Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields

judge nepolitano said that the blm should have been arrested for stealing the cattle. He said that the land use rights should have been decided in a non federal court...and that the best the blm should have been able to do is put a lien on the cattle and then the issue would have gone to an independant court.

IMHO stealing and threatening murder with a loded gun are felonies i think

the comment about puting women up front:
if the feds had fired on volunteer women there to stop the catle rustling land thieves so some politicians could get rich
i'd say: time to move out of the ukraine

the feds own 85 percent of the land in Nevada
what are they doing with it...?
saving it for the people?
no
just the fraking asshats

reply to post by beezzer


Then wtf Is your problem then?

I get you're against the governments heavy handed tactics. So am I.
I get you're ok with women being there. So am I.
I don't get that you're ok that women were to be singled out and put out the front.

You don't see any problem with that? At all? None whatsoever?

What other thing is there to call it, other than cowardly?

Besides a ridiculously high stakes bluff?

reply to post by OpinionatedB

What the # is wrong with people!

Absolutely Opinionated - this is where we are now

Everyone is so polarized here now that they've stopped thinking. It's all about stymieing or actually annihilating your opponent - thinking has gone out the window

There used to be a time when people could respectfully disagree. Now we exaggerate and repeat our exaggerations to the point where the truth doesn't matter anymore. Righteous indignation begins to feel like permission to do the most outrageous things

Time for ordinary citizens to step up and call BS when we see it - even when we don't agree on everything

AlphaHawk
reply to post by beezzer

 

Then wtf Is your problem then?

I get you're against the governments heavy handed tactics. So am I.
I get you're ok with women being there. So am I.
I don't get that you're ok that women were to be singled out and put out the front.

You don't see any problem with that? At all? None whatsoever?

What other thing is there to call it, other than cowardly?

Besides a ridiculously high stakes bluff?

Last post, I swear, but one last question; if the government did something unforgivable, 10x worse, like sending in the military, labeling militia everywhere are terrorists not to be trusted and beginning an all-out assault against militias everywhere in essence escalating the conflict to where "suspect terrorists" are being assaulted, would you not stand against them? Even after what has occurred? I think it is fairly obvious they'll try to justify it with "all militia are terrorist organizations" and putting them on a "watch-list", effectively ending the last line of defense we the people have. I don't agree with this man, but I will stand by the people defending us from government invasion tactics. He isn't the spokesperson for the whole movement, come on.

The big one's coming.
And there's little we can do to stop it
if we're fighting one another
like they so zealously
want us to be.

reply to post by Davian


I would stand against it, if I felt strongly about it.

And if my wife felt the same, with as much resolve, she would be right next to me. Not in front.

This is really my only issue here. The separation they proposed.

reply to post by nenothtu

Besides - someone HAS to be left to serve the coffee for the men who are playing cards and sitting this one out while the boys hide behind momma's aprons. You don't think that coffee is gonna make itself, do you?

:-)

Does this require a 2nd line?

Here: You two need your own show

HomerinNC
Funny how the Fox haters use a Fox News source to back up a claim....

Had you been paying attention to the thread people were complaining that it was a liberal news source that put this out so I posted right wing sources that they always use. And even after a right wing sources were linked they still cry about the liberal source.

reply to post by Danbones

judge nepolitano said that the blm should have been arrested for stealing the cattle. He said that the land use rights should have been decided in a non federal court...and that the best the blm should have been able to do is put a lien on the cattle and then the issue would have gone to an independant court.

Judge Napolitano is an idiot that should do a little research before talking about something he knows nothing about. The land is in the BLM's control there is no question about that and Bundy could have used the land had he paid the grazing fees which he refused to do. Bundy had two years to move his cattle off the BLM's land he refused to do that so the cattle were confiscated which happens when you leave something on someone else's property. When Bundy called the local Sheriff in 2012 to report that the BLM was rustling his cattle he was told it's federal land.

reply to post by buster2010

I am not saying he is correct in this case, but I am not sure that I agree with this:

Judge Napolitano is an idiot

Napolitano was born in Newark, New Jersey. He is a graduate of Princeton University (he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton[1]) and Notre Dame Law School. Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995, becoming the state's youngest then-sitting Superior Court judge. He also served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years. Napolitano resigned his judgeship in 1995 for private practice but later pursued a writing and television career.

Source: Wikipedia
I doubt that Princeton graduates many idiots.

reply to post by Android616


I'm not sure how anyone could possibly edit out anything that would make this guy's statement seem reasonable in any way, much less anything other than absolutely "crazy."

There is no explaining away a statement like that. The guy flat out stated that they had "been strategizing" to use women as human shields, which IMO is about the most cowardly act conceivable. So cowardly in fact, that according to Wikipedia, it has been banned by all nations who are parties to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Using this technique is illegal by nations that are parties to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

Here's a few examples, (from the same Wiki article) of some other great patriots who have utilized this technique in the past;

Wehrmacht and later SS forces extensively used Polish civilians as human shields during Warsaw Uprising when attacking the insurgents' positions.[3][4]

At the Wola massacre in Poland on 7 August 1944, the Nazis forced civilian women onto the armored vehicles as human shields to enhance their effectiveness. In Belgium in May 1940, at least 86 civilians were killed by the German Wehrmacht known as the Vinkt Massacre, when the Germans took 140 civilians and used them as shields to cross a bridge while under fire.

