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.
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.
I don't want violence. I want law enforcement.
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."
originally posted by: AlienSupernova
Like they did in Waco or Ruby ridge?
Cant you see what you are promoting would be a blood bath
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."
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.
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: 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.
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
originally posted by: AlienSupernova
It seems to me your viewpoint on this is a bit backwards.
Being willing to die for your cause is violent rhetoric. It means you are willing to shoot back if necessary. Which is violence.
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).
originally posted by: AlienSupernova
I feel this is intellectual dishonest of you , Krazysh0t,
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
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