This has become a very political issue, with some people on the right calling them patriots, and some people on the left calling them terrorists. As usual, the reality is somewhere in the middle. There is a good, balanced article in the New Yorker discussing this called “The Bundys and the Irony of American Vigilantism”.
Meanwhile, the Twittersphere is going nuts calling the occupiers hilarious names. And they deserve it. After all, these people who are threatening to kill (or die) to defend their right to abuse public land are the same people who want to deport Muslims who are living in the US legally, close their mosques, and do other horrible things to their rights.
But regardless of your politics, can you help but laugh when people mock this so-called militia by calling them “Y’all Qaeda”, “Yokel Haram”, or “Al-Shabubba”? Or – because they are pretty much all white – the “Vanilla ISIS”? And instead of Jihad, they are waging “YeeHawd”. Even their choice of target is a joke, as pointed out by Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station in a tweet:
10 Comments
I’m not so sure they lie somewhere in the middle of Patriot and Terrorist. They’re a group of armed paramilitaries occupying land that doesn’t belong to them and threatening violence should anyone attempt to assert the rule of law. It’s certainly using fear in the pursuit of a political agenda (which is terrorism, albeit currently fairly benign); it’s also certainly not patriotism, since these guys are mostly outsiders who lack the support of locals or even the soon-to-be-imprisoned ranchers/arsonists they claim to be freeing and also hate the federal government whose flag they for some reason still fly.
Also worth a lot of consideration is how this group would be handled if they were Muslim or black or Hispanic (even if these groups were unarmed). Hell, can you imagine if a group of Planned Parenthood supporters peacefully occupied a government building somewhere? Fox News and the rest of the right would finally get to use the Aborto-Terrorist graphics they’ve been saving.
No, I think this group’s actions fit pretty firmly with the “terrorist” or at least “seditionist” realm. These are the same folks who pointed weapons at feds in Nevada and got of scot-free. Any minority group care to try this route and see how it goes? Tamir Rice, anyone? Amadou Diallo?
Unless, of course, what lies between Patriot and Terrorist is “armed ideologically-motivated thief-squatter,” then I guess that description is apt.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, but we need a stronger response to this than what the Bundys pulled last time, or the acquittals in the Rice and Garner cases will look that much worse compared to these guys stealing from taxpayers and threatening our boys in blue and getting away with it.
A bunch of us NPCA members ought to get together, go out there and throw their asses off our property. These are some cowards acting out some revolution fantasy wet dream. I agree with Stonekettle…if the government was as tyrannical as they like to imagine, they would have either been rounded up or shot quickly and we would have never heard about it.
Did you read the New Yorker article?
Personally I think making fun of them is the best and safest way to deal with them. Or ignore them. They will slink home soon enough.
I did read it, but what these guys are doing is illegal and dangerous, not to mention disruptive to the local community by shutting down schools and roads. If anyone set up an armed outpost in my community, particularly while denying me use to parts of said community, I’d want it taken care of WHILE everyone made fun of them. The worst precedent we can set is that carrying a gun places you above the law.
I think ignore them is the best policy. And I think the press should avoid them as well. If no one is paying attention they will slink home eventually or be forced to take some action and then all bets are off. This probably is cutting into Trump’s free airtime so he is due to erupt with more outlandish nonsense at any moment. That should redirect, at least some of the press, so that WhISIS will lose the public’s attention.
The big problem these folks have, their words, is that they are forced to make a choice between sustainable grazing and logging, which makes it nearly impossible for them to compete with corporate ranchers and loggers vs. Unsustainable grazing and logging which makes it marginally more possible for them to compete. All the while paying much less than market rates for the public property whose resources they’re using.
These Capitalism-hating individuals want to be SUBSIDIZED!!
It looks like pretty much everyone in Oregon wants these idiots to leave. Even Fox News says so. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/07/get-out-here-native-american-tribe-wants-militia-to-leave-oregon-nature-preserve.html?intcmp=hpbt2
So isn’t using public land without paying “rent” the same as theft? Wonder how they feel about the “moocher class”
Why isn’t someone who shoots people in a church while wrapped in the confederate battle flag not considered a terrorist when a muslim couple who does the same thing are?
I have nothing more to add other than a recommendation to anyone who’s gotten this far to seek out Jim Wright’s Stonekettle Station blog. His longer form blog posts are well thought out and frequently entertaining. His series on gun control called “Bang Bang Crazy” are very good also. Be sure to check his resume to qualify his opinion on guns. Fans of irony will not be disappointed. His commentariat (minions) is quality also.
What they’re doing is insurrection and/or sedition. As Robert Bates points out, there’s no such thing as an independent militia: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41007/history-lesson-oregon-militia/
At least Shays had an actual cause, much like the Bonus Men that MacArthur kicked out of DC. These guys deserve all the ridicule they’re getting and more.
It’s the Chaise Lounge Rebellion.