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.

 

Oregon Sheriff Accuses Armed Protesters of Intimidation, Harassment by TIM STELLOH

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
It occurred to me after reading about the ongoing 'occupiers" that the term 'this land is our land, this land is your land' is not applicable in this scenerio; ir is it? I started this thread in the 'civil unrest' forum due to the basic definition of the words 'civil-unrest' - defined by this writer as strike or protest, and it can be peaceful or involve violence -

The original article states that (just as the title advises) the Oregon Sheriff is/was intimidated by the protesters.I for one am discombobulated that this 'occupy' protest is still ongoing. The occupiers are even shown in the video using a fish and wildlife tractor moving a fence. When will the straw break the camels back and how much longer/further will the game be played? It seems as though we are at the will of the occupiers.

I would like to hear the opinions of ATS on the rights and wrongs of the entire scenario, and how you think this will (if at all) ever end?

Here is an excerpt from the article -


Federal employees of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the site occupied by the protesters, also reported "a number of uncomfortable instances" of "unknown" outsiders idling outside their homes, watching them and initiating debates about their employment.

"Many of these confrontations are taking place as their employees are grocery shopping, running errands with their families and trying to lead their day-to day lives," Ward said.

Shortly after the protesters occupied the refuge on January 2, Ward called on them to go home. They have refused to leave, and the authorities have not forced them to heed Ward's demand.


Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/12/2016 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I guess Federal Employees have to take the bad with the good.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I doubt the "Fed" is at all intimidated by this protest. Embarrassed maybe, but hardly intimidated.

I expect the media to play up the poor federal employees plight, though.

Poor Federal employees, they're such willing minions.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the media to personalize the people affected by the Feds land grabbing tactics, though.

The protesters will intentionally remain nameless and faceless.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I have read a lot on this, and seen many videos of whats going on there

Other than the apparent "altercation" with 1 person that happened last week, without a shot fired and everyone walking away.

I fail to see how they are intimidating ANYONE, other than just sitting there occupying the building and bothering no one else.

They have also come into town and dined and shopped just like everyone else without harassing anyone.

This seems like more propaganda from left leaning people who would like to see this end violently.

Honestly it seems like left leaning people are frothing at the mouth on this to end badly, dont they realize that if this does it affects them too? Dont people realize that infringement , whether you like the side across the isle or not will eventually come to your side as well?

Very sad indeed

Love Love,
AlienSupernova



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

I'm right with you. How long will the law enforcement agency allow this group to break laws, vandalize property and intimidate people? The feds simply aren't doing their job here. If it were any other group of people (environmentalists, for example) they would be held accountable to the law. Period. These "occupiers" have taken things way too far. Whose fault is that? IMO, they need a crack down by the feds.

I don't want violence. I want law enforcement.
edit on 1/12/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




I don't want violence. I want law enforcement.


Like they did in Waco or Ruby ridge?

Again sounds like people are promoting violence, because that was exactly what would happen.

I remember watching the Ferguson riots as people in swat gear just stood buy and watched the vandalism, fires, and violence unfold, and people screamed at how oppressive the police were

yet here you are advocating a "crack down"

Cant you see what you are promoting would be a blood bath

LoveLove,
AlienSupernova



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Agreed, I replied to a post last week - basically identifying the 'occupiers' as any other race, creed, religion, origin, color, etc. I am sure that if any one of these were different, we would see a very different side from the authorities. Allowing the continuance of this may/may not increase tensions,

but as Alien stated,

"This seems like more propaganda from left leaning people who would like to see this end violently."






posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Agreed, I replied to a post last week - basically identifying the 'occupiers' as any other race, creed, religion, origin, color, etc. I am sure that if any one of these were different, we would see a very different side from the authorities. Allowing the continuance of this may/may not increase tensions,

but as Alien stated,

"This seems like more propaganda from left leaning people who would like to see this end violently."





Yet we have seen this from other groups of different color and background and the gov officials and cities even came out and stated "We need to give them room to Destroy"

So this analogy has already been played out.

And yet here people are calling for the violent interference with this group.

LoveLove,
AlienSupernova
edit on 12-1-2016 by AlienSupernova because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Well the problem is that the feds are kind of in a catch 22 damned if you do, damned if you don't conflict here. The protesters are BANKING on a violent confrontation so they can justify the rhetoric they've been using for the last week and a half to gain support for their side. The other side of the issue is that the longer you let them sit there, the more you validate their actions in the eyes of the onlooking public.
edit on 12-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy,

Do you believe that it may just be due to PC-ness? Of the Feds actually have an agenda and dialog here?

I like your quote too!!!

the more you validate their actions in the eyes of the onlooking public.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova
Like they did in Waco or Ruby ridge?


As I said, I'm not advocating or promoting violence. If the LE goes in to enforce the law, and the people start shooting at them, the LE have every right to defend themselves.

These people are breaking the law. They have no legal grounds to do what they're doing.



Cant you see what you are promoting would be a blood bath


It might be. But that would be because the protesters would make it one. Should the feds buckle under threat of a violent blood bath started by the protesters? I don't think so.


originally posted by: ReadLeader
but as Alien stated,

"This seems like more propaganda from left leaning people who would like to see this end violently."


I am a left-leaner and I don't want to see this end violently. I resent the implication that because I want to see it end peacefully, that I am advocating violence. Arrests don't have to be violent.
edit on 1/12/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ReadLeader

Well the problem is that the feds are kind of in a catch 22 damned if you do, damned if you don't conflict here. The protesters are BANKING on a violent confrontation so they can justify the rhetoric they've been using for the last week and a half to gain support for their side. The other side of the issue is that the longer you let them sit there, the more you validate their actions in the eyes of the onlooking public.


