Butthurt Street

**sumbich** · 01-04-2016

amazing how all these steel buildings remain standing after having massive fires in em, eh?

these copycat doofuses...the bundy ranch was one thing because that was the feds trying to fuck people off their land in some fashion or another.....but this? go take over a national park because you dont like a judge's sentence on a pithy relatively meaningless trial that affects no more than like 3 people? *facepalm*

dont make your stand on something foolhardy...

Originally Posted by uranus

This is perfect example of why religion is a viral plague on human thought and society.

oh boy, do we even attempt to merge logic and metaphysics lol!

the big 3 all pray (or are preyed on, depending on how you wish to refer to this) to the same entity.

there was a nugget of truth to Liam Neeson's statement as zeus in wrath of the titans...

- - - Updated - - -

just in case the jet fuel angle wasnt 100% laughed off the stage yet....

The World Trade Center buildings collapsed as a result of fires ignited by jet fuel!!??

The above is absolutely and physically impossible. Thermodynamics 101.

Weakened steel does not fail explosively. It gradually loses strength along it's stress-strain curve and then only in the areas that attain the temperatures required to fail. Steel is an excellent heat conductor and will conduct heat away from the point of application. The materials "specific heat" will show you how much it has to absorb in order to get hot. This is measured in BTU's / mass. You can have flames as hot as you like but if there is not enough heat energy available to heat up the material you will do nothing.

An example of this is your stove at home. A gas range burns propane at 3254 F. An aluminum pan melts at 1220 F. This should make it impossible to cook on a gas range, as the pan wouldmelt or at least soften into putty, but it does not because heating materials is complex and actually pretty difficult. Heat goes away very fast and you have to continue to pour BTUs into it above the rate that it loses the heat. This is not easy.

I just made myself a omelet, the pan miraculously didn't melt.

There was not enough heat value in the jet fuel to come anywhere close to making the steelhot enough to fail. You will run out fuel long before that happens and the math is straight forward.

You simply take the tons of steel in question, the amount of BTU's it would take to make thesteel hot, including the concrete and the air and you just can't do it.

In fact it is so far from possible, the fires cannot be a factor, the temperature would not have even come close to the starting of the elastic region.

Anyone who repeats the jet fuel burns at xxx and steel loses yy% of it strength at xxx temp is an idiot or a liar or just cannot understand the physics involved here.

That this was an official explanation tells me that they are lying. When a suspect lies, ask any cop what that tells him.

� as an aside, jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees all right IN A JET ENGINE. A jet engine forces air through a compressor to get enough volume and mass of O2 to support the combustion. You cannot get the fuel to burn at anywhere near that temp in open air, there is not enough mass air flow for an optimal stoichiometric ratio.

Even if you could, which you can't kerosene only yields 18,500 Btu/lb in perfect conditions.

In open air you'd be lucky to get 20% of that efficiency, but even at 100% efficiency there aren't enough BTU's to heat up the steel past about 700 degrees.

If you use a full fuel loading with zero gallons burned in the fireball and zero gallons sent down the elevator shaft to blow up the lobby you still only have enough fuel to to get the steelup to 500 degrees or so. That's with optimal heat transfer into the steel, best case conditions of delta-T and R values, with worst case delta-t for the heat LOSS from the steel. As material heat up they radiate and conduct heat AWAY at a rate governed by the temperature and ambient factors. So the hotter the steel gets the more heat it LOSES. This is why steel mills use crucibles to hold the steel as well as the heat.

The specific heat of steel is 240 btu/ton per degree > to raise the temp from ambient to 1800 degrees would require 432,000 btu/s ton at OPTIMAL efficiency. The concrete requires even more over 800,000 btu's.

The the air also has to heat up, and air being a poor conductor and all the humidity in the air, the specific heat of water is 8 times higher than steel and 5 times high than concrete.

It's a rather long equation but not really complex. Bottom line, not enough BTU to make thesteel hot enough to fail. Can't be done. Something else brought the buildings down. If they didn't fall immediately after the impacts there is now way the fires could have triggered it as the tensile and compressive strength of the steel did not change at all ( reference the stress-strain diagram for structural steel) after the fires did their work. It never exceeded it's maximum working stress, if it did, the top would have fallen over towards the point of maximum damage. It would have done this slowly as the stress progressed along to top of the curve to the point of maximum or ultimate strength. The metal would be very deformed at this point.

