The Bundy insurrection isn’t an “occupation,” it’s terrorism

When armed anti-government goons took over a federal building this weekend in Oregon it wasn’t simply an “occupation,” as many in the media are now calling it. It was an act of sedition and domestic terror.

The incident began as a “peaceful” protest on behalf of two ranchers convicted of arson. It quickly turned into an armed takeover of a vacant-for-the-holidays federal building by armed men dressed in camo, carrying American flags, and threatening violence. Among those present: several family members of anti-government activist Cliven Bundy.

The local sheriff, Dave Ward, says the men in Oregon are out to overthrow the US government.”These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said in a statement.

Adding to the concerns, one of the “occupiers” recorded a goodbye video to his family that at least one YouTube commenter found reminiscent of an Islamist suicide bomber:

Say what you will about Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, but neither side comes armed, nor do they tape messages suggesting they’re planning on imminent carnage. (If they did, I’d be the first to call for their heads.)

It’s one thing to have a beef with the government. And it’s not unusual for political activists to “occupy” government land, whether via a sit-in, or something more drastic like Occupy Wall Street taking over public parks or Millennial regressives taking over campus quads. It’s quite another matter all together, however, when you come to the party armed, and call for armed backup. And it’s even worse when the underlying premise of your protest is that the US government is illegitimate and needs to be overthrown.

Ironically, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton caused a brouhaha by claiming a few weeks ago that Donald Trump’s extremist rhetoric was fueling ISIS recruitment. ISIS responded to Trump’s denials by issuing a recruiting video featuring Donald Trump. What people aren’t talking about nearly enough is how the Republican party’s, and their allies’, anti-government rhetoric continues to fuel violence by the GOP’s armed base at home.

Perhaps it’s time we did

InsideOutsider is a longtime Democrat who has worked for a variety of progressive organizations and causes. He lives in Washington, DC.

Share This Post

105 Responses to “The Bundy insurrection isn’t an “occupation,” it’s terrorism”

  1. budgienation says:

    The fact that you even had to ask such a question is yet another reason the aliens (from space, not South America) won’t visit.

  2. budgienation says:

    Not only that but the moon landings were ‘Hollywood Fakes’, the earth is flat, and Elvis is alive in Madison Wisconsin where he co-owns a Burger King franchise with Emelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa and Bigfoot. Gov. Scott Walker eats there all the time. He likes the “Double Whopper” and onion rings! I’ve got photos that prove it!

  3. Cyrus Sheets says:

    Or a southerner who is rather adept at pissing off wimps like you? I knew easily enough that challenging your masculinity would turn you into a whiny little bitchy girl in a split second..and look!! It worked like a charm!!

    I knew punkin would really dig at you glad that it did.

    So punkin, would you like to discuss the legal issues the armed gentlemen in Oregon are facing…or are you going to continue to add sand to your lady parts?

  4. RectusDominus says:

    Oh I can tell you’re a libshit by the faggy way you talk. The only type of person who would call someone “punkin” & talk about getting panties in a twist is a bitch trying to appear strong

  5. Cyrus Sheets says:

    Look at you get all defensive. Who said I’m liberal or conservative, little lady? Did you get your panties in a twist because someone pointed out your ideological hero’s are essentially terrorists?

    Like it or not, and you clearly don’t, these are certifiable criminals. Felons. They will lose the right to vote, they will lose their welfare, and they will lose their guns.

    Oh but hey, you go on and support terrorists and provable criminals punkin..the good LAW ABIDING folk will be cheering when the Bundy family and their ilk are in prison for their crimes.

  6. RectusDominus says:

    I love watching liberals make the same arguments that conservatives make in support of cops shooting a violent thug. Though it is funny that they only make the argument against non-violent white men, and they argue the exact opposite when it comes to poor oppressed minorities going on a little rampage. I wonder if the cognitive dissonance even bothers them.

  7. Cyrus Sheets says:

    Use of a firearm in commission of a crime is a felony all by its lonesome. Having reasonable suspicion a felony has been committed (the suspects are known to be armed inside a federal building when the building is closed to the public), the police are legally bound to uphold the law and arrest the suspect.

