I felt the following comments from the thread were insightful enough to warrant follow-up and additional discussion:
#20 If the description in the video is true, then the armed militia that day behaved like a well trained military force against the clownish federal government.
I'm inclined to go with the theory in the one video you mentioned that the militia leadership realized they were in a no-win situation; that, despite with 20+:1 odds in their favor, they, the demonstrators, and the BLM agents were likely being set-up.
Posted by Pappy 2014-04-19 21:59|| 2014-04-19
#21 Badanov: I think the Feds _want_ an incident they can use politically, and don't care whether they win the engagement.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-04-19 22:05|| 2014-04-19 The theory of a gov't contrived show-down with armed, conservative US Citizens is most worrisome and something I had honestly not considered. As I believe someone mentioned yesterday....'a second event this close to the election is unlikely.' After the election however, all bets may be off.
Like I've posted before, those 'agents' have to go home eventually, at night. It's the reason the local cops were not effective in Iraq or Afghanistan. They have to live among the population. When they start building permanent housing within compounds or picking up military housing from 'downsized' installations, pay close attention. Remember too, that our effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan was when the local trusted the foreigners enough to provide info on the hostiles. Info flow will drop below effective levels real quick if there is any shooting.
Real change will require a meaningful percentage of the population to believe the government is not merely mistaken or incompetent, but is in fact an enemy. Heavy handed tactics like those used at the Bundy Ranch change people's minds quickly. In other words, incidents like this quickly turn the population against you.
What is very disturbing is that this government doesn't seem to care about losing popular opinion.
Posted by: Snick Prince of the Weak7544 ||
We have a number of federal agencies with policing power. Fine, as far as that goes: The Fish and Wildlife Service occasionally needs to arrest someone. The IRS needs to investigate for tax fraud. And so on.
But one of the problems is that they've all up-gunned significantly without apparent reason. As Mr. Fund points out, the FBI has a much better sense (though certainly not perfect) as to when a SWAT team is required.
The BLM does not need a SWAT team -- if they do, they should call the FBI. As it stands, agencies like the BLM have wannabe infantry that lack accountability and the the very needed quality of stability when a situation is tense.
The Bundy ranch standoff could have turned out very badly: Mr. Bundy's people could have reacted with violence. The pro-Bundy militia types could have turned violent. And very importantly, the BLM SWAT teams could have turned violent.
That last one is, to me, the most dangerous part of the confrontation. Our society can deal with citizens who turn violent. But when the government turns violent against the citizens? That's when revolution becomes not only thinkable, but necessary.
Posted by: Steve White ||
I think they had no idea it would inflame so quickly and their first bureaucratic reaction was "we'll squash this little dissenting bug".
A "First Amendment Area"? Really?
Posted by: Frank G ||
Thanks for the re-post TW.
I'll be filming the egg hunt later today with the grannies. A few eggs failed to get the requisite paint job. Suppose I'll hide those for myself ;-)
I think the Feds _want_ an incident they can use politically, and don't care whether they win the engagement.
There is always the possibility of unintended consequences--something this bunch in Washington is not good at anticipating. Somehow, when shooting starts there are almost always unintended consequences.
The BLM does not need a SWAT team Many agencies do not need armed police/SWAT teams. It seems to be a status symbol for your agency these days. The weaponizing of agencies, presumably against the American people, is totally unnecessary and a danger. The present state of the Federal government is a huge burden on the American people. At some point one of the armed agents or one of the citizens is going to pull a trigger--then it is on.
regardless of how you feel about the standoff, Mr. Bundy needs to get right on paying his grazing fees on public lands to somebody, if only to Clark County.
Posted by: Frank G ||
You can't make money paying $50 per year per head fees. In the years it take to raise a calf to a cow that can be taken to market, all profit is lost. That is why 51 ranchers lost their ranches. As designed by the feds.
Knowing this regime, there will be a heavy effort to go after supporters whose names the have or will have. It is how tryants work.
Why go to all the trouble to set up a real incident? Gleiwitz incident format is much simpler & very predictable.
I don't think they intended to "set up a real incident." I think the intent was to exploit, in multiple ways for multiple purposes, an already existing situation. That's pretty much in line with the history of previous actions. Think of it as a form of political ju-jitsu.
I believe I read somewhere (here?) that Bundy has put state (county? Not sure) fees in escrow.
