150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[GMDino]

Oregon Militants Vow To 'Kill And Be Killed If Necessary,' But FBI Isn't Biting

Quote:The gunmen who have occupied a federal building here for three days will resist with force any attempt to remove them, Ammon Bundy, a leader of the militants, said Sunday. But federal authorities have no immediate plans to rush in to retake the remote building, a federal law enforcement source told The Huffington Post.

The FBI is working closely with state police, and FBI officials are busy establishing a public information office in Burns. But due to a number of factors -- the crisis is unfolding in a remote part of Oregon; it doesn't appear to be a life-or-death situation; and there are no hostages involved -- law enforcement officials want to avoid unnecessarily escalating the standoff, the source said. The FBI instead hopes to get a better handle on the situation over the next few days.

The FBI will not be releasing specific information about law enforcement movements, but it is working with local law enforcement agencies to “bring a peaceful resolution to the situation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge," officials from the bureau said in a statement.
[Previously: Gunmen Seize Federal Building In Oregon]

But near the facility, people aren't convinced. Jon Ritzheimer, a militiaman who has organized anti-Muslim rallies, said in a video that he parked outside the refuge's gate “armed with the Constitution and a camera” so he could document the situation if the feds "try and come in here fully armed and create another Ruby Ridge or Waco event.”



Media gather outside the entrance of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters near Burns, Oregon, Jan. 3, 2016, where an armed anti-government group have taken over a building at the federal wildlife refuge, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.

In the parking lot, Pete Santilli, a radio talk show host from Ohio, said he hoped for an open line of communication with law enforcement. But he said that so far, none had materialized. "We know based on history that the federal government will try to take control, and they will try to bring force upon these people," he said. "They will literally kill these people that are here, in order to make their message."

Robert McKnight, 38, who was born and raised in Burns, said he's "worried for these people, not law enforcement." He added that "you got Ruby Ridge, Waco, all kinds of people that have tried to stand up, and they get slaughtered."

Jennifer, a 30-year-old rancher who didn't want to give her last name, said that if a confrontation happens, "it'll be because of the FBI." She added: "These people are not looking for a fight, they just want something to change. I mean, they are looking for a fight, but not guns blazing, taking people out."

Federal officials are prepared for increased media attention in the coming days. “If you are sending satellite trucks or the like, we would like to help prepare for that as much as possible,” an FBI official told reporters in an email.

For now, there are no sirens, no police cars zooming to the seized building and no SWAT teams arriving in armored vehicles. In the parking lot of the refuge's headquarters building, journalists mingle freely with activists. The 30-mile stretch of road between Burns and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, where the militants are holed up, is snowy and barren.

The men occupying the facility include Ammon and two other sons of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher whose legal battle with the federal government culminated in an armed standoff with law enforcement in 2014.

A man who claimed his name was "Fluffy Unicorn," and said he was a "bodyguard" for the Bundys, stands at the foot of the road. Law enforcement has made no effort to contact the occupiers, he said.

“We are not hurting anybody or damaging any property. We would expect that they understand that we have given them no reason to use lethal force upon us or any other force,” Ammon Bundy told reporters on Sunday.

But if the feds "try to come and force that issue," he added, "then they make it about a building and facility and lives could be lost because of that.”
The Oregonian's Ian Kullgren tweeted early Sunday that he'd "talked to [militiaman] Ryan Bundy on the phone," and that Bundy "said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary."

[BmorePat87]

When people ask why the government hasn't stormed the place, I am reminded a bit of the Bonus Marchers during Hoover's presidency. 15k+ WWI vets camped out in DC and demanded the government pay them early for bonuses they were set to get in 1945. They were armed with clubs instead of guns, but they were camped for 2-3 months out in DC.

When they were ordered to leave, the refused and the cops shot at them and they fought back. Finally, Hoover sent in the army. Douglas MacArthur, Giver of Zero *****, feared an insurgency against the federal government and ignored Hoover's orders to stop driving them back after they abandoned their first camp. They continued on and drove them from their second camp. FDR said of this "I just won the election".

The government isn't going to go into a fortified area with 150 armed men and attempt to arrest them all. They don't want the bad PR if one of those domestic terrorists gets killed and they don't want to unnecessarily risk the lives of their own men. They'll go the slower negotiation route first.

[Benton]

(01-04-2016, 06:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When people ask why the government hasn't stormed the place, I am reminded a bit of the Bonus Marchers during Hoover's presidency. 15k+ WWI vets camped out in DC and demanded the government pay them early for bonuses they were set to get in 1945. They were armed with clubs instead of guns, but they were camped for 2-3 months out in DC.