    Stating that you will kill those who would uphold the law, is also a crime all on its own.
    Destroying federal property (the 80ft. of fence they cut down, the makeshift road they put up) is a crime.
    Accessing government data is a crime.

    These people are provable criminals and felons. The fact that you bend over to support them, makes you out to look like a criminal too.

  8. RectusDominus says:

    No, they’re saying that if the government tries to use force on them, they will respond in kind. That’s more like a declaration of the intent to defend themselves than a “threat of violence”.

    It’s funny seeing liberals take the side of the federal government. lol

  9. David says:

    They certainly wouldn’t let them into town to drink at the taverns and resupply.

  10. David says:

    They threatened lethal force on law enforcement if they should try to remove them from our (not just theirs, all of ours) federal lands, which they are breaking many laws by occupying, including breaking and entry on the buildings, which if you or I did, unarmed, without a militia to back us up, would be arrested for.

    “The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,” Ammon Bundy told Natalie Morales on TODAY
    [Federal Law Enforcement took an oath to uphold the law, these guys are clearly saying that if they keep that oath, they will respond with lethal violence]

    On Sean Hannity, Bundy said. “And if they come, we’ll deal with them tonight. That’s what we’ve got to do, we’ll just deal with you. Whether you got guts enough to do it, come on.” [here he’s even egging them on]

    Think about what you’re typing. If they were just armed this would be very different. But they aren’t just armed. They’re armed, breaking the law, and threatening lethal force on those who have sworn an oath to up hold that law, all in an effort to force a very unpopular political change without using our constitutional process. If it was any other group anywhere else in the world there would be no question.

  11. RectusDominus says:

    Since when is “being armed” the same thing as “threatening violence”?

  12. RectusDominus says:

    Don’t be fooled. Man-made “global warming” is a myth, just like the gender “pay-gap”. They are both blatantly false interpretations of data being used to push an agenda.

  13. David says:

    Read the definition of terrorism. If you want to change the meaning in the english language you have a lot of work ahead of you.

    “the use of violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political aims”

    They are armed and occupying our Federal property, threatening to kill law enforcement employees for doing their job (upholding the law). While the vast majority of voters in this country support the Public Lands Policies created by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, these relatively wealthy men (with vast land holdings, brand new trucks, expensive weapons, etc) seem to think that this land should be given to them free of charge so they can make even more profits without paying their dues. They are freeloaders of the worst kind.

    So what we have is the use of intimidation (threat of violence) in order to achieve a political aim. They may not be comparable to ISIS but when they threatened to kill law enforcement for doing the jobs they took an oath to do, in order to force a very unpopular political change outside of the legal system, one that favors them above everyone else, they became terrorists by any way you slice up the definition.

    Good luck changing the meaning of the word.

  14. Possum Kingdom says:

    The politicians, bankers, NGOs, lobbyists and corporations running things. I’m glad you cleared that up for us.

  15. Possum Kingdom says:

    Hit the about us key to see who is writing this trash before you tear apart anyone else.Example:
    John has a degree in rhetoric from the University of Illinois. WOW

  16. Red Riotdog says:

    I am a disabled Navy Vet and an activist. First of all I believe the Hammonds case, which set this off, was a big mistake by the Federal judicial system. They should have been sentenced, sent to prison, done their time and that should have been it. Re-sentencing them and sending them back to prison is a mess because anyone now can get sentenced in Federal Court go to prison and when they get out wonder if they might go back and if the Hammonds had not been sent back to prison the Bundy protest would never have happened. In regards to the conflict over Federal lands, this is basically a clash over the environment and it is between those who are against measures to protect the environment and wildlife and those who are for them. Of course it involves making money for individuals vs protecting the environment. Mostly cattle ranchers are the hard core activists and the beef industry as it is does massive damage to the environment without also using public parks and lands and eventually people need to cut down on the amount of beef they consume or the planet will not be able to sustain life especially wildlife which is vanishing at an alarming rate. I bet if you asked the Bundy Bunch and their supporters if any of them believe or worry about global warming none of them do. The mass media is not doing a good job of getting out what this is really all about. Anyway, I think that non-violent unarmed protesting is the way to go and have been arrested for it on Veterans and environmental issues so I think the Bundys are loose cannons who believe God is telling them to possibly get a lot of people on both sides killed or injured and they are making a gigantic mistake.

