Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields

OpinionatedB
reply to post by beezzer

 

Damn it Beezer look at other country and their uprisings, when the uprisers are no better than the government they are fighting when - just tell me when does that turn out well????

I dont want to trade one police state for another!

Neither do I.

We can all pick our own line in the sand, I suppose.

Yours may be different from theirs.

But I won't criticize them for making a line and standing.

reply to post by tsingtao


Why is it, and I've tried to already explain this, why is it that it's so black and white?

You guys automatically assume, because I've made my opinion clear on the militia using women to gain sympathy and support (that's all it is, it's an attempt to get people to go "omg, look at what the evil government did, they gunned down women!"), that I must side with what the government is doing.

I don't. And I've stated as much on why they chose such a heavy armed response in other threads.

Something Judge Napolitano said. . .

Napolitano said the feds were forced to back down because they had suffered a public relations nightmare, pointing out that Bundy lost his case in a federal court but that the case should have been tried in a state court.

“The federal judiciary should not be deciding what land the federal government owns,” said Napolitano, adding that the feds should have placed a lien against Bundy’s property to collect grazing fees and not conducted a raid backed up by armed agents to seize his private property.

“The government’s option is to take the amount of money he owes them and docket it, that is file the lien on his property….the federal government could have done that, instead they wanted this show of force,” said Napolitano, adding, “They swooped in….with assault rifles aimed and ready and stole this guy’s property, they stole his cattle, they didn’t have the right to do that, that’s theft and they should have been arrested by state officials”.

Napolitano also chastised the BLM’s ludicrous creation of a ‘First Amendment Area’ outside of which free speech was banned. Protesters completely ignored the zone and it was quickly torn down by BLM officials after being widely derided in the media.

“They established something utterly repellant in America, a First Amendment Zone….the square was three miles away from where these events were going – this is the federal government emasculating the First Amendment rights of the protesters,” said the judge.

Napolitano characterized the resistance shown by Bundy supporters as a clear example of how Americans feel, “enough is enough with the federal government, we’re drawing a line in the sand right here – and it drew people from all around the country who basically said ‘quit your heavy handed theft of property and act like you’re a normal litigant and not God almighty’.”

www.infowars.com...

I am in complete agreement here, with the Judge.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezer, I am sure this is not what they mean when they say "Women and children first"

OpinionatedB
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beezer, I am sure this is not what they mean when they say "Women and children first"

LOL

I imagine not.

But if the women were forced to stand out in front, under protest, don't you think we would have heard about it?

I have no problem with women standing in the front lines.

Children, I'd have an issue with.

reply to post by beezzer


It's not about them being where they were willingly. It's about the cowardly psychological bull# they were planning on using against Americans.

You only play those games when the leg your standing on is terribly weak...

All of you who keep repeating that the BLM response was heavy handed, just to collect grazing fees are incorrect.
The BLM response was heavy handed and mismanaged, but it wasn't only about fees.

The BLM is mandated by Congress to:

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The BLM’s multiple-use mission, set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, mandates that we manage public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide array of natural, cultural, and historical resources, many of which are found in the BLM's 27 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System.

They have to balance all of these sometimes competing activities--not an easy task. So, the action was about removing the trespass cattle from the land to limit further damage to the ecosystem--not just collecting on a debt.

******

Back on topic. The women involved in the standoff most assuredly stood willingly, whether at the front, middle or back of the lines.
The strategizing if true, to have them in front purposefully to garner sympathy if the situation turned violent, is completely disgusting.

Even if this story were true, so what? Since when has the US gov ever played fair in any fight?

The US government and its agencies want the rest of the world to play by 'rules' whilst it goes around underhandedly doing as it pleases, lying and spying and covertly minding everybody's business but its own.

So if it's true, good on them I say, and what a clever checkmate tactic against a gov that would mow the lot of them down in a heartbeat, but can't because the world is watching.

Edit: TPTB will probably let the dust settle a bit then start 'suiciding' a few of them. But they really wouldn't do such a thing, would they?

reply to post by OpinionatedB



You see when good 'ole patriots do it against the tyrannical US government, it is an act of heroism - the government will never shoot at us if we get 'our women' to stand among us.

Yet the likes of beezer would be frothing at the mouth if this was 'terrorists' doing it in the middle east against our troops or a government we had installed.

It must be wonderful to always be right and just.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by beezzer

 

It's not about them being where they were willingly. It's about the cowardly psychological bull# they were planning on using against Americans.

You only play those games when the leg your standing on is terribly weak...

And when you're surrounded by BLM agents, snipers staring down at you, tazers being used, no-fly zones enacted, silencing rights, you aren't dealing from a very strong position to begin with.

Cowardly psychological bs is what I would describe the BLM using, in my most humble. . . .

Well.

I've just turned my back on militias and walked away.

I'll be sitting over with the men. We'll be playing cards, smoking cigars, and spitting. What we WON'T be doing is sacrificing the very people we claim to be fighting for as pawns and human shields to save our own precious asses.

We won't be hiding behind our women' skirts.

And we won't watch those "brave", "stalwart" pansy militia playboys do it, either.

