This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
Maybe you should put some effort to have laws changed if you don't like them. Or perhaps there is some countries government you prefer so you can move there. There is proper channels to present your complaints. Not by breaking and entering and threatening to kill law enforcement for doing their job.
Click to expand...
I like this country. I just don't like big government.
Hard to change laws with government. They do what they want.

pnwmystery said:
Call them what they are: Domestic terrorists. If a group of Muslims took over a Federal building to protest say: the use of torture, FOX News and the right would be clamoring for the US military to be deployed. Now, when a group of white ranchers with a history of doing stupid, illegal shit, occupy a building and threaten to use force on any Federal agent that approaches, they're suddenly what? A group of "Occupiers?"

When the FBI labels domestic terrorism as...

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
They fall squarely under it. Why are we negotiating with terrorists? They should be locked up.
Click to expand...
No. If it were Muslims going through the same I would support them.

Some would say our forefathers were terrorist. Sometimes when peace doesn't work you have to go a little further.

As of right now they are not terrorist. They are peaceful at the moment.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
I like this country. I just don't like big government.
Hard to change laws with government. They do what they want.


No. If it were Muslims going through the same I would support them.

Some would say our forefathers were terrorist. Sometimes when peace doesn't work you have to go a little further.

As of right now they are not terrorist. They are peaceful at the moment.
Click to expand...
No, they are literally committing an act of terrorism*. They are using force to coerce the government to release two people who were convicted of arson for doing shitty things for shitty reasons. In 2006 they burned down something like 136 acres of public land just to "protect their winter feed stores," when they could have done that in a much better way. They endangered lives, and they endangered the lives of BLM firefighters in Oregon who were nearby fighting another forest fire. Did they stop to consider that? No. Did they care? Not at all. They fall completely under what the FBI considers domestic terrorism. The only thing that's stopping this is that they're a bunch of white guys. When a bunch of black people hold a legitimate protest, they're considered a group of people supporting thugs. That's what the Hammonds are, as well as poachers (in 2001 they set fire to the forest to cover up the fact that they killed a herd of elk), and that's what the Bundys are.

Even on their website it plainly states, "The Northwest Front is a political organization of Aryan men and women who recognize that an independent and sovereign White nation in the Pacific Northwest is the only possibility for the survival of the White race on this continent."

Vanilla IS, Yallqaedas, Yeehadists.

*Here's a far scaled down example. I steal your car, and say that I will only shoot at you if you or anyone tries to take back your car.

Edited to Add: The Hammonds don't even want Cliven Bundy and his militia to do this. Their lawyer said that the Bundys do not speak for the Hammonds, and "Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge." So, maybe the Hammonds aren't as big assholes as I initially stated, but they're still dipshits.
 
Last edited:
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
No, they are literally committing an act of terrorism*. They are using force to coerce the government to release two people who were convicted of arson for doing shitty things for shitty reasons. In 2006 they burned down something like 136 acres of public land just to "protect their winter feed stores," when they could have done that in a much better way. They endangered lives, and they endangered the lives of BLM firefighters in Oregon who were nearby fighting another forest fire. Did they stop to consider that? No. Did they care? Not at all. They fall completely under what the FBI considers domestic terrorism. The only thing that's stopping this is that they're a bunch of white guys. When a bunch of black people hold a legitimate protest, they're considered a group of people supporting thugs. That's what the Hammonds are, as well as poachers (in 2001 they set fire to the forest to cover up the fact that they killed a herd of elk), and that's what the Bundys are.

Even on their website it plainly states, "The Northwest Front is a political organization of Aryan men and women who recognize that an independent and sovereign White nation in the Pacific Northwest is the only possibility for the survival of the White race on this continent."

Vanilla IS, Yallqaedas, Yeehadists.

*Here's a far scaled down example. I steal your car, and say that I will only shoot at you if you or anyone tries to take back your car.
Click to expand...
All of that is lies. The blm is doing it to cover their wrong doing.

They didn't endanger anyone. Sometimes you have to do a back burn to save your place.

The burnt land was better off after the fire.

The ranchers put the fire out.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
No it's not lies because it happened. Prove it otherwise besides your sympathy for a bunch of White Supremacists.
Click to expand...
They put the fire out themselves.
I don't sympathize with racist people.

Sorry just being armed and protesting doesn't make you racist.

Those ranchers were wronged by the government.

I grew up on farms and ranches. I had a father that was a 35 year firefighter. I have volunteered myself. I have helped with firebreaks and back burns.

The ranchers never hurt anyone or harmed any land. There is no crime. The crime is in what blm did. Flooded homes and farms.

No point in arguing with you. To you the government can do no harm or wrong.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
They put the fire out themselves.
I don't sympathize with racist people.

Sorry just being armed and protesting doesn't make you racist.

Those ranchers were wronged by the government.

I grew up on farms and ranches. I had a father that was a 35 year firefighter. I have volunteered myself. I have helped with firebreaks and back burns.

The ranchers never hurt anyone or harmed any land. There is no crime. The crime is in what blm did. Flooded homes and farms.

No point in arguing with you. To you the government can do no harm or wrong.
Click to expand...
There's no point in arguing with you because you don't listen to fact, or reason (and are probably incapable of both). What a wildly stupid and idiotic accusation that you just threw out at me which only furthers my point.

"The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons."