When they were ordered to leave, the refused and the cops shot at them and they fought back. Finally, Hoover sent in the army. Douglas MacArthur, Giver of Zero *****, feared an insurgency against the federal government and ignored Hoover's orders to stop driving them back after they abandoned their first camp. They continued on and drove them from their second camp. FDR said of this "I just won the election".

The government isn't going to go into a fortified area with 150 armed men and attempt to arrest them all. They don't want the bad PR if one of those domestic terrorists gets killed and they don't want to unnecessarily risk the lives of their own men. They'll go the slower negotiation route first.

They don't have any hostages and — from what I understand — the usage of the building can be done elsewhere. I'll be surprised if they don't just cut the utilities off and wait for them to run out of food and water in 6-8 months (I'm assuming they brought a large supply).

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 06:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When people ask why the government hasn't stormed the place, I am reminded a bit of the Bonus Marchers during Hoover's presidency. 15k+ WWI vets camped out in DC and demanded the government pay them early for bonuses they were set to get in 1945. They were armed with clubs instead of guns, but they were camped for 2-3 months out in DC.

When they were ordered to leave, the refused and the cops shot at them and they fought back. Finally, Hoover sent in the army. Douglas MacArthur, Giver of Zero *****, feared an insurgency against the federal government and ignored Hoover's orders to stop driving them back after they abandoned their first camp. They continued on and drove them from their second camp. FDR said of this "I just won the election".

The government isn't going to go into a fortified area with 150 armed men and attempt to arrest them all. They don't want the bad PR if one of those domestic terrorists gets killed and they don't want to unnecessarily risk the lives of their own men. They'll go the slower negotiation route first.

I agree that negotiations are the better route to go first, always are. Do you agree or disagree that this would have gone much differently if these terrorists were not primarily (if not all) white?

Personally, I'm all for siege warfare in instances like this if it can be afforded and done safely. I'm just feeling like there is a big double standard going on, especially given that these men are doing this in defense of someone who has gotten a slap on the wrist for what should have been serious jail time given his history.

[BonnieBengal]

There's about 20 men, not 150. They are basically ranchers who are fed up with the govt taking their land and going about it the wrong way. The two men in prison are asking not to be associated with this. But as a reminder, nobody shot the Occupy movement folks, so let's hope the govt gives them the same consideration. And at least one of the Occupy movement folks actually fired a gun in DC.

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 06:42 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: There's about 20 men, not 150. They are basically ranchers who are fed up with the govt taking their land and going about it the wrong way. The two men in prison are asking not to be associated with this. But as a reminder, nobody shot the Occupy movement folks, so let's hope the govt gives them the same consideration. And at least one of the Occupy movement folks actually fired a gun in DC.

Let's be clear here, this is about people being upset because they aren't abiding by the federal laws and regulations regarding federally managed land. They are protesting two people being given the minimum sentence for arson on federal property after having been convicted of prior federal crimes related to the BLM land because they were not abiding by the rules and were mad when the government cut off their access to it.

And Occupy members were arrested when they illegally occupied certain areas. Some were pepper sprayed, some were arrested using questionable levels of force. So your comparison may not be what you would like to make, here

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 06:42 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: There's about 20 men, not 150.  They are basically ranchers who are fed up with the govt taking their land and going about it the wrong way.  The two men in prison are asking not to be associated with this.   But as a reminder, nobody shot the Occupy movement folks, so let's hope the govt gives them the same consideration.  And at least one of the Occupy movement folks actually fired a gun in DC.

It's not their land, it's federal land. They're upset because they want to have federal land given back to states so that they can exploit it for their own personal gains. 

Also, the Occupy Wall St movement  members were met with force and arrested when they were breaking the law, as they should have been. The difference is, they camped in a public park and these guys broke into a government building with weapons. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 06:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree that negotiations are the better route to go first, always are. Do you agree or disagree that this would have gone much differently if these terrorists were not primarily (if not all) white?

Federal government response? The same.

Public and media response? Different. 

Local response? Since it's a federal issue, I have to think they defer, but it's possible they make a bigger deal out of it. 

[BonnieBengal]

(01-04-2016, 06:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not their land, it's federal land. They're upset because they want to have federal land given back to states so that they can exploit it for their own personal gains. 

Also, the Occupy Wall St movement  members were met with force and arrested when they were breaking the law, as they should have been. The difference is, they camped in a public park and these guys broke into a government building with weapons. 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be arrested.  I'm saying they shouldn't be killed as has been suggested in the media.  The land may be federal now, but the federal govt has been taking their land piece by piece for years.  

