Thoughts on the Oregon Standoff

BigBlindMaxBigBlindMax Banned
edited January 2016 in General Chat

enter image description here

So, if you're American like me, you might've heard about this. A couple weeks ago, a group of heavily!-armed rancher and militia members marched to Malheur Wildlife Preserve in rural Oregon and occupied an empty building. Since then, more and more heavily armed "patriots" have joined them in The refuge. They're demanding that the federal government basically abolish the Malheur preserve and open the land for ranchers to graze their cattle.

The Feds have taken a cautious approach so far. They've cut power to the preserve and are hoping to wait them out. The people living nearby want Y'allQaeda to leave, but the leader, Ammon Bundy has indicated that he has no interest in doing so until the group's demands are met. The Palute tribe that lived there is also worried that the militia will trample or loot their ancestral grave. Whether these fears are well-founded of not, is unknown.

A better (albeit longer) explanation

Where do you come down on this. Do the occupiers have legitimate complaints against the state? How do you see this ending?

Non-Americans : have you heard about this? Does this lend credence to your stereotypes about Americans?

EDIT : I've included a brief VICE documentary the stand off, for people who feel out of the loop.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3NeHPgF_9E0

Comments

  • Hmmm, now i am 100% sure all americans are rednecks.

  • I read a headline on Yahoo about something of Oregon. I really have no clue who this militia is tbh.

  • BigBlindMaxBigBlindMax Banned
    edited January 2016

    The militia consists of ranchers and other right-wing individuals who believe the government is overstepping its bounds by restricting where cattle can graze, etc. They're nuts about the constitution and going back to the "good ol' days". If you've ever heard of the "Tea Party", this group is basically a manifestation of that movement.

    I read a headline on Yahoo about something of Oregon. I really have no clue who this militia is tbh.

  • BigBlindMaxBigBlindMax Banned
    edited January 2016

    As America becomes more and more like a police state. I feel like the word "terrorist" is losing all meaning. Nowadays, people seem to think it means "bad guys with radical views". Rather than "people who use acts of violence to achieve political ends".

    I think they're trespassing and definitely breaking laws, but they aren't currently using violence. They basically just walked in and occupied the building, no force was used against locals or police.

    Dowens82ny posted: »

    Yeah. These guys are terrorist. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/label-citizens-constitutional-freedom-terrorist-group-armed-seizure-federal-building-oregon

  • Last time I checked, a peaceful protest doesn't involve taking over a building with guns and demanding change.

  • Where's Janet Reno when you need her?

  • I know very little about what happened there, but on little more than gut reaction all I can say is these people are idiots that need a good stay in a local jail cell, along with a fun fine and a revocation of any and all rights to weapons. Hillbilly thugs.

  • Well, saying, "If you want your wildlife preserve back, you'd better abolish your wildlife preserve!" isn't very persuasive.

    At the moment, they're kind of stuck. If they start doing something violent, everyone will see them as the bad guys. If they give up, everyone will see them as cowards. They're sitting in the cold with no electricity, and their cattle are probably better off. Though I wonder who's defending their cattle, if they've taken their guns to the wildlife preserve.

  • Eh, there's probably other ranchers who are sympathetic to their cause (but not enough to occupy) who would help them out. A lot of the occupiers aren't ranchers at all and are just the constitutionalist, militia types.

    WarpSpeed posted: »

    Well, saying, "If you want your wildlife preserve back, you'd better abolish your wildlife preserve!" isn't very persuasive. At

  • I've linked to a VICE documentary about the crisis. It's very interesting and informative, I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't know what's going on.

  • There crazy, but not really hurting anybody. Slow approach sounds fine. Though they should all be arrested afterwards. I heard a few are wanted convicts. There essentially doing a protest.

    I don't really agree with them though, a lot of what they say remind me of sovereign citizens. Oh and there not terrorists either

  • edited January 2016

    Starve them out.

  • Do you consider all squatters terrorists?

    Dowens82ny posted: »

    Yeah. These guys are terrorist. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/label-citizens-constitutional-freedom-terrorist-group-armed-seizure-federal-building-oregon

  • If they had taken over the building unarmed, would you then consider it to be a peaceful protest? Because they stated that there was no one there when they arrived, so it wasn't like they took hostages or threatened to shoot people.

    Poogers555 posted: »

    Last time I checked, a peaceful protest doesn't involve taking over a building with guns and demanding change.

  • To be fair, there's a big difference between squatting in an abandoned home and squatting on government property to seemingly bait the Feds into a siege.

    Do you consider all squatters terrorists?

  • Yes it was empty when they took it, but you don't take over a building, and the only reason they still have it is because they have guns.

    Its kinda like if someone just went into your house when you were away, you come back and there is a guy in your house with a gun who says he isnt going to hurt anyone, but the house is now his, unless he gets what he wants.