  17. Donnalhogsett says:

    ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  18. Donnalhogsett says:

    ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  19. Hvacrpro says:

    When the Shoe is on the other foot.

  20. Hvacrpro says:

    I believe it is also the guy who stormed across America threatening all mosques, and the FBI bout cut off his head and shit down his traitor treasonous throat. we must be talking about the same kook. The Military is full of good and has a few bad apples , like everywhere else.

  21. McJakome says:

    Treason is pretty well defined in the US Constitution, and as interpreted in law

    whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381

    if, like the Davis idiot, they just claim that they oppose all government or that the laws do not apply to them, that would make them anarchists, but they could still be charged with treason under this title.

  22. nvrbl says:

    I think that when you use force or the threat of force in order to affect political change, that is terrorism.

  23. nvrbl says:

    He left a death video for his family too, just like a good terrorist.

  24. basenjilover says:

    Google “Rogue River Wars”. We had “trail of tears” when Siletz was among other tribes hunted by Fed army forcefully removed; many barefooted and relocated to Northern Oregon in 1850’s. We stage “Run to the Rogue” yearly so our younger and future generations will never forget.

  25. sane37 says:

    Not unless you understand the meaning of words.

  26. sane37 says:

    terrorists are just criminals with a political objective

  27. 2karmanot says:

    That’s right—just Bubbahadies

  28. 2karmanot says:


  29. 2karmanot says:

    Uber manly mens with guns terrorize a Bird Sanctuary! The Onion? SNL? Who ever imagined the end times would be such a comedy routine?

  30. crgram says:

    This guy, Jon Ritzheimer, is the guy who organized an armed protest at a Phoenix mosque this year where they burned copies of the Koran (trying to provoke the worshippers into something that would give them excuse to shoot at them,) and then tried to follow it up with an armed protest at a Tucson mosque, but canceled it when six times as many people signed up to go to the counter-protest as had signed up to go to his protest.
    This is the kind of person they are finding as ‘recruits’ to stand with them.”

  31. FLL says:

    On top of everything else, Dwight and Steven Hammond and their family do not want Bundy and his supporters taking action, and they have specifically said that the Bundy group in no way speaks for them. From the linked CBS article (link here):

    The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy’s help.

    “Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family,” the Hammonds’ lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

    Vanilla ISIS / Y’all Qaeda and their Yeehad are not wanted, either by the locals or the Hammond family.

  32. Chrissy says:

    just block every channel but MSNBC

  33. FLL says:

    It may just be an urban legend, but I think he only appears if you speak his name five times while looking into a mirror. Otherwise, you’re safe.

  34. FLL says:

    (1) The Occupy Wall Street activists were not heavily armed.
    (2) The Occupy Wall Street activists only camped out in a public park, Zuccotti Park. As Mike_in_the_Tundra pointed out just below, they did not occupy a building, either government-owned or privately owned.

    You obviously do not know how to formulate a convincing argument because you’re making an absurd false equivalency. Go back to freshman composition class.

  35. Doug105 says:

    Ok, got my blogs confused.

  36. BeccaM says:

    DGT posted the tweet above. I’ve copied it elsewhere in a few places.

  37. BeccaM says:

    Ever read the account of what happened at Wounded Knee? I don’t know about the ‘without hesitation’ part, but yeah — these current day insurrectionists aren’t seeing anything like the response the Ogala Lakota people did back then.

  38. Doug105 says:

    Someone on Joemygod had a tweet link complaining his SSI check was late or he would be there.

