Bundy Militia Used Women As Human Shields

The sheriff put forward the proposition and is the brains behind it.

No, he did not. He was not even present. Quit making sh-t up. You're starting to sound like that TritonTaranis guy.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by undo

 

You want me to shut up, I'm beating a dead horse..

How would you feel if I pissed all over something your passionate about?

you already did and i told you how i felt about it. i'm a woman. you threaten my family, you bet i'm gonna try to defend them. doh. what kinda wacked out place are you coming from that you think women wouldn't defend their families? i'm not some wilting flower, afraid of her own shadow. i don't own a gun but son of a turkey brain, i would not let you kill my husband or children without defending them.

it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Davian

Besides - someone HAS to be left to sere 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?

I can't even begin to describe the hypocrisy propelling itself at fifty zillion to the cuol of googolplex from yourself right now...

Hypocrisy? Isn't that some sort of inconsistency in position? How am I being inconsistent? You'd rather your wife be put up before a BLM firing squad?

I think perhaps the word your are floundering for is "hyperbole", rather than "hypocrisy".

nenothtu

Davian

Besides - someone HAS to be left to sere 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?

I can't even begin to describe the hypocrisy propelling itself at fifty zillion to the cuol of googolplex from yourself right now...

Hypocrisy? Isn't that some sort of inconsistency in position? How am I being inconsistent? You'd rather your wife be put up before a BLM firing squad?

I think perhaps the word your are floundering for is "hyperbole", rather than "hypocrisy".

You said you'd knock your wife out. No man would ever hit a woman, and if I ever saw you do it I'd knock YOU out, and recommend your girl find a better man who won't treat her like a subhuman dog.

reply to post by nenothtu


maybe you can answer this for me, since no one else appears to be able to:

the deeper message of the man's suggestion of using women as human shields, is the obvious political debate that would spawn, the discussion board debates that would arise as a result, and the slow but sure brain washing of millions of people that if a woman tries to defend her family she is either crazy or being abused by her husband (this mindset is being established now as a result of the man's suggestion in the first place).

this reminds me of union factories. women would go picket if women worked there. my mom stood in front of a tractor to try to keep it from crossing the picket line. she was 4 foot 11 inches tall and wore a size 4 shoe. i didn't see any libs getting bent out of shape that my dad wasn't there to stand in front of the tractor instead.

so which is it buddy? either be consistent or go sit in the corner with alpha hawk.

reply to post by Davian


His words:

"It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use"

His idea.

You can keep trying to make me out to be a liar and the bad guy, by making up your own lies, but I'm not going to let you get away with it.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


i don't think your point is applicable to the situation. the entire narrative is not:

1. that men would allow their women folk to defend them. good grief, this is just flat out irrelevant.
2. that the so called leader of the resitance movement would suggest it, is evidence that militias are all spouse abusing wussies.
3. that women who would do such a thing are crazy and should be protected from themselves. you gotta be kidding me.

the actual point of the story is to achieve the goal of making it publically acceptable to 1) shoot at american women and 2) incarcerate any woman who tries to defend her family, as being mentally unstable.

undo
reply to post by AlphaHawk

 

i don't think your point is applicable to the situation. the entire narrative is not:

1. that men would allow their women folk to defend them. good grief, this is just flat out irrelevant.
2. that the so called leader of the resitance movement would suggest it, is evidence that militias are all spouse abusing wussies.
3. that women who would do such a thing are crazy and should be protected from themselves. you gotta be kidding me.

the actual point of the story is to achieve the goal of making it publically acceptable to 1) shoot at american women and 2) incarcerate any woman who tries to defend her family, as being mentally unstable.

Exactly how I interpreted it. My mom would be piiiiiiiissed. I wouldn't take it to personally though he's not from the US.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


I wasn't fobbing you off at all pal!!!

He is not a spokesman for the Women of the Ranch, so it doesn't answer a single question, simple as that really!!!

If you have a link you'd like to share that proves this Sheriff is working against the Government then please do!!!
Edit: just seen it on page 1, I'll read it now!!!
Peace Alpha!!!

reply to post by Davian


oh he's not from the US? are you f'in kidding me?

reply to post by undo


You're on a completely different page, undo.

If it was to make it publicly acceptable, they would have done it, it would also mean the sheriff is in cahoots with the Feds, to ensure he can convince the women to do it. Does that sound likely? No.

