Breaking! Bundy Ranch Double Cross? More Feds, Cops, Vehicles, Equipment Arriving!

originally posted by: Destinyone
I guess when American cattle ranchers start calling for jihad in the middle east...then we could possibly call them terrorists.

I can't believe you actually made that comparison. Were you a water boy for the British in a past life?

Have you seen the video of them putting their kids in front of armed men and saying that if any of them got hurt it was "the FEDS" fault?

Yeah, these really sound like rational people, willing to let their own children die for a delusional argument about land rights.

This is the very epitome of extremism. Those kids have no ability to understand the argument, to understand the risk or to be able to take any responsibility. Their "parents" should be charged with child abuse and endangerment.

If you think it's right that kids be put in the front line against armed men, you should hang your head in shame and embarrassment. These are not "patriots", they are extremists.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Link that video you speak of. Sounds like you are full of # to me.

From someone who was actually there

Frankly, I am sickened by such an asinine idea. If it is indeed true, I really do wish I’d have known about it the day of the event. I would have taken that microphone and asked, “How can any man, especially a sheriff, suggest such an idea and plan?” Honestly, I don’t think the idea was ever suggested by the organizers, the protestors or the Bundy family. I think it’s just Mack begging for TV time.

Source

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Rocker2013

Link that video you speak of. Sounds like you are full of # to me.

Here you go, skip to 06:08



So, we have actual video evidence, and actual statements by those present, showing that kids were there, and that these irresponsible extremist adults were willing to blame anyone but themselves for anything that happened to those kids.

This is the same as using Human shields, it's absolutely no different at all. It's sick, it's disgusting, and anyone who supports this or ignores what's really happening should be publicly called out for it.

a reply to: Rocker2013

So you are full of it, like I thought lol. I see kids in the crowd, not the smartest thing, but you are a liar. That is them interviewing a lady on the bridge, saying if the feds start shooting kids it would be their fault. Which it would be by the way. They are not "putting them on the front line" like you claimed. Stop with the hyperbole already.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Rocker2013

So you are full of it, like I thought lol. I see kids in the crowd, not the smartest thing, but you are a liar. That is them interviewing a lady on the bridge, saying if the feds start shooting kids it would be their fault. Which it would be by the way. They are not "putting them on the front line" like you claimed. Stop with the hyperbole already.

So you're just going to try to dismiss the actual evidence of what is happening there?

Listen to what these adults are saying, they are saying that they think it's fine for those kids to be down there in front of armed men, and claiming that it's someone elses fault when they are harmed does not remove responsibility from THEM.

Of course no sane person is going to open fire on a crowd with kids there, but then no sane person would PUT THEIR KIDS THERE TO START WITH!

How ever much you want to try to spin this, this is extremism, this is using kids as Human shields and it is disgusting.

I saw your comments about strategizing to put the women up at the front, in case they did start firing it'd be women who were getting shot. I wanted to ask where you got that idea in the first place and why you thought it was a good idea.

I never thought it was a good idea. I was kind of surprised by the fact that they did. The mistake I made was it was never a strategy. It was never strategized. It was never talked about. The women just did it. I was never privy to that, so I thought they did strategize that. I thought that would be the only way they would send women up to the front.

I didn't suggest it. I didn't want it. I was surprised to see it. When I found out, I was really shocked that they had just gone on their own.

Because what I saw was you're saying "We were strategizing."

That's what I thought happened, but I was wrong. But there is no question the women were there on every threat that was there with the cowboys and the one that was going to get shot as they went up to the corral to let the cows out. There were women right there.

Here is an interview with sherriff mac, trying to squirm his way out of his own words.
Source

a reply to: Rocker2013
"Huma shields" usually go in the front, those kids are at the back. The only one I see spinning tires here is you. If the fed fired on the crowd, it would be 100% their fault. Doesn't matter if they shoot the expendable men, the women or the children. All 100% their fault, if they decide to open fire on the crowd. No spin, just fact.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Rocker2013
"Huma shields" usually go in the front, those kids are at the back. The only one I see spinning tires here is you. If the fed fired on the crowd, it would be 100% their fault. Doesn't matter if they shoot the expendable men, the women or the children. All 100% their fault, if they decide to open fire on the crowd. No spin, just fact.

You're irrational, just like the adults in that video.

I was prepared to support this movement when I was looking into the facts surrounding it, and I was not willing to simply believe the nonsense I was seeing on ATS about this group of "radicals" or "patriots" (depending on what side you follow). But after looking at the actions of all those involved with all the videos and facts I can find, I have absolutely ZERO respect for people who are willing to risk the safety of children for their own political ends.

Once again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for placing kids at risk for your political notions. None, zero, zilch.

For that act alone I am willing to call them what I believe they are, radical right-wing Tea Party extremists willing to risk the safety of children for their own political posturing. It's sick.

originally posted by: TKDRL
Doesn't matter if they shoot the expendable men, the women or the children. All 100% their fault, if they decide to open fire on the crowd. No spin, just fact.

Just to add, I have no qualms with agreeing that those firing any weapon at another person is guilty, but again, this does NOT REMOVE RESPONSIBILITY from those who are knowingly and deliberately placing kids in harms way.

Regardless of the actions or bad decisions of those armed men, the adults there have the opportunity to remove the threat and risk to those kids and they IGNORED it. They would be just as responsible for those kids as those opening fire.

