previous post next post  

No. Nope. Uh-uh. Ain't happenin', Dick.

 No. Not like that. Wrong. I won't play with you if that's how you're going to play.

And I mean "dick."  

Not the dimunutive for "Richard."

Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women ‘Up at the Front’ During Bundy Ranch Standoff.

Screw that noise.

7 Comments

Concur on the anatomical reference to the individual(s) considering this tactic.  Would add some cerebro-excrementary confluence terms to the description.

Whole situation has a very bad smell. See Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch for one of the more in-depth articles on the background.

Both sides seem to be a long way from any moral high ground. For a fresh push against our few remaining rights, a bunch of self-identified militia types drunk on righteous indignation over a few cows in a murky (at least to city folks) grazing lease dispute going up against the feds and shedding blood, or even making loud threatening noises in the press to that effect, this would seem to be the just the propaganda event that a Big Brother inclined government would want. Almost makes one suspect the possibility of agents-provocateurs in action.

 
I concur with the idea of troublemakers trying to discredit the civilians. Such things have happened before, such as COINTELPRO and other actions in the 60's and 70's by our government. Some of the folks I pay attention to were more of the mind of supporting scattered smaller events to tie down govt. personnel to prevent their forming up into larger contingents such as at the Brady ranch. Hundreds are harder to confront than an office full of individuals in cities scattered all over the West. I guess it was a tactic of a thousand little cuts rather than one massive knife fight. Luckily, no bodies accumulated on either side. Who knows what the morrow will bring? Will the fall election actually make any difference?
 
BLM is certainly no angel in this dispute. I've had to deal with BLM Cadastral and they've done stuff that would cost me every license I have, yet they arrogantly engage in their illegalities. IN this case, it appears that BLM has not done Bundy right over the years and so quit paying the grazing lease. OTOH, it also appears that Harry Reid's boy is in some business arrangement with the Red Chinese for a "green power" installation and wants the land Bundy has been running his cattle on. The deal stinks to the pits of hell. HH, no election will matter because the hearts of people are basically sinful and they simply want what they want and will vote for anyone that promises what they want. It matters not that a very small amount of thought would lead to the conclusion that their promises are not possible, but that doesn't matter. Tell people what they want to hear and they will follow as you lead them to the slaughterhouse. They'll eventually complain, but it's normally too late when they realize the guy is approaching with the thump gun.
 

Both sides seem to be a long way from any moral high ground.

Ain't that the truth.

There's no doubt in my mind that the .fedgov has the legal right to control its lands how it sees fit.  But changing long established conventions and destroying a man's livelihood over a tortoise isn't exactly playing nice with each other either. [/understatement].  Bundy clearly owes the money and after a couple of court orders to pay have been ignored, another sternly worded letter is insufficient.  The BLM is correct about that.

But going full stormtrooper over a tortoise and a past due bill is like using a howitzer to kill a fly.  Call him back into court (he does have a history of showing up at those) and arrest him there.  Clean and upstanding.  The protestors aren't there because they think he's innocent, they're there because of the massive amount of firepower being mustered against him for nothing more than an unpaid bill.

As to this "strategy", it makes my skin crawl. At the same time, it does make a kind of sense, from a radically different point of view.

If most of us engage in a battle I think our priorities would be mostly similar: Defeat the enemy. Protect the women and children. Survive if possible. In that order.  But this battle cannot meet any of those objectives.  Should the shooting start, the protestors could never stand victorious after having driven the .fedgov into a retreat.  They will die.  Every single last one of them will die. The women included*.

I think they know that.

Why do you fight a battle you know will take 100% casaulties?  Because you expect your deaths to buy your side something.  The guy isn't sending the women out first so that he might survive.
They aren't there to fight and win.  They are there to dare the fedgov to be come right out and say it's willing to kill its own citizens because a tortoise is more important.  They are there to be seen being slaughtered.  

I think this is massively stupid.  The .fedgov has already slaughtered men, women, and children at Waco and pretty much paid no penalty for it.  But if I were that stupid to think that martyrdom of my entire group would purchase a larger victory, changing the sort order to maximize the effect does logically follow from the premises.

*The women aren't exactly there against their will. They volunteered for violence too.
 

 
Sorry, I don't share your outrage at the "women in front" tactic at this demonstration.

