I doubt it'll turn into a bloodbath for much the same reason as the Bundy standoff didn't turn into a bloodbath: bad, potentially disastrous, optics for Obama.

Janet Reno's reputation took a massive hit from her handling of Waco, and Ruby Ridge was no better. The ins and outs of the legalities didn't matter with Bundy and they don't matter with this one. All that matters is that Obama cannot afford, either for political reasons or due to his own narcissism, to have up to 150 bodies littering a street somewhere. Taking out 4 or 5 whackos who've cooped themselves up in a barn somewhere is police work. Taking out 150 US citizens is a surefire way for Obama's legacy to be the man who gave the Presidency to Donald Trump.

Even a compliant media won't be able to help itself. It will film and run pictures of the bodies left, right and centre, and no matter how they spin it -- as Trump's polls are telling us -- people will be horrified. Horrified enough to start demanding Obama's head, or possibly an early and violent change of government.

^
Back in the day, people relied on CNN & NBC for coverage of Waco & Ruby Ridge.
Coverage that was never going to detail the whole story.

Today people have social media & alternative news websites.
As you say, doubtful the authorities would force a fight.

As a non-American I will follow this with some interest.
I remember WACO. The US government does not want any citizens to show dissent or to pursue a way of life of their own choosing if that means they are a self-determining community that tries to not depend on authorities to survive.
In this case, I expect the authorities to somehow over-react, meaning a loss of lives.
A lot of recent developments are starting to look even more suspicious e.g. FEMA, gun control debate, the recent massive purchases of ammunition by the department of homeland security and other agencies.
Food for thought.

Quote: (01-03-2016 04:41 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Taking out 150 US citizens is a surefire way for Obama's legacy to be the man who gave the Presidency to Donald Trump.

That's assuming there's an election, that it isn't rigged for Clinton, and that Obama would accept Trump's winning. Remember that Obama's Press Secretary has has already said that "the fact is, the first thing a president does when he or she takes the oath of office is to swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And the fact is, what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president."

He chickened out during the Bundy Ranch standoff, but 2016 elections are closer now, and black rioting hasn't spread to enough cities yet for that to be the pretext.

For interest sake :

Didn't the same group have a stand off in Nevada a couple years ago.
Weapons were drawn on both sides, including a sniper or two.

Interesting that the government still hasn't dealt with this and no one was killed.

The RT article says the family spent time in prison.. And the courts claim they need to come back for more time.
On the other hand police are quick to shoot and kill people in the street.
You have the black lives matter movement protesting the killing of unarmed blacks and you have this militia brandishing weapons at the feds.

Who is the Ritzheimer guy? He's not even from Oregon?

Is it the same Marine named Jon Ritzheimer who was on the news early just last month for organizing an armed protest outside a mosque as an "anti-Islam crusader?"

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows...nhunt.html






There was a Young Turks video about the same incident and I believe I recognized at least one of the same guys from videos with this Oregon thing.

And apparently he's supposed to be in hiding because ISIS is calling for attacks on him? http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/isla...m-protest/ No mention of that in what I presume is supposed to be a possible farewell video to his kids?

The first video with him in his pickup gives no basis for his presence. What role does he play in this whole thing?

This seems like a worthy cause in Oregon, but if it's the same guy he certainly seems to have a broader agenda and a penchant for controversial media exposure.

I don't have a lot info so I won't draw any conclusions, but can anyone else connect the dots on this?

Quote: (01-03-2016 07:44 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

Didn't the same group have a stand off in Nevada a couple years ago.
Weapons were drawn on both sides, including a sniper or two.

Interesting that the government still hasn't dealt with this and no one was killed.

The RT article says the family spent time in prison.. And the courts claim they need to come back for more time.
On the other hand police are quick to shoot and kill people in the street.
You have the black lives matter movement protesting the killing of unarmed blacks and you have this militia brandishing weapons at the feds.

Hmmm...kinda makes you wonder why people are hesitant to give up the right to bear arms....

People like to rave about using guns to protect yourself from your fellow citizens, which I think is important, but private gun ownership is an intentional feature of the constitution designed to create a check on government power.

Situations like this show that it works, at least to some degree.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I have a hard time believing that these guys could hold off a serious offensive (assuming it would ever come, which I serously doubt). 150 men is about 4,5 platoons of infantry, so a frontline companys worth. Thing is, an organized defense requires training and practice. I have a hard time believing there's enough training in that group of men to manage an organized defense on a platoon level, let alone on a company. The logistics alone would be a nightmare, never mind proper support elements and supplies for medical reasons, fortifications, combat engineering work et cetera.