From the the origin to the point called proportional limit, the stress-strain curve is a straight line. This is called Hooke's Law that within the proportional limit, the stress is directly proportional to strain up to the elastic limit. That is the limit beyond which the material will no longer go back to its original shape when the load is removed, or it is the maximum stress that may be developed such that there is no permanent or residual deformation when the load is entirely removed.

The structural damage by the impact either failed the structure right away or the it brought it past the elastic limit. If it reached a certain point the curve here is actually longer that the portion from 0-the EL, the steel will start to deform plastically, that is bend like taffy. There was zero evidence of this.

The diagram for the temperatures tells us that the steel would have to attain a consistent temperature across the entire beam of way over 1500-1800 degrees, a point stress is not enough to induce failure, and there is no way to a localized temperature peak this high without the heat conducting to the rest of the beam. This is shown by the transfer equation is governed by the composition and shape of the beam, Shape is vital in that an I-beam or box had a high surface area to volume ratio, This means heat loss radiated away form the source of the heat is going to be very high, also humidity in the air will absorb the heat faster as water can take a lot of heat before raising it's temperature so initial heat transfer AWAY form the steel will be even higher.

If as they will say that the fireproofing was all blown away by the impact makes it even harder, as the steel can radiate more heat if it is uncovered.

We can also calculate the rate of heat transfer INTO the steel beams. It is a function of the differential temperature, the specific heat of the steel, the surface area of the expose material and the R value of the air or any remaining building materials between the flame and the steel, as well as the airflow ( mass flow rate of hot air).

Al these factors except R can be definitively identified. using the maximum value for R, you'd run out of fuel ( assuming 100% fuel loading on the plane with zero for elevator shaft and fireball) before you got a 700 degree T-rise anywhere.

But the Kean Commission weenies also state that vast amounts of fuel poured down the elevator shafts to account for the damage to the ground floor. So where that that leave us?

**uranus** · 01-04-2016

Such expert and exhaustive research makes me wonder how you find time to refill your anti-psychotics prescriptions.

**sumbich** · 01-04-2016

u mad a stoichiometry, bro?

fact remains that there was nowhere near the amount of BTUs required. not. even. close.

just like with the holocaust theory....(lol make that hypothesis, because the holocaust story does not even rise to the level of theory) that 6 million jews went to the gas chambers...

...and then one meets a simple bit of math that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that 6 million is such a preposterous number its not even funny, easily more than double an unrealistic number...

proper response? call the guy crazy!

I am curious what your malfunction is, uranus. why is the alief so strong with you?

you should be able to articulate your position better, if you disagree with something you should be able to articulate why.

I still havent seen you do that yet - all I've seen you do is call my positions crazy, then refuse to articulate.

here, let me show you what an argument consists of:

have you realized that you've only got #1 covered yet?

and have not gone very far up this pyramid

(and I would not ask of you to undertake that which is necessary to understand my metaphysical angles, which have next to nothing to do with my angles on things like newtonian mechanics - it would require you to change your life, and I wouldnt ask that of anyone. then again, am I asking you to change your life by leaving behind your blankey and stepping out into the big bad real world?)

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by SAM

Oh. What have we here.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...17118184990145

Apparently not terrorism.

If there's any terrorism involved here, it is from the us government yet again terrorizing its citizens.

Glancing back, let's take note of a thing or two:
-technically speaking, the us federal government cannot own any land and must lease its used land from the states. note on federal jurisdiction
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm
-the federal government "owns" over 50% of the land in Oregon (and iirc its somewhere around or over 90% in Nevada)
this is technically illegal.

