Can you imagine? ..If a band of armed Muslims seized a Federal Bldg. to protect "one of their own"?

[99th_Monkey]

..OR .. a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth African Americans doing this to insist that Black Lives Matter, after these recent string of aquitals and 'cases dismissed' re: cops shooting unarmed Blacks for no reason.

We'd be seeing NOTHING ... absolutely nothing else on the TV 24/7 wall-to-wall, and there would
be 1000s of FBI & Federal Troops dispatched to the scene ... and they'd all be dead within a few hours.

but hey, it's "only" White Supremacists 'doing their thing' .. la-la-la .. barely makes a brief mention on
local (I live in Oregon) and national news.

Un-fucking-believeable.

ON EDIT: Just to be clear, my OP was not so much 'demanding swift military action' as it was
more to point-out how deeply engrained our society's racism is, and how that effects
a) the nature and extent of news coverage the event, and
b) the use of state-sponsored violence (or not) to deal with these kinds of events.

I'm not necessarily advocating an escalation of the violence by authorities; but can't
help notice how very very differently this would be playing out if these guys were not
white.

[Binkie The Clown]

1. It's on the local news here in Eugene, OR. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

2. yes, in Portland news too, a brief 2 minute mention. Which is my point. nt

[still_one]

3. Maybe you don't remember Ruby Ridge or David Koresh

[99th_Monkey]

5. What makes you think I don't recall Waco? nt

[still_one]

8. I was providing examples where force was used against non-Muslims

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:56 AM - Edit history (1)

This instance has just started and it it is far from over.

I understand your point, but they have occupied a federal building, and I cannot see anyway the government can allow this to stand.

[Orrex]

22. To be fair, Koresh wasn't exactly last week.

How long has it been since we've seen a forcible suppression of black protesters? Or pro-worker protesters?


You're right, it's far from over, but the starting game is playing out very differently.

[still_one]

24. Agreed.

[Hoyt]

4. It's time we treat racist gun nuts like the terrorists they are.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Yes. That IS my precisely point. Thank you. nt

[nxylas]

9. I've seen the nickname Y'all Qaeda on Facebook

Technically the wrong part of the country, but still funny.

[NobodyHere]

99. I prefer Vanilla ISIS

[NutmegYankee]

32. How do you propose the Government handle it?

[uponit7771]

46. The same way they'd treat Muslim, Mexicans or blacks?

[NutmegYankee]

49. Is that the proper way to handle it?

[uponit7771]

53. Why is this even a question?!?

[NutmegYankee]

55. Maybe violence should be a last resort?

Seems like a good concept to follow.

[rusty quoin]

7. 2 new black panther movement fellows at a voting site kept Fox News going for 2 years or more.

Do they still show that one picture still? I never watch them. It's like watching professional wrestling without much movement.

[Live and Learn]

10. K&R nt

[SunSeeker]

11. Looks like the feds don't want another Ruby Ridge, so they're moving slowly.

But eventually they will retake the property. Every one of those "militia" idiots still there will be arrested. They should all be brought up on domestic terrorism charges.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. They should ALL lose their right to own a gun.

[RKP5637]

26. Definitely!!! n/t

[SunSeeker]

75. Totally agree. If charged with felonies, that should do it. nt

[Dawson Leery]

88. They should lose the PRIVILEGE of firearm ownership.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. Fair point.

[hollowdweller]

95. That's what I didn't understand about the last Bundy ranch thing.

You had guys drawing down with scoped rifles on BLM people yet those guys were allowed to walk and keep their right to own a gun??

But some guy who gets a felony charge for growing some pot plants loses his and can't go deer hunting?

Something is fucked up there. No wonder they tried it again.

[captainarizona]

13. remember what happened to the s.l.a.

also philadelphia and rizzo. how many duer's want to negotiate this and how many don't?

[jberryhill]

38. Rizzo?

Um, okay, what was the reference to "Philadelphia and Rizzo"?

[EX500rider]

41. Philadelphia I imagine refers to the MOVE bombing in 1985

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

[jberryhill]

47. Which didn't happen under Rizzo

Wilson Goode was Philadelphia's first African American mayor, and who approved bombing the bunker constructed on the roof.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. They should get this response....

[cali]

16. They sure as hell should not. Supporting or condoning violence against

individuals or groups you dislike is repugnant. As much as is possible, this situation should be resolved peacefully and the perpetrators should be prosecuted.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Yeah,...we need to hold the hands of these delicate flowers.

