than getting killed for someone else's cows is a "victory".

Death has a way of taking all the wind out of the sails of "victory".




your thoughts seem to only allow your own world view to have a protest or war worthy cause and everyone else should just do nothing, else we might do things like defend our families or show evidence of having skills that are not always gender based. oh i know a guy would win in a fist fight, but he's gotta go to sleep eventually. hehehe ....hehe....he.... nation full of amazonian females and you want them to stand there and let you shoot their hubbies. what a concept. sounds like a fairy tale from THE DARK AGES.



By all means, go to war over Bundy's cows if that's what floats your boat. If they're worth dying for to YOU, then go for it. I'll be sitting it out with the card-playing geezers. The Cow Wars ain't the wars we were waiting on.

I get the whole chest-puffed-out "defending your family" thing. I'm guilty of it at times, too - I just fight to win is all. Stepping in front of a bullet is a viable option, but a last resort option. Once you're dead, you no longer have the family you saved, nor do they have you. There are better alternatives most of the time. By taking yourself out of the family, that sort of damages the family you were seeking to save right there, doesn't it?

If I were to shoot ANYONE'S husband, there would be a damned good reason for it (damned good to me - i.e. not over a cow), and he would have it coming to him... amazon wife or not. If she decided to shoot back, well, I'd have to deal with that in THAT event, now wouldn't I?

This is not a scenario that has never been played out in the history of the world.



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

Davian

nenothtu

undo

AlphaHawk
reply to post by diggindirt
 


It's abundantly clear that I have no idea about protests because I think putting women on the front line of an armed confrontation for sympathy is wrong?

Ok....



the least you could do is accuse the right person. it was the sheriff who said it and it was the sheriff who said they wouldn't do it, even though he tried to convince them to.


Sorry to butt in here, but it's NOT "just the sheriff". There are people IN THIS VERY THREAD trying to defend this indefensible notion. THAT is why I'm here, not because of a sheriff.

The very idea is wrong on so many levels, yet people here are just OK with it.

I'm not.







Says the woman beater.
2nd.


You're gonna need some paper to back that claim up. Any conviction will do. Otherwise, it's just hot air and sour grapes.

Oddly, I'm not the one here advocating throwing them out to be shot by a BLM firing squad.

Hmmmm...



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Besides - someone HAS to be left to serve 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?

 



:-)

Does this require a 2nd line?

Here: You two need your own show



Glad you got the "inside" joke. It's been a running theme here at ATS at times, but evidently is running too fast for many to catch it!



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


WHEN i defend someone, that doesn't mean i agree with or don't agree with their choices. it just means i'm defending them, just as i would defend the gov workers who might be hurt in such a scenario. back during the occupy wall street protests, people started calling for the slaughtering of folks who worked in the IRS and other government offices. i was adamantly against that, not because i agree with the amount of taxes being paid but because i do not approve of murdering/killing/ or any variation thereof, of other sentient beings. i would appreciate it if you would stop trying to characterize me as a willing participant in milita activities. i'm a willing participant in keeping people from lying about each other. i'm a willing participant in stopping the internet gossip that poisons people into being enemies of each other.

it's as simple as that



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
It's so sad that women these days have decided men cannot handle things on their end should they go looking for war, and they need their women to protect them from bullets.

I guess the feminists have succeeded in castrating men. Now men are no longer the providers or protectors, they are the children who need protected. It seems men are just another mouth to feed.

I'll keep my dark ages in lieu of that. If I wanted a child, I'd give birth to one. I'll take a husband who can be a help to me and take some of the burden in matter life.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join