“The Cattle Caliphate”, if they were any other color than WHITE, they’d [y]all be dead by now.
I still prefer Y’AllQaeda, but this works, and is very on-point.
As I always point out…this would be funny…except…its so spot on its sad.
Is there such a thing as white cows? I know that ‘white’ horses are called ‘grays’ because they have black skin under their hair, I’m not sure about cows though.
That last panel is devastating…
Did you know that at the height of the uprising in Ferguson, some non-white protesters brought guns? Not only that, they shot at police. The response of the police was generally to fall back and avoid an armed battle with protesters. Mostly because they don’t want any cops hurt, but also partly because they’re afraid of fanning the flames by killing a protester while CNN is there. There’s always the danger of escalating protest to widespread combat, which the cops are not assured to win.
Is race a factor in this standoff? Obviously. In a white supremacist society, there’s always going to be a racist double standard for how authorities respond. But it’s just not accurate to say that people of color would be dead if they tried similar tactics. They have, and they are not dead. Not because the authorities don’t want to punish them, but because the combination of high media exposure and political militance is actually a pretty good way to force the authorities to stand down.
More and more groups are discovering this, and it will likely be a Trend To Look Out For. So it concerns me that liberals are so quick to trot out the old “terrorism” charge so loved by neocons as soon as these tactics are used by people on the right. Sure, there’s an illuminating irony in comparing Al Qaeda to the Bundy Militia. But I’m starting to get the feeling that a lot of people saying “terrorism” would literally approve of treating the Bundy Militia like terrorists - i.e. neutralizing them by whatever force is necessary.
This is concerning because the militia is obviously not doing what is usually considered terrorism (bombing, mass shooting, kidnapping, assassination). They’re doing a protest occupation and they have brought guns to hold off the authorities. This is not that different, for example, from what the American Indian Movement did in the 70s. While obviously AIM is an infinitely better cause, their tactics were similar to the current situation. So when you call Bundy a terrorist, you implicitly call AIM the same. When you encourage state repression against your political enemies, you implicitly empower the state to repress others the same way.
Saying that “if they were any other color than white they’d be dead by now” is not the same thing as saying they should be dead by now.
Bringing guns is what moves this action from simple protest, to unacceptable aggression with threat of violence. Even if I did not support their cause (which I don’t), I could support their protest if they had left the guns at home. The guns are specifically and deliberately provocative. They would have generated more sympathy for their alleged cause if they protested peacefully, as the vast majority of BLM protestors have done.
English and comprehending it is sometimes a tuffy for some.
These yeehaadists won’t get a jailed-for-life martyr out of their “occupation”. Nor is it at all likely that any of them will be mysteriously assassinated over the next few years.
I’m pretty sure we still just call that “cleaning loaded guns.”
Is that the same as bathing with your toaster?
No, toaster bathing is like cement swim fins.
Er, what? The only people in the crowd who were openly armed were the white, reactionary “Oath Keeper” guys, who the cops didn’t confront. Though if you remember, the police had no problems going after the press who were there, arresting, firing rubber bullets and lobbing tear gas at the press and peaceful protesters, etc. Two protesters were shot (although the police claimed it wasn’t them) over the course of the protests. This year, there were two incidents of police being shot at, one earlier in the year, where the shooter might have been with a group of protesters but the cops were unable to find, and also at the anniversary protests, where someone shot at police and the cops lit him up (well, they lit up someone). In both cases the police response was not to fall back but to declare states of emergency. The Oath Keepers showed up again, unmolested.
I was replying specifically to this somewhat bizarre attempt to compare the Cattle Caliphate to AIM. Seems obvious that @zikzak has no idea what the law enforcement response to AIM’s protests and occupations consisted of.
I know, I was just saying that cleaning their guns was the most likely way all of those guys are going to pass away suddenly.
There is one useful AIM comparison to be made:
Leonard Peltier was convicted of shooting a police officer, however, there is significant evidence that he is innocent. Amnesty International and various other NGOs have labelled him a political prisoner and campaigned for his release for years. When newspapers occasionally take note of this, they tend to first describe him as ‘convicted cop killer.’
By contrast, the two yahoos who are the pretext for the armed occupation were convicted of arson and poaching. Witnesses described running for their lives from a wall of flame on the federal land that they set ablaze. While their sentencing was somewhat unusual (the original judge ignored mandatory minimums, so they were re-sentences for a longer period), their guilt is not in question. Newspapers, in contrast to their treatment of Peltier, present the rancher’s discredited defence first and often don’t bother to tell the other side of the story - the one unproblematicaly found to be true in a court of law. They lead with a falsehood and often don’t get around to the truth. Just like with AIM!
I understand why federal agents are wary of dealing with armed, far-right protesters. I don’t understand why newspapers are also in thrall to them.