In fact it's for the very opposite reason that he proposed it, because it's NOT acceptable he can use it to his advantage.

They either murder women and he'll have himself a whole heap of martyrs, or they back down and look like cowards.

It's clever, I'll give him that, but morally wrong on so many levels.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “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.”

It says "we were actually strategising"...
Not himself alone, nor just him & other men...
So I'll assume Women were in on the discussion as well until we hear differently!!!
Which we won't, because they obviously agreed!!!
So the only suggestion from the other side is that these Women were forced at Gun point to go and stand frontline at Gun point...
That's logical isn't it???
No!!!



Peace Everybody!!!

reply to post by AlphaHawk


i dunno what's up with the sheriff. all i know is the end result is how easy it is to spin it to make people who disagree with the gov at any level, look bad.

listen, i support the american gov. i agree with fair and equitable laws. i don't mind paying taxes because i like being able to help others in need, and i don't agree with violent revolution because i don't want anyone to die, whether i agree with them or not. but what i don't like is psychological warfare, aimed at isolating out groups of people to ostracize them and then use the thusly gained horrible reputation, to murder them carte blanche like stalin did to the ukrainians (although in his case, he just starved them all to death in their own homes). and THAT is all the sheriff's comments are doing -- et. al, making it possible to call anyone who disagrees at any level whatsoever, as lunatics who either need to be shot or put in the funny farm.

i don't support that. i will never support that. even if i disagree with you in every way, i will not support them shooting you or incarcerating you or otherwise abusing you, over a difference of opinion. end.of.the.dang.story.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Please tell me Alpha. What about war, any war, whether it be on foreign soil, or cattle grazing land in the U.S., is not morally wrong.

It's wrong, plain and simple. Yet at times, it takes people making a stand, to let oppressive over reach by their duly elected officials know.

Enough is enough!

So, a cattle ranch in the middle of a desert is where so many patriots chose to take a stand and draw a line in the sand.

Men...and Women, made a conscious choice to stand arm and arm to say loud and clear. Enough is enough.

I'm proud of them all. If I had lived closer, I may have been one of those Women standing with them.

Des

reply to post by Destinyone


Let's be honest whether we agree or not...
It's a crap strategy!!!

David Koresh did the same thing (apparently)...
That didn't end too well!!!

& the Government shot whoever they wanted after burning others to death!!!
Including children...


While I commend the Women who decided to stand...
They should look at the historical evidence of such a tactic!!!


Peace Everybody!!!

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


So..you are advising me...as a Woman. To run and hide and shake in my little boots, based on horribly bad decisions by my government in the past?

I don't think so... This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes, from the writings of W.H. Murray...

"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way. I learned a deep respect for one of Goethe's couplets: Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it!"


To live with only the fear of past actions to guide one...is not to live.

Des

CharlieSpeirs

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “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.”

It says "we were actually strategising"...
Not himself alone, nor just him & other men...
So I'll assume Women were in on the discussion as well until we hear differently!!!
Which we won't, because they obviously agreed!!!
So the only suggestion from the other side is that these Women were forced at Gun point to go and stand frontline at Gun point...
That's logical isn't it???
No!!!



Peace Everybody!!!

I think this pretty much seals the deal, real-peels!

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


man you're not kidding. i read the coroner's report on that. the women and children were huddled in the ammunition room. there was a big hole in the roof from where the bomb dropped in and lit all that ammunition up like fireworks. those women and children were melted into each other. you couldn't tell where one ended and the other started. it was horrific. that is not acceptable treatment of sentient life.

That Voice Is Social Imbalance...


Till The ATF Had Them Blown Up, Out In Waco...


For The Freedom Fighters Killed By The Feds...



I hope none of these become relevant...
But if it escalates...
This will sadly be the case!!!



Pray for all of them... because bloodshed will affect both sides...
& we shouldn't be discriminating either!!!

Peace Everybody!!!

reply to post by Destinyone


Make your stand, I have no problem with that.

But to be clear, you'd be happy if you got asked to be among all the other women to be on the front line? To be a martyr for this guys illegal cattle?

And just the women, your husband and all the other 'men' are behind you, waiting for you to die before firing back, you'd rather that than standing next to him, fighting together?