OK - this one will probably evoke strong emotions and opinions.
Sheriff Mack: “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”
Should women have been put on the front line to take the first rounds of RevWarIII?
Feel free to expand beyond the question posed - anything related to our women and children in the coming existential challenges.
Here's the story in case you've missed it.
Kerodin
III
No. Fuck no.
ReplyDeleteNegative
ReplyDeleteThe so called "leadership" seriously dropped the ball on this one. Why do people listen to the likes of mack, rhodes and jones?
ReplyDeleteOh and hey, why shouldn't civy forces aim rifles and have their pics taken? Its cool afterall!
And one final blast, did anyone notice the strollers mixed. In amongst the civy forces? Any time shooting is a possibility, you get the innocents clear. Those kids should never have been there. Call it a win all you want folks but the fact is you got played and looked bad at the same time.
My initial instinct was 'what?' oh no. Then I thought , if I were there and believed in it, I would be on the front line willingly. The government is wrong. My problem is how easy, it seems, that he's willing to "sacrifice'" the women. So, in the end, no. The current culture does not win with me. Men and women are not equal in every instance.
ReplyDeleteIf adult women WANT to be there, I would council against it, but I suppose I wouldn't try to stop them...and you and I both know you don't get between a mother and her young.
ReplyDeletePatriot women tend to be very strong-willed.
But to "strategize" that they be up front as human shields?
Fuck no. That's the sort of shit Moose-Slime fucktard cowards do.
I do wonder where Sheriff Mack saw himself in his "strategy". Front line? Middle of the pack? REMF?
DeleteThat would tell us a lot.
He said he would be next after they got shot. Ain't interested in anything he says from now on.
DeleteNo
ReplyDeleteThis has been discussed somewhat over at WRSA in the Second Wave, New Assalt on #bundyranch Being Planned, thread, but in a slightly different context. My answer to the way the question is posed here is this, it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned because the feralgov has already demonstrated that it will kill women and children without remorse.
ReplyDeleteWounded Knee
Ruby Ridge
Waco
I'm not a SF warrior, but I will do what I have to do, just like everyone else, man or woman.
There will be plenty of fight for everyone, I'm afraid to say.
Miss Violet
No. Fuck no.
ReplyDeleteTaking his words verbatim, were the women involved in the discussion about this? If so, they understood the possible end results. I don't see how they could have not understood.
ReplyDeleteIf the women weren't involved in the discussion, that's no different than other tyrants down through history.
If the women wanted to stand with their husbands, even if the worst case scenario happened, that's their choice. I can't fault them for that decision.
If you watched the video with Sheriff Mack, his plan, in case of gun fire, was a media physops. With women and children in the front, they would be the first to fall. With all the coverage and cell phones recording such a tragic event, it would but the .gov in a very, very bad light. He was held up in traffic before he could implement such a plan. However, he did speak to some of the women about his plan and had overwhelming support for it. According to the interview that is. It is an interesting concept one the the middle eastern folks have been using for decades to gather public support. Now do I support it? Tough call but gut reaction says no way Jose.
ReplyDeleteThat would be, how to say it...decidedly less than ideal. We are made of sterner stuff than that. Call me old fashioned or chauvinistic if you want, but I couldn't let the fairer sex and/or children ever be human shields or place themselves in danger like that to cover my ass. You want to play GI Jane, and put on a uniform, all bets are off. Absent that, it's unthinkable we would crowd women in front of us. Like these guys give a shit, if they had moral qualms about violence against unarmed men or women they would have never been there to begin with. Don't mistake these men to respect anything other than the ugly end of a gun. Why expect them to understand a language other than the one they speak to all of us? A smoking barrel of raw, naked force and the bitter cup of vengeance...it's what's for breakfast.
ReplyDeleteShould I lose my children and those I love, those worth fighting for and protecting, the only thing left for me would be the Constitution. I would have no tomorrow without love and Liberty, and that would make me a very dangerous person.