This was not some cowardly "hide behind them and use them as cover" scheme, but rather a carefully thought out plan to (a) reduce the likelihood of the feds opening fire on peaceful civilians, and (b) if the SHTF, then to ensure that the images would highlight the despicable nature of the massive federal overkill (no pun intended) of this whole operation. 

Even more repugnant that any "using women as shields" notion is the mere fact that armed federal agents were getting that close to opening fire on American citizens without justification.  It should be unthinkable, but sadly is not unprecedented.  The Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, ID, and the wacko Branch Davidians at Waco are proof that while we can all love our country, we cannot (and should not) trust, and need to fear our government.

Bundy has some legitimate legal problems working against him, but calling out a couple hundred highly armed federal agents with helo support to round up 900 head of cattle is just absurd. 

Especially when there are no efforts to round up tens of thousands of illegals in Clark County breaking laws that are at least equally as important of this grazing rights dispute.

How much did this small army of jackbooted thugs cost us taxpayers, and who ordered this massive deployment, and for what real reason?  The fact that Dirty Harry Reid's stooge is now the BLM boss (controlling a huge amount of Nevada land), and that Reid's fortunes have been greatly enriched in the past by shady land dealings makes this a very stinking mess.  We do not know all that has been happening!
 
Concur with the various comments highlighting the deployment of excessive force on the part of the BLM when there are ample ways of handling their legitimate issues in a much more low-key manner.

JNTA, I acknowledge the rationale & was aware of it before posting. I believe the women in front is still a really boneheaded idea, worthy of the contempt expressed for its bone headedness. For the parties more concerned with the nature of the BLM approach than the cattle-tortoise-leasing fees dispute, if they are to win in the critical battlefield of public opinion, they need to be better tuned on the optics. Right now, the rancher side seems to be enjoying some degree of support from more than just the conservative side of the political spectrum, much of it over the disproportionate force/capricious enforcement aspects. They should be able to see that, in spite of their best logic and intentions, how quickly and effectively a hostile media could turn that against them. It would cause them to lose conservative support for violation of basic conservative values, and liberal to left support for perceived hypocrisy.

Sadly, some of the more prominent parties are hitching themselves more to the murkier, less defensible cattle-tortoise-leasing fees part of the dispute (in both civil and public opinion courts) rather than the storm trooper enforcement part.

It is a complicated landscape for the opponents of storm trooper enforcement to navigate. Paraphrasing  Y-AG, having been dramatically challenged, the feds have to win at least some points (preferably the ones where they are truly justified) in the end. In spite of the unsavory factors of this particular case, rule of law is in trouble if they don’t. It remains to be seen how much drama will be involved going forward. Should the mainstream media become truly hostile in the case, most, (not all) of the possible high drama branches and sequels that I can see would work to the favor of folks wanting bigger government. That would be especially true for any involving bloodshed. The politicians who are currently making noises against heavy handed enforcement would find themselves having to divert from that and spend their efforts and face time with the media distancing themselves from ‘those dangerous militia types promoting and engaging in armed insurrection.’ It would have the effect of pushing many abuse of power issues to the rear for the next election cycle or two.

Wish I had more positive strategies to offer rather than just pointing out traps to avoid.

 

 We do realize I.don't.care.if.the.women.suggested.it, right? Clearly, when the revolution comes, if this how it's going to be fought, I get stood up against the wall regardless of who wins.

Fine.   I.won't.play.by.those.rules.
I am a well-known squish.
The difference is the deliberate placing of people for the deliberate shock effect of getting them shot up, for both the shock effect and the intent to induce hesitation to exploit to tactical advantage. Simply to exploit genitalia and cultural mores. 
If you find my attitude to be unacceptable, perhaps I should resign my commission and accept I am not fit to soldier in your Army.

I've got no problem with getting troops killed in the context of combat, regardless of their plumbing. But not like this. If that attitude is acceptable to you, I will not serve in your revolution.

And I can happily shoot the assholes using people this playing it from the other side. Which is why I said I'll be sitting out the Revolution if it breaks out with these players, because my sympathies are inverted, but the tactics are perverted. So, yes, I won't play. And if someone tells me I have to choose, I will refuse.

And should they push it, they will find I will defend my Castle.  Against both sides, however briefly that may last.