These are NOT parents, they are wastes of skin.

a reply to: Rocker2013

You have a right to your opinion, even if I think you are full of it. As to why there were kids there, both parents were there, leave them home alone you get them taken from you this day in age. Just a question, were you one of the people that bashed OWS protestors for the same thing? Or is it only wrong because the scumbag government agents already were committing violence in this situation?

a reply to: Rocker2013

Have you seen the video of them putting their kids in front of armed men and saying that if any of them got hurt it was "the FEDS" fault?

LOL

That was a perfect psy-ops wasn't it.

The Feds took the bait hook line and sinker.

Brilliant.

They have to be better people than that, to allow their supervisors and this government to put them in a position of shooting law-abiding Americans and to cause another incident like that and to have their names associated with such a disaster and catastrophe.

a reply to: TKDRL

This sheriff is on drugs. The Bundy Crime Syndicate hardly meets the definition of law abiding.

Then to compare Kent State to Waco and Ruby Ridge is insane. Kent State protesters were not armed and holed up.

a reply to: gariac

All three of them was the government killing unarmed people. Sniper shooting an unarmed lady holding a baby in the face, set fire to and opening fire on a building filled with people and shooting unarmed protesters.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: gariac

All three of them was the government killing unarmed people. Sniper shooting an unarmed lady holding a baby in the face, set fire to and opening fire on a building filled with people and shooting unarmed protesters.

The Branch Davidians and Weaver were armed. Weaver was selling arms, slightly sawed off. ;-)

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Rocker2013

Have you seen the video of them putting their kids in front of armed men and saying that if any of them got hurt it was "the FEDS" fault?

LOL

That was a perfect psy-ops wasn't it.

The Feds took the bait hook line and sinker.

Brilliant.

Uh, the feds didn't shoot because unlike the Bundy Crime Syndicate, the feds value life.

You have to be quite mentally disturbed to use women and children as human shields. Then again, nobody is accusing the Bundy Crime Syndicate if playing with a full deck.

a reply to: gariac

Sounds like you swallowed the lie, or you are one of the liars. I will err on the side of kindness and assume you are one that thinks government lies are tasty and swallow them up.

What Randy did not know was that Guss Magisono was actually an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) named Kenneth Fadeley. The ATF had previously arrested Fadeley for gunrunning and had offered him clemency in exchange for becoming an undercover informant for the Bureau. What happened next is still in dispute. On October 24, 1989, Randy met with Fadeley at a park in Sandpoint, Idaho, where he supposedly sold him two sawed-off shotguns. What is not known was the exact condition of the guns at the time the exchange was made. Following the sale, Fadeley reported that the guns were sawed-off, however Randy later argued that he had suspected Fadeley of being an undercover agent and that both guns were of legal barrel length at the time of the sale. Randy accused Fadeley of sawing the barrels off later.

Source

So it's the word of a busted gun runner against the word of Weaver. It's not like we have ever seen these "informants" lie and break the law before right?

a reply to: gariac

You keep talking about using women as shields. Sounds to me you don't know country girls. You don't "put" them anywhere, you don't tell them where they may or may not go. Maybe you feel like you own your women, and can command them around, that don't slide with country girls. They are not broken in and tame. Any women there, it was because they wanted to be.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: gariac

You keep talking about using women as shields. Sounds to me you don't know country girls. You don't "put" them anywhere, you don't tell them where they may or may not go. Maybe you feel like you own your women, and can command them around, that don't slide with country girls. They are not broken in and tame. Any women there, it was because they wanted to be.

Being from the south I'd agree 100%. In fact there has been times I've had to physically hold my fiancé back from going buckwild.

You don't want to piss ole country girls off. Having my jaw wired shut taught me that.

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Rocker2013

Have you seen the video of them putting their kids in front of armed men and saying that if any of them got hurt it was "the FEDS" fault?

LOL

That was a perfect psy-ops wasn't it.

The Feds took the bait hook line and sinker.

Brilliant.

Uh, the feds didn't shoot because unlike the Bundy Crime Syndicate, the feds value life.

You have to be quite mentally disturbed to use women and children as human shields. Then again, nobody is accusing the Bundy Crime Syndicate if playing with a full deck.

"Bundy Crime Syndicate" ??

The perfect grand illusion was to cast the very thought of using women and children as human shields LOL.

and OF *Course* he "says" that he *Believes* they would open fire !!!!!

Brilliant psy-ops.

All part of the "act" and "scene".

Everybody fell for it. and then ....

1) No shots were fired by either side

2) No guns were confiscated by police

3) Bundy got the cattle back

Pretty good negotiating I would say.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Rocker2013

Have you seen the video of them putting their kids in front of armed men and saying that if any of them got hurt it was "the FEDS" fault?

LOL

That was a perfect psy-ops wasn't it.

The Feds took the bait hook line and sinker.

Brilliant.

Uh, the feds didn't shoot because unlike the Bundy Crime Syndicate, the feds value life.

You have to be quite mentally disturbed to use women and children as human shields. Then again, nobody is accusing the Bundy Crime Syndicate if playing with a full deck.

"Bundy Crime Syndicate" ??

The perfect grand illusion was to cast the very thought of using women and children as human shields LOL.

and OF *Course* he "says" that he *Believes* they would open fire !!!!!

Brilliant psy-ops.

All part of the "act" and "scene".

Everybody fell for it. and then ....

1) No shots were fired by either side

2) No guns were confiscated by police

3) Bundy got the cattle back

Pretty good negotiating I would say.

There is no psy-ops here. Women and children are real. They are there. Nothing psychological at all.

You are unclear on the definition of psy-ops. If I put a gun to someone's head and threaten to pull the trigger, that is a clear and present danger. Nothing psychological.