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.

 

BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

page: 19
87
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Did I mention Isis?

I said muslims. you pick their grievance....




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

Slippery slopes are slippery.

I think the fact these guys actually took action would separate them from anyone who just talks about doing it.


Black Lives Matter took over Michigan Avenue in Chicago. They also took over a mall.
Occupy took over Wall Street.
College students in the 60's did sit-ins and took over administration buildings.

Are they all terrorists, or are they protestors?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

What did you call them out of interest?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

Did I mention Isis?

I said muslims. you pick their grievance....


If they are protesting an unfair legal call, then they'd be protestors.

Protest is a freedom and a right that should be protected.

But if the protestors break the law, then they should be punished for breaking the law.

NOT for protesting.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

What did you call them out of interest?


P R O T E S T O R S !



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

My point wasn't about that, just about using this to broadly generalize more people.

You said that if these guys get labeled, than all people that think like them will then be easier to label.

My point was just that actions speak louder than words.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

A very considered and thought out response.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
No matter what the opinion of him, I happen to like him, Joe Biggs (Infowars) is on his way out there to report on the situation.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
It's a land grab, there have been years of harassment from the BLM and the FWS, dating back to the seventies.



By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.




By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches.


Please read it



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Maybe but the Hammonds don't like what the militia is doing in their name.
The militia is using the Hammonds.


edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

What did you call them out of interest?


P R O T E S T O R S !


Protest is one thing.

One of the 'leaders' of this group stated they intend to be there for years, and "give back the land to loggers, minors, etc"

If he thinks his group is going to make their own laws, based entirely on LOCAL wants and needs, surpassing State Laws (Forget about the Federal Laws)...then he is talking about COLONIZING an area of land for their own City-State.

That is NOT protected under the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

A court found them guilty of arson.

The feds are wanting to label them as domestic terrorists.

Hell, people here are wanting to label the protestors as terrorists.

You can agree with the protest, or disagree. But no one should ever try to inhibit a primary right through fear of being labeled a terrorist.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

If the protestors are in violation of the law, then they should be arrested. I've never said that they shouldn't.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



The feds are wanting to label them as domestic terrorists.
Where do you get that from?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If I was facing judicial action I would probably publically separate my self from the crazy guys holding siege in the federal building up the hill. However just because they publically separate themselves does not mean that they privately are against it. No one can say for sure but you can draw conclusions.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Oregon has STATE Laws. If this group, as they stated, intends to do with the land what they please, and surpass laws they see as at odds with the "People" (their words)...they are in fact in conflict with THE REPUBLIC of the UNITED STATES.

They did NOT council with other citizens in their STATE. They did not petition or VOTE on this 'plan'.

They are in direct violation of the rule of law of a REPUBLIC. We are not a collection of Syndicates and Gangs.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

What did you call them out of interest?


P R O T E S T O R S !


Protest is one thing.

One of the 'leaders' of this group stated they intend to be there for years, and "give back the land to loggers, minors, etc"

If he thinks his group is going to make their own laws, based entirely on LOCAL wants and needs, surpassing State Laws (Forget about the Federal Laws)...then he is talking about COLONIZING an area of land for their own City-State.

That is NOT protected under the Constitution.


I can agree to that. If the local population doesn't want them there or any such thing then they should fight someplace else. If the Militiamen and the local population do not see eye to eye then in this (me) Libertarians eyes it would be one form of tyranny replacing another,



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality



If I was facing judicial action I would probably publically separate my self from the crazy guys holding siege in the federal building up the hill.
They aren't facing judicial action. That's done. They are going back to prison.


However just because they publically separate themselves does not mean that they privately are against it.
The Hammonds have plenty of local support. The militia, not so much.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I saw some new hashtags over at Gawker a bit ago, apparently they've been monitoring Twitter:




With the domestic terrorism situation that’s currently under way in Oregon being almost entirely ignored by local and federal law enforcement, the people have taken to the social media airwaves to call a spade a spade.

they called them angry dudes in oregon #YallQaeda waging #YeeHawd, and i almost died.
— atmosphere (@atmosphere) January 3, 2016

Every successful revolution starts with takeover of closed visitor center with gift shop. #OregonUnderAttack #YallQaeda
— Lars Petticord (@fatdownjacket) January 3, 2016

Link



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Right, well it could be said they do not want new charges stacked on top of the sentence they already have,(by participating in an armed rebellion) that isn't to say they do not support it.

I agree the militia is going about this the wrong way.




top topics



 
87
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join