  39. BeccaM says:

    Indeed. As far as I can tell, America’s home-grown insurrectionists have no plans other than to take care of themselves and everybody else can fuck off. Including the taxpayers who fund the park they’re occupying, pay for the roads they’re driving on, pay for the post offices they want to use to receive supplies, etc.

  40. BeccaM says:

    No, but a lot of ’em have grifting the taxpayers down to an art form. Hear about that Ammon Bundy and his half-million Small Business Administration (SBA) loan, to help him get a limo service off the ground?

    Even if he paid it back, we’re talking about $22k in costs to taxpayers.

  41. angryspittle says:

    Nah, they are not terrorists, just fucking idiots.

  42. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I don’t remember them occupying a building. Where was that?

  43. PattyJM says:

    How about calling them people who are committing sedition?

  44. JohnC says:

    Insurrection, quite possible. Not unique in modern USA. But these are not terrorists.

  45. JohnC says:

    This is not terrorism. If occupying a building is terrorism, then all of the Occupy Wall Street activists were terrorists.
    You obviously do not know what terrorist means.

  46. nicho says:

    Well, to be honest, these days “terrorism” has become anything someone does that we don’t like. Let us have your definition of terrorism and we can discuss.

  47. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I’ve seen him on Towleroad.

  48. SirMe says:

    These terrorist need to be taken out

  49. Zorba says:

    Can we call them “thugs”? Maybe terroristic thugs?
    How about thuggish, domestic terroristic, traitorist seditionists?
    They are the “wrong” color and the “wrong” religion to be called any of these, it seems to me.
    White, more-or-less “Christian” men seem to get a pass on all of these.

  50. Zorba says:

    Sh! Let’s not jinx it!
    I have been enjoying the relative peace lately, without having to wade through a certain person’s repetitive screeds. ;-)

  51. basenjilover says:

    If Native Americans pulled same stunt as these spoiled land grabbing welfare queens, the Fed would without any hesitation “shock and awe” shoot them to clear them from bird sanctuary.

  52. MoonDragon says:

    As repulsive and vile as they are, at least Daesh has plans for supporting an infrastructure and services that will provide for the needs of the people under their control. These guys have had their development arrested at the stage where all they want is to do what they want do do (and not do anything they don’t want to do) and if you disagree with them then you’re just a big poopy head who they can hit with whatever comes to hand. Any you have to provide the chocolate milk and clean up afterward.

  53. BeccaM says:

    Haven’t seen him in a while, not here at any rate. A few times over on Raw Story, I think.

  54. Butch1 says:


  55. Butch1 says:

    One can hope; some of them appear none too bright.

  56. Butch1 says:

    I read that they were in negotiations with them; I was just relaying the information. It is a guess why they are leaving the phones open and that is my guess.

    I do not disagree with you.

  57. Doug105 says:

    the overthrow of the government, presumably with themselves and those like them in charge

    Sounds like someone who posts here a lot.

  58. Doug105 says:

    Not like any of this crowd is independently wealthy.

  59. Crazy8 says:

    This is expected because the Fed’s did nothing to stop Papa Bundy. Nothing!
    The Federal Gov’t looks like a bunch of losers. The law in this country does NOT apply to everyone.

  60. BeccaM says:

    72 step-sisters.

  61. BeccaM says:

    Wow. Just…wow.

  62. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, and sadly what they’re occupying is a bird sanctuary, land that was specifically set aside in 1908 because these men’s ideological forebears nearly drove a whole bunch of bird species to extinction.

    Still, when they run out of gasoline to run their generators and there’s no more beer to be had, it could accomplish what negotiation can’t.

  63. BeccaM says:

    The History Channel, or as I like to call it “All Hitler, All The Time.”

  64. BeccaM says:

    A militia is a group operating under the official auspices of a state or local government for the purpose of supporting said government, particularly in matters requiring a degree of military discipline. Hence the word itself: MILITIA.

    This group is the opposite of a militia. They answer only to themselves. They have declared an intent to oppose — armed, and with violence — the laws of our states and nation. This is an act of insurrection.

