Where they trained fire fighters or rogue ranchers who did what they thought was best? Pretty sure these guys have zero experience fighting fire or fire science.
This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
To bad they aren't a state agency. Regular Joe's have no business doing that kind of work.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
That is a common and smart practice.
Very common in Mexico in the spring with their slash and burn drills of tropical forests, dumb. We get that nauseating smoke in Texas and beyond.
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
They saved their property.
Regular joes do it all the time. Sometimes it is needed.
They really didn't do anything greatly wrong. The only reason for the long prison sentence is because the were charged as terriost.
I don't know about the whole being armed and taking that building.
I do know that I spent a couple hours researching it today. Fact blm did a lot of shady stuff and ruined a lot of peoples lives.
What do you do when the state or government is wrong?
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Who gives a fuck. If you need to know, I forgot to post TRUMP!.
Mellodrama
Well-Known Member
First off, you can't garuanteeyew that the grass grew back greener. You want to think it did.
Second off, a quote from CNN: "Prosecutors said the Hammonds set a fire that burned about 130 acres in 2001, to cover up poaching. They were sentenced to five years in prison."
Poaching. Not backburning. Get your facts straight.
These clowns overgraze, they shoot and poison everything that's not a cow, they refuse to pay their grazing fees, they pollute, and they poach wildlife. They're f****g criminals.
No. Wait. You know what they are? They're terrorists.
Some more detail:
Acting U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams of Oregon gave a starkly different perspective on the arson case.
His office declined to comment on the situation at the wildlife refuge Saturday, but it cited an opinion piece written by Williams in the Burns Times Herald last month defending the federal prosecutors' actions in the Hammonds case.
"Five years ago, a federal grand jury charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with committing arson on public lands and endangering firefighters," Williams wrote for the newspaper. "Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006."
The prosecutor said witnesses saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer on public land.
"At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene," Williams wrote.
He said a teenage relative of the Hammonds testified that Steven Hammond gave him a box of matches and told him to start the blaze. "The fires destroyed evidence of the deer slaughter and took about 130 acres of public land out of public use for two years," the prosecutor wrote.
Last edited:
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
I can garuntee it grew back greener. That's how it works. Period. That can't be argued. It is required sometimes. That is why fish and game do it.
Now to the next part. If it was done to cover a crime then so be it. They got what they desevered.
I read a lot of wrong doing by the rufuge and state. The fish and wildlife has a big hand in the wrong doing. I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is false.
Sure makes sense that fish and game would claim poaching. It finally rids them of who they wanted to rid.
I'll research it more.
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't it grow back greener? Not how it works sorry.
As far as poaching, I don't believe that. I've went through page after page. Only a few sources cite poaching, allegedly.
Sorry, I think in this case blm has done wrong and been doing wrong and I think it will all come out.
It wasn't poaching. They served a warrant on the ranch right after the fire. If there was poaching done they would have been charged.
So once again explain to me what happened after the fire? Even blm employee said it grew back greener.
If it didn't please explain how. There was a fire and now just dirt there? Lol.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
DutchKillsRambo
Well-Known Member
They only thing I find truly hypocritical is how loud many right wingers were about Obama pardoning non-violent drug cases from mandatory minimums just the other month, but then also get mad when mandatory minimums are enforced? I personally find the idea of mandatory minimums absolutely abhorrent in general, with the single caveat of violent crimes. But even that can get muddled wuickly.
I also think this is a topic that anybody East of the Mississippi can't really understand as well. I say that living there, but we just don't have the large tracts of Federal land the West does. I mean we do have plenty of land owned by the US government, but it tends to be agriculturally useless land, and therefore not really contentious.
Either way this little "militia" is sad in a lot of ways.
What's anyone's over/under on how long it'll take for a racist comment to "get out" from someone in the "leadership"?
I also think this is a topic that anybody East of the Mississippi can't really understand as well. I say that living there, but we just don't have the large tracts of Federal land the West does. I mean we do have plenty of land owned by the US government, but it tends to be agriculturally useless land, and therefore not really contentious.
Either way this little "militia" is sad in a lot of ways.
What's anyone's over/under on how long it'll take for a racist comment to "get out" from someone in the "leadership"?
Hey man, why'd you jack up the price by 69,000 when you only had it for 6 months. Is the grow room trick? Is there a security bunker for when Obama comes for your guns? You need a moat
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they are white, so they are waiting for a victory by their favorite sports team before they riot, rather than centuries of racial injustice and persecution.
but as a white supremacist who is keenly aware of all things racial, i'm sure you had that figured out already.
So you want a bunch of people to die?
Maybe you should be the one to open the door first.
If you were familiar with the operations of a siege you would know that the goal is not to kill people but to cut off their supplies until they are forced to surrender or starve. I doubt that the angry white men in the occupied building brought enough food for very long. If you don't let them resupply then they are fucked, eventually. Nobody has to die they just have to give up.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Like the siege in Waco?