Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

a reply to: luthier

I want to point you to this post I made earlier in the day:
(link)

The only difference between a terrorist organization and a government is the scale of the organization. Kind of like identifying the difference between a cult and a religion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I want to point you to this post I made earlier in the day:
(link)

The only difference between a terrorist organization and a government is the scale of the organization. Kind of like identifying the difference between a cult and a religion.

OK so know we have a moral problem. If you don't believe a gov can be just than the laws are void and without moral precedence. Meaning there is no social contract and you have proven the armed protesters point.

a reply to: luthier

"Just"? Where did this argument of justness come from? Are you suggesting that terrorists cannot enact terrorism to bring about positive change? Haven't you ever heard the saying, "the ends justify the means"?

We all have our own levels of acceptance where we will tolerate injustice while labeling it as just. Yet someone else will label that action injust. Who is more right there?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

"Just"? Where did this argument of justness come from? Are you suggesting that terrorists cannot enact terrorism to bring about positive change? Haven't you ever heard the saying, "the ends justify the means"?

We all have our own levels of acceptance where we will tolerate injustice while labeling it as just. Yet someone else will label that action injust. Who is more right there?

I thought you understood the constitution? Did you read " two treaties of gov"?

Surely you can hold a legal structure accountable to its own philosophy.

Surely there is more of a difference between gov and terrorism than scale. Morality and justice should be a big part of the consideration

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Why is that relevant? They are threatening violence currently. Why don't you answer the question?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He can choose what he thinks is relevant just as you do.

He can answer or ignore questions as he chooses, as well.

Call it "terrorism" or not, why were the Bundys and Ritzheimer not prosecuted for what happened at the Bundy ranch when, for example, unarmed Occupy Wall Street protestors routinely got arrested and prosecuted? These guys were pointing weapons at law enforcement.

Take one step onto a federal military base in a peaceful protest against drone warfare like the Creech 14 and you wind up in jail.

Are these criminals going to be given the option of just walking away from this again?

a reply to: theySeeme

To answer your thread tirttled question, you simply ought to ask yourself another one...

Do you feel terror at what is happening in Oregon?

If you are not terrified, then they are not terrorists.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

"Just"? Where did this argument of justness come from? Are you suggesting that terrorists cannot enact terrorism to bring about positive change? Haven't you ever heard the saying, "the ends justify the means"?

We all have our own levels of acceptance where we will tolerate injustice while labeling it as just. Yet someone else will label that action injust. Who is more right there?

I thought you understood the constitution? Did you read " two treaties of gov"?

Surely you can hold a legal structure accountable to its own philosophy.

Surely there is more of a difference between gov and terrorism than scale. Morality and justice should be a big part of the consideration

Nah. I'm a moral relativist. I can see how definitions we apply to evil things can be applied to things we consider good and vice-versa. It's all about perspective.

This is a crime worst than terrorism. This is sedition.

Of course these big grown crybabies wont likely get thrown out of there because their white people.

It’s that simple

The government bends over backward for white people most of the time but black or brown and you get this:

MOVE Bombing at 30: "Barbaric" 1985 Philadelphia Police Attack Killed 11 & Burned a Neighborhood

a reply to: Willtell

Funny...These big grown babies at least have the balls to do something about what they believe is wrong. Can't say that about most people these days. I, for one, think they're admirable, and I know I'm not alone in that.

This has nothing to do with race. Quit race baiting. It's pathetic.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Willtell

Funny...These big grown babies at least have the balls to do something about what they believe is wrong.

What they think is wrong, apparently, is that they aren't getting enough free stuff from the government without having to answer to anyone.

Don't know how much race has to do with it but it's hard to avoid the conclusion it has at least something to do with it.

It doesn't take all that much balls to run around threatening people with guns when there are no legal consequences. That's not the same standard applied to other people practicing civil disobedience in this country even without guns.

luthier I think you've broke the ATS record for longest time spent arguing on false pretense..

a reply to: theySeeme

Because they are White.

Had they been of any other decent, they'd have been 'removed' by now.

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

WORD!

originally posted by: theySeeme

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

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 did idiot....They took over a whole city....three freaking times. WATTS, LA AND FERGESON. THEY SHUT DOWN AIRPORTS. Yet did we open fire? Call them terrorists?
Short Answer NO

a reply to: odinsway

...shut down airports...and private businesses, public parks, public streets, government buildings, malls, etc.

What's really funny about involving race in this is that nobody has a problem calling white people terrorists, but when black people do much worse things nobody wants to label it as what it is because they're afraid of being labelled racists.

I find it terribly interesting that people so willingly change the criteria for things to suit their own agendas. San Bernadino happened and it was days before people stopped calling it "Workplace Violence" and called it Terrorism. Because god forbid we call people of Muslim ideology terrorists! That would be racist! (Nevermind the fact that you can't be racist against a RELIGION.) Yet a group of white guys stages a protest at a federal building in the middle of nowhere, nobody has been hurt, and suddenly everyone is scrambling to call THESE people terrorists. The media is doing everything they can to publicly assassinate each and every one of their characters, encouraging people to mock them and call them "Yall Qaeda", saying they're waging "Yeehaw'd".



These gentlemen in the middle of the 20th century staged an ARMED protest at a FEDERAL building. Their actions caused ripples that lead to many of the civil rights laws we see today being passed. Were they terrorists?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I am 65, who are these guys? Were they from the civil rights era? I don't know which tyrannical government these guys are fighting. The natives and residents don't even want them there.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
San Bernadino happened and it was days before people stopped calling it "Workplace Violence" and called it Terrorism.

What are you talking about? They called it terrorism right away. I don't remember any report of it being declared workplace violence, certainly not for days.

And I assume that's a photo of the black panthers? There's a big difference between open carrying while protesting and what these guys in Oregon are doing. I'm sure that if the men in this photo had tried to occupy that building they would have been fought by law enforcement. The Black Panthers were pursued, arrested, killed and prosecuted for the acts of violent protest they committed.