[J24]

If their willing destroy for a political cause then yes that is terrorism and should be dealt with as such. There is no room for this in a modern society.

[BonnieBengal]

(01-04-2016, 07:25 PM)J24 Wrote: If their willing destroy for a political cause then yes that is terrorism and should be dealt with as such. There is no room for this in a modern society.

What about Baltimore riots?  Occupy property damage?  Was that called terrorism?

[*bfine32*]

Is this best described as Terrorism or Civil Disobedience?

Who have they killed?

Who have they threatened to kill if not attacked?

What population's outlook are they looking to influence?

Who are the holding hostage?

[Rotobeast]

(01-04-2016, 06:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree that negotiations are the better route to go first, always are. Do you agree or disagree that this would have gone much differently if these terrorists were not primarily (if not all) white?

It was quite a while ago, but they went this route with Native Americans.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz
I suspect it would follow the same path with the white men involved in the story.

Side Note: They fellow I've interacted with, who was at the original Bundy Ranch standoff, happens to be black.
I don't know if he went to Oregon in support, or not.

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 07:41 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: What about Baltimore riots?  Occupy property damage?  Was that called terrorism?

The intent has to be to coerce the government into changing some action/policy with the threat of violence. The Baltimore riots would not qualify. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this best described as Terrorism or Civil Disobedience?

Who have they threatened to kill if not attacked?

We know the answers to the other questions, so I will focus on this one. I have heard conflicting reports, but have there not been several sources with people in the group saying they will be violent if arrests are attempted? Arresting someone for doing something illegal is not attacking them. That takes them out of the realm of civil disobedience, IMO. Only in extreme cases could I see violence as being a part of civil disobedience, and defending violent felons is not one of them.

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this best described as Terrorism or Civil Disobedience?

Who have they killed?

Who have they threatened to kill if not attacked?

What population's outlook are they looking to influence?

Who are the holding hostage?

1. One man's terrorism may certainly be another man's civil disobedience. While many disagree, I tend to associate civil disobedience with nonviolent action, though, admittedly, civil disobedience can be violent. For this reason, I use "terrorism".

2. No one. Terrorists can be terrorists and not kill anyone.

3. As far as I know, they have only threatened to use force if the authorities try to legally detain them or end their illegal occupation of the federal building. So the government can either wait for them to willingly end their illegal actions, give into their demands to avoid violence from them, or attempt to detain them and, if we are to believe they are sincere, be attacked while doing so.

4. Those in the government who develop land use policy in the West.

5. No one, which is why no one has called them captors.

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 08:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We know the answers to the other questions, so I will focus on this one. I have heard conflicting reports, but have there not been several sources with people in the group saying they will be violent if arrests are attempted? Arresting someone for doing something illegal is not attacking them. That takes them out of the realm of civil disobedience, IMO. Only in extreme cases could I see violence as being a part of civil disobedience, and defending violent felons is not one of them.

Certainly in the eye of the beholder. Will society by large believe federal laws making it illegal to set fires on federal lands are "unjust" or will they believe that anyone should be able to start fires on federal land without fear of government intervention. 

[Aquapod770]

(01-04-2016, 08:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We know the answers to the other questions, so I will focus on this one. I have heard conflicting reports, but have there not been several sources with people in the group saying they will be violent if arrests are attempted? Arresting someone for doing something illegal is not attacking them. That takes them out of the realm of civil disobedience, IMO. Only in extreme cases could I see violence as being a part of civil disobedience, and defending violent felons is not one of them.

But, but...police brutality 

















Sorry couldn't resist 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Bahaha..."y'allqueda" is a friggin' hilarious nickname for these dudes.

Terrorism comes in many forms, but rest assured that when the terrorizer is a white dude, there will be people who try to church it up and make it seem like less of an issue. If these guys were brown, the cries would be to take no prisoners and it may have already happened.

Hopefully it remains "peaceful" and there is no bloodshed. If there is, hopefully it is only the terrorist's.

The best way to deal with this will be to wait them out. Like others have suggested, cut off the utilities. They won't last forever in there...

[Rotobeast]

(01-04-2016, 08:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Certainly in the eye of the beholder. Will society by large believe federal laws making it illegal to set fires on federal lands are "unjust" or will they believe that anyone should be able to start fires on federal land without fear of government intervention. 

Supposedly they were controlled "back burns" that have been performed for generations, to preserve winter feed from invasive insects.
They insist that they are being targeted, so that a new federal fire agent can make a name for himself.