[cali]

18. Yeah, because.that's what I'm suggesting. Bzzzt. Not.

I am suggesting that a situation such as this, where no one is in danger of injury or death does not require an immediate violent response. In fact, I am suggesting that deescalation is always the best response in a situation like this one.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. It should be MANDATORY for them to lose their guns.

[cali]

20. I have no problem with that. Prosecuted and convicted on felony charges, they will lose their

2nd Amendment rights. But that is a separate issue from how law enforcement should deal with the current situation.

[Nye Bevan]

58. So, unnecessarily risk the lives of soldiers?

When we can just be patient and wait for them to surrender?

Nice.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. That's what they would do if it were anyone else.

[Nye Bevan]

60. Ah, so it's not that you think that going in with guns blazing is the correct response.

It's that you believe that if it were Muslims or black people that there would be such a response, so you want to send the troops in now, risking their lives, to make some kind of point about no preferential treatment.

Got it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. Why should these guys be any different?

[Nye Bevan]

73. Do I really have to spell it out?

I don't want the Feds to do the wrong thing here just because you are convinced that they would do the wrong thing with other guys. Mostly because I don't want people dying unnecessarily.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Just so you know, that picture is from "The Blues Brothers".

[jack_krass]

90. No they wouldnt

I know it makes you feel cool to say they would, but the wouldnt.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. They will if these guys take their "Turner Diary" fantasy too far.

[jack_krass]

103. Agreed, but that wasn't my point

I was disagreeing with the statement that if these yahoo's weren't white the feds would have attacked them immediately

[2naSalit]

69. That's what these asswipes WANT!

Want to lose the election? That would do it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. Yeah,...because the majority supports these idiots.

[2naSalit]

72. Not necessarily

I don't think it would be a helpful element and I am sure that the opposition will make as much of a talking point of this as possible since these are just good ol' white boys with gunz.

Waiting for LaPierre to come out spewing in 3... 2... 1.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. Rejoinder: Guns are banned at the NRA HQ.

[99th_Monkey]

71. Just to be clear, my OP was not so much 'demanding swift military action' as it was

to point-out how deeply engrained our society's racism is, and how that effects a) the
news coverage of events, and b) the use of state-sponsored violence to deal with these
kinds of events.

I'm not necessarily advocating an escalation of the violence by authorities; but can't
help notice how very very differently this would be playing out if these guys were not
white.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. Which is why (all things being EQUAL) these guys should receive the same love.

[99th_Monkey]

86. But all things are NOT equal, and I hate pretending they are n

[Spitfire of ATJ]

87. Which is why the response to other protests need to be equally subdued.

[99th_Monkey]

89. So maybe you'd like the FBI to bring these white terrorists cookies & hot chocolate? n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. I'd like the FBI and the Cops to do that for Occupy protesters...

So under the Equal Protection Clause, YES. I would like to see the FBI afford these guys the SAME treatment.

Get my drift?

[99th_Monkey]

96. Don't hold your breath.

Last edited Mon Jan 4, 2016, 04:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Yes, we would both like to wake up tomorrow, to discover that ISIS has "come to their senses" and
disarmed unilaterally, and that the NSA has declared "hey, we actually don't need to be doing all this
pointless surveillance, and that the CIA has dispatched a press release saying "Gee, you know, JFK
was right. We should completely destroy this institution because it's only increasing the misery, poverty
and carnage on the planet", .. and so on.

Yes, we'd both "like to see" all these thing magically happen. On this we can agree.

But we don't live in that world, though i sincerely wish with all my heart that we did. The best we
can hope for is a world where at least we call things what they really are; and if we call people of
color weilding weaponry and defying authority, "willing to kill and to die" doing so .. if we call them
Terrorists and give them no quarter, then I see absolutely NO reason to give "cookies and hot chocolate"
to white supremacists who are doing the exact same thing. To differentiate like that is called "institutional
racism" and I have no tolerance for it whatsoever.

I abhor violence. I really do. But I also abhor duplicity, double standards and institutional racism that
encourages white supremacists to strut around wielding weapons and insisting on their 'sovereignty' to do
whatever the fuck they want on Federal property in clear violation of the law of the land.

[Vinca]

21. You're exactly right.

Just a blurb on CNN this morning. They don't even call them terrorists.

[NutmegYankee]

23. That's because they are not terrorists (Yet).

Right now it's civil disobedience. While armed, no one is actually in mortal danger as the building was unoccupied. If these idiots fire on Federal Employees however, it's a whole different arena.


