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 supporters strategy: place women out the front

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




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.


So the best plan of action is put the women out the front?

And also, it's government land.




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Davian
 


I mean really, if that's the best example of media manipulating things, then they're pretty crap at it.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

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"?



The modern feminist movement is bunch of whiny wackos.

Women are still looked at as something to be "protected", using women instead of men will make enemies hesistate no matter what their cause is.

Remember "terrorists" are still human who just have another goal that differs from governement. Meaning, they will not want to shoot because of the backlash it will carry.

Men are expendable, for ages.

Also, even with Women in combat, many dont match the output men gives, many i know personally took up anything but front line duties and the high ups never tried to force them either.

Headline that says "men uses human shield" wont get much response as "Men use Women as shield".. at the same time, "Men using children as shield" would get much more response.

it is an unpopular respone but i dont give a rat's ass.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


government land that was given to them with the understanding that they would have grazing/water rights in perpetuity.

The government reneged the deal. They have no claim.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Provided Bundy paid his lease on the land.

Anyway, why no outcry that this land was taken from the native Americans?

Who did Bundy's ancestors steal it off??

It would be ironic if the militia went and celebrated their victory at an Indian reserve casino!




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


I am just trying to talk about the hypocrisy of media while creating their own farmed sensationalism.

These men didn't use women as shields.
It is all media smoke and mirrors.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

AlphaHawk
reply to post by Davian
 


I mean really, if that's the best example of media manipulating things, then they're pretty crap at it.











And there's plenty more where that came from...
edit on 15-4-2014 by Davian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by luciddream
 


I am just trying to talk about the hypocrisy of media while creating their own farmed sensationalism.

These men didn't use women as shields.
It is all media smoke and mirrors.


I dont think that video was edited out or anything, it seems like he says putting women in front while the feds shoot at them will be televised across, why do you think he was thinking when he said that?

That people will respond because feds are shooting at unarmed women.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

AlphaHawk
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Provided Bundy paid his lease on the land.

Anyway, why no outcry that this land was taken from the native Americans?

Who did Bundy's ancestors steal it off??

It would be ironic if the militia went and celebrated their victory at an Indian reserve casino!



There is a native American casino a few miles down the road from all of this, on reservation land, you can buy liquor, beer, wines, smokes and fireworks there dirt cheap, fuel, shop etc. A lot of stuff doesn't have fed taxes. I'm sure they appreciate all of the new business.

They don't like the feds either.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


how dare those evil good guys!
they thunk a bad thought...we think...er...we were told they thought...
according to judge nepolitano the best the freds could legally do is put a lien on the cattle
so they threatened to murder people people in order to commit the crime of cattle rustling
the judge said the feds involved should have been arrested by the sherrif

in which case the thought crime, like this thread, would never have happened

and just who the hell were those sharp shooters going to shoot in the first place?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Davian
 


Oh I'm sure you can..

It was a sarcastic comment on my part, as in out of all the MSM manipulations you could of picked, you picked a pretty weak one with the French guy and the crowd.

Stop the presses a chick was photoshopped!

Can we get back on topic please.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


He was employing hyberbole, referencing how the fed murdered a woman holding a baby.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Need to look at protest of the 1960s that were lead by Dr. Martin Luther King. He place women and children in situations where he knew, knew that the police would turn water cannons, dogs and racist cops would beat protesters. This was part of his strategy to gain public support, because he understood that a picture was worth a 1000 words and that a television broadcast was worth even more. Had it not been for the Televised actions of some of the southern police forces beating protesters civil right would have take even longer to achieve then it did.

And Remember it was the Democratic party that was in control of the South at that time. It was the Democrats that introduced "Jim Crow" laws, it was President Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) that brought "Jim Crow" laws to the Federal Government.

And Remember, Republicans were the one who first introduced the Civil Rights Amendment in 1956 and were moving to pass it at that time until Two Democrats Senator Al Gore Senior (Father of your future vice President) and Senator Lyndon Banes Johnson (future President) stop the legislation in the United States Senate. They knew full well that if the Republican passed such a measure that black population would vote Republican for then on so the made sure that did not occur. And a decade later when President LBJ signed Civil Right Amendment he did it 1.) to have a permanent voting block and 2.) was going to happen anyway due to public opinion so might as well take credit for it.