Posted by: Barbara ||
I believe I read somewhere (here?) that Bundy has put state (county? Not sure) fees in escrow.
I heard the same thing. the fees have been paid to a third party.
Also of note that Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars is reporting the feds are moving large numbers of shooters, clandestinely into Las Vegas, trying to act inconspicuous, presumably in preparation for an assault.
Funny that the feds talked the FAA into enacting a no fly zone around the ranch, and not in areas where the feds will be starting their operations.
I can well imagine the large number of privately owned UAVs buzzing about at the moment.
After Russia's president ignored and mocked a first round of U.S. sanctions against his wealthy political cronies, President Obama today announced he'll hit Vladimir Putin where it hurts. Not only did he announce new sanctions, he actually carried them out on live TV.
"With the full support of the international community," Mr. Obama said, "I'm announcing today several crippling sanctions on Vladimir Putin's dog -- limiting his travel, seizing his assets, and shaming him before the global community."
[DAWN] A READER recently accused me of inconsistency. He pointed out that despite my advocacy of human rights ...which are usually entirely different from personal liberty... , I had argued for tough action and laws against terrorists.
He went on to argue -- quite rightly -- that the state ought not to stoop to the level of the bully boyz in its attempt to defeat them. I agree that there is no moral equivalence between the criminal actions of snuffies and terrorists, and the means adopted by the state to combat these criminals.
Moving from the general to the specific, we in Pakistain find ourselves at war with a cruel foe who is not bound by the Geneva Conventions. He has unleashed the most barbaric violence against the people and institutions of Pakistain. What should our response be?
Should we deal in his own coin and use similarly vicious means, suspending our own liberal laws and civil liberties in the process? To an extent, other countries have done just this: witness the robust laws and anti-terror forces put in place in the West after 9/11. Despite the many human rights violations that have resulted, these countries have managed to contain the threat of Islamist terrorism.
But it is easier to enact laws and take tough action against the 'other': the perceived danger in the West largely comes from immigrant Mohammedans and their descendants, making it easier to crack down with wide public support. In Sri Lanka, the Tamils are widely seen as outsiders by the majority Sinhalese, allowing the government to adopt draconian measures against the separatist LTTE.
Things are not as clear-cut in Pakistain. The Taliban and their various constituent factions are widely viewed as misled brethren, despite all the atrocities they have committed. This is why so many Paks support Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... in his efforts to negotiate with them. Interestingly, the Baloch nationalist movement receives no such understanding, and security forces are allowed to conduct their brutal campaign against the Baloch without much criticism by the Pak public and the media.
Muslim-majority nations are doing to followers of Jesus what they did to the Jews.
by Ron Prosor
[WSJ] This week, as Jews celebrate the Passover holiday, they are commemorating the Bible's Exodus story describing a series of plagues inflicted on ancient Egypt that freed the Israelites, allowing them to make their way to the Holy Land. But over the past century, another exodus, driven by a plague of persecution, has swept across the Middle East and is emptying the region of its Christian population. The persecution is especially virulent today.
The Middle East may be the birthplace of three monotheistic religions, but some Arab nations appear bent on making it the burial ground for two one of them. For 2,000 years, Christian communities dotted the region, enriching the Arab world with literature, culture and commerce. At the turn of the 20th century, Christians made up 26% of the Middle East's population. Today, that figure has dwindled to less than 10%. Intolerant and bad boy governments are driving away the Christian communities that have lived in the Middle East since their faith was born.
In the rubble of Syrian cities like Aleppo and Damascus, Christians who refused to convert to Islam have been kidnapped, shot and beheaded by Islamist opposition fighters. In Egypt, mobs of Moslem Brüderbund members burn Coptic Christian churches in the same way they once obliterated Jewish synagogues. And in Iraq, forces of Evil deliberately target Christian worshippers. This past Christmas, 26 people were killed when a bomb destroyed a crowd of worshipers leaving a church in Storied Baghdad's southern Dora neighborhood.
Christians are losing their lives, liberties, businesses and their houses of worship across the Middle East. It is little wonder that native Christians have sought refuge in neighboring countries--yet in many cases they find themselves equally unwelcome. Over the past 10 years, nearly two-thirds of Iraq's 1.5 million Christians have been driven from their homes. Many settled in Syria before once again becoming victims of unrelenting persecution. Syria's Christian population has dropped from 30% in the 1920s to less than 10% today.
Mr. Prosor is Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.