8 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

[MohRokTah]

28. They are doing this over both points ii. and iii

These areflat out terrorists by definition and the law.

[NutmegYankee]

30. But not the first part - Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law

The definition states -"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics.

Right now it is trespassing.

[MohRokTah]

33. They violated federal law when they illegally entered and held the federal building.

They are terrorists.

Time to bring in Delta Force. Any resistance must be met with deadly force.

[NutmegYankee]

34. Acts dangerous to human life?

Trust me, I fucking hate white supremacist militia scum and their range wars bullshit agenda, but they haven't acted with any violence. Until they do, we handle this as a civil matter.

People have occupied federal property before for protests. It is not and was not treated as a terrorist act at those times.

[MohRokTah]

35. Armed and threatening violence

They are terrorists. The last time the feds ignored these terorrists' terrorist activity, they were emboldened.

Time to blow them away.

[NutmegYankee]

36. Kay.

I'll sit back and watch cooler heads handle this.

[uponit7771]

51. They're terrorist, they're not threating to tickle people with their guns

[NutmegYankee]

54. Sigh. The term has (had) a clear definition.

It seems it is now anyone who pisses us off.

[davekriss]

63. Seeing your point here

You say: "... but they haven't acted with any violence. Until they do, we handle this as a civil matter." Despite our other dialogue, I have to say I agree with this. De-escalation should be used, stupidity should not be met with more stupidity. Our disagreement is in your use of law to counter other arguments for use of force. On the letter of the law, I think you're wrong.

But in this day and age when peaceful protestors throughout the country are met with batons, rubber bullets, tear gas, sound canons, and worse, it strikes a very wrong chord to watch how these potentially violent occupiers are met with silk gloves and polite requests to stand down.

[NutmegYankee]

67. It is annoying.

I honestly believe the heavy use of force on peaceful protests is driven by a lack of fear of consequences. The police damn well knew the people they were hurting couldn't fight back. And racism plays a big part in such events.

In the situation at hand, a similar response is made difficult by snow covered terrain and bitter cold and of course, guys with guns.

[jberryhill]

52. Please distinguish standing in the middle of an interstate highway

...which is certainly dangerous and designed to influence the government and/or affected civilians.

[davekriss]

39. I guess you miss the import of the use of "or" here

Just 1 of the three items in paragraph 2331 need be true for a situation to be declared as terrorism.

Now, I in no way favor that definition precisely because it is intentionally overly broad. Acts of peaceful civil disobedience can be declared to be "terrorism" if the PTB feel the need. But while this horror of judicial language is on the books it would be nice if it was equitably applied.

[NutmegYankee]

40. What are you reading?

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.



Where is the "or" ? The definition requires meeting A, B, and C.

[davekriss]

43. B (iii), which is proceeded by the word, "or"

Any act deemed dangerous that meets any of the 3 criteria in section B can be declared "terrorism".

On edit: Occupying a vacant federal building with firearms displayed certainly meets the definition of section A.

[NutmegYankee]

45. You have to also meet clauses A and C.

At this time, they do not meet involve acts dangerous to human life.

They are trespassing.

[davekriss]

48. They are trespassing while armed

That certainly is dangerous to human life.

[NutmegYankee]

50. Not under federal law.

Nice try though.

[davekriss]

56. You again miss use of the word, "or"

In section A: "...or any State".

[NutmegYankee]

57. Acts that are dangerous to human life.

Trespassing isn't dangerous to human life.

Taking a ridiculous view on this isn't going to help you win the arguement.

One could argue that blocking a freeway is an act dangerous to human life that violates a state law. That act could be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. It also occurs in the USA. I.E., if one wanted to stretch clause A like you are doing, Black Lives Matter could be called terrorism.

Of course it's not, but neither is breaking into a building and squatting inside.

[davekriss]

61. Yes, one could make your argument

It is absurd. Which is why so many of us were highly critical when that language became law. It basically gives the federal government very wide latitude when declaring something to be a terrorist act. And since the government first and foremost answers to the oligarchy, that is a dangerous power in a "democracy".

(The intentionally sloppy use of "or", which entered the bill upon revision, received lots of criticism at the time.)

In your mind, occupying a building while armed to the teeth does not meet the test for a danger to human life. On this, we'll just have to disagree. So, given the nature of the situation out there, some of us would like to see the law equitably applied. Instead, the use of force seems to be dependent on skin color.