During the Battle of Okinawa, Japanese soldiers often used civilians as human shields against American troops.

One of the most famous uses of human shields occurred in Iraq in 1990, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that precipitated the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Saddam Hussein's government detained hundreds of citizens of Western countries who were in Iraq for use as human shields in an attempt to deter nations from participating in military operations against the country.

During the Second Intifada (2000–2005) Palestinian gunmen used civilians and children as human shield, by surrounding themselves with children while shooting on IDF forces.

Somehow I knew it wouldn't take long for these so called "Patriots" to show their true colors. In this particular case, it's now abundantly apparent that "true colors" actually translates to "truly cowards!" I always knew that these people were driven by fear but I had no idea that they would stoop to hiding behind their women. Wow!

I seem to remember a lone, defenseless Chinaman, who singlehandedly displayed more bravery than this group of heavily armed "Patriots."



To Android616, F&S for the OP!

buster2010
reply to post by Danbones

 

judge nepolitano said that the blm should have been arrested for stealing the cattle. He said that the land use rights should have been decided in a non federal court...and that the best the blm should have been able to do is put a lien on the cattle and then the issue would have gone to an independant court.

Judge Napolitano is an idiot that should do a little research before talking about something he knows nothing about. The land is in the BLM's control there is no question about that and Bundy could have used the land had he paid the grazing fees which he refused to do. Bundy had two years to move his cattle off the BLM's land he refused to do that so the cattle were confiscated which happens when you leave something on someone else's property. When Bundy called the local Sheriff in 2012 to report that the BLM was rustling his cattle he was told it's federal land.

please, you have something to back up your "idiot" claim....?
and the blm's?

obviously rhetoric won't cut it

i would like see something that verifies the blms legal right to seize the cattle or to threaten murder for those standing in the way of that seizure...i don't see any kind of legal doc being waved around by the freds...

judging from your vehemence, I'm sure you have something there on your hard drive that will verify this, and you just forgot to post it

Android you don't know much about women if you think they wouldn't be out front on their own. Women are patriots too and when their blood is up watch the F out they are fearless when they go.

I am noticing a trend of recent posts and threads on ATS to do with boundaries and or breaking them and this thread fits that mold!

This is clearly an issue where traditional boundaries are being broken and I would want to watch out for the magical backlash that comes with the unbinding of such sacred held beliefs and taboo's!

AlphaHawk
reply to post by beezzer

 

Then wtf Is your problem then?

I get you're against the governments heavy handed tactics. So am I.
I get you're ok with women being there. So am I.
I don't get that you're ok that women were to be singled out and put out the front.

The women are just as passionate as the men about this and REFUSE to move back, because if they did the gov would wade in with all guns blazing. So why the hell should they stand back knowing it would be the end of their fight?

I don't see it that the men are cowards, I see BRAVE women happy to do their bit for what they believe in. I see men and women working together and prepared to do what they gotta do to win. If they had to use 'dirty' tactics to win, then so be it. And it worked. There was never any point going into this fight to play gentlemen's rules, that would get them nowhere. The US gov is expert at 'dirty' tactics, but starts crying to the media as soon as the same tactics are used against it.

You don't see any problem with that? At all? None whatsoever?

What other thing is there to call it, other than cowardly?

Besides a ridiculously high stakes bluff?

There was never much chance that it would escalate once the women stepped forward IMO (the world was watching), can you imagine the global uproar if gov had shot them? It was the 5th Ace up the Militia sleeve and they had no choice but to play it.

'All's fair in love and war' and all that.

For the fox doubters, here's the sheriff talking to Ben Swann.

4:45 is when they discuss the women on the front line comments..



Some choice quotes:

"To show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot."

I would have put my wife and daughters there and I would be screaming bloody murder to watch them die"

I'm not afraid to die here, but the best ploy would be to have women at the front"

He rattles on how they would shoot if told to, like they did Vicky Weaver, but also says he doesn't think they'll shoot.

These people are ruthless? How about him saying he'd put his daughters on the front line.

DEFEND THAT

seeker1963
reply to post by Android616

 

Sounds like another Progressive hack piece! I watched the livestream most of the day and saw many other video's and quite frankly the Daily Koz is pathetic for evening trying to be taken seriously with these lies!

Quite.

Insulting how little the Government thinks of the American peoples IQ frankly.

Shouldn't this steaming pile have been dumped into the hoax bin / political trolling bin by now?

It has probably been mentioned, but my guess is most militia have been infiltrated by the government.

carry on

mom and wife here. and if you think for 5 seconds that moms and wives wouldn't be the first ones out the door to protect their families, you are gravely mistaken. it's a motherly and wifely instinct. cowards you say?
i would not care what you called them provided you didn't shoot them dead or otherwise abuse them. you understand motherly instincts, do you not? no, i do not want to be shot, but no i would not be happy that my own government has lost it's flippin' mind.

MysterX

Quite.

Insulting how little the Government thinks of the American peoples IQ frankly.

Shouldn't this steaming pile have been dumped into the hoax bin / political trolling bin by now?

Hoax?

He's clarified his position while talking to Ben Swann.

He even would put his daughters on the front line.

Would you?

reply to post by AlphaHawk


alpha hawk

shut up and go sit in the corner. this isn't yours (or my) business, nor is it the business of any who are not the actual family members of the people being threatened.