It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theySeeme
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Why is that relevant? They are threatening violence currently. Why don't you answer the question?
They are threatening violence? That is the definition of terrorism?
I was also wondering how your comment was relevant.
Yes actually that is the definition of terrorism. Did you read the OP? Obviously not.
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
These terrorist are most certainly using intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, that is a very accurate description of what they are doing, is it not?
If a muslim threatens violence, are they not terrorist - according to "society"? So what's the difference
Ok, I hope you have the same logic when inner city gangs take over a piece of land with guns (without killing anyone).
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Why haven't you answered the question yet? It's a simple question. Stop deflecting with your own questions and just answer it.
What question of coarse blowing up a building is a terrorism. My point is these aren't remotely similar situations.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Why haven't you answered the question yet? It's a simple question. Stop deflecting with your own questions and just answer it.
What question of coarse blowing up a building is a terrorism. My point is these aren't remotely similar situations.
But he DIDN'T blow up the building.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.
No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: theySeeme
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Why is that relevant? They are threatening violence currently. Why don't you answer the question?
They are threatening violence? That is the definition of terrorism?
I was also wondering how your comment was relevant.
Yes actually that is the definition of terrorism. Did you read the OP? Obviously not.
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
These terrorist are most certainly using intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, that is a very accurate description of what they are doing, is it not?
If a muslim threatens violence, are they not terrorist - according to "society"? So what's the difference
The difference is that they are not using the public to incite political change. So anarchist scould never be terrorists interesting.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.
No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.
originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: theySeeme
Ok, I hope you have the same logic when inner city gangs take over a piece of land with guns (without killing anyone).
They already have; some areas of Chicago and Detroit... just to name a few.
Oh, and then there's Ferguson.
Street gangs are not seen as terrorists but victims of... well, whatever.
Actually, according to almost every media report I read, street gangs are defined as "terrorizing the community" and most gun laws are created as a result of these street gangs - so..
originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: theySeeme
Actually, according to almost every media report I read, street gangs are defined as "terrorizing the community" and most gun laws are created as a result of these street gangs - so..
Yeah, well... Obama's imperial edict signed yesterday - including an eye wash - will have a practically zero effect on street gangs as they do not generally acquire firearms by filling out forms and then waiting for approval.
Oh well.
originally posted by: theySeeme
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier
Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.
No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.
So I take it if a group of American muslims did this, you would be saying the same? That they are simply outlaws?
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Where were these demands made?
Though the group's goals have so far seemed hazy, Ammon Bundy has said that they essentially want two things.
First, they want the federal government to relinquish control of the wildlife refuge so "people can reclaim their resources," he told CNN early Monday. And second, they want an easier sentence for a pair of father and son ranchers convicted of committing arson on federal lands in Oregon.