[NutmegYankee]

62. We didn't use deadly force in the highway protests

In fact, they were usually resolved very peacefully without arrests in some cases. I would like to see arrests in this case.

The reason I point out that this is not terrorism is because the word loses meaning. These are just a bunch of racist assholes who are conducting a protest similar to OWS. They have the guns for intimidation, but they are unlikely to actually use them.

[davekriss]

64. See my reply to you up thread. :)

[davekriss]

66. Yes, the word loses meaning

But by the letter of the law it does apply (we disagree here). It is a woefully written law, intentionally so, and is meant to be a selective tool of the PTB. It should be revised. I betcha on that we can agree.

[NutmegYankee]

68. On that we do agree.

[dembotoz]

25. perhaps if the occupy movement had been well armed they would still have their camps

[Buzz Clik]

27. Re Rightwing Credo: THEY MUST DIE.

1. They have a record of criminal activity
   
2. They are resisting law enforcement
   
3. They are armed
   
4. They are threatening violence

Their deaths must be swift, recorded on video, and brutal. Their deaths will be fully justified.

For the rest of us: These are a bunch of grown up children who feel a sense entitlement to have things that are not theirs to have. Wear them down, take them to jail peacefully.

[cali]

29. Not 200. Not 100. Not 50. Multiple reports put the number at no more than 15

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. I guess when they finally leave they'll meet at Denny's....

Then they'll try to take over a Rest Stop.

[RKP5637]

77. LOL! Yep, no doubt!!!

[Cassiopeia]

31. I believe you are correct.

If any group other than white men had done this, it would already be over and that group would have lost.

[tabasco]

37. Fox "News" would be demanding military action.

It's time for the government to crack down on these criminal creeps like they would anybody else.

[Baitball Blogger]

44. They keep this up and someday we'll see Waco in the same way that we now view

the events that led to Black Hawk Down. One was the first time we engaged with foreign terrorists, and the other was the first time we engaged with domestic terrorists.

[wendylaroux]

74. just send in federal marshals

[CanonRay]

76. This incident happened precisely because

the government let them get away with it the first time. They feel emboldened and empowered to do whatever the fuck they want, confident the government won't do a damn thing.

[99th_Monkey]

78. Exactly, and our guvmint is repeating the same mistake, further emboldening more

white supremacists' armed insurrection.

They could at least cut off the electrical power to the building and block any deliveries
of food, water, or other supplies to the Federal Bldg being seized by these assholes.

[CanonRay]

79. If the Feds won't do anything

then the governor should call out the National Guard. If it were the Occupy movement, or BLM, the powers that be wouldn't hesitate.

[99th_Monkey]

81. Yep. That's exactly what is playing out here. Very eye-opening

but not in a good way. The M$M and law enforcement are sending a message -- by their inaction and
deferential treatment of an armed insurrection -- that WHITE guys with guns can do ANY fucking
thing they want to, with little or no repercussion or retribution by the US Government or local police
forces.

[Renew Deal]

80. Your post is right on

[99th_Monkey]

82. Thank you. As I just posted on another string .. The M$M and law enforcement are sending a message

by their inaction and deferential treatment of an armed insurrection -- that RW WHITE guys
with guns can do ANY fucking thing they want to, with little or no repercussion or retribution by the
US Government or local police forces.

I do not like the feel of this at all.

[applegrove]

91. The Oregon man and his son convicted of arson want nothing

to do with "the Oregon 150" or "Vanilla ISIS" or "the Wal-martyrs" or whatever we are calling them.

[99th_Monkey]

94. Yes, that's a well-known fact, and it changes nothing, including the deluded minds

of this band of armed-to-the-teeth white supremacist assholes.

These are domestic terrorists who have been emboldened by the authorities 'backing down'
the last time they pulled a stunt like this... and it will continue until someone gets killed,
or they are dealt with like anyone else who's armed and threatening violence should be
dealt with. They are in direct & blatant violation of Federal Law:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[rockfordfile]

98. These right wingers should be arrested

[NobodyHere]

100. So you think Obama would order a raid on BLM activists?

Ok

[PatrickforO]

101. Good point, but there's more to it.

See my previous post on another thread. They are walking on eggs here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027493656#post228

I just hope the cops don't escalate because it would be like poking a nation-sized beehive of heavily armed crazies. To use a cliche, lets not and say we did.

[99th_Monkey]

102. So you feel like the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing only applies to people of color?

and WHITE supremacists get to have an unlimited supply of "Get Out of Jail Free" cards?

And you call that a fair game, or level playing field? really?

