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.

 

Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   

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.




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   
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.
edit on 6-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

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. My scenario says he got caught before going through with it. So for all we know he was just threatening.
edit on 6-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   

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.


Who?

That is far different still.
edit on 6-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

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.


ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't see the word "public" in that definition...



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

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.


They are not using the public? The Oregon terrorists are inviting the media onto the property, but threatening the police if the police enters the property - they WANT & NEED media coverage, their terrorist act cannot have a chance of working if they don't get any coverage. This is terrorism, period. Webster calls it that, the FBI calls it that, Society calls it that if these folks were just a few shades darker or practiced a different religion - so let's call it what it is.


If they are using the media, they are clearly using the public - to achieve political aims while threatning anyone including law-enforcement that opposes their views - DESPITE the fact that the very 2 people who were being sought for re-arrest turned themselves in already and said they want nothing to do with the rancher terorrist nor do they support their movement.

This terrorist act was built on the fate of 2 individuals who do not even support the act.
edit on 6-1-2016 by theySeeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


So if a Muslim about to blow up a building for Allah gets caught and arrested before he could carry through his act is he not a terrorist then?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

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..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where were these demands made?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: redoubt

There is a lot of evidence that they use the gun show loop hole to acquire them though. Just saying.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: redoubt

There is a lot of evidence that they use the gun show loop hole to acquire them though. Just saying.


No problemo.

Time for more coffee...



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

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.


Not sure what this topic has to do with Obama, in any case what I do know is Obama's policy will reduce the sale of guns to those who would otherwise be able to purchase them without a background check - nothing more; he's been quite clear on that.

Many of these street gangs are able to buy guns through the gunshows without any background check at all, it's been reported time and time again that many guns recovered at scene of gang-related crimes were sold in Virginia, North Carolina, George, and other places without any background checks; majority at gun shows. So yes, actually - Obama's change WILL have an effect on street gangs. Will it remove every single gun? Of course not, will it reduce the flow of guns though? Most certainly.


edit on 6-1-2016 by theySeeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

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?


Yes I would. Because there is a difference of Muslims taking over an abandoned building fr away from the public and protesting than trying to create panic in public



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where were these demands made?


Wait, are you commenting on this topic without knowing fully what is going on?

Oregon standoff: What the armed group wants and why


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.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join