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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
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.


Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?


Political trolling nice


It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.


According to the FBI's definition -

www.fbi.gov...





Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

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

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

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"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.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


And ?


And you said



Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.


When it was clearly stated the definitions are both websters and FBI's - which FBI deems criminal, despite you saying otherwise. Who are you kidding?


Has the FBI labeled them terrorists?




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

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


Yea right, you'd be screaming your lungs out saying they are staging a headquarters on American soil, cut it out.

But there is a public perception of Muslims because of the actions some have taken. Not the case here. These groups have never been involved in mass killing


So you've never heard of Jonestown then?


They are connected to Jonestown?


I never claimed that.

You were instigating that only 'Muslim' extremists (in general) are more prone to mass murder... I'm simply pointing out that it is simply not true.


I never instigated anything go ahead and read again?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I hear people call them terrorists, traitors, fanatics, and crazy people. Mostly I just hear them called idiots. The thing that seems most common is suggestions they should be taken out. I do not think that was the public reaction they were hoping for.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are we bringing blacks into this? Of those 100 can you give me their criminal history (if any) to determine their bad habits, or lack of them?


Sure here are plenty on the lack of criminal records, here's one but there's thousands if you care to do some research, I'm no one's slave so I won't.

- Man Gets Three Life Sentences For Simply Witnessing a Drug Deal



Clarence Aaron went to prison in 1993, at the age of 23. He was involved in a drug deal, but was neither the buyer nor the seller. He didn’t touch the drugs or collect any money. All he did was introduce the two men involved in the transaction and it has cost him his life.

Aaron didn’t plead guilty when he was arrested, largely because he didn’t believe he did anything wrong. Because of this, he received three life sentences. Neither Presidents Bush nor Clinton chose to commute the incredibly long sentence given to a young man who was in college and had no criminal record.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
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.


Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?


Political trolling nice


It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.


According to the FBI's definition -

www.fbi.gov...





Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

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

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

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"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.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


And ?


And you said



Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.


When it was clearly stated the definitions are both websters and FBI's - which FBI deems criminal, despite you saying otherwise. Who are you kidding?


Has the FBI labeled them terrorists?


They haven't, which if you read the thread topic is what this post is about. Anything else, or is this interrogation over?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme

They aren't causing any terror. They are protesting. They can do that.... So can I. 2 completely different things



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
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.


Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?


Political trolling nice


It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.


According to the FBI's definition -

www.fbi.gov...





Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

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

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

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"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.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


And ?


And you said



Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.


When it was clearly stated the definitions are both websters and FBI's - which FBI deems criminal, despite you saying otherwise. Who are you kidding?


Has the FBI labeled them terrorists?


They haven't, which if you read the thread topic is what this post is about. Anything else, or is this interrogation over?


Maybe the FBI is better at detective work than you are watching CNN.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are we bringing blacks into this? Of those 100 can you give me their criminal history (if any) to determine their bad habits, or lack of them?


Sure here are plenty on the lack of criminal records, here's one but there's thousands if you care to do some research, I'm no one's slave so I won't.

- Man Gets Three Life Sentences For Simply Witnessing a Drug Deal



Clarence Aaron went to prison in 1993, at the age of 23. He was involved in a drug deal, but was neither the buyer nor the seller. He didn’t touch the drugs or collect any money. All he did was introduce the two men involved in the transaction and it has cost him his life.

Aaron didn’t plead guilty when he was arrested, largely because he didn’t believe he did anything wrong. Because of this, he received three life sentences. Neither Presidents Bush nor Clinton chose to commute the incredibly long sentence given to a young man who was in college and had no criminal record.



Let me get this strait you are saying because it happens to blacks all the time it should happen to whites too.

How about fixing the problem? Nah we will just keep talking about gun control. Thats the problem.....couldn't be a systemic on now could it.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Lol funny guy, you know nothing about me, I don't own a TV.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a dance your just being dramatic.

Real simple. Terrorists use violence in public on unarmed people to create hysteria.


No, what's real simple is the definition of terrorism, which you keep ignoring to substitute your own definition.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are we bringing blacks into this? Of those 100 can you give me their criminal history (if any) to determine their bad habits, or lack of them?


Sure here are plenty on the lack of criminal records, here's one but there's thousands if you care to do some research, I'm no one's slave so I won't.

- Man Gets Three Life Sentences For Simply Witnessing a Drug Deal



Clarence Aaron went to prison in 1993, at the age of 23. He was involved in a drug deal, but was neither the buyer nor the seller. He didn’t touch the drugs or collect any money. All he did was introduce the two men involved in the transaction and it has cost him his life.

Aaron didn’t plead guilty when he was arrested, largely because he didn’t believe he did anything wrong. Because of this, he received three life sentences. Neither Presidents Bush nor Clinton chose to commute the incredibly long sentence given to a young man who was in college and had no criminal record.



Let me get this strait you are saying because it happens to blacks all the time it should happen to whites too.

How about fixing the problem? Nah we will just keep talking about gun control. Thats the problem.....couldn't be a systemic on now could it.


I think part of fixing the problem is admitting we have a problem. Clearly, especially if we take your disinformation and ignorance in this topic, we are not admitting we have a problem.

How can we fix what is not even admitted into existence?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
They have been labeled terrorists. FYI. : )



No. Because they are white, they are labeled 'activists'. If they weren't white they'd be called 'terrorists'.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

easier sentence and release are two entirely different things, if the time was DROPPED to an additional 6 months, no one would complain. It's the 5 years thing...5 years.


Well that's the minimum sentence for a verdict like that. It's the law. It's not like the Hammonds aren't getting time served or anything.
edit on 6-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme


…the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

By that definition the government is terrorist, too.

Oh, thats one of their claims.

The media is silent because they haven't figured out how to deal with the situation yet. When the play book is written and any final chapter written, then they won't shut up.

Right now its isolation, siege measures and negotiating. They aren't going to let anyone get close to see whats going on like they did at Waco.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
They have been labeled terrorists. FYI. : )



No. Because they are white, they are labeled 'activists'. If they weren't white they'd be called 'terrorists'.


Exactly. What if these folks identified as "Black lives matter" (silly right label), would law enforcement response be the same in this case? You know, them doing absolutely nothing about it?

I highly doubt that for some strange reason, can't quite put my finger on why..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
They have been labeled terrorists. FYI. : )



No. Because they are white, they are labeled 'activists'. If they weren't white they'd be called 'terrorists'.


Nice to see someone who tells it like it is. I can't argue with a man who has over 6,500,000 stars with only 3,000 comments around here.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
I do not think that was the public reaction they were hoping for.


I suppose that's how the cookie crumbles, in a democratic system.

If they had of just 'peacefully protested' and gained the support of the local community, then they'd be freedom fighters.

But they made the decision to break into a federally owned building well armed and threatened violence onto the authorities if confronted, without the support of the people... that makes them terrorists, by definition.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: MrSpad
I do not think that was the public reaction they were hoping for.


I suppose that's how the cookie crumbles, in a democratic system.

If they had of just 'peacefully protested' and gained the support of the local community, then they'd be freedom fighters.

But they made the decision to break into a federally owned building well armed and threatened violence onto the authorities if confronted, without the support of the people... that makes them terrorists, by definition.


Case closed, point blank period.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme

Because they really aren't protesters-- they are agent provocateurs-- and one doesn't have to be a willing participant or on payroll to be used in massive Psyops campaigns.




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: theySeeme

They aren't causing any terror. They are protesting. They can do that.... So can I. 2 completely different things


So I take it when you go out to protest you normally bring your guns, threaten the police and storm + takeover a federal building?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join