I abhor violence. I really do. But I also abhor duplicity, double standards and institutional racism
that encourages & allows white supremacists to strut around wielding weapons and insisting on their
'sovereignty' to do whatever the fuck they want on Federal property in clear violation of the law of
the land.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

On edit: I'm NOT 'advocating violence' here, I'm pointing to institutional racism in action LIVE on TV. Deferential treatment to any white asshole who wants to 'make a point' .. that hey, it works. The authorities alway will
simply back down and there are no consequences to armed insurrection for US, and us alone.

[PatrickforO]

105. It's not a fair game. I never said that. Nor do I believe it.

However the fact remains that we have a large, maybe up to 20% of the population, group of heavily armed crazies that are basically right wing fanatics with strong racist, xenophobic and homophobic leanings. Couple that with the fact, yes fact, that these people HATE Obama and the government in general because they have been coached by hate-talk radio and Fox 'news' to hate the government instead of the oligarchs who are picking all our pockets.

Do you really want Obama to do 'something' that then escalates and sparks a misguided 'militia' revolution? A REAL modern Tea Party? Because that is what you might have. Go to some of the conservative blogs and see what they are saying.

And, no, my personal preference would be to roll in the tanks and blow these assholes to kingdom come if they even fired one shot. All I'm saying is that I think that approach, in this case, might stir up a pretty big beehive.

Sure I think it sucks, and yes I think it is sedition. But Obama, the feds and the OR government need to be very careful here because they are literally walking on eggs. Besides, if he does nothing but just surround the place like he's doing now, and maybe turn off the power, these people will get tired of being there and surrender far sooner than the huge amount of time Ammon Bundy talked about. Plus you and I know that the government - governments everywhere - have always been MUCH more tolerant of right wing shit like this than they ever have about left wing stuff.

See, because the left gets put down brutally because it generally wants policies that help people, and the oligarchs - our REAL corporate masters - don't even want us to think this way. So, yeah if it were people on the left, people of color, indigenous people, Muslims, you name it, they'd be getting 24/7 media coverage and there would be MASSIVE pressure for the government to act, which it would. As brutally as necessary. As ugly as necessary.

But not these guys. That's just the way it is. Lots of the people in our 'justice' system are sympathetic to these assholes, as well.

So, in this case, the smart thing to do is quietly contain the people.

[99th_Monkey]

106. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on this travesty. That is helpful, to a point..

I understand that any kind of swift deployment of overwhelming force to roust these armed seditionists from their illegal seizure of Federal property would probably set-off a firestorm of indignation and perhaps more armed rebellion by RW crazies. I get that, and it is an important consideration for sure.

What I don't get is how the M$M and law enforcement are quite literally 'white-washing' this thing, including Oregon's newspaper of record, calling them 'peaceful militants' who are 'in high spirits' .. and giving them free airtime and print space to state their sham 'concerns' about the Hammond situation and the use of Federal lands.

What I don't get is how this is NOT being called what it is: armed seditious insurrection that is completely out of place in our nation, or at least should be. I just posted an OP by Charles Pierce who is making this point as well, here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027497438

One of the silver linings with this situation is how it is shining a light on exactly how institutional racism works in America, but will we learn from this? Will we collectively come to terms with what we are seeing in a way that addresses the blatant institutional racism at work here? OR will we shrink away from that, walk on eggshells, look the other way, because it's too ugly, or too scary, or too "risky" to actually respond with our compassion and humanity rather that out of fear that dealing with it evenhandedly might "stir up a hornets nest" of more armed insurrection elsewhere?

On balance, I'm leaning heavily towards the notion that we need to draw a line in the sand in Oregon, or we are ALREADY ceding to blatant in-your-face institutionalized racism because we're afraid to stand up to it, because they have guns, and because their skin is white, and because --as you said-- much of our law enforcement is already infiltrated by white supremacists .. the FBI released a heavily redacted report in 2006 admitting this very thing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/21/1384553/-2006-FBI-Report-on-White-Infiltration-of-Law-Enforcement-You-Will-Be-Assimilated

Finally, you appear --without ever directly saying so -- to agree that in this case, the "never negotiate with terrorists" thing should not apply, simply because these terrorists have white skin and pose as "patriots". Am I reading you right on this one?

[Snobblevitch]

104. So, if a group of protesters decided to occupy

a different piece of federal land, say Alcatraz, they too should be raided without regard to the occupier's safety? Just send in Delta Force (as was suggested in this thread) and kill them all?