peeing our pants whenever one of these groups decides to get feisty.

that's what it takes.

Go in heavily armed with body cameras on every federal agent and long range cameras to film the raid. If they open fire, kill every last one of them.

End of problem. When people question it, show the film of them opening fire first and agents responding. End of problem.

Do you really think the country needs more right wing terrorism?

People on this site can be perceptive about the grievances of Middle Eastern terrorists, yet they don't see the same dynamics in their own back yard. You're proposing fighting a "war on terror" and it will fail. Force doesn't solve these kinds of problems.

Fuck that noise.

Go in NOW!

If we accept 'not giving in’ as a guiding principle for state policy, then we grant political power to those who decide exactly what the ‘terrorist demands’ are. A realistic example here is the abortion issue: conservative Christian politicians could claim that ‘terrorists are demanding abortion’, and use that as an excuse to prohibit it. If the state automatically rejects all terrorist demands, then it is politically advantageous to present the position of your opponents as a terrorist demand. In effect an arbitrary veto right is created. Since anyone can use this trick, contradictory claims would be made. Pro-abortion campaigners could equally claim, that some Christian terrorists demand a ban on abortion (which is in fact true).

So, someone would decide which claims are ‘the real terrorist demands’, and that someone is then in a position to decide the policy of the state. That not only lacks transparency, it also lacks logic. That is not the way to run a country — first hold a competition to invent terrorist demands, and then let an arbitrary person arbitrarily select the winner.

In the real world, terrorist groups do indeed make contradictory demands. A classic example is the war in French colonial Algeria. An anti-colonial insurrection among the ethnic Algerians, led by the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) demanded independence. The substantial ethnic French minority in Algeria, and dissident army officers, formed the right-wing Organisation de l’armée secrète (OAS) to oppose it. France at first violently suppressed the insurrection in Algeria. When General De Gaulle later realised that independence was inevitable, and negotiated with the FLN, the OAS tried to kill him. It would have been impossible to decide the issue of Algerian independence, solely on the principle that ‘all terrorist demands must be resisted’.

So ‘not giving in to terrorism’ is a slogan, and not a workable or desirable principle. Slogans are a political fact in themselves, but they are primarily an expression of emotion. Calls to ‘stand up to terrorism’ tell us that the speaker is angry — about ISIS, for instance. They do not, however, offer any moral guidance on how to react to ISIS, right wing terrorists, or anything else. Such decisions should be made on the basis of other, better, principles.

You now sound exactly like George W. Bush, by the way.

We are under no obligation to base policy on what terrorists want, but we aren't forced never to do what they want, either.

Either way you're letting terrorism dictate your decision making, which is stupid.

not giving in to terrorism is a terrible thing.

Which would lead to your slogan being: "Give them what they want!"

Yeah, I'm sure that will teach them...that they can take what they want and there will never be any consequences.

nt

To end their occupation of Alcatraz, hopefully President Obama will have as much patience before killing US citizens.

And I mean, literally DEAD. They would have all be gunned down on day one.

or maybe a blown up hospital filled with brown people.

the government planned to send.

It would appear so. Nothing happened after the Bundy ranch debacle, now this, so really it does appear to be what they are saying.

administration? The US government is headed by Barack Obama. I wonder if this is stuff you would say to his face?

Add to that - they are now TERRORIZING private citizens, intimidating them, following them around.

If Fed Gov or Local law enforcement won't do it -

Then let the good citizens of this community stand their ground.


These assholes crossed the line - now they need to be severely punished.

That's what Bundy owed. He never paid and there were no consequences.

And they'll never pay money or consequences for this one because law enforcement are terrified of white radical terrorists with guns.

We might create another McVeigh
We might have another Waco
We might create more homegrown terrorism.

Can we stop being so fearful? It's weak.

I'm not weak. Are you Moh?

Take 'em out. Send a message- we will treat you like ISIS, ISIL, AQ, etc. etc. They need a strong message that they can't tread on America.

All would be wearing body armor and body cams.

You have multiple video cams set up around the compound with telephoto lenses to film the raid.

When (not if, you know these assholes) a shot is fired at the agents, you blow every one of the motherfuckers away.

Play the video of the first shot being fired by the terrorists on an endless loop on national television 24 hours a day for a week.

Problem solved.

we will treat you like ISIS, ISIL, AQ, etc. etc

You mean we'll create you, fund you, arm you, fight a fake war on you, and give you a country?

"You realize Bush said the same thing about invading Iraq."

What specifically did he say and was the context precisely comparable?

I don't remember him bring up Frank Hamer eihter - and that's what I"m suggesting.

You ever seen Bonnie and Clyde's car when they got done with them? It's insane!

It's called Bundyville.

And if I'm like George Bush on this?

Good!

I'd prefer to think of myself like Obama.

He's a lame duck - he needs to unleash the dogs on these cheap two bit dimestore hoods.


Go all Frank Hamers against Bonnie and Clyde. It's your right to be passive and accomodating and willing to do whatever they want you to do. That's your right.

It's my right to demand these Johnny Reb Traitors to America be put down. They are taking money away from worthy things that America should be spending money on.

Because there are millions of heavily armed fuckwits out there itching for an excuse to start shooting, and they're perfectly willing to escalate as long as you are.

Now, I'm not a pacifist. Some arguments can only be settled by force. But you'd better know what you're getting yourself and the rest of the country into. How many deaths are you willing to cause in order to look tough? That's why it reminds me of Dubya.

Then all the Yeehawdists nationwide would be dead.

Would the, uh, "liberated" Southern cities be greeting troops with flowers, as well?

This is some kind of psy ops nonsense to get us to be docile little dummies lead to the slaughter.

rather than an actual "war".

There's not going to be a Civil War round two unless . . . Keep letting us black folk get murdered willy nilly left and right and laughing about it (not you but a segment of America that includes these bundy types) and THAT will be a civil war.

And again - I'm fine looking like Bush - or Obama.

Remember the drones? That's Obama's baby - and I love him for it!

I'm sick and tired of white folks like this getting away with this shit. YOU are sending a message that there are TWO sets of laws - one for them and one for kids like Trayvon Martin that defend themselves against people like Bundy.

You sound like a Tutsi my friend - A Tutsi. They trusted the radicals and see what happened to them and the Twa?

No way - no how.

You cant even call the GOP terrorists and white supremacists around here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027522353

The GOP created this bunch and it would send one hell of a strong message to these 'don't tread on me' types. I'm totally with Moh on this. Moh Knows!!!!!

The kill 'em all bloodlust that we have seen on DU regarding this situation would probably disgust President Obama.