Now let's examine what the federal government has done here:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=68

Here's the background. I'll start by saying that I put *some* of this up a few weeks ago when I asked the members here to sign a petition asking the Sheriff of Harney county to *not* arrest or transport the Hammonds to prison. I got some (minor) flak because some members here pointed out that there were other (past) charges against the Hammonds, and that it sounded like they were their own wort enemy. Here, then, is the history of actions by the government and by the Hammonds as it is available publicly. I took much of this from The Conservative Treehouse.com, which is associated with the Breitbart news site. They, in turn, took much of this from the Oregonian (libtard Portland paper) and from The Capital Press (much more ag-centered, small paper iirc)...

Warning: This is long. If it hurts you to read for ten minutes, then you are probably too weak and/or stupid to be involved with making comments about serious issues. Please go to another topic somewhere else on the board.

1. The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north

2. In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (note: the Federal government could *make* an Indian Reservation - but they couldn't *make* a "preserve" for birds - so this was a fabrication from the beginning...)

3. In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon (note: to this day you can buy land out in this desolate place for about $1,000/acre - so in 1964 this was an affordable ranch purchased by working people - not some millionaire ranch deal. Not that that should matter...)

4. By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell

5. During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own

6. By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water (bypassing the vast meadowlands) and directed the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to purchase their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS

7. By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. In an effort to make sense of what was happening around her, Susie Hammond began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge (note: when Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, she and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses. See more on this later...)

8. In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds (note: thereafter, the Federal gov't pressed Oregon to change its laws about citizens' gaining access to water rights)

9. In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date (no need for Due Process, or any of that other stupid stuff...)

10. The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney - which meant that the Hammonds could use the road, and that neither the BLM nor FWS could close said road. (note: you don't think that this further enraged the BLM & FWS management, do you? Me either...)

11. Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law, which meant...

12. The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed (note: you know DAMNED WELL that the BLM knew that's what would happen...)

13. The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later (which was probably either random, or part of a management plan that had nothing to do with the Hammonds, right?)

14. The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade with his widow to get their original ranch back

15. In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time (note: prescribed fires are a common method that both Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries)

16. In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home."

17. The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges (Got that? "Dropped all charges"...)

18. In 2011 (5 years after the police report was taken), the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, and accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death (note: for burning sage brush on their OWN property and the land that they have FEDERAL PERMITS TO MANAGE. Hello?)

19. In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property

20. During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years

21. Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway (good jurisprudence, no doubt...)

22. Judge Michael Hogan & Prosecutor Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.

On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home

23. June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorists” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom Hell Yeah!! FTW!!!

24. On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014

25. Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years (note: Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”)

26. In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released

27. During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM. (note: Hello?! Do I have to make a "note" here? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?!?!?)

Then let's give them some - put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders. https://t.co/KSzUZzUor6

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) January 3, 2016

I thought Montel was a pot smoking peace loving hippie? Apparently he just likes ganja and is a statist asshole all the same.

But again, a little more digging reveals ol Montel there used to work for.....the NSA

As usual, it helps investigating nuances of a situation before coming to a decision on something. It does happen that I will make judgements here and there without all the facts, but I always reserve the right to change my mind when facts come down the pipe.

The federal government is harassing these people. I'm curious how people expect others to deal with shit like this....our lives are different, most of us dont wind up having an avenue for the feds to come in and fuck with out livelihood as part of an ever expanding power and land grab by an illegitimate government.

(Yes, I said the federal government is illegitimate, and I stand by that - no legitimate government so often and so thoroughly violates the design limits placed on it and sells out their citizens.)

**TimTim** · 01-04-2016

Originally Posted by SAM

Oh. What have we here.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...17118184990145

Apparently not terrorism.

To be fair, what these hillbillies are doing really isn't terrorism. They aren't attempting to incite terror by sneaking into foreign countries and murdering civilians nor are they posting videos glorifying the beheading of journalists, setting people on fire, drowning people, getting children to execute dissenters, etc. I'm not saying these hillbillies aren't complete idiots, because they are, but the difference is that they're putting their foot down in an area they already live in while using their right to bear arms to take a stand against "big government". Granted, their method is ridiculous and doesn't have any place in modern society as it won't have any positive effect on anything in the long term, but their intentions are clear and they aren't sneaking around trying to incite terror by killing innocent civilians in otherwise peaceful areas. Now, a good example of domestic terrorism would be the idiots who shoot up abortion clinics.