What violent rhetoric?

I have seen them state they are willing to die and are there for the long haul, that seemed like more of a warning than anything else.

The only other thing ive seen come out of there have been "terms" , and they have had several groups come to meet them and again other than the altercation last week, its been civil.

So other than their warning to the Feds that they are willing to go down fighting if they Feds approach the situation like that, WHAT exactly have they said that was violent?

LoveLove,

AlienSupernova



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Well I think the Fed's are terrified to pull the trigger because the Bundy's are looking to use a violent response as a catalyst to compare to Waco. In an effect, it is sort of political correctness here. The fed's are afraid their actions will offend the ranchers and they'll come out looking like the bad guys instead of the ranchers.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




It might be. But that would be because the protesters would make it one. Should the feds buckle under threat of a violent blood bath started by the protesters? I don't think so.


If the feds were given the warning before hand not to come in guns blazing or violently and expect that they wouldnt fight back, then wouldnt initiation of that tactic by the feds make THEM the ones cop-able?

Especially since they have already stated they were willing to negotiate, and have proven that several times since then without violence
It seems to me your viewpoint on this is a bit backwards. No offense intended

edit on 12-1-2016 by AlienSupernova because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ReadLeader

Well the problem is that the feds are kind of in a catch 22 damned if you do, damned if you don't conflict here. The protesters are BANKING on a violent confrontation so they can justify the rhetoric they've been using for the last week and a half to gain support for their side. The other side of the issue is that the longer you let them sit there, the more you validate their actions in the eyes of the onlooking public.


What violent rhetoric?

I have seen them state they are willing to die and are there for the long haul, that seemed like more of a warning than anything else.


Being willing to die for your cause is violent rhetoric. It means you are willing to shoot back if necessary. Which is violence.


The only other thing ive seen come out of there have been "terms" , and they have had several groups come to meet them and again other than the altercation last week, its been civil.


I never said it wasn't.


So other than their warning to the Feds that they are willing to go down fighting if they Feds approach the situation like that, WHAT exactly have they said that was violent?

LoveLove,

AlienSupernova


They have expressed that the Feds were going to treat them like Waco or the standoff last year. They are willing to die for their cause. These are all extremist positions. Any other groups of people, this would have warranted a SWAT team on day 1 and we'd be discussing the aftermath now (if anything at all).



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

They have a right to protest, but must be held to answer for any violation of the law.

I will say this towards these people and BLM, Occupy, Fergusen, Baltimore, etc.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova
It seems to me your viewpoint on this is a bit backwards.


As compared to what? Your viewpoint?

My viewpoint is that we live in a country of laws. That's how a society functions. These people are breaking several laws. They should have to face the justice system just as any other citizen would (and does, every day). My viewpoint is neither backwards nor forward. It is my viewpoint.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Being willing to die for your cause is violent rhetoric. It means you are willing to shoot back if necessary. Which is violence.


Yet context is everything, yes dying under fire is violent, however assigning what you have to it in this case is purely to be inflammatory and you know it.

Many people are willing to die for causes and yet are not violent people




They have expressed that the Feds were going to treat them like Waco or the standoff last year. They are willing to die for their cause. These are all extremist positions. Any other groups of people, this would have warranted a SWAT team on day 1 and we'd be discussing the aftermath now (if anything at all).


BLM and the groups that were rioting in Ferguson and Boston advocated the slaughter of police officers and white people and yet they werent shot up, despite the fact that they were burning down buildings, rioting , looting and destroying property

So I dont see that youre accusation is accurate

And again I do not agree that saying "your willing to die" for a cause is extremist, I think the very accusation that such a thing is "extremist" is more political diatribe and labeling on your part in an attempt to demonize

I feel this is intellectual dishonest of you , Krazysh0t, I read a lot of your stuff before I joined here and generally respect you , but this seems beneath you to be honest.

Love Love,
AlienSupernova



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova
I feel this is intellectual dishonest of you , Krazysh0t,


Sounds like anyone who disagrees with you is going to get a backhanded insulted as being "backwards" or "intellectually dishonest" or something. That's your tactic, then? Good. It's always nice to get to know new members and how they "debate".



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yet context is everything, yes dying under fire is violent, however assigning what you have to it in this case is purely to be inflammatory and you know it.

Many people are willing to die for causes and yet are not violent people


This isn't a philosophy discussion. It's a discussion on the rhetoric used by these people (who happen to be heavily armed). Like I said, any other group of people (say Muslim for instance) saying and doing what these ranchers have done, the police would have already settled the matter, but in this case they are handling them with kid gloves.


BLM and the groups that were rioting in Ferguson and Boston advocated the slaughter of police officers and white people and yet they werent shot up, despite the fact that they were burning down buildings, rioting , looting and destroying property


It's hard to compare a riot to a protest like this, but it's not like arrests weren't made and they DEFINITELY had riot equipment deployed to stop them.


So I dont see that youre accusation is accurate


I'm sorry to hear that.


And again I do not agree that saying "your willing to die" for a cause is extremist, I think the very accusation that such a thing is "extremist" is more political diatribe and labeling on your part in an attempt to demonize

I feel this is intellectual dishonest of you , Krazysh0t, I read a lot of your stuff before I joined here and generally respect you , but this seems beneath you to be honest.

Love Love,
AlienSupernova


It's more than just that though. It's the fact that they are heavily armed, some are actual veterans of the first Bundy standoff, and what they are doing is highly illegal. All these things add significant weight to their words when they say they are ready to die for their cause.

PS: Just because we don't agree on something doesn't mean that I am using different reasoning procedures here than I have in the past where we've shared agreement.
edit on 12-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)







 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join