The basic calculation goes that in forest defense, a properly trained and armed group can stop/paralyze (=reduce under combat efficiency) another trained group thrice their number in organizational strength. Ergo, a patrol can knock off a squad, a squad a platoon etc. This however assumes correct arms, support elements, training and lots of practice. In urban scenarios, the rules change and the numbers leap to 1/9 against the 1/3 of forest scenarios. Again, correct equiptment is assumed. Therefore, a defending patrol can paralyze a mechanized squad only if they have AT weapons (LAW, for example). This makes it very hard for me to believe that these guys could actually create a proper deep defense, although I have no idea of the grounds there.

Someone mentioned that the area is very rugged, so that seems to point out to a more split, guerrilla-type action with poor organizing and very individual action. Then again, it's probably never going to escalate into a large firefight, much less an organized defense.

Okay, let me play devil's advocate then. They are on federally owned land. The government has allowed them to ranch it for a long time, but they do not have any rights to this land aside from what the government gave them. Using land for a long time does not automatically create a right. There is no adverse possession here either. Sounds like ultimately the government can do whatever it wants or withdraw authorization whenever it wants. It can't be the case that we respect private citizen's property rights but not the government's. This would be completely different if they owned the land and the government was trying to bully them into giving it up somehow.

Now I agree what is happening is unfair, and the Terrorism Act prosecution sounds bogus.

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:34 AM)Merris Wrote:  

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I have a hard time believing that these guys could hold off a serious offensive (assuming it would ever come, which I serously doubt). 150 men is about 4,5 platoons of infantry, so a frontline companys worth. Thing is, an organized defense requires training and practice. I have a hard time believing there's enough training in that group of men to manage an organized defense on a platoon level, let alone on a company. The logistics alone would be a nightmare, never mind proper support elements and supplies for medical reasons, fortifications, combat engineering work et cetera.

The basic calculation goes that in forest defense, a properly trained and armed group can stop/paralyze (=reduce under combat efficiency) another trained group thrice their number in organizational strength. Ergo, a patrol can knock off a squad, a squad a platoon etc. This however assumes correct arms, support elements, training and lots of practice. In urban scenarios, the rules change and the numbers leap to 1/9 against the 1/3 of forest scenarios. Again, correct equiptment is assumed. Therefore, a defending patrol can paralyze a mechanized squad only if they have AT weapons (LAW, for example). This makes it very hard for me to believe that these guys could actually create a proper deep defense, although I have no idea of the grounds there.

Someone mentioned that the area is very rugged, so that seems to point out to a more split, guerrilla-type action with poor organizing and very individual action. Then again, it's probably never going to escalate into a large firefight, much less an organized defense.

Conviction.
How many of the Oregon police departments are willing to die for some rural land dispute?

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:34 AM)Merris Wrote:  

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I have a hard time believing that these guys could hold off a serious offensive (assuming it would ever come, which I serously doubt). 150 men is about 4,5 platoons of infantry, so a frontline companys worth. Thing is, an organized defense requires training and practice. I have a hard time believing there's enough training in that group of men to manage an organized defense on a platoon level, let alone on a company. The logistics alone would be a nightmare, never mind proper support elements and supplies for medical reasons, fortifications, combat engineering work et cetera.

The basic calculation goes that in forest defense, a properly trained and armed group can stop/paralyze (=reduce under combat efficiency) another trained group thrice their number in organizational strength. Ergo, a patrol can knock off a squad, a squad a platoon etc. This however assumes correct arms, support elements, training and lots of practice. In urban scenarios, the rules change and the numbers leap to 1/9 against the 1/3 of forest scenarios. Again, correct equiptment is assumed. Therefore, a defending patrol can paralyze a mechanized squad only if they have AT weapons (LAW, for example). This makes it very hard for me to believe that these guys could actually create a proper deep defense, although I have no idea of the grounds there.

Someone mentioned that the area is very rugged, so that seems to point out to a more split, guerrilla-type action with poor organizing and very individual action. Then again, it's probably never going to escalate into a large firefight, much less an organized defense.

Say you're correct.

These guys know the hand they're playing:

Quote:Quote:

According to Cooper, they hope their occupation will spell the beginning of a US-wide movement.

“It doesn’t have to stop here. This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country, the whole United States. Everybody’s looking for this hope because the government has beat us, and oppressed us, and took everything from us; they will not stop until we tell them no,” he claims.

The possiblity of this goes up tenfold once these guys become martyrs, and the government knows that all too well.

There are men just like them all over the country, some just waiting for a reason, and others just sitting on the fence where something like this could push them over.

On top of that, many law enforcement officers and military will identify with these guys over the government.