**uranus** · 01-04-2016

Originally Posted by TimTim

really isn't terrorism.

Mostly agreed but at the least they are treading a very, very fine line.

On the other hand, I heard they're ex IRA free agents working for ISIS and this is ISIS' answer to the CIA infiltrating Al Quaeda and then creating ISIS for Israel in the first place.

**SAM** · 01-04-2016

OK. I can see where you are coming from @TimTim and I encourage everybody to have their say. This is a productive discussion.

But what do you think the 'ISIS' people are doing? They are defending their country against invaders. The west arms the rebellions and then when the rebellions no longer want to be puppets, they bomb the fuck out of the country. Why are they the ones branded terrorists? It's their home soil. War is war. War is ugly. Doesn't matter how you kill someone, whether with a bullet, your bare hands, decapitation or mutilation. It still boils down to the main issue here, which is the killing and ethnic cleansing of mass.

What is a terrorist? What you described was a murderer, not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who causes terror. When a police officer turns up at the scene of a burglary, the thief sees the officer and is usually terrified. Does that make the police a terrorist?

If three people came to rob my house and I stabbed two of them, the third guy runs off, terrified. Who is the terrorist. Me or him and why? They were the provoker/instigator. Every action has a reaction.

Words can be used to manipulate situations very powerfully. Everyone needs to rethink what is really happening here.

**SAM** · 01-04-2016

Let's put it into context here. What did she do? Why did she have to get so badly injured or die? Does she look like a terrorist to any of you?

This sort of thing makes me angry. And it makes me want to do something to help prevent this. Does that make me a terrorist?

**sumbich** · 01-04-2016

Originally Posted by SAM

OK. I can see where you are coming from @TimTim and I encourage everybody to have their say. This is a productive discussion.

But what do you think the 'ISIS' people are doing? They are defending their country against invaders. The west arms the rebellions and then when the rebellions no longer want to be puppets, they bomb the fuck out of the country. Why are they the ones branded terrorists? It's their home soil. War is war. War is ugly. Doesn't matter how you kill someone, whether with a bullet, your bare hands, decapitation or mutilation. It still boils down to the main issue here, which is the killing and ethnic cleansing of mass.

What is a terrorist? What you described was a murderer, not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who causes terror. When a police officer turns up at the scene of a burglary, the thief sees the officer and is usually terrified. Does that make the police a terrorist?

If three people came to rob my house and I stabbed two of them, the third guy runs off, terrified. Who is the terrorist. Me or him and why? They were the provoker/instigator. Every action has a reaction.

Words can be used to manipulate situations very powerfully. Everyone needs to rethink what is really happening here.

ISIS is doing no such thing, they have nowhere near the grassroots support that AQ did, not by a long shot. Documented funding, training, arming - from the USA, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Saudis, UAE & Quatar. The flows of oil are documented going through the Turkish government; it is documented that some of it winds up in Israel.

ISIS is nothing more than an artificial creation to make sure there's an eveil we must go after, and give up our freedoms and security in the process. ISIS was created with the intent to destabilize the middle east - it is all documented as part of Israel's plans for the region, since they feel they are justified in "returning Israel to its glory" and make it stretch from the Mediterranean across Mesopotamia.

Or does anyone around here think the US forces turned a blind eye to them for years for no reason? Bombed empty desert, airdropped them weapons, left bricks of warbucks hanging around, "until they became a big enough problem to go after." Does anyone around here think for a second that the US Armed forces wouldn't have made utter mincemeat of ISIS, were that their mission? Our armed forces are not a joke - but the mission most assuredly is, and the joke is on the goyim.

Al Zarqawi wouldnt cooperate with the ciamossad, that was the reason for the "split" in AQ back before we started hearing of ISIL, before they wanted to remove Levant from the name to the western media so that people wouldnt go look and see where the fuggin levant actually is.

Nail on the head that words are very often used with manipulative intent. We experience it every time we read something from the government.

