Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
7 Comments
newtboyjokingly says...The Hammonds have distanced themselves and said publicly that they have NOTHING to do with these terrorists.
If the terrorists want the Fed to return the land to it's rightful owners, that would be the Paiute Indians (and other native Americans in other places) not the local ranchers. The ranchers got the land from the fed, so if the fed has no right to land ownership, it certainly can't have a right to give away what it never owned.
If it's not their intent to return the land to those it was actually stolen from, that makes this standoff not about a political movement, but an attempt at armed land theft no matter how you look at it.
MrFisksays...*controversy
siftbotsays...Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.
Lawdeedawsays...The Indian argument is (kind of) stupid. Yes, we signed a peace treaty with them that should have held. But prior to that we won a war. That shit makes it our land--unfortunately. This has been the case throughout history.
I noticed it on another video and find it silly...but meh, the other guy thought it was fitting...
With that said they are terrorists, the federal government has the rights to that land and the only reason we haven't killed them all is that they are not Muslims or black.
entr0pysays...I'm all for the FBI avoiding escalation as long as they're all eventually rounded up and sent to prison.
scheherazadesays...I listened to an interview with some connected folks to this situation a few days ago, and there's a bit more to it.
(I don't remember any detail, but the gist was ...)
The ranch is directly adjacent to the refuge, and the government has been trying to grow the refuge.
The government has been trying to get the particular rancher's land for a while, offering to buy it, and generally making living there inconvenient, to encourage him/them to leave.
There was some funny business with the arson charge, like there being some hunters on the land that had a different account of the events, and their account was at odds with what the government asserted happened.
Folks have the opinion that the arson charge was a convenient way of dialing up the 'get out of town' message - and so this occupy whatever response is some sorta backlash. Something like : "You want us to leave so you can have our stuff? Oh yeah? Well why don't YOU leave and we'll take YOUR stuff?! Take that!"
Also, the group has not been isolated. People and media come and do all the time, and the group makes daily statements to the media. One reporter noted that he has only seen one person carrying a firearm the entire time (a single man with a pistol in a holster), and everyone else has no firearms on their person (regardless if they have any in general, they aren't walking around armed).
-scheherazade
newtboysays...HA!! These 'patriots' really just want to get drunk on donations.
http://usuncut.com/news/oregon-standoff-member-caught-drinking-donation-money/
According to a Facebook video that he has since removed from his profile, Cai Irvin, one of the gunmen holding down the federal bird sanctuary, claimed that one of the “patriots” walked off the camp to stay in a hotel and drink away the donations he raked in to be part of the insurgency.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.