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.

 

FBI Siege Happening Live On Phonecall

page: 39
97
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: diggindirt

Did any of the occupiers make any actual spoken threats at all? I know Finicum didn't...any of the other leaders, though? Anyone? What about mustache dude? He make any threats? Ritzheimer? Anyone else?


Well, if they did nobody has posted them in answer to my pleas. I have begged, beseeched, implored and challenged all who are making false claims of threats made to post them. Have you seen any evidence of their attempts to provide the facts to back up their claims of threats?
I freely admit that I have not had time to watch every video available that pertains to this situation so there might be one out there but until someone posts it and proves me wrong I am steadfast in my contention that by definition this action meets the definition of civil disobedience.

No, haven't seen much, if any, evidence presented by the opposition arguments. Mostly just rhetoric.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Gryphon66



Laws dont make People behave better. Laws often do the opposit. Laws dont have feelings...only People have feelings.


A government would be good for the People if the government acted on the issue from the People. Moste governments act on what the government think is best for the people not the other way around. This is where the government madate comes in. Do to the mandate the government thinks it can make decision without the Peoples concent. And some how the People agree With this. That bogles me.



I mean as little disrespect here as possible ... but your statements are without any rational basis. Utterly unproven and likely unprovable. You're advancing ... what appears to me to be nonsense about "laws don't have feelings." Yeah, neither do chainsaws, imagination or the solar system.

Our government is based on the will of the People. Since we're talking about "species" here ... when you and others refer to "government" you're referring to a set of concepts. Those same People that you're talking about are what makes up "the Government" at any given time.

... and the rest of your patter is simply unintelligible to me. You seem, with all respect, to be saying nothing.

There are problems and issues with Government, god knows. However, the entire Government, at all levels, Federal, State and local are not corrupt tyrants out to crush you under their boot.

The fantasy-land that some live in boggles the mind ...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Oh come off it. You both do the same thing, ask for evidence/deny evidence presented/deny that evidence has been presented/repeat.

The threat, the crime, the terrorism, was captured on video, audio, was documented in virtually every media that we currently have that an armed group of men and women broke into a Federal facility when it was closed, prevented the restoration of normal operation by threat of arms, established their own operations, kept Federal employees from their duties, stated repeatedly that they intended to hold the facility for years, and would then, return it to the people of Harney county, stated repeatedly that they would "defend" against anyone who tried to restore normal operations or force them to leave, again by force of arms if necessary.

Now, you can ask for "videos" of all this, dispute that we all saw this, complain that the "mainstream media" are all involved in a cohesive and comprehensive conspiracy to provide false information, etc. etc. etc.

But here are the facts, summed and totaled once again. Let the denials begin.
edit on 12-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hehe. I knew I could count on you to slap the appropriate law on the table.

Even in the U.S. Code definition intent is key.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hehe. I knew I could count on you to slap the appropriate law on the table.

Even in the U.S. Code definition intent is key.


Nope. The guilty act + the guilty mind. Actually, the term generally used means knowledge AND intent of wrong doing.

By your logic, if my "intent" is not to kill a person by shooting them in the face, when I am compos mentis, that is the sole determinant of my guilt?

Are claiming that the Bundy Gang didn't understand what they were doing, or weren't in their right minds?

(Actually, I'd probably be willing to accede to the latter for some of them.)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: spy66

Are you seriously trying to advance the notion that people "often" break the law simply because somebody made a law against"it?" Seriously?


People and the government break the Law for personal reasons. Nothing else.

Breaking the Law is a personal Choice.


That's not what you said. You said "laws don't make people behave. Laws often do the opposite."

But now you've changed it to "people break laws for personal reasons."

Two utterly and completely different theories.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Americans arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

From your link to the U.S. Code definition:

appear to be intended—


U.S. Code

Aside from that I would never claim, as you asked, they didn't understand what they were doing.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

Yep. ... and it also says ...



(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or


Both ACTIONS that we have on video and audio multiple times ...

ACTION + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE
edit on 12-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Shamrock6


Americans arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.

"
Judging by your comments on this thread you're not the "sharpest"
edit on 12-2-2016 by greydaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: greydaze

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Shamrock6


Americans arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.

"
Judging by your comments on this thread you're not the "sharpest"


I understand


This topic is dead.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: diggindirt

Did any of the occupiers make any actual spoken threats at all? I know Finicum didn't...any of the other leaders, though? Anyone? What about mustache dude? He make any threats? Ritzheimer? Anyone else?


Well, if they did nobody has posted them in answer to my pleas. I have begged, beseeched, implored and challenged all who are making false claims of threats made to post them. Have you seen any evidence of their attempts to provide the facts to back up their claims of threats?


