Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

Too bad everyone has pretty much written them off as idiots.

"Everyone" that watches TV news, maybe.

But I don't watch TV news...

Imo, they are some of the last real Americans. People cry on the internet all day about this mis carriage of justice and that law breaking agency… but don't actually do anything about it.

Oh cool, YOUR opinion is that they are real Americans and the people watching tv all day aren't Americans. Awesome, the Constitution disagrees with you, but hey YOUR opinion matters right?

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

The government will "fix it" alright. Name a movement like this that ended peaceful…

maybe the mormons… but they were actually breaking the law and moral code of ethics.

The focus on the minor issues in the media is to ridicule and otherwise distract from the real issue.

The government is systematically sweeping up as much privately owned land as possible, doing it unjustly with the law of the land and the Justice system. We living in the cities don't see it, because its happening quietly on a rural scale all across the country. People living there know full well what time it is and are apparently fed up enough to take a stand.

More power to them.

originally posted by: Salander
"Terrorist" is the most abused word in the English language today.

First corrupt the language, as Orwell noted, and then the thought processes will be corrupted soon after. That's pretty much what's happening since 911

Which is the main point and consideration when discussing the topic.

The reality being a terrorist has a whoke different all inclusive investigation with a special judiciary committee overlooking the proceedings. Possibly superseding constitutional rights.

It's not something we should be hoping for.

Two wrongs don't make a right. This very situation and the faith in justice and its proceedings are what made the enlightenment inspired constitution unique. No need to trample it more. The FBI should be able to handle this. If it escolates the national guard comes in. No need to instigate a fight or send them down the terrorist route. I mean we are good at making terrorists and all but its got to stop.

The BLM is a problem. It needs an investigation and the two sides need to work together. The BLM has given federal land to private companies including foreign investors. The courts are federal the prosecution federal, defense for say a rancher can be seen as a burden and difficult up hill fight.

I advocate organizing and combining resources to class action suits if it doesn't work than the Aristotle aproach is the patriotic way. I wouldn't advocate violence.

Pretty sure they can fence them in a small area enough to make them miserable. In fact making a prison ironically around them.

Best part is 24 hour news feeds for at least a few months.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Making it personal and trying to pull me into a pissing contest doesn't work anymore.

And yes, TV has conditioned the most of the population to all think (a)like the gubment wants them to.

Trying to deny that is corny as the day is long.

originally posted by: theySeeme
I'm just curious, these armed Oregon "protestors" are basically committing an act of terrorism and threatning the police with the use of violence while trespassing - can you imagine if these folks were black, mexican, indian or muslim? This would be labeled all kinds of things, but for some reason the media and everyone else looks at this as some kind of peaceful protest, even though the protesters are not only breaking the law, they are threatening the lives of law enforcement..

Nothing peaceful about this protest.

Definition of terrorism -

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

gimmie a break...

would you call college students protesting the Vietnam war in the '60's taking over administration buildings 'terrorists'?
Of course not. So far, this is nothing more than a peaceful protest against an out of control overstepping it's bounds.

Should a federal agency be able to set policy without public debate, and then create an armed group to enforce those unilaterally created policies? That is Tyranny, and needs to be stopped.

The fort hood shooter was work place violence, so you know things are all messed up.

a reply to: theySeeme

What you fail to notice in the legal definition is that the list of elements needing to happen in order for an act to be terrorism uses the conjunction "and," not "or."

In a court of law, this means that, per your quote from the FBI on domestic terrorism, these three characteristics MUST occur in order to be terrorism:

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

1: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2: (at least one of these) 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
3: Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

My additions for clarification are in bold.

I don't see number one happening (yet)...unless you are going to try to tell me that taking over a very remote building is dangerous to human life. Until they start shooting, having guns is not a danger to human life.

They do meet numbers two (2[ii]) and three, though, so they're close.

But close doesn't count in a court of law. It is, however, apparently good enough for the court of public opinion, which seems to be court in which you (and others on here) are the sitting judge.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Making it personal and trying to pull me into a pissing contest doesn't work anymore.

And yes, TV has conditioned the most of the population to all think (a)like the gubment wants them to.

Trying to deny that is corny as the day is long.

I'd say that the TV has equally conditioned all your "true" americans to have the sentiments that they have about the government since that is a running trend with conservative media. So are you willing to admit to that obviousness or are you just going to pretend like Americans only watch pro-government media outlets all the time?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: theySeeme

What you fail to notice in the legal definition is that the list of elements needing to happen in order for an act to be terrorism uses the conjunction "and," not "or."

In a court of law, this means that, per your quote from the FBI on domestic terrorism, these three characteristics MUST occur in order to be terrorism:

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

1: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2: (at least one of these) 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
3: Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

My additions for clarification are in bold.

I don't see number one happening (yet)...unless you are going to try to tell me that taking over a very remote building is dangerous to human life. Until they start shooting, having guns is not a danger to human life.

