So nothing about this? Feds engage in cattle rustling, assault, in Nevada

Then since the feds didn't fire on these hypothetical people, then your outrage over these supposed human shields is a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit. In order for there to be human shields, there would (A) have to be a voluntary agreement from the women to stand in the line of fire and (B) Federal troops willing to fire upon them. Since you claim that the feds weren't willing to fire on these people and I claim that there were no human shields, then there should be no outrage. There should be no issue at all, but there is because Fedforge wants to make this about some hick ex-sheriff and what he said and Bundy not paying grazing fees rather than what it really is about.

When any one of you can answer any questions I've posed, we can finally move on. But don't come in here and bring up something else, answer the questions first. Until then, this conversation will go nowhere.

Circular logic = mega-fail. Sorry FF, you aren't going to get that by anybody.

Yes, and the immoral stupid cowards who considered this thought both would be the case. That they thought that, makes them stupid; that they considered this, makes them immoral.

You keep saying this. Are you refering to your seemingly rhetorical list of questions of the form "Why did p happen?", where in each case p did not happen?

I've posted several questions in this thread including ones specifically regarding human shields.

Here are a few samples of questions yet to be answered.

Let's try this: The Bundy Ranch vs. the Feds. Let's say that the plan to use "human shields" is carried out. We have a Mexican standoff and on one side are the Feds the other side, the protesters with women in front. The Feds open fire as the sheriff predicted and a gun fight breaks out. Who are the victims here? Who are the bad guys? And who are to blame.

Now a real life scenario: A group of people who have been run off from their land by US government agencies, armed troops, corrupt government policies and and forced into a small patch of land that barely sustains them are forced to be disarmed because some bureaucrat in DC decreed it so. Federal troops go in with an army of men to carry out the disarmament. A group of protesters arrive to support their kind and begin a strange ritual that freaks out the federal troops. The troops then misinterprets actions of one of the protestors or a simple act of miscommunication occurs and the federal troops fire upon unarmed innocent people. The protestors then fire back and a gun fight breaks out that results in a total massacre by federal troops.

In that scenario, who are the victims, who are the bad guys? Who are at fault?

What the fuck are you pissed about? I just want a few questions answered so we can carry this out to it's logical conclusion. Are you aware that there were no actual human shields? Do you think that the feds would fire on people who have not fired a shot? If so, do you think that is wrong? If not, then what is it you think they would do? If you think it's wrong to fire on people who haven't fired a shot, then wouldn't the people being fired upon be the victims? If you think that the feds did the right thing by backing off, then wouldn't the hypothetical human shield be effective? Lastly, and I credit Captain X for this, if said human shield were real, wouldn't it be voluntary? Wouldn't it be just as the son said it was, those women were there because they chose to be there? It's not a cult you know. Again, what is it with this war on women? Do you think that women are so stupid they can't make their own decisions? Do you think women are incapable of fighting in combat situations?

It wasn't Bundy who was advocating this, it was the local sherif and he only contemplated it as a strategy. Do you think it's okay for the Feds to shoot at unarmed women? What is up with the war on women from the left?

When are you going to acknowledge that this isn't about turtles?

The BLM has the unprecedented authority to establish which land belongs to it and Harry Reid's corruption is behind the whole thing and people are focused on the land dispute. The real story is the corruption that led to this dispute. The real issue is why they are taking the land. The real issue is the BLM and it unelected, unaccountable authority. The real issue is all of those things and more. These are all questions that the MSM is not asking.

So I guess you're just going to keep harping on the land dispute and not the government corruption that led to it as well as the other bigger issues that have been brought up?

All of those question shave been answered again and again. Many answers are repeated in the very post you quoted at the beginning of yours.

One exception, technically, is the question "when will you admit this was never about tortoises?". I haven't seen anyone here claim this was ever about tortoises.

No they haven't.

Federal Farmer, it was never about turtles. Or tortoises, either.

You do know they're two different things, right?

Ah, the Charlie X technique! Always effective...at convincing your opponents you're a petulant child.

Next?

Then the reason for the BLM going in is bs.

Show me then.

Wouldn't surprise me at this point if the govt came out and said the Malaysian plane was found in Bundy's barn. He fed the pax to his hogs.

No. (A) That wasn't the reason for the BLM going in. That's just the bullshit you're spreading to distract from the fact that this deadbeat has been mooching on the taxpayers' dollar for 20+ years. And (B) if you don't know the difference between a turtle and a tortoise, you can't be expected to understand much of anything.

Because you throw tantrums? Yeah, that doesn't work for my three-year-old grandkid, either.

What a bunch of intellectually dishonest cowards. FF actually asked some interesting questions a few pages back, but you're all too chickenshit to answer them.

Name one question that hasn't been answered. Go ahead, perhaps I missed one. But each and every one of the questions he repeated on this page have been answered several tens of times, even in the very post he's quoting along with his list.

Answers =/= "only answers I like."

He does throw better tantrums than you, though.

If the Feds fire on unarmed people, is this right or wrong on the Feds part?

Are you asserting that these women had no choice in being present at this confrontation?

And here's one of mine that has gone unanswered: How do you feel about the people who went to Iraq in 2003 to be human shields, and other such proposals by people who said they would act as human shields in areas the US was threatening to attack?

These questions have been danced around or just plain ignored by everyone in this thread.

If you can't answer the questions that's okay. I'm not here to judge.

Do you know for certain that they did? That's the question asked in Post 507 that you and FF are ignoring.

Answers =/= "only answers I like."

So you can stop now.

You mean you don't remember what questions you asked? Not very invested in the topic, then, are you?

Do you know for certain they didn't? After all, this plan never went into effect, and in the confrontation that resulted in the Feds backing off, there were women present, armed, and according to Ammon Bundy:

Do you contend that he's lying? Then the onus is on you to prove this as you are making the assertion.

I gave a goddamn list of questions that have not been answered. You and Packard claim they have been answered, yet you can't produce one. If they have been answered, then it should be easy to find, no more dancing around it.

I can't do more than point to the answers you have already posted directly alongside your questions. If by some strange alchemy you don't see the sentences on your screen, I really can't help you.

Get back to me when Mack's wife gets in front of a mic and says she's willing to die for her husband's cause.

I make no claim as to whether the questions were answered. My statement has always been that they are an irrelevant distraction to the true issue, which is that Bundy and his backers do not believe in property rights. Nevertheless, see my answers bellow:

Wrong

No

Idiots

These questions have been irrelevant from the start, and remain so. But do not continue to claim that nobody has answered them.

So you are making an assertion without evidence.

Here are some more questions you won't answer:

If human shields had been used, voluntarily, would the Feds be in the wrong for shooting them?

If human shields had been used involuntarily, as you contend, would the Feds be in the wrong for shooting these hostages?

Wow, one of you finally had the testicular fortitude to answer the questions, however simplistic and unsupported the answers might be. That being said, this is the first instance of anyone answering the questions, and I'll note that it was done only after being repeatedly prodded over this.

I'd just like to point out that I have had several questions that have gone unanswered in this thread and am not whining like a bitch about it.

I'm not making an assertion. I want to hear from at least one of the people being "volunteered" by the gutless wonders who planned to be standing behind them.

Unless you share the sentiment expressed in Post 455.