I laugh every time a Democrat tries to call a Republican racist. I know my history and I know which party was for "Jim Crow", Segregation, and which party had the KKK as its standard bearers until the 1930s (cough Democrats). I just wish more people knew their history, then history would not repeat so often.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

dothedew
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


I'm not sure how anyone could possibly edit out anything that would make this guy's statement seem reasonable in any way, much less anything other than absolutely "crazy."

There is no explaining away a statement like that! The guy flat out stated that they had "been strategizing" to use women as human shields, which IMO is about the most cowardly act conceivable. So cowardly in fact that, according to Wikipedia, it has been banned by all nations who are parties to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Using this technique is illegal by nations that are parties to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions.


Here's a few examples, (from the same Wiki article) of some other great patriots who have utilized this technique in the past;

Wehrmacht and later SS forces extensively used Polish civilians as human shields during Warsaw Uprising when attacking the insurgents' positions.[3][4]

At the Wola massacre in Poland on 7 August 1944, the Nazis forced civilian women onto the armored vehicles as human shields to enhance their effectiveness. In Belgium in May 1940, at least 86 civilians were killed by the German Wehrmacht known as the Vinkt Massacre, when the Germans took 140 civilians and used them as shields to cross a bridge while under fire.

During the Battle of Okinawa, Japanese soldiers often used civilians as human shields against American troops.



One of the most famous uses of human shields occurred in Iraq in 1990, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that precipitated the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Saddam Hussein's government detained hundreds of citizens of Western countries who were in Iraq for use as human shields in an attempt to deter nations from participating in military operations against the country.



During the Second Intifada (2000–2005) Palestinian gunmen used civilians and children as human shield, by surrounding themselves with children while shooting on IDF forces.


Somehow I knew it wouldn't take long for these so called "Patriots" to show their true colors. In this particular case, it's now abundantly apparent that "true colors" actually translates to "truly cowards!" I always knew that these people were driven by fear but I had no idea that they would stoop to hiding behind their women. Wow!

I seem to remember a lone, defenseless Chinaman, who singlehandedly displayed more bravery than this group of heavily armed "Patriots."


To AlphaHawk, F&S for the OP!


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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I would imagine most of those helpless women that are on the front lines are wall flowers ( that's how their being portrayed). Truth be told they probally wanted to be there. After all they are their fighting for what they feel is right & just. To add, most of those women wall flowers on the front line would probally drop you where you stand in the event of a fire fight. Especially the ones with kids, hell hath no fury like a mother protecting her children. It's 2014 folks the "fair fight" went up in smoke years ago. I would never have to ask my wife to go to the front line.....she would allready be there waiting on me.

The sad fact of all this is that next time we want hear a word about it. It will go down in court. They will seize and remove those folks with out any fan-fair what so ever. Like theives in the night. Right or wrong, the Governmment in the end will come out on top. We'll be lucky to hear about it or get a bye-line in the b-section of the smallest newspaper in the country.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Fact check this, fact check that.. you use fox as a source = fail.. not only that 22 seconds..

People before you post garbage about something at least make it somewhat believable..

What was stated in 22 sex.. not a damn thing... Want the truth here.. Benn Swann the straightest reporter we have as of yet..




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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Are you denying the sheriff said he said what he said based on the source?

Yeah Fox News sucks, but they're merely the vessel in which the message was carried.

Did Swann press him about why wanted to put the women on the front line?

A good journalist would call him out on such a statement.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


Just because Bill O'Reilly didn't do the interview it makes it invalid? hmm.. ya ok..

I dont know I dont watch internet videos I only watch videos with a tag on them like the blaze or fox or msnbc...

You people..

Ya how did you get a message in 22 sex? All I got was alot of bs..
edit on 4/15/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This wont help much anyway. Besides the Ruby Ride example women and children were burned alive at Waco. So once the crap hits the fan its all on anyway.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Ya unfortunately I believe you are right.. Which is why fact checking is important..

This isnt a game... This can be the time everyone on this board has been waiting for... SHTF.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join