**TimTim** · 01-04-2016

Originally Posted by SAM

But what do you think the 'ISIS' people are doing? They are defending their country against invaders. The west arms the rebellions and then when the rebellions no longer want to be puppets, they bomb the fuck out of the country. Why are they the ones branded terrorists? It's their home soil. War is war. War is ugly. Doesn't matter how you kill someone, whether with a bullet, your bare hands, decapitation or mutilation. It still boils down to the main issue here, which is the killing and ethnic cleansing of mass.

What is a terrorist? What you described was a murderer, not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who causes terror. When a police officer turns up at the scene of a burglary, the thief sees the officer and is usually terrified. Does that make the police a terrorist?

If three people came to rob my house and I stabbed two of them, the third guy runs off, terrified. Who is the terrorist. Me or him and why? They were the provoker/instigator. Every action has a reaction.

It boils down to intent. If people rob your house, you have the right to defend yourself and strike terror into the hearts of those individuals. You don't however have the right to sneak into the homes of these individuals' friends and families who had nothing to do with the robbery (and who probably did not support/condone the robbery to begin with), and it would be especially wrong if you were to glorify and record the deaths of these innocent and defenseless friends and family just to get back at the people who robbed you. You see the difference here, right? This course of action has no positive net effect for anyone and would likely result in even more violence.

Acts of war should remain in war zones. It is an absolute shame that civilians find themselves in war zones with their homes and families destroyed. I support the efforts of civilians who migrate to safer areas because I know that's exactly what I would do if the area I lived in became entrenched in violence caused by wars that I don't support and that I want nothing to do with. That said, it is no excuse whatsoever for those involved in said wars to sneak into peaceful areas to murder defenseless civilians. There is no scenario where I would even consider going to a peaceful country and killing innocent people who have nothing to do with (and again, probably do not condone/support) the actions that destroyed my home/family. A sane person would go after the source of the killings, not random people who have nothing to do with it just to incite terror.

@uranus I agree that it's a fine line, but hopefully I'm not underestimating the stupidity of these hillbillies in my assumption that their intent is not to go out and kill innocent people to make a point. It looks to me like they just want to hold their own ground.

**sumbich** · 01-05-2016

more shadyness on the fed end

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...amily-problem/

I wonder who made the decision that federal employees should have an exponentially increasing set of flaws the higher up they go. /s

judge's original sentence was less because he deemed it cruel and unusual punishment for activity that ranchers have taken for just this side of forever since ranchin' existed,

and some fed asshole decided that the prior judge's sentencing needs to be overturned, now let's go get some testimony from the slow kid and use an old child services hag who we promoted way high for utterly no reason, to coax some shit out of him...

you all understand that a 74 year old man is set to go to jail for almost 5 more years for doing nothing more than backlighting fire to protect his home and cattle, all because he didnt want to play ball with the feds and their ceaseless land grab out west......right?

-----------------
Follow up post for those of you who need the Fast Version:

1. ranchers bought land (legally), and acquired water rights (legally). They paid their taxes and their grazing permit fees like good subjects citizens.

2. the Feds wanted all the ranches in the area. To that end, they (DFWS) bought out ranches from those that would sell. Then they illegally misdirected water sources (that they didn't own) to flood out neighboring ranches (doubled the size of the lakes nearby). THEN, when the flooded out ranchers couldn't make anything of their ranches, they sold them for pennies on the dollar to the Feds. Good planning, right?

3. Hammonds wouldn't sell.

4. Hammonds acquired more water rights (legally), and won in court against the Feds.

5. DFWS built a fence around the Hammonds' water. The Hammonds pulled it down. The Feds had them arrested. Hammonds won in court again.

6. DFWS closed a road on the Wildlife Preserve that the Hammonds used to move cattle to other parts of their ranch. Hammonds opened it. Feds had Hammonds arrested. Hammonds proved in court that the road belonged to the county, and not the Feds. Hammonds won in court (again).

7. BLM and DFWS revoke Hammonds grazing rights. Randomly, I'm sure...

8. Hammonds can't afford their ranch, so they sell.

9. Hammonds get their ranch back.

10. In 2001, Hammonds call the Feds and let them know that they are going to do a legal prescribed burn. It burns 127 acres of Fed sage brush. Hammonds are arrested. Charges dropped. Again.