    Yes, by the technical definition of the word — the use of implied threats of violence in an effort to coerce (not persuade) the government to do their bidding — it’s terrorism. These men are terrorists, by that definition, but the word itself has become all but meaningless, when an act of selfish arson is deemed ‘a terror attack’ simply because gov’t property was damaged. However the far more accurate terms to describe exactly what they are doing is sedition and insurrection. Anarchy even. I’d almost go as far as saying it’s treason, save for the fact these men aren’t really FOR anything nor supporting anything other than the overthrow of the government, presumably with themselves and those like them in charge

    That makes it an insurrection. Rebellion. Attempted revolution.

  65. Butch1 says:

    Understandable, though I think they are determined to not want to negotiate.

  66. MoonDragon says:

    I’m fairly sure they’re behavior is sedition, not treason. They wouldn’t do this for another government. They don’t want anyone to get in the way of their personal wants. Maybe they’re a branch of Christian Satanists. But I agree. They aren’t terrorists. They haven’t earned and don’t deserve even that backhanded respect.

  67. nicho says:

    Terrorism, as others have noted, is a word thrown around too casually. Actually, those who work in the anti-terror field can’t even agree. Right now, there are over 100 definitions on the table. Make the definition too broad and US troops could be considered terrorists. Make it too narrow and we exclude people like the shooters in San Bernardino. So, currently, people craft the definition to fit what they want to call terrorism.

    As a result, it’s become a meaningless word. As I like to point out to my Tea Party relatives, the original Tea Party perpetrators — under today’s definition in the US — were terrorists. At the same time, if animal rights activists were to go to Bundy’s ranch, tear down the fences, and “liberate” his livestock, they would be classified as eco-terrorists or something like that.

    I prefer to avoid the word altogether.

    What we have here is an armed force invading government property and taking up arms against the government. That is treason. So call them what they are — traitors.

  68. nicho says:

    Why? Taking up arms against the government is treason. They are insurgents. They need to be treated as such. Life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

  69. MoonDragon says:

    They aren’t terrorists. They’re superannuated juvenile delinquents. They hold the puerile world view that the acceptable function of government is to support and enable them in doing what they want to do, leave them alone when what they do bothers other people, and squash other people like bugs when those other people bother them. They’re going to hold their breath until you give them what they want. If that doesn’t work, they’ll break everything in reach and then you’ll be sorry. They are a public nuisance, vandals, trespassers, and petty criminals. Define this spot they’ve occupied as their room. Cut off the TV, the Cheetos, and sugary beverage supply. Show them videos of the nice men from the bank serving their wives and kids with foreclosure notices. Let them get e-mails from the homeless shelters where their families are being housed. All while they’re busy playing Patriot Games.

  70. DGT says:

    This one made me literally lol

  71. Houndentenor says:

    Five years for arson is a slap on the wrist to begin with. Why would clemency be on the table at all?

  72. Sam Jay says:

    I agree. Wait them out. They really have made matter far worse for the rancher headed to prison. So chance of clemency now.

  73. Sam Jay says:

    Had they shown up with No Arms and chained themselves to the building I would say god bless, lets look at this issue. But when they armed themselves to the death I only see violent white men.

  74. dcinsider says:

    I think labeling them terrorists provides them with more brain power than they have. Terrorists, and I mean the ones ordering the suicide bombers, not the actual suicide bombers, are using fear and violence to further a political agenda.

    These idiots are not bright enough. And it is fear that drives them. Violence is used out of fear. They are not terrorists, they are common criminals. Or as some call them: Republicans.

  75. dcinsider says:

    Just block the Discovery Channel and they’ll surrender within minutes.

  76. Houndentenor says:

    I’m hoping no shots will be fired. I know that sounds naive, but it’s my hope nonetheless.

  77. Butch1 says:

    Perhaps “thinning the gene pool” is not such a bad idea. ;-)

  78. Butch1 says:

    If they were brown skinned and Islamic, you would be hearing them being labelled as terrorists long ago. There is no difference whether they are white. They are armed and dangerous and willing to die for their cause. They want to bring down the government. That sounds serious enough if anyone tries to stop them.