ReplyDeleteAlan answered it best.
ReplyDeleteMack was channeling Sam Adam's intent with the Boston Massacre: Get public opinion swayed by something the public wouldn't accept. But as Miss V said, it's a moot point, because OPFOR has proven they have no problem killing women or children.
If a woman wants to be on the front line that's one thing...(even then I disagree morally, but that's me and I don't claim to have the best perspective).
As far as 'the leadership' is concerned, unless Rhodes, Mack, Jones, et al, are standing in the front line with all those they think will have the most impact and take the first rounds, they're not leading by example, and as such, I take what they theorize with a huge grain of salt and act accordingly, which is to typically find a better plan.
Leaders lead from the front.
It sounds like the question is, "How should we determine who is to be sacrificed for the Greater Good," as if drawing upon the sympathies of a bunch of sheeple is some sort of Greater Good...stacked up against the lives of Freedom Fighters, women no less.
ReplyDeleteMy best answer---"Damn, there's a long way to go." What the hell does anyone think got us into this mess in the first place? Forgive me, but I'm skeptical that acting like lunatic collectivists is the way to beat lunatic collectivism.
It might be noted that there was no shortage of folk willing to ride and stand on the front line anyway. It looked pretty obvious to me that they were there of their own free will, not assignment. Seems to me that Sheriff Mack ought to be Sheriff Mack; I'd think that's enough of a chore without choosing who should be put in the line of fire.
Teamwork is one thing, sacrificial collectivism quite another.
Yeah, I gotta agree with the "if they wanna be there, then they gotta be square" crowd. Any feelings you have about the "weaker sex" are complete crapola. I've worked with women who are harder and more into it that I have ever been. A US Navy Commander I worked for took me on a trip to Jordan where we were "invited" to an interrogation of an extremist. I was NOT a happy camper watching what went on. She, on the other hand, understood and accepted the "ends to a means" of the procedure. She was harder than me...I gots no problem admitting that. If women want to be on the front line, that's their call, and they have to accept the consequences. True Patriot women wouldn't let themselves be "used" as a human shield. If you feel we (Patriots) need to protect the womenfolk...well I think you're full of shit and need to decide if you're able to accept a woman as an equal, or just consider her as the "weaker sex" in need of protection. Grow a pair and accept the fact that there are women out there who are harder and better than you. Can you say Ronda Rousey? She'd kick all of our asses and THEN have lunch.
ReplyDeleteLook, I won't try to crap on your idea about women being equals. I completely agree. What I do take exception to is the blatant misuse of statistical outliers to represent a demographic. Let's compare apples to apples. Rouse v. Lesnar/Mir/Velasquez...you wanna take that bet? There are concrete, real, undeniable differences between the sexes. Hence the terms paternal and maternal instinct and the fairly obvious physical differences. You really want to take the tack that you wouldn't protect your wife/mother from someone because she's an equal and you wouldn't want her to think you "consider her as the 'weaker sex' in need of protection?" I have to admire the intellectual honesty if you're a proponent of social darwinism. Care to enlighten me as to what measurable physical metric women can out lift/outrun/out jump/out swim men at the same physical level (apples to apples...remember)? I broke the world record women's bench press on for my weight class, this past Monday on a regular day at the gym. Hell, I'm cutting right now and to boot, I am by no means an exceptional specimen. As you can imagine, I'm not even close to the men's. Sure, there are harder and stronger women out there than me, but I'm far, far, far, far more likely to meet a stronger or harder man than me given average population statistics. Let's not suck this discussion down into the weeds with some feminist tripe about how women are "just as good as men in every way or even better" bullshit.