11. In 2006 Hammonds see a range fire started by big lightning storm. Coming for their ranch, including the home. Steve lights a back-fire on private land, which puts the range fire out, saves the cattle and the ranch. Doesn't hurt anyone, endanger anyone, anything.

12. In 2011 (five years later) the Feds charge the Hammonds with Terrorism, push the jury around, keep testimony vital to the Hammonds case out of the courtroom, and get a 'Guilty' verdict from people who don't know the facts, nor what the punishment is going to be.

13. Federal judge says that the 5 year minimum is unconstitutional, and gives 1 year sentences. The Hammonds serve.

14. BLM folks get a federal prosecutor to push for resentencing.

The Hammonds are going to jail for 4 more years for burning ~150 acres of SAGE BRUSH to save their ranch and their cattle. They hurt no one, they endangered no one, and they didn't cost anything to anyone - the burn was on their land and the federal land that THEY HAD LICENSES TO MANAGE.

but when there's uranium and gold to mine... note they dont have THAT as a piece of info people see much of...
usgs mineral report
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1740b/report.pdf
gold, silver, copper, mercury, molybdenum, zinc, uranium, natural gas....

yeah nothing the feds would want to come seize...nothing congressman defazio would grease deals for, ya know...top 5 donors Air Line Pilots Association Communications Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Unite Here, and Berkshire Hathaway.

the intended structure

the individual>local government> states government> federal government

the actual structure

federal government>state government>local government>the individual

its has been turned on its head by edict and now the structure is crushing the individual.

Many similarities with the Bundy ranch standoff....
near a volcano
known gold deposits
known uranium deposits

our government is dead broke, do the math.

=we want to take over your land to mine the resources and fuck you out of them

basically sounds just like iraq, syria, etc

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by TimTim

It boils down to intent. If people rob your house, you have the right to defend yourself and strike terror into the hearts of those individuals. You don't however have the right to sneak into the homes of these individuals' friends and families who had nothing to do with the robbery (and who probably did not support/condone the robbery to begin with), and it would be especially wrong if you were to glorify and record the deaths of these innocent and defenseless friends and family just to get back at the people who robbed you. You see the difference here, right? This course of action has no positive net effect for anyone and would likely result in even more violence.

Acts of war should remain in war zones. It is an absolute shame that civilians find themselves in war zones with their homes and families destroyed. I support the efforts of civilians who migrate to safer areas because I know that's exactly what I would do if the area I lived in became entrenched in violence caused by wars that I don't support and that I want nothing to do with. That said, it is no excuse whatsoever for those involved in said wars to sneak into peaceful areas to murder defenseless civilians. There is no scenario where I would even consider going to a peaceful country and killing innocent people who have nothing to do with (and again, probably do not condone/support) the actions that destroyed my home/family. A sane person would go after the source of the killings, not random people who have nothing to do with it just to incite terror.

@uranus I agree that it's a fine line, but hopefully I'm not underestimating the stupidity of these hillbillies in my assumption that their intent is not to go out and kill innocent people to make a point. It looks to me like they just want to hold their own ground.

Have you rectified you position in light of the fact that the feds broke the law to even get that "refuge" established in the first place? That anyone who wouldnt sell wound up seeing their land flooded, etc....and anyone who didnt play ball with the feds became subject to coercion and harassment from the fedgov?

Do you think there is ever a time to make a stand? (or, ever a good time?)

-----
I just keep finding more and more goodies....

"Wait a minute, you crooked Judge! Listen to the clip at the 0:53 mark.

"The Federal Judge said that Federal Guidelines mandated tougher sentences..."

What, NOBODY spot the blatant contradiction in the Judge's words, between GUIDELINES and his claim of MANDATE? If it's a Guideline, it's up to the discretion of the Judge. If it's Code, then it's a Mandate. So which is it -- Guideline or Code, you crooked Feral Judge?

In fact... If it's a Sentencing GUIDELINE, the Court of Appeals really had no business even hearing the case -- much less overturning the Sentence of the previous Judge."

lol@ federal building

User Tag List

Thread: Butthurt Street

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Spiderman butthurt by the name Spiderpig, boosted me whole game

yeahhh street fighter

Members who have read this thread : 162

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions