Bundy supporters strategy: place women out the front

To even consider this is indefensible.

Looks like everyone has lost their marbles on both sides.

Already covered...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It will be these simple minded morons being broadcast to the world for using women as human shields.

reply to post by TiedDestructor


Bugger, my bad, I did a search and didn't see it.

Thanks.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Different forum, so it should be okay. This is pretty bad. As you said, it's on tape, so no cries of 'propaganda' are valid.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Come on, guys. Do you really think they would let something like that happen? Nobody likes women being hurt/shot etc. The idea behind putting women in front would be to prevent a massive shootout. I'm sure there was a similar explanation behind this statement, but it was probably edited out to make them sound crazy. And apparently it worked

So who has their guns pointed at the women? Yet it's the ranchers who are the monsters.

I suppose Vicki Weaver was using her infant daughter as a human shield. She was the monster and the glorious fed Lon Horiuchi was the hero.

I'm sure there was a similar explanation behind this statement, but it was probably edited out to make them sound crazy. And apparently it worked

That is exactly what happened.



Wake up, people.

thisguyrighthere
So who has their guns pointed at the women? Yet it's the ranchers who are the monsters.

I suppose Vicki Weaver was using her infant daughter as a human shield. She was the monster and the glorious fed Lon Horiuchi was the hero.

THIS^^^^^

The OP is based on the presumption that the fed had any right to shoot in the first place. I do not bend my knee to the Crowns power.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


And I don't use women to garner sympathy for my cause.

Or another way, I don't use women to become martyrs while I cry foul on tv afterwards.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

And I don't use women to garner sympathy for my cause.

Or another way, I don't use women to become martyrs while I cry foul on tv afterwards.

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

No one was made a martyr.

I am not certain that women were used to gain sympathy for a cause.

To be honest, I am not really even sure what the context of the interview discussion was. I suspect that the premise was a smear campaign. I mean, on the one hand women are equal and all that. On the other, using women for shield is dishonorable.

Meanwhile, as mentioned by thisguyrighthere, we have by experience seen the feds will murder a woman. Even when she is holding a baby. And you are crying foul about this interview, with all its logical flaws?

Using women as shield to prevent shootout is what the terrorist have done in many countries.

Sad to see people defending this action.

luciddream
Using women as shield to prevent shootout is what the terrorist have done in many countries.

Sad to see people defending this action.

So women are different than men?

What of the whole feminist movement?

Would it be less of a headline if it said, "Men used as shields"?

luciddream
Using women as shield to prevent shootout is what the terrorist have done in many countries.

Sad to see people defending this action.

And as we all know, and have seen explicitly our government has no problem killing women and children by using military assets, including drones. Even if they hit the wrong target, or the enemy wasn't there. It's okay. We have to eliminate the bad guys at any cost. And there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

God help us all if the day comes when freedom loving Americans are effectively demonized and portrayed as terrorists, and can be targeted this way.

If he really meant that he wanted to use women as human shields, I would be upset. However, these are trained militia women on the front lines. You know, women who want to be there. Women who want to be on the front line showing the feds that they can't just strong arm American citizens with a show of force. To me, you sound sexist. What? Women can't be on the front line?

Furthermore, how can people just sit back and think what the government is doing here is ok?

reply to post by Davian


Well I'm confused as to who is being deceptive here?

Because..

i.chzbgr.com...

I guess it depends on ones bias as to whose lying?

reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot


Pretty much my exact take on this situation.
Keep fighting the good fight, no matter what equipment you may have down there! Lol!

reply to post by ausername


the worst part is, the fed would actually kill them. I don't support using human shields. Not by a long stretch. But that isn't the real story here. The real story is that people felt like their lives could be in danger from their government over a land dispute that the government really had no right in.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


No, no martyrs were made, but this tactic is low, I don't have a problem if a woman wants to take up arms and be there, I do have a problem with the women being put out front while the men stand behind them.

Side by side.

I'm just repeating myself now, I covered this in the other thread.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by Davian

 

Well I'm confused as to who is being deceptive here?

Because..

i.chzbgr.com...

I guess it depends on ones bias as to whose lying?

I guess so, because it still doesn't change the fact there weren't as many people in that footage, at that moment, as they claimed. No amount of mainstream media biased skewing and pandering can change that. Sorry, so...