  79. Butch1 says:

    I would imagine they are still trying to negotiate with them.

  80. Butch1 says:

    Let no one in and no one out.
    I suppose one could try and starve them; but they would go hunting.

  81. Butch1 says:

    Let them fire the first shot, but make sure it has been captured on video from many angles. ;-)

  82. Butch1 says:

    Perhaps it’s “72 cousins” with this group. ;-)

  83. Butch1 says:

    If this “group” who the MSM continues to mislabel “militiamen” were called by their true name: terrorists, I would give them some credit for standing up to their corporate bosses, but because these traitors are white and not of the Islamic faith, they will never be labelled as such and the entertainment news stations will never try and scare the public with the terms, “seditionist and/or domestic terrorists,” especially from FOX news. That would be beyond the scope of the dim-witted. The like militiamen men much better and only brown-skinned Muslims can be “terrorists.” (at least in their eyes.)

  84. UncleBucky says:

    “Adding to the concerns, one of the “occupiers” recorded a goodbye video to his family”

    Oh, he WANTS to be a martyr, victim or something that the nuts can use as a political tool.

    And the 72 virgins.

  85. Ol' Hippy says:

    What we have here is an insurrection, anarchy I’d call it. I’m all for a peaceful protest if it’s called for, after all I protested against the ‘Nam. This seems like a bunch of yahoos that want to do whatever they want on federal land. IF they aren’t a threat to the general public, ending this without violence is the course of action. If they are a direct threat then a different approach needs to be taken. I noticed last summer the National Guard was called several times to keep protesters from destroying property and may need to be used again if these yahoos won’t listen to reason.

  86. Houndentenor says:

    Such technology exists but it would also block signals from the feds as well.

  87. vrk says:

    I’ve been wondering if they could block cell phone signals. That would probably get em to leave faster than anything. Makes getting publicity much tougher.

  88. emjayay says:

    Nothing to flame or even argue with all that much there.

    I am wondering whatever happened with the million dollars or whatever it was that Bundy owes.

  89. emjayay says:

    Like “it’s not exactly brain surgery” the metaphoric saying “call for their heads” is not something we really should be using at this time.

  90. Don Chandler says:

    Terrorist is a word thrown around a bit too much. I do think they are astroturfers in the sense that they are causing trouble in the name of politics…much the same way that Obama Care was protested by hired political operatives–all these people would show up for a mock protest and say they hate government interfering in their healthcare and then reporters would find out that many of the protesters were on like medicare ;) Fuckers. Now these are the gunlovers/militia type astroturfers. They surface around election time too. Same crowd shows up during any kind of controversy…kim davis or Ferguson. They push the idea that the second amendment is under assault–it isn’t. Now they are claiming Oregon has too much federal land and that is why they are there. I guess Oregon does have a lot of federal lands. So while they are there to defend a local, they are pushing some kind of agenda. All I know is that if I were to take over a federal building or start a fire on federal lands or poach wildlife on a preserve, I’d be in jail tout suite. If I had a gun, I might be dead. These Bundys are very special.

    There is an expression: The threat is greater than the execution. But they chose this place because it fit their model and it was remote. Nobody’s life is at stake except theirs and the Federal authorities. Those fuckers know what they are doing.

  91. The_Fixer says:

    Well, there have to be at least a few locals – namely, office and support staff, I would think. Then there are local ranchers (who seem to think they can do whatever they please when it comes to land use). I don’t know if the ranchers are worried about being harmed, but the sheriff’s office seems to be concerned (and has their number, I might add).

    In any event, I agree with your comment above – basically, wait them out in as non-violent a manner that can be managed. Shut off the juice (which will shut off the water, they have wells with pumps powered by electricity, I’m sure), block the roads, cut communications connections, etc. Eventually, they won’t be able to charge their phones and computers as they will run out of fuel for generators and vehicles. This will also have the side benefit of not allowing them to spread their message on the Internet.