They do meet numbers two (2[ii]) and three, though, so they're close.

But close doesn't count in a court of law. It is, however, apparently good enough for the court of public opinion, which seems to be court in which you (and others on here) are the sitting judge.

Be interesting if we had unarmed police go in to arrest them. It would be a Lusitania move but would certainly move the needle.

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

How many people have they shot?
How many people have they beheaded?
How many people have they tossed from the top of tall buildings?
How many people have they, literally, crucified, set on fire and/or drawn and quartered?

Anyone can call them anything that makes them happy inside but... the bottom line is the bottom line. If one's definition of terrorism is to see them simply gather together, seize a remote piece of federal property in hopes of sending a message of disgust to those in the marbled halls of power then... well, have at it.

Have a nice day

Very Good point.

It's easy to say 'well Websters dictionary describes a terrorist as...' But the true definitions arefar more convoluted and complicated nowadays. It's like calling all heavy metal 'heavy metal' as there are so many sub genres it makes your mind boggle.

Extremist is a another buzz word. What's the difference between a fisherman and an extreme fisherman? both catch fish...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you willing to admit to that obviousness or are you just going to pretend like Americans only watch pro-government media outlets all the time?

99% of television programming is government indoctrination.

The propaganda dept. wouldn't have it any other way.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you willing to admit to that obviousness or are you just going to pretend like Americans only watch pro-government media outlets all the time?

99% of television programming is government indoctrination.

The propaganda dept. wouldn't have it any other way.

Got any proof for that statistic? Nah, I'm pretty sure you made that number up on the spot because it suits your narrative and as well you won't have to admit that your "true" americans could equally be being duped by propaganda on tv to be rebellious against the government.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you willing to admit to that obviousness or are you just going to pretend like Americans only watch pro-government media outlets all the time?

99% of television programming is government indoctrination.

The propaganda dept. wouldn't have it any other way.

Got any proof for that statistic? Nah, I'm pretty sure you made that number up on the spot because it suits your narrative and as well you won't have to admit that your "true" americans could equally be being duped by propaganda on tv to be rebellious against the government.

Your narrative is denial. The unjust re-sentencing of the Hammonds is reality. And that part 'escapes' the Main scream now, doesn't it?

Look what comes up when you google their name…

Oregon ranchers, Hammonds

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

How many people have they shot?
How many people have they beheaded?
How many people have they tossed from the top of tall buildings?
How many people have they, literally, crucified, set on fire and/or drawn and quartered?

Anyone can call them anything that makes them happy inside but... the bottom line is the bottom line. If one's definition of terrorism is to see them simply gather together, seize a remote piece of federal property in hopes of sending a message of disgust to those in the marbled halls of power then... well, have at it.

Have a nice day

c'mon...if these guys were all black, or muslim....they would be dead already.....give a white guy a pair of boots, cowboy hat, "don't tread on me" flag, and/or outfitted in camos, and he can take over a government building, and walk around with a AR all day, with not one LEO lifting a finger....all the while "calm discussions" take place.....

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you willing to admit to that obviousness or are you just going to pretend like Americans only watch pro-government media outlets all the time?

99% of television programming is government indoctrination.

The propaganda dept. wouldn't have it any other way.

Got any proof for that statistic? Nah, I'm pretty sure you made that number up on the spot because it suits your narrative and as well you won't have to admit that your "true" americans could equally be being duped by propaganda on tv to be rebellious against the government.

Your narrative is denial. The unjust re-sentencing of the Hammonds is reality. And that part 'escapes' the Main scream now, doesn't it?

Nice deflection there. Way to avoid admitting what you and I know to be true about conservative media.

PS: I'm not the one making up statistics on the spot, so my narrative is irrelevant.

a reply to: theySeeme

Considering that the courts and authorities use the threat of force on a constant basis, along with the threat of legal and financial force on top of that.....

Who struck the first blow?.

So many people are so damned ignorant....

Does a cop being armed with lethal force and legal and financial force after that influence one to cooperate when they feel they are being harassed or targeted unfairly?.

....That, in my opinion IS Terrorism and Intimidation.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

So you are saying that the government shouldn't employ police officers then?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

So you are saying that the government shouldn't employ police officers then?

Does it/should it matter what the mandate of the police is. Constitutionally they are there to protect property and safety.

The president has control over the laws they enforce.

It's a complicated discussion not a yes or no answer.

I haven't read all the replies, but my take is that most of us know instinctually that they are not terrorists. They are not targeting innocent citizens in order to perpetrate violence and death upon the masses. They are not running amok destroying the property of citizens nor are they targeting our citizens and businesses.

The federal government is perceived by millions of its own citizens as inching closer and closer to a tyrannical overreach.

They aren't terrorists because millions of American citizens are standing with them philosophically, if not physically.

originally posted by: luthier
It's a complicated discussion not a yes or no answer.

If that is the case then I'd wager the poster I was responding to was comparing apples to oranges then.