Took me fifteen seconds to find this:


Near the refuge, a sign says “FBI Go Home” and roadblocks seal off 4 remaining occupiers — David Fry, Jeff Banta and married couple Sandy and Sean Anderson. They claim the FBI will let all but Sean Anderson go, and he believes it’s because of an online outburst:

“Don’t be afraid of those roadblocks, drive up there and shoot them. They are dishonorable, not following their oath.


koin.com...


Did you watch the video that you linked to?
Ammon Bundy, the leader of the protest, at the 1:00 mark is featured saying, "Please stand down, this was never meant to be an armed standoff...." "Go home to your families.." Do you think he's speaking in some secret code that only protesters understand that actually means "pick up your guns and fight!" Or does he mean what he says when he says it is time to move on to the next step in the process--taking this matter through the court system---even though they believe the court system is stacked against them.
And if you think their contention that the court system is stacked against them you might want to listen to this interview by a very well-respected trial lawyer, Gerry Spence.
www.youtube.com...


Your blurb from the printed story contains an accusation that one of the remaining four people on the refuge, people who were not part of the leadership prior to being stranded there, was freaking out---much like they freaked out during the livestream. I heard those freak-outs---I can't imagine how I might have reacted to such extended pressure and tensions so I'm not about to stand in judgement of people when I've never walked in their shoes. Perhaps you have that sort of experience and can guarantee how you would react and what you would say.
Did they sound like a bunch of nutcases when the livestream began? You bet they did---adrenaline is a very powerful chemical and their bodies were infused with it at that time. If you were listening to the livestream you heard that after they had gotten over that initial fear, gotten food and water into their bodies, they reached a reasonable agreement. And they followed that agreement ultimately. Despite all the hysterics. In the end they stuck to the promise that they would not perpetrate violence.
I've repeatedly asked for video of any member of the leadership, Citizens for Constitutional government, Idaho 3%, Oathkeepers or any other group attempting to instigate anything other than a peaceful occupation. To post a video of them saying they wanted to land turned over to anyone other than the state of Oregon and Harney County.
What position of leadership did Sean Anderson or David Fry hold in this group?
I've been very clear in my request---members of leadership.
You know as well as I do that any group will have people in it whose views don't align 100% with the leadership. You also know, if you've ever been involved with a group trying to make changes that there will be disagreements among the people of that group even though they are of a like mind when it comes to the problem being addressed, the disagreements coming about how to address it, methodology, rather than ideology. There's no reason to believe that this group would be any different.


You know, I was waiting for someone to post a video of him asserting that he was part of the leadership. If that is your aim, please provide some evidence that he was indeed part of the leadership. I never saw him taking any leadership role but I will freely admit that I haven't seen every one of the thousands of videos made over the past few weeks so I could be mistaken. I will research further exactly what position he held in that group. It was my impression that he was someone who just showed up from Ohio. Do you have further info?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Sharp enough to notice you making patently false claims and changing your story.

Sharper than some, it would seem.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spy66

Where do you get the idea that our laws do nothing to prevent crime or promote the common peace?

Is it due to the belief that our laws and government are unnecessary somehow? that everyone should just be left to their own good behavior?

Yeah, we can see how well that works ...


We've had a War on Drugs since 1971. Has drug usage, drug-related crime increased or decreased since that time?
Look at the population of our prison system.
How can you say that laws prevent crime or promote peace.
Tell it to the people in Gerry Spence's latest book, Police State. You can read his words right there on Amazon, where the beginning of the book is available.
www.amazon.com...

He's a trial lawyer, been at it a very long time. Knows his business. Represented Randy Weaver and forced the truth out of the feds. That's a man to whom I will listen when he speaks. He's got cred.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Thank you posting that video. I'm listening to it now.
I met one of the guys who spent a month there that summer---his entire vacation. Before the violence.
About ten years later, he came to the site where I was working to volunteer on the dig we were conducting. We worked and lived side by side for two weeks. His heart was still heavy about it.

A really familiar story.

What is it about golf courses? Playgrounds for the rich?
Former residents of Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area had to fight off a golf course and amusement park a few years ago after being promised that commercial development would never be permitted.
It took years and thousands of hours of researching, writing letters, going to meetings....and threatening a take-over like this one. They managed to wrest it from the grasp of the Tennessee Valley Authority and were given only two choices--National Parks or Forest Service. The devil or the deep blue sea.

I'm told that TVA handed off all the plans they'd paid big bucks to have drawn up for the golf course and amusement park to the Forest Service. They're on the shelf waiting for all the former residents to die and their children not to care about a place they never lived. One of the FS people was heard to say, "We put the elk and bison in the golf course area so the soil will be rich with their manure when we are ready to build the golf course."
Thanks again for the post.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Gryphon66

You and I label things differently. Terrorism, without looking in a dictionary old or new, from what I understand, from observing the events of terrorism that have occurred around the world for decades, it is the intent to suddenly kill, maim and destroy as many lives and as much property as possible with the use of violent means. [Gee, that sounds like what is sanctioned as wars. Ahem!] The intent is to cause terror. Once the act is committed it's considered to be a success.

I can see how what happened at the refuge could be considered to be extremism but not terrorism. The intent was different.

The Judicial Dept.'s attempt to blur the lines, as in the article I linked, does not sit well with me.

I don't condone what was done at the refuge. I think a lot of very unwise choices were made which ended up backfiring on everyone involved. I think a tragedy-in-the-making was set in motion the day the refuge was taken over. I think it was done out of desperation and frustration.

I don't belong to any religion, sect, political party, group of like-minds, engage in radicalism, or any of the like so my assessment comes only from my own sense of integrity, morals and contemplation of events.


That post is worth a second look! Well said indeed.

If I may address this:



I can see how what happened at the refuge could be considered to be extremism but not terrorism. The intent was different.


What you must consider here is that extremism isn't against the law. At this point anyway, I don't think there are any laws on the books specifically addressing extremism. However, I must admit that there well may be laws on the books that someone could interpret as applying to extremism. We might find out shortly I suppose.
I'm told by a Supreme Court Justice for the Commonwealth of Kentucky that if a child who has learned to read and does so at a normal pace, began reading the Laws currently in force by the US Federal government, he would die before he got through even half of them if he only read for twelve hours a day. He said that in a speech back in the mid-90s as I recall. I don't think they've repealed many at all since that time and have added another couple of tons to the stack.
His point was that there was no way on God's green earth that any one or any seven people could actually know the law today. He was a liberal in the real sense and believed that the founders meant the bulk of power to rest with the people rather than the government.

Those people were exercising their liberty. To civilly refuse the orders of government. A civilized government would have responded with negotiations. Elected representatives failed their employers miserably. Blood was shed needlessly. LaVoy told those FBIs how to arrest him in the video that is featured as his "death wish" video. His words were to the effect of: Don't point a gun at me. First rule of shooting you learn is don't point a gun at anything you're not going to shoot. I took that to mean, if there's a warrant, walk up to me like man, without a gun drawn. Otherwise I'll assume you're going to shoot me. His assumption proved correct.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: dragonridr

Point well-taken ...


And my overall point, we don't get to "decide" what we think is terrorism or not.

The endless opining we see here is just that.


Holy cow! You can't be serious! You really typed that "we don't get to decide"? We, the people, put in charge of the nation by the founders---don't get to decide? Who does?
Oh, yeah, the munitions makers, the drug companies, the media corporations, the social media corporations, anybody with more money than "We, the people."

Think about it---why don't "We, the people" get to decide what terrorism is?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just look at you with that list of "facts" and nothing in the world to back up what you are saying.
No one has denied that the protesters were armed, were exercising both their first and second amendment rights simultaneously. No law against that.
They did not break into a building, They opened the door with keys.
The facility was not scheduled to be staffed until late February or early March. They had no contact with employees there.
Now you've finally gotten their demands correct. Congratulations. At least you're beginning to come around to believing their words.
But you still can't accept the words of the leadership when they stated that they did not intend any violence toward anyone. Go back and listen. Or better still, consider that they kept that promise. They've shed no blood. They've not pointed weapons at anyone.
David's outbursts? Freedom of speech I believe.
The latest SCOTUS decision I find on utterances involving such a threat would be here:
www.oyez.org...
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Member of KKK had a conviction overturned.



The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.


Actually incite imminent lawless action. Don't think Dave's rantings were taken by normal people as about to rain hell-fire missiles on anyone.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Murder has been illegal for over 6000 years.

Yet, there are still murders.

Ergo, laws against murder are failures and should be forgotten?

Ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

The Founders did not "put us in charge of the nation."

You know, there's stirring metaphor, and then there's just stunning nonsense.

Our Constitution establishes a democratic republic established upon the rule of law. And who established the Constitution?

"We the People."

Not you, not me ... US. (and now I'll use the term that will send you over the edge) Collectively. All of Us working together as a unit. That is where the power of governance arises from. And our Constitution is one of the best, if not THE BEST methods for creating a government on that basis in human history.

You and your heroes the Bundy Gang want to be able to interpret the laws for yourselves, to your own benefit. Not to the benefit of "the People."

The People have established, through our Federal and State Constitutions, a framework of laws and courts to establish and enforce the will of The People.

The People have the power. All of us. Not you and a bunch of Skousenite yahoos and/or Sovereign Citizens.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join