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:41 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

On top of that, many law enforcement officers and military will identify with these guys over the government.

Which is why google, DARPA, and undoubtedly countless others are feverishly at work on autonomous combat robots that will allow the rulers to free themselves of needing the cooperation of the ruled.

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:37 AM)Menace Wrote:  

Okay, let me play devil's advocate then. They are on federally owned land. The government has allowed them to ranch it for a long time, but they do not have any rights to this land aside from what the government gave them. Using land for a long time does not automatically create a right. There is no adverse possession here either. Sounds like ultimately the government can do whatever it wants or withdraw authorization whenever it wants. It can't be the case that we respect private citizen's property rights but not the government's. This would be completely different if they owned the land and the government was trying to bully them into giving it up somehow.

Now I agree what is happening is unfair, and the Terrorism Act prosecution sounds bogus.

In theory they should just be able to move their herds. In practice, the federal government owns the west, and there is no where to go.

Quote: (01-03-2016 02:54 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Here's the government's take on the conviction of the Hammond's, who the militiamen are supporting:

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ars-prison

They were convicted in court for two fires. Conviction of the first fire depended mostly on a witness that testified against them that happened to be a relative. The government story is that they started the fire to hide killing deer. The Hammonds contend they wanted to burn invasive species.

The second fire were backfires to prevent spread of a fire caused by lightning.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ars-prison

Any hunters here? Is starting a fire a good way to hide an illegal hunt? Has fires been used in the past to hide illegal hunts?

i don't think its a great way to hide an illegal hunt. illegal hunting cases are usually prosecuted by finding hunters in possession of fresh animal parts outside of hunting season. You could use it to cover poaching though, where none of the kill is taken.

Burning back fires to prevent wildfire spread and control invasive plants are legitimate land management techniques though, and there are existing laws on the books to punish people for intentionally setting wildfires that get out of control...terrorism charges are totally unwarranted. The states and federal land managers have all had land management fires get away on them, did all of those staff get jailed for terrorism? No. Were they even disciplined? no.

On the land management side though, the ranchers assertions are correct. Public wildlands that were once managed for resources (mining, logging, ranching) are now being managed for stupid shit like turtles, snails and bats....despite these animals still being protected during resource use anyway. There is a huge divide in land management even among government managers. If you see a property that is designated 'wildlife refuge' or 'preserve' it is managed by a biologist that is a fully indoctrinated SJW that believes in human population control so butterflies can thrive. These biologists refuse to allow logging, ranching or mining on the properties they manage, despite it being legal...they deny it out of personal principle only. If you see an area designated 'national or state forest' then it is managed by foresters that manage the land for resource extraction ie. instead of using your tax dollars to set fires they use the revenue from logging wood to pay for management and support the local economy. On national forests logging has been restricted though, not from the inside, but from the outside. Environmentalists sue to stop every logging project because there might be a snowy owl nest somewhere on the 100 acres to be cut. This is speaking from my experience working as a forester.

People in mining, logging and ranching have been battling SJWs (formerly under the banner environmentalists) that have been restricting their lives and livelihoods for nearly 30 years so its no surprise that they snap first. Can you imagine what the next 25 years of twitter police, transgender celebration and rape hysteria will do? Look to these people as an example.

All of that aside though, even if these dudes went on a poaching spree and shot 100 deer and then set a fire to cover it up...there are poaching and arson related laws on the books already. They have been tried under those, convicted and tried. Putting them back in jail under domestic terrorism laws? That is the travesty here.

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:55 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:41 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

On top of that, many law enforcement officers and military will identify with these guys over the government.

Which is why google, DARPA, and undoubtedly countless others are feverishly at work on autonomous combat robots that will allow the rulers to free themselves of needing the cooperation of the ruled.

Sounds like a movie plot.

Those playing the "Devil's Advocates" are the SJWs in disguise on this forum. No one has presented a shred of evidence that anything that's been done is the same as "domestic terrorism." I realize 'Murkicans are dumbfucks, but seriously, "domestic terrorism?" You're all out of your mind if you think this even comes close. At worst they might be called arsonists, though if they have evidence that it enhances the quality of what they're trying to achieve, then that becomes a hard case to prove (maybe an attorney can chime in on intent).

Quote: (01-03-2016 06:08 AM)brick tamland Wrote:  

As a non-American I will follow this with some interest.
I remember WACO. The US government does not want any citizens to show dissent or to pursue a way of life of their own choosing if that means they are a self-determining community that tries to not depend on authorities to survive.

American's don't know what self-reliance even is. This is why shitwads like BLM get positive media attention - they want government help and assistance because that's all they'll ever be good for, dependence on the state (which empower those who have power). America is full of useful idiots who love to be exploited.