So we'll have our backs turned to you.

And we'll be playing cards while you throw your everything to the wind.

Y'all have at it. We don't care who wins now, whether militias or government.

They're both a couple of sets of wussies.

We'll be around when the dust settles. Someone will have to take over your women and children... if any of them survive your "tender mercies".

SO - how does THAT sound for a former militia supporter? You're only right until you're wrong. Now they're wrong.

They just lost the high ground, before any shots were even fired.

They won't even be able to put on petticoats and makeup to slink and sneak off the battlefield. They just made THOSE things targets, too.

Effin' pansy cowards. It shames me to think this is what they've come to, and that I ever had any support for them. It makes ME wrong too, for ever having done so.

They ALL volunteered to stand at the front did they?

Um...yeah? What in the f--k is it that is making it so difficult for you to be able to consider this? Why would he make the very people he is fighting to protect die? Where is the logic, where is the sanity in your thinking? You're operating from a place of complete and total emotion, whereas it is only part of where my thinking is. Bring yourself back to logic and sanity a bit, please. And get off the mainstream media nipple for god's sake.

reply to post by nenothtu


You seem to be under the impression that the women were forced to do this.

It was a tactic.

This isn't about fighting for women. It's about fighting a tyrannical government.

I'm as misogynistic as the next guy.

But I'm not going to allow the focus to shift from women to what the BLM is trying to do.

This whole topic is a diversion (that I sadly participated in) from the truth of the matter.

The government (through the BLM) is using outlandish heavy-handed approaches to enforce it's rule.

I don't care about the gender. Nor should anyone else.

(golly, thought we were all equal anyway!)

Wait, wait, wait.

Lets say everything is true. Women were used as human shields. Okay.

So that makes the Bundy folk the monsters? Who has their guns pointed at the women?

reply to post by Davian


There is a very clear difference between standing at the front and standing side by side.

They made a point to have women at the front, not men and women and men at the front. Women. By themselves.

To garner sympathy if the gov opened fire.

Where were the men volunteering to stand at the front???

If I was there with my wife, my sister, my aunt, my mother, my friend and she chose to stand at the front, I'd be there beside her, not cowering behind her saying "go get them dear, I'll wait here and let you girls be martyrs for us on international tv.

It's all for one and one for all mate, not women at the front, men at the back.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by Davian

 

There is a very clear difference between standing at the front and standing side by side.

They made a point to have women at the front, not men and women and men at the front. Women. By themselves.

To garner sympathy if the gov opened fire.

Where were the men volunteering to stand at the front???

If I was there with my wife, my sister, my aunt, my mother, my friend and she chose to stand at the front, I'd be there beside her, not cowering behind her saying "go get them dear, I'll wait here and let you girls be martyrs for us on international tv.

It's all for one and one for all mate, not women at the front, men at the back.

This is what I mean about a diversionary tactic.

We're talking about the gender of the people in front.

Not WHY they are there in the first place!!!!!

This all reminds me of Blazing Saddles.
You have Bundy and the protestors as the citizens of Rock Ridge and Reid and Obama represent Hedley Lamar and Governor Petomane and Eric Holder as Taggart.
Its all so twisted and ridiculous and proof how quickly our country is collapsing and how stupid is the new normal in Washington DC. Maybe we will all be better off limiting the federal governments involvement and stripping it of much of its power.

beezzer
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You seem to be under the impression that the women were forced to do this.

It was a tactic.

Doesn't matter. That's who they're supposed to be fighting FOR, who they're supposed to be making the world a better place for. They let their women get killed off, willingly or not, what the hell was it all FOR to begin with?

This isn't about fighting for women. It's about fighting a tyrannical government.

For what purpose? Whose to be left to enjoy their brave new world free of tyrannical government? Whose going to raise the kids if they allow the women to get killed off? Or are the kids next in the battle lines? I guess that point is really moot if they get all the baby-makers killed off.

I'm as misogynistic as the next guy.

But I'm not going to allow the focus to shift from women to what the BLM is trying to do.

This whole topic is a diversion (that I sadly participated in) from the truth of the matter.

The government (through the BLM) is using outlandish heavy-handed approaches to enforce it's rule.

I don't care about the gender. Nor should anyone else.

(golly, thought we were all equal anyway!)

I'm not a women's libber kind of guy. If I used my wife as a shield, I'd never be able to look her in the eye again. She's not cannon fodder, she's the reason I'D be cannon fodder if need be.

No way in hell would I exploit her death for the evening news, much less encourage or allow it.

reply to post by beezzer


And that tactic sickens me.

It doesn't bother me if a woman wants to take up arms and stand at the front, that's not my issue, and if that's what you thought was my issue, I apologise, maybe I wasn't clear enough?

My issue is the tactic of putting women there alone, even willingly, is cowardly and disgusting.

reply to post by Android616


Please where would you come up with this

Listen we are talking Cowboys; TRUE Americans; HARD working strong SOB's

And as a disabled VET; Husband; Father the last thing a real man would do is put a woman between him and the "enemy" whatever or whoever that maybe

so I am calling B.S.