Please explain to me how this is legal by any means. I won't hold my breath.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
There's no point in arguing with you because you don't listen to fact, or reason (and are probably incapable of both). What a wildly stupid and idiotic accusation that you just threw out at me which only furthers my point.

"The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons."

Please explain to me how this is legal by any means. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
If there was poaching was involved they would have been charged.

Out of pages and pages of searches there is only a couple sources that cite poaching and they say "allegedly."

If that is what really happened then they deserve what they get.

The government was involved in a lot of wrong doing. Most of what they claim and done is to cover it up.

It will all come out.

I can and do listen to fact and reason.
 
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
No, they are literally committing an act of terrorism*. They are using force to coerce the government to release two people who were convicted of arson for doing shitty things for shitty reasons. In 2006 they burned down something like 136 acres of public land just to "protect their winter feed stores," when they could have done that in a much better way. They endangered lives, and they endangered the lives of BLM firefighters in Oregon who were nearby fighting another forest fire. Did they stop to consider that? No. Did they care? Not at all. They fall completely under what the FBI considers domestic terrorism. The only thing that's stopping this is that they're a bunch of white guys. When a bunch of black people hold a legitimate protest, they're considered a group of people supporting thugs. That's what the Hammonds are, as well as poachers (in 2001 they set fire to the forest to cover up the fact that they killed a herd of elk), and that's what the Bundys are.

Even on their website it plainly states, "The Northwest Front is a political organization of Aryan men and women who recognize that an independent and sovereign White nation in the Pacific Northwest is the only possibility for the survival of the White race on this continent."

Vanilla IS, Yallqaedas, Yeehadists.

*Here's a far scaled down example. I steal your car, and say that I will only shoot at you if you or anyone tries to take back your car.

Edited to Add: The Hammonds don't even want Cliven Bundy and his militia to do this. Their lawyer said that the Bundys do not speak for the Hammonds, and "Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge." So, maybe the Hammonds aren't as big assholes as I initially stated, but they're still dipshits.
Click to expand...

>terrorists literally unexpected open fire into civilians, blow buildings up, and kill others
>people that are currently exercising their second amendment right protesting something unjust should be compared to those.

Yeah, no.

Terror: extreme fear.

-ist: a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:
>terrorists literally unexpected open fire into civilians, blow buildings up, and kill others
>people that are currently exercising their second amendment right protesting something unjust should be compared to those.

Yeah, no.

Terror: extreme fear.

-ist: a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
Click to expand...
Go look at what the FBIs definition of terrorism - which I posted - or any other organizations and not some hackneyed definition and see how wrong you are.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
There's no point in arguing with you because you don't listen to fact, or reason (and are probably incapable of both). What a wildly stupid and idiotic accusation that you just threw out at me which only furthers my point.

"The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons."

Please explain to me how this is legal by any means. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

It`s not.

But please explain being sentenced and serving only to be released,resentenced by another judge that thought the first was lenient.

The first sentencing was final, anything else is deliberate double jeopardy. We can`t have that as the new norm......Yes, they should be beaten to immobility, but not sentenced twice for one crime. The first sentencing had no extensions or provisions.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
If there was poaching was involved they would have been charged.

Out of pages and pages of searches there is only a couple sources that cite poaching and they say "allegedly."

If that is what really happened then they deserve what they get.

The government was involved in a lot of wrong doing. Most of what they claim and done is to cover it up.

It will all come out.

I can and do listen to fact and reason.
Click to expand...

Citations will never be as powerful in court as eyewitness accounts. From what I remember, the eyewitness was there.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:
So now basic English is wrong?
Click to expand...

I think he wants to show what accounts as terrorism charges, and not definition of terrorism.

As for English,...it`s most winning not winningest coach, and more better not much better. Then there`s two, to, too, too, or should I say as well. I`m too sick and so stoned because pot and the flu clash. Don`t mix the two, too.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Does anybody really believe the Hammonds are "terrorists" . Why is the government calling them that?

Is it to habituate the sheep / masses to the idea that any dissent is "terrorism" ?
Click to expand...
I thought they had to have ties to extremist groups bent on killing to be considered terrorist..


Nope. Patriot act.

I wouldn't do what they are doing tho. Government takes what it wants. Their protest is hurting the government how? Why would they comply to anything?
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:
So now basic English is wrong?
Click to expand...
OddBall1st said:
I think he wants to show what accounts as terrorism charges, and not definition of terrorism.
Click to expand...
OddBall got it.

But they are also terrorists nonetheless. Look at what the FBI says a terrorist and a domestic terrorist is and try to say they don't fit the definition. It'll be funny to watch the mental gymnastics.

Also, why would #OregonUnderAttack #YallQaeda #YeeHawd and #Yeehawdist be trending if people didn't agree?
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
I thought they had to have ties to extremist groups bent on killing to be considered terrorist..


Nope. Patriot act.

I wouldn't do what they are doing tho. Government takes what it wants. Their protest is hurting the government how? Why would they comply to anything?
Click to expand...
You should probably familiarize yourself about what's going on beyond what FoxNews and Breitbart tells you. No one said the Hammonds are terrorists. They're saying the Hammonds violated Federal law which they did. The Hammonds know they violated Federal law so they're actually complying and went to jail today. It's the armed militia that's being ring led by Ammond Bundy that people are calling domestic terrorism because it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top