DeleteBoth sexes have equal worth. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Let's be adults about it and accept the reality that men as a whole tend to be larger and/or stronger than women AS A WHOLE...and that has absolutely jack shit to do with their worth or value as human beings. I cannot speak for you, but I was raised in a house where women were not to be punched, slapped or treated like a man. They were to be respected, cherished and protected, pretty much how American culture existed pre-women's lib. I don't understand how someone twists the emotion of protecting something because it is precious to you and you are biologically gifted with an increased ability to preserve what you hold dear and turn that into a bad thing. If we disagree, ok. It's cool. I just have a pet peeve about people misusing statistics and/or statistical analysis because of confirmation bias or intellectual laziness.
That was exceptional.
DeleteAnd JesseJames87's response is exactly why purposely putting women (let alone children) out front with the direct objective being to "taking the first rounds" in any conflagration is bad strategy.....unless, of course, the person doing so does not value those women.
DeleteWon't happen in my AO....
They (the feds) ALREADY killed dozens of women and kids in PUBLIC on TV (Waco) . They don't CARE what the bugs think, as long as they OBEY. Like I been sayin' for DAYS . The people "running" this C.F. in Nevada are STUPID.---Ray
DeleteWhy would ANYONE think it is worse to shoot an unarmed woman than an unarmed man??? After all the REAL shooters were contractors and not Federal employees!!!
ReplyDeleteUnless Mack proposed to forcibly place women up front I can only surmise any women up front understood and agreed to thsie place in the line.
ReplyDeleteIf so, this is all a moot point.
These women would have, of their own free will, chosen not to be a 'human shield' as much as the 'face' of a tyrannized populace giving resistance to the tyrants. If they agreed to this role' then no OTHER patriot has the right to deny them this.
One of the goals of our side being to swing the sheeple, this would have played much better than armed Bubbas getting mowed down by the Feds. H/T to any woman who would volunteer for this mission.
jes' my $0.02...
If I tried to stop my wife from getting involved.....whoooooo!!!!! I'd be more afraid of her than all the govt goons. She's a little firecracker and could probably get inside their loop before they knew what the f happened. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
ReplyDeleteNo, if my wife and children were to be lost like that, as another above said I would have nothing more to live for, and that would make me a very dangerous person indeed.
ReplyDeleteNegative in the extreme as a tactic but if a women wants to be there I am not one to tell somebody no.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who counseled this as a tactic is not someone I wish to have watching my back or standing by my side.
My two cents anyways.
I agree, If a woman wishes to stand there so be it. But to my chovinistic side, My job is to protect her with my life not the other way around.
DeleteK,
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not believe it is proper to put women or children in harms way, we have to face the fact that this war is to be fought on home soil. There are no "non-combatants' in this scenario. Aside from the intrinsic truth of this fact, FED.GOV has already proven that they consider women, children, and the family dog to be 'legitimate' targets for their aggression. We know that they live by their Counter-Value methods of lawfare, and we have an obligation to assume that their methods will extend to the reality of physical aggression, as well.
This question has two sides - can we protect those who they view as Counter-Value targets, and do we consider it moral to target theirs? patriots cannot effectively answer half the question while ignoring the other half, or we risk emulating the hypocrisy of those who mean to be our masters...
what would sun tzu and machiavelli say about it?
ReplyDelete"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" Thomas Paine. I would never put my wife and children in the line of fire. That being said, I have trained up my wife and children in the way that they should go so that give no other option Vengance will be theirs. "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Thomas Paine. Our forefathers brought about this country, The blood of our Brothers and Sisters has sustained it and Any man that would allow a woman or child on the frontline has NO RIGHT to "lead" the III. Killing innocents has never bothered .GOV. We did it to take over the continent, We did it to take the lands east of the Mississippi from the rightfull owners because it was our manifest destine. Oh how many of my ancestors died on the trail of tears. We took the land that we gave to them because it had Gold,Oil, you name it West of the Mississippi. (little big horne, wounded knee) if WE(III) believe that would bother FEDGOV we are too dumb to have this birthright. Killing innocent civilians might wake up the public but I fear it is too late.
ReplyDelete