Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields

reply to post by nenothtu


i'm just saying, the evidence is, it's okay to send our women in to protests and strikes where they could get shot, maimed, abused, ran over by tractors or company vehicles, thrown in jail, and a whole list of similar issues, but it's not okay if a woman, risks her life for her husband or son? forcibly, would be a problem, but of her own free will, well that's up to her isn't it?

okay, let's start over. the scenario is that the fictitious event happened, even though it didn't, and their women were used like meat shields, even though they weren't, and risked life and limb protecting their wussy husbands and son, which they didn't and aren't, and this is so we can all learn the lesson that

women should be forcibly restrained from protecting their families, cause they are apparently not in their right minds. and that militia people are all nutso terrorists.

this gets worse by the minute. they are terrorists wussies who do things they didn't do. it's mind boggling that you're even here arguing in defense of a thread that is a pure fiction. might as well be arguing over whether han or greedo shot first.

blupblup
reply to post by undo

 

It was discussed and considered.

According the former sheriff Mack. I have seen no one else make the claim he is making. It was discussed and considered ACCORDING TO HIM. Give me a quote from someone else corroborating the statement that it was discussed and considered. All we have so far is HIS statement. No one else. Witnesses please or it didn't happen.

reply to post by Khaleesi




Well I'm not quoting from the OP.
It appears that other sources don't say that Mack is the militia leader, just a member.

Also as none of us are there then none of us can say what did or didn't happen..... but this guy is part of the militia and has the tactic was considered, said women volunteered and that this tactic was discussed.
I guess unless anyone else comes out and either confirms, denies or whatever... we wont know.

Anyway, this thread is done really.

Cheers

undo

and if i was a woman and they were threatening to shoot my husband, you know i would defend him. and you would do the same, wouldn't you?

Knowing her as I do, I believe she would. With that said, it's an extremely hypothetical question, since her husband Isn't about to lay his life on the line and take a chance at being shot so that some rich rancher can run his cattle on Federal lands for free - not unless he's paying me a crapload of money to take that chance. Therefore the situation won't arise for her. If I'm not running into the gap to save Bundy's cattle, then no one is going to threaten to shoot me for doing so, and I will have successfully NOT put her into the position of having to "defend" me or my bleeding-out carcass by poking her finger into federal gun barrels.

Problem solved, and I didn't even have to spank anyone to solve it!

undo
reply to post by blupblup

 

you're the one that quoted the reference where the sheriff said it was his idea and that it wasn't accepted by the milita guys.
so why are you accusing them ? who's idea was it? the sheriff's. did the militia guys do it? no they didn't. so why are we even acting like this is a real topic? it isn't.

don't lie to me!

that goes double for you nenothtu

edit on 15-4-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

'Scuse me, ma'am?

Where have I lied to you?

I gave my opinion, and there ain't a lie in it anywhere.

I'd tell you the truth a dozen different ways before I'd lie to you.

So don't get yer knickers in a wad.

Khaleesi

blupblup
reply to post by undo

 

It was discussed and considered.

According the former sheriff Mack. I have seen no one else make the claim he is making. It was discussed and considered ACCORDING TO HIM. Give me a quote from someone else corroborating the statement that it was discussed and considered. All we have so far is HIS statement. No one else. Witnesses please or it didn't happen.

i mentioned this in the other thread, if you listen to the ben swann video, he plainly states that he didn't make it to the gate before the stand off when they went to the gate. and that he spoke with a woman lawyer that came down with him, that said she would go out in front and also with other women.

so i have to say that fox cut and edited the interview with him, and only used that sound bite.

first i give you the fox video where he said what is going on at the site of the stand off. notice they were different shots and talking about different things taking place, then at the 1:02 mark they show richard mack saying what he said.

did you notice that there was no question asked before the statement or after. they cut just that sound bite and edited it in the report that the reporter was narrating. fox just like all the rest use creative editing in their reports.

now for the ben swann radio video. start at the 4:46 mark to 6:45. mack tell swann what happened and you hear him say that he never made there before the stand off.

undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

i'm just saying, the evidence is, it's okay to send our women in to protests and strikes where they could get shot, maimed, abused, ran over by tractors or company vehicles, thrown in jail, and a whole list of similar issues, but it's not okay if a woman, risks her life for her husband or son? forcibly, would be a problem, but of her own free will, well that's up to her isn't it?