IW picked it up http://www.infowars.com/live-now-armed-p...building/; ZH hasn't.

Quote: (01-03-2016 08:39 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Conviction.
How many of the Oregon police departments are willing to die for some rural land dispute?

They are willing to die for that check that pays their mortgage. Most of them know the only thing that separates them from the stockman at Walmart is the department's paycheck.

Not just a paycheck. Don't forget the pension plan, which is very good.

This quote from the RT article is worth noting:

Quote:Quote:

The militiamen told OregonLive there were about 150 of them, but a couple who delivered food to the refuge HQ estimated that there were just 15.

There is more detail in this Washington Post article (which is currently the main news story on their website):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...al-oregon/

Quote:Quote:

Ron Gainer, the owner of a nearby RV park who dropped off some chili for the occupiers, told the broadcaster that he counted about 15 people, a half-dozen vehicles and a trailer at the site. The estimate differed sharply from the Bundy family accounting, which put the number of people at the refuge at about 150, according to OPB.

By nightfall, the broadcaster noted, the temperature had plummeted to 10 degrees, prompting occupiers to bundle around a campfire. Some of those present identified themselves as nearby residents and supporters of the convicted ranchers.

Asked by an OPB reporter how many militia members were at the headquarters, Bundy didn’t divulge.

“I will not disclose,” he said. “Operational security.”

My feeling is that 15 is likely closer to the true number than 150, making it an event on a rather more modest scale.

Quote: (01-03-2016 11:15 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This quote from the RT article is worth noting:

Quote:Quote:

The militiamen told OregonLive there were about 150 of them, but a couple who delivered food to the refuge HQ estimated that there were just 15.

There is more detail in this Washington Post article (which is currently the main news story on their website):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...al-oregon/

Quote:Quote:

Ron Gainer, the owner of a nearby RV park who dropped off some chili for the occupiers, told the broadcaster that he counted about 15 people, a half-dozen vehicles and a trailer at the site. The estimate differed sharply from the Bundy family accounting, which put the number of people at the refuge at about 150, according to OPB.

By nightfall, the broadcaster noted, the temperature had plummeted to 10 degrees, prompting occupiers to bundle around a campfire. Some of those present identified themselves as nearby residents and supporters of the convicted ranchers.

Asked by an OPB reporter how many militia members were at the headquarters, Bundy didn’t divulge.

“I will not disclose,” he said. “Operational security.”

My feeling is that 15 is likely closer to the true number than 150, making it an event on a rather more modest scale.

Even if Bundy is bluffing, it's a powerful bluff. There's no way to know who is out in those woods...

What this is going to show is how many people are willing to be tools in the hands of agitators. I have a sick feeling there are alot of tools out there because the average American is ill informed. They dont even know WHO is really stirring the shit in our country. If you straight up tell them they dont believe it.
Then curtain needs to be pulled back, everyone see who is pulling strings and as a nation work to bust it up like a monopoly.

Quote: (01-03-2016 11:51 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (01-03-2016 11:15 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This quote from the RT article is worth noting:

Quote:Quote:

The militiamen told OregonLive there were about 150 of them, but a couple who delivered food to the refuge HQ estimated that there were just 15.

There is more detail in this Washington Post article (which is currently the main news story on their website):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...al-oregon/

Quote:Quote:

Ron Gainer, the owner of a nearby RV park who dropped off some chili for the occupiers, told the broadcaster that he counted about 15 people, a half-dozen vehicles and a trailer at the site. The estimate differed sharply from the Bundy family accounting, which put the number of people at the refuge at about 150, according to OPB.

By nightfall, the broadcaster noted, the temperature had plummeted to 10 degrees, prompting occupiers to bundle around a campfire. Some of those present identified themselves as nearby residents and supporters of the convicted ranchers.

Asked by an OPB reporter how many militia members were at the headquarters, Bundy didn’t divulge.

“I will not disclose,” he said. “Operational security.”

My feeling is that 15 is likely closer to the true number than 150, making it an event on a rather more modest scale.

Even if Bundy is bluffing, it's a powerful bluff. There's no way to know who is out in those woods...

It works as a bluff, I hadn't thought of it that way.

From another angle, it's also useful in making it a more exciting media story, and so getting more attention.

Quote: (01-03-2016 07:17 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

For interest sake :

I don't know who the hell got a hold of that link but you'd think Salon is reporting on it or something. Fucking comments are a shitshow of brainwashed Anti American group think.

It's good to review the Posse Comitatus Act which limits the feds from using military on it's own people.

Quote:Quote:

The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, due to them being naval services, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army and Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.