How much land do “they” actually own themselves, and where might it be? Unless it is on the coast or it borders another country, then they might have a slight bit of difficulty importing and exporting goods, and since they have a long record of threatening physical violence against our government there might be a problem with travel to and from their little kingdoms.
How does the fact that borders have changed throughout history dispute the ramifications of my statement?
They originally wanted to call their new Utopia “Liberty”, but they have now decided “Gilead” is more fitting.
Give me three good examples of border-changing lessening conflict.
Small states are more likely to adopt free trade. They should pursue this policy and the US should too. I reckon they would not be so belligerent as a free tiny country.
It provides context for my subsequent claim that changing borders often reduces conflict.
If we keep them in the country, they can’t do much harm. At worst, they could blow up a few buildings.
If we let them leave, then they’ll completely destroy our nation.
Clearly some people missed the part about killing off folks who want no part of the new theocracy. Or is there really nothing malevolent in that minor detail?
Again, who gets to decide borders? Does the US hand over that power to Matt Shea? What message does that send to anyone else with a specious beef?
Unless it’s specifically about Matt Shea, it’s a hijack. If you want to talk about general border disputes and the wonders of secession, do it in another thread.
[/moderating]
NM-Just saw the Mod Note.
The Guardian article sounds like a bunch of hyper-ventilating over not much. I imagine any reporter who wanted to take the time to, and slant their reporting that way, could write a very similar article about most Boy Scout summer camps.
Can you now get a Boy Scout badge in Battling Muslim Terrorists?
Do you have to be a Vulture Scout to qualify for the Domestic Terrorist merit badge?
From the Spokesman Review article I linked above:
Thousands of innocents dead in a rebellion by these folk is better than compromising the “nation”? Very cavalier attitude about human life.
Why would the nation be ruined by allowing these zealots to leave?
Very malevolent. That’s why we let them establish a theocracy away from everyone else.
Of course there would have to be a vote or something. Like Brexit. Map out the territory and put it up for a vote for those in it.
I was raised in Northern Idaho, and I can tell you that they have absolutely nothing in common with each other.
Not that I’m aware of, but a biased reporter could certainly describe a Boy Scout camp in terms like these:
“offering training to young men … that includes how to use knives, pistols and rifles” (replacing pistols with archery maybe)
“a Christian organization that strongly believes in building manly character and the capability to stand in adversity in young men” (well, perhaps a little less now)
Team Rugged apparently isn’t exactly like a Boy Scout camp, but it sounds a lot closer to that than the Branch Davidian compound.
“As of late July 2019, Team Rugged’s website listed Byrd as an instructor along with Caughran. The Team Rugged Facebook page listed several events in recent years at the Marble compound, including battles with Airsoft guns. Pictures on the Team Rugged website show young boys in fatigues in the forest, armed with Airsoft guns.”
Half the guys I know have played around with paintball, airsoft, or BB guns like this, mostly in our youth. But the reporter sure tries hard to string it all together into something sinister-sounding. I guess he lost me when he started quoting SPLC and not in jest.
Basically, I think the Guardian is mostly yanking libs’ chains. Have fun with that, I guess.
Regardless of the article, Mr. Shea is a troubling fellow. He uses “godless” as an insult.
Got any non-imaginary scenarios?
If we’re going to start judging people for using insults, the SDMB is full of troubling fellows, as is much of the rest of the world.
Look, I don’t know Matt Shea, so perhaps it’s possible that he’s secretly plotting a coup and wants to install a theocracy. I’m skeptical though, and obviously-slanted reporting like the article from the OP does more to convince me that the reporter, and those who share his perspective, are more akin to Chicken Little than about Matt Shea’s allegedly-sinister intentions.