No, it's not ok to send "our" women in to those situations. Not mine, anyhow. If mine decided "of her own free will" to jump into a mess like that, and knowing what I do about warfare - and more to the point, perhaps, knowing what she DOESN'T about warfare, there would be some serious, SERIOUS discussions around my house. Discussions potentially involving handcuffs as a restraining method. What the law did about that afterward is anyone's guess, but if it went poorly for me, at least she'd still be alive to make it go poorly. That's something. It's hard to find a replacement when you get a good one, so it's nonsensical to just throw her away, or allow her to throw herself away for nothing.

okay, let's start over. the scenario is that the fictitious event happened, even though it didn't, and their women were used like meat shields, even though they weren't, and risked life and limb protecting their wussy husbands and son, which they didn't and aren't, and this is so we can all learn the lesson that

women should be forcibly restrained from protecting their families, cause they are apparently not in their right minds. and that militia people are all nutso terrorists.

They aren't "protecting their families" in this hypothetical, they are protecting some rich rancher's "rights" to run his cattle on the public dime and make bank on the profits. The only thing that would keep me from forcibly restraining my wife in such a situation is if I were already down for the count, and couldn't. If I was, then there really wouldn't be anything left for her to "protect", would there? Hence "protecting" my dead carcass would be a sure sign she's not in her right mind - but I wouldn't be able to do anything about it at that point, would I?

I've trained militiamen. I've helped them set up their perimeters, their OP/LP's, and assisted with their security. The whole nine yards. I'm not a stranger to them. I DID NOT train them to come up with hare-brained schemes like this. If they do, then that is on them, and yes, they just became nutso terrorists in doing so. It shames me that I ever had any association with them at all.

this gets worse by the minute. they are terrorists wussies who do things they didn't do. it's mind boggling that you're even here arguing in defense of a thread that is a pure fiction. might as well be arguing over whether han or greedo shot first.

I don't know what a han or a greedo is, and can't say that I care which shot first in their altercation. it wasn't MY altercation. Coming up with nutso schemes like this, however, whether actuated or not, is a bit more personal for me. It speaks to a mindset that I want no part of... a LOSING mindset.

hounddoghowlie

Khaleesi

blupblup
reply to post by undo

 

It was discussed and considered.

According the former sheriff Mack. I have seen no one else make the claim he is making. It was discussed and considered ACCORDING TO HIM. Give me a quote from someone else corroborating the statement that it was discussed and considered. All we have so far is HIS statement. No one else. Witnesses please or it didn't happen.

i mentioned this in the other thread, if you listen to the ben swann video, he plainly states that he didn't make it to the gate before the stand off when they went to the gate. and that he spoke with a woman lawyer that came down with him, that said she would go out in front and also with other women.

so i have to say that fox cut and edited the interview with him, and only used that sound bite.

first i give you the fox video where he said what is going on at the site of the stand off. notice they were different shots and talking about different things taking place, then at the 3:28 mark they show richard mack saying what he said.

did you notice that there was no question asked before the statement or after. they cut just that sound bite and edited it in the report that the reporter was narrating. fox just like all the rest use creative editing in their reports.

now for the ben swann radio video. start at the 4:46 mark to 6:45. mack tell swann what happened and you hear him say that he never made there before the stand off.

edit on 15-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

I agree that Fox does plenty of creative editing, as does every other 'news' station out there. Thanks for the time stamps to watch for in the videos. Very helpful. There still is no one corroborating his story, that I can see. He states that he spoke with a woman lawyer that offered to go out front, but I have yet to see her or any other person corroborate his statements. This is all based on his statements and no one else's. If someone comes forward and says they were involved in the discussion and it happened the way he described, so be it. As of yet, no one has come forward to make that claim.

neonthtu

and what kind of life do you leave her to if you die?
a life where she's the widow of a nutso terrorist (supposedly), who is accused of using her as a meat shield (when he didn't) and who must now, defend your children and herself WITH ZERO SURVIVAL SKILLS and not even the courage to do so because you scared the crap out of her and she's afraid of her own shadow! they will eat her for lunch, and your little kids too.

but you will die an unsung hero. no doubt.

reply to post by nenothtu


you lie to me everytime you accuse them of using their wives as meat shields when the sheriff was the one who said it and even admitted they refused the idea. so yeah you have lied to me repeatedly. would you stop it already?

“It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff.

^see that quote there? Mack is the Sheriff.

What part of - it was his idea and they turned down the idea - don't you get?
See in order to tell the truth, you actually HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by Davian

 

They ALL volunteered to stand at the front did they?

Were you there? Can you categorically state that every single woman there volunteered to be the first to be gunned down on international television?

Because that's what the plan was:


“If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers,” he said.

This is what you're defending, you're defending a group willing to put women (armed or not) at the front for "sympathy" and you dare speak to me as if I'm the idiot??

It is abundantly clear that you have never organized or participated in an organized protest of any kind. In an earlier post I explained the strategy involved in any protest---use the most efficient methods to get your message across.
Your lack of knowledge is simply astounding...as is your macho attitude...keyboard warrior with zero experience in the field. That's all you are or you would know full well that this is the way the world works---whether you approve or not.
Any protest will have cops around, those cops will always be armed so this is literally no different than any other protest. Attempts to demonize the efforts of these protestors because they use common, everyday, efficient methods just won't fly so just unwad your drawers and get over it.

reply to post by undo


No, I'm no one's hero (except, apparently, where mice are involved), so there will be no songs or epic poetry about little old me. I'm good with that.

She has MAD survival skillz, so no worry on that score.

We have no little kids - they're grown enough to fend for themselves now, and are a formiddable force to be reckoned with, if I may brag just a wee bit.

I can't think of anything I could do that could scare her that wouldn't ALSO scare me, and probably make me pee on myself a little bit.

That leaves her being the widow of a nutso terrorist. If I'm not at Bundy's ranch defending his cattle, then I'm unlikely to be killed there. Scratch the widow part, too.

They'll just have to dig deeper to pin the "nutso terrorist" tag on me. I'm done with militias if this is how they've come to think. No point in training folks to do things they'll never work up the gumption to do, and will only try to foist off on their women anyhow.

Maybe I should train their women on how to flip the bird at guys who come up with these ideas to begin with?

undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

you lie to me everytime you accuse them of using their wives as meat shields when the sheriff was the one who said it and even admitted they refused the idea. so yeah you have lied to me repeatedly. would you stop it already?

No, but thanks for asking.

The idea was floated, and apparently discussed. That's two steps too far.

reply to post by nenothtu


that's the problem with your posts. you keep saying they are thinking like that now but they aren't. they turned down the idea. you are not giving those americans even the smallest benefit of the doubt. in your court, they are already guilty. this is not good. the court of public opinion is a monster that will eat its wounded in a heartbeat. you're better than that. act like it.

reply to post by diggindirt


"Protests"?

You seriously consider that to be "experience in the field"?

Were these militamen linking arms and singing Kumbaya or something?

I won't keep you here. There's probably a National Guardsman somewhere nearby that needs a flower poked into his gun barrel or something.

Yay! Go "experience in the field"! Huzzah!

reply to post by diggindirt


It's abundantly clear that I have no idea about protests because I think putting women on the front line of an armed confrontation for sympathy is wrong?

Ok....

AlphaHawk
reply to post by diggindirt

 

It's abundantly clear that I have no idea about protests because I think putting women on the front line of an armed confrontation for sympathy is wrong?

Ok....

the least you could do is accuse the right person. it was the sheriff who said it and it was the sheriff who said they wouldn't do it, even though he tried to convince them to.

undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

that's the problem with your posts. you keep saying they are thinking like that now but they aren't. they turned down the idea. you are not giving those americans even the smallest benefit of the doubt. in your court, they are already guilty. this is not good. the court of public opinion is a monster that will eat its wounded in a heartbeat. you're better than that. act like it.

"Stupid" is not against the law, so no, they're not "guilty" of anything. Yet.

You're right, though, I'm not giving them any benefit of the doubt. They are defending another man's cattle against the Feds, and doing so for free, apparently. With all that's going on, you'd think they could find something important to get riled up about. Therefore, it STARTS in insanity, and goes downhill from there. Downhill to the point that at least some of them are apparently willing to throw the girls under the bus just to try and make a point and create some martyrs.

Who ELSE does that again? Oh, never mind. It's been done through the ages by various peoples, and the only thing they all have in common is eventual failure of their "cause".

Whether they're "thinking like that now" is immaterial to me. How does an actual "fighting man" EVER come up with an idea like that, much less discuss or entertain the notion?

Answer: there are fewer "fighting men" there than we were led to believe.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by diggindirt

 

It's abundantly clear that I have no idea about protests because I think putting women on the front line of an armed confrontation for sympathy is wrong?

Ok....

Your thinking is not wrong, your perspective is skewed.

Women were there. They could have been shot, it was a deterrent. One man doesn't speak for the entire group. His comments are being used purposefully to demonized the entire militia.

Forget for a moment that women were there and think for a moment about the harsh reality that the federal government was preparing to shoot at its own citizens over something like this. And they very well may have done that if women were not there.

Maybe next time things will be different?