    If they had taken over the building unarmed, would you then consider it to be a peaceful protest? Because they stated that there was no one there when they arrived, so it wasn't like they took hostages or threatened to shoot people.

  • I doubt that they actually want the Federal Government to come and fight them. It seemed to me that they chose their location due to it having been abandoned at the time of their occupation, and that it would also grab attention. I'd say the biggest difference here is that they're squatting in the name of protest, rather than them having nowhere else to go. If they were to have occupied, say, the sheriff's office, I would be more inclined to agree that they want a fight. As of right now though, they haven't made any threats against any individual people.

    BigBlindMax posted: »

    To be fair, there's a big difference between squatting in an abandoned home and squatting on government property to seemingly bait the Feds into a siege.

  • BigBlindMaxBigBlindMax Banned
    edited January 2016

    If they had taken over the building unarmed, would you then consider it to be a peaceful protest?

    I would consider it an unsuccessful protest.

    If they had taken over the building unarmed, would you then consider it to be a peaceful protest? Because they stated that there was no one there when they arrived, so it wasn't like they took hostages or threatened to shoot people.

  • Would it be better if they had brought tents, I wonder? And you're right, the only reason they still have it is because they have guns, but you also didn't answer my question. If they were squatting there without guns would you consider it a peaceful protest?

    It's kinda like that, but then again not really at all. That person would be considered a robber/thief, given that he stated his intent to take the house as his own after his occupation of it. The instance with the ranchers is different, because they want the government to legally cede the land in question to the county. They aren't stating that it is now their new home, they're just squatting there while they carry out their protest.

    Poogers555 posted: »

    Yes it was empty when they took it, but you don't take over a building, and the only reason they still have it is because they hav

  • Adding unsuccessful in there to discuss the outcome doesn't change the nature in which the protest was performed.

    BigBlindMax posted: »

    If they had taken over the building unarmed, would you then consider it to be a peaceful protest? I would consider it an unsuccessful protest.

  • Non-Americans : have you heard about this? Does this lend credence to your stereotypes about Americans?

    None of the "stereotypes" I know involved anything described above. Maybe I'm a bad non-American for not knowing them. Or maybe it's something else. Dunno.

  • Their uh, not the brightest bunch. As long as things don't turn out like Waco, I don't really care.

  • Well, I can see what they're doing it for, in protest to the recent seize of grazing land and I don't disagree with them protesting. The way they're doing it isn't even that bad too, seizing a unoccupied federal building in order to get attention. It's not illegal per say to do that if they're not holding hostages, which they aren't.

    My issues are with them and the people who have issues with them. They did it armed, quite frankly, I don't really get why...To get more news attention? To not be forced out? It feels dangerous and I can understand people's uncertainty with this and I totally get that. I don't think they should be armed...or seizing federal buildings either, seems thug like in my opinion. However, past my issues with them, there are some people reacting to this to whom I have problems with. Those comparing this to Ferguson or calling them terrorists.

    First off, this isn't a race issue and those who are trying to make it into a race issue are down right moronic. Secondly, they're not terrorists per say. They're not inciting terror to the people on purpose and they are demanding political change, they're trying to gain more land for their own monetary gain. Terrorist is being used so much in America these days, it's losing it's value and anyone and everyone is being called a terrorist to incite the public.

    All in all, it's stupid.

  • The people living nearby want Y'allQaeda to leave

    You don't know how much I laughed at that.

  • Throw them in the oubliette!

    On a serious note, I sent them a box of glitter and a dildo. I commend the feds for taking the cautious approach, rather than Waco'ing it or pulling a Ruby Ridge. I feel they need to be punished with death or life in prison.

  • Good ol' days where racism was allowed, people died at the age of 40 and there was a civil war happening... savages.

    BigBlindMax posted: »

    The militia consists of ranchers and other right-wing individuals who believe the government is overstepping its bounds by restric

  • Good ol' days where racism was allowed, people died at the age of 40 and there was a civil war happening... red-blooded patriots!

    Fox News FTFY.

    papai46 posted: »

    Good ol' days where racism was allowed, people died at the age of 40 and there was a civil war happening... savages.

  • edited January 2016

    It's okay, I'm sure police response and public reaction would be exactly the same if it BLM has taken over a federal building.

    enter image description here

  • I don't think they said anything about that. I believe what they had said was that they wanted the Federal Government to legally cede the land of the nature preserve to ranchers.

    papai46 posted: »

    Good ol' days where racism was allowed, people died at the age of 40 and there was a civil war happening... savages.

  • There are so many creative names for these people, though Y'allQaeda is the most popular as far as I can tell, most, if not all, are majorly funny.

    The people living nearby want Y'allQaeda to leave You don't know how much I laughed at that.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.