    I think that will be the Fed’s course of action, because as you point out, they don’t want another Ruby Ridge. I just hope that it doesn’t get perceived as a “win” for this bunch of ne’er-do-wells.

  92. The_Fixer says:

    No doubt that extremist right-wing media outlets (Fox, Breitbart, PJ Media, etc.) would call them terrorists, and I suspect that the rest of the media would be having breathless discussions about whether they were Muslim terrorists, no doubt featuring all the usual suspect commentators.

    My usual definition of terrorism has gravitated toward actions, but in doing so, I have neglected the fact that the threat of violence for political purposes also fits the definition of terrorism. In that light, I have to revise my thoughts and say that although they may not have performed an action that we normally associate with terrorism, the threat of armed action (which is there, they brought guns) is terrorism.

    If you substitute the words “American Indian” for “Muslim”, I think history shows us what would happen. Now, with the intricate situation in the Middle East, what would the governmental response be if they were Muslims? I don’t honestly know – but you can bet that the Republicans would want to go at them full force.

    Details aside, I agree with your contention of a double-standard being at work, at least with the Republicans.

  93. Houndentenor says:

    As I understand it (and correct me if I’m wrong) the location is remote and there are few if any locals. That’s why they should wait them out since there are no innocent standers-by to be harmed.

  94. Houndentenor says:

    What I’m about to say is terrible. It’s not how I think things should be but how they are in spite of what I’d wish. Bear that in mind before flaming me.

    The federal government all the way up to the White House does not want another Ruby Ridge or Branch Dividian situation on its hands. This has led to treating the Bundy militia with kid gloves all along and here we are. My guess is they will wait them out. If they shoot even one of them, even if the Bundys shoot first, the right will make it sound like Obama is coming after white people or starting a coup or some other nonsense and it will derail everything in politics for the rest of the year. In spite of the claims of the far right, they get away with a lot because liberals (and I mean the ones in position of power, not idiots posting in comments sections on the internet) have been on the defense for 35 years now. I’m not sure how to deal with this mess, but this is what comes from allowing such problems to fester for so long. I’d recommend cutting off power and water and waiting them out but it seems they have food at least (they are survivalists after all). The feds can’t act as they would in any other situation because the right controls the media narrative because the moderates (much less the left) are spineless and have been forever and what passes for journalism these days is nothing more than stenography and blind speculation (and almost always wrong).

  95. MichaelS says:

    Why in heaven’s name hasn’t the government shut down all electricity and water to the building yet? And block all wifi and cell communications? All we’re doing right now is emboldening them to recruit more crazies to their cause. No water, no heat, no food for a few days and it’ll be over.

  96. noGOP says:

    as I asked below, what term would the news use for them if they were muslim, and what would the government’s response be?

  97. The_Fixer says:

    I don’t know if it’s terrorism quite yet. I would ask the locals if they feel terrorized before proclaiming it as terrorism.

    So far they haven’t bombed anything, haven’t killed anyone or held anyone hostage, our usual benchmarks for terrorism. They are coming awfully close, though.

    What it is for sure is seditious. And of course, opportunistic. The two guys who are going to jail because they have been convicted of arson have not asked for the presence of these so-called militiamen. In my mind, they’re just a bunch of assholes out to make a name for themselves, publicize their “movement” and stir up others who are predisposed to believing conspiracy theories and have a distrust of the government.

    Of course, they have conveniently bypassed the remedies that we all have available to us – the ballot box and the public forum. The fact that they have guns and loud mouths makes them worrisome, but not yet terrorists. Yet.

  98. Naja pallida says:

    If this were Black Lives Matter protesters, SWAT would have already stormed the place and tear gassed and/or shot everyone involved.

    If it was Muslims, we’d probably be bombing Iraq by now.

  99. noGOP says:

    would it be called terrorism if armed muslims who were US citizens took over an immigration office to protest, and filmed ‘goodbye’ videos?

    how would the “news” be reporting it?

  100. seeyaround says:

    No, it is not terrorism. See if anyone can tell us why.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS