It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Possible 68 Warrants? issued for Those Who Stood at Bundy Ranch, Oregon Refuge and Mines

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:52 PM
a reply to: Blueracer

There's this guy that says it's a good thing they had kids mixed in the crowd, because it "might have been" the only thing that kept them from being "gassed."

There's several pictures readily available of militia "snipers" scoping in from an overpass, with what appear to be unarmed men and women around them but not directly in front of them. I suppose it's possible they were actually aiming at other militia members or Bundy supporters, but that seems a bit antithetical.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:55 PM
a reply to: Blueracer

Fast forward to the 1 min, 32 second mark.

Oops. Sorry Shamrock. I didn't see you already grabbed the video.
edit on 2/13/2016 by Olivine because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: Olivine

Meh, no big deal! Your vid seems more on point than mine.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:11 PM

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: aethertek

Look at Syria, the US government calling terrorists "moderate rebels" openly supporting them, these guys want to overthrow their government and probably kill Assad too if given the chance, not to mention the fact they're actually killing people who aren't on their "side"

Now look at Oregon, a bunch of protesters standing up for what they believe in, they're not trying to overthrow the government or kill anyone and they're made into villains and called terrorists and rounded up like cattle to the slaughter

If you cannot see the backwards logic here then you're a part of the problem

I'm glad you mentioned this - although I'm not totally familiar with these Militia Members or what threats they did or did not make. I honestly think some of them MUST be guilty for overtaking government buildings with weapons locked and loaded - also did they threaten to kill people?

Our government is always going to be hypocritical though, Especially when it comes to our meddling in other countries (at that point it's apples and oranges).

I'm not defending them or saying it's okay, but it is the way it is, has been, and will be for the foreseeable future

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 03:24 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Let me explain as plain as I can.

Your gang showed their true colors. Again.

If their role is to simply wait until they outnumber the criminals 6-8 to one why the need for the military hardware?

Get rid of the military gear and go back to being cops. Wait until the criminals are sleeping in their beds and then go to their homes and make an arrest (in police uniforms while driving police cars).

Everyone want to be a soldier. Until it's time to do soldier ish. (sound familiar?)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:13 PM
a reply to: 200Plus

When have FBI agents ever had uniforms and marked cars? They haven't, to my knowledge. It would be hard for them to "go back to" that.

As for dispensing with the hardware: kind of ignorant to show up to a place where one knows, or reasonably suspects, there are long guns accessible while not having one of your own also accessible. You can thank the North Hollywood shootout for that. Pretending that long guns aren't common at this point in history is just silly and fanciful.

Really, all your "argument" boils down to is you seem to think that since the Feds didn't have to use, or choose to use, their neat toys then by God they clearly never need them. And that's just moving in to rhetoric territory. They're somehow cowards in your eyes for not using all the force available to them, while at the same time not using that force somehow proves they never need it.

Never in my life on ATS have I encountered somebody who complains so long and so loud about force not being used. Well done, good sir. Well done.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in