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.

 

FBI Siege Happening Live On Phonecall

page: 38
97
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: diggindirt

No.




Bless your heart. And thank you so much for your graciousness. Have a lovely day. May you spend it in pursuit of happiness.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: diggindirt

No.




Bless your heart. And thank you so much for your graciousness. Have a lovely day. May you spend it in pursuit of happiness.


LOL. You too diggin.

Don't ever stop given 'em hell!



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Some of your favorite fallacies are: No True Scotsman, proof non-existence, red herring, strawman, etc. etc. etc., and of course your very favorite, Moving the Goalposts.


Stones in a glasshouse... boomerang anyone?

Did you find a definition regarding domestic terrorists yet?

Also, you know the saying: put up or shut up! Maybe you should learn to debate in a civil manner and stop trolling the crap out of this topic. But I promise: we'll have some fun either way, even if you can't remember the Kant.
Who on Ceres cares about your opinion anyway if you can't support it with facts and make up BS all day long?

How was your police state pizza and the nap for meatlovers?






posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Spare us the hypocritical "ad hom" drama please.

Got facts?


edit on 12-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted for formatting.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Denial of humanitarian assistance is a crime under international law. Unless you've got a source that says civilians are legally obligated to stop bank robberies and other violent crimes as they happen, we're still in apples and oranges territory. Comparing what you deem a moral obligation to somebody else's legal obligation is moot.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I'm sticking this link in this thread at this point for anyone interested because it's pertinent to what happened in Oregon. I found the article at Oathkeepers yesterday which was referenced in an article posted there. Domestic terrorism/domestic extremism. This is the mindset being promoted by the Justice Dept. There's an effort to legally merge what is considered to be/what we have come to know as Islamic terrorism with what happened at the refuge. Errr...

Link



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

From your link at Reuters ...



Over the past year, the Justice Department has brought charges against domestic extremist suspects accused of attempting to bomb U.S. military bases, kill police officers and fire bomb a school and other buildings in a predominantly Muslim town in New York state.

But federal prosecutors tackling domestic extremists still lack an important legal tool they have used extensively in dozens of prosecutions against Islamic State-inspired suspects: a law that prohibits supporting designated terrorist groups.


I have no issue with laws being strengthened to prevent school bombings and killing police officers, do you?

What is the difference between domestic terrorists committing crimes in the name of ISIS and the other groups committing crimes in the name of various home-grown terror groups?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66





I have no issue with laws being strengthened to prevent school bombings and killing police officers, do you?


Well you should have. If the authority and common people dont fallow the existing laws. Why would making New laws change anything?

You dont prevent School shootings by creating a Law. You dont prevent police killing by creating a new Law. There are already laws established for this.

Where do you get these ideas?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Where do you get the idea that our laws do nothing to prevent crime or promote the common peace?

Is it due to the belief that our laws and government are unnecessary somehow? that everyone should just be left to their own good behavior?

Yeah, we can see how well that works ...
edit on 12-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Laws dont make People behave better. Laws often do the opposit. Laws dont have feelings...only People have feelings.


A government would be good for the People if the government acted on the issue from the People. Moste governments act on what the government think is best for the people not the other way around. This is where the government madate comes in. Do to the mandate the government thinks it can make decision without the Peoples concent. And some how the People agree With this. That bogles me.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Hold Up People!


With All this Occupy this and Occupy That ...
With a Corrupted Government and a Wild n Crazed Militia

Before that fateful day of 9 / 11 / 2001

I just figure , Ill place these Here !!







but for me

I remember a time ! right across a St Lawrence river into Canada

French Canadians tried to Take over a Mohawk Cemetery
and Make it a Dam ! Golf Course it Didnt go to well for the French Canadians

a Canadian National Guard Against a Mohawk Reservation ( Mohawk Militia )
a Stand Off for 3 Months
and I just live less then 50 miles away from it ..
I was concerned , as I was in the Service USMC at the time .
called home to see if my family was OK.

Oka Crisis
en.wikipedia.org...

The Oka Crisis was a land dispute between a group of Mohawk people and the town of Oka, Quebec, Canada which began on July 11, 1990 and lasted until September 26, 1990. Sûreté du Québec (SQ) Corporal Marcel Lemay was killed by a bullet whose source has never been officially determined.[5] Rumours circulated that the reason no source had been determined was that it had been a police bullet and that Cpl. Lemay had been conducting an internal investigation which was connecting the death of two Mohawk men to SQ guns.[6] The dispute was the first well-publicized violent conflict between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century. The crisis developed from a local dispute between the town of Oka and the Mohawk community of Kanesatake. The town of Oka was developing plans to expand a golf course and residential development onto land which had traditionally been used by the Mohawk. It included pineland and a burial ground, marked by standing tombstones of their ancestors. The Mohawks had filed a land claim for the sacred grove and burial ground near Kanesatake, but their claim had been rejected in 1986 on technical grounds.



en.wikipedia.org...

but this situation ( what this thread is about )
is taking over state/federal land ...a wild refuge ..

if it was on the Land of the ones the went to prison for burning
their land to control it
which been done for centuries

then that would be different ..


You People want to see what Standing up to a Government is all about !! ?

a Meaningful Stand up ! Watch this video below
and Learn from it .. for the sake of your own country !
County nearby Town doing the Same

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance
www.youtube.com...



edit on 52016FridayfAmerica/Chicago242 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Are you seriously trying to advance the notion that people "often" break the law simply because somebody made a law against"it?" Seriously?
edit on 12-2-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: diggindirt

Did any of the occupiers make any actual spoken threats at all? I know Finicum didn't...any of the other leaders, though? Anyone? What about mustache dude? He make any threats? Ritzheimer? Anyone else?


Well, if they did nobody has posted them in answer to my pleas. I have begged, beseeched, implored and challenged all who are making false claims of threats made to post them. Have you seen any evidence of their attempts to provide the facts to back up their claims of threats?


Took me fifteen seconds to find this:


Near the refuge, a sign says “FBI Go Home” and roadblocks seal off 4 remaining occupiers — David Fry, Jeff Banta and married couple Sandy and Sean Anderson. They claim the FBI will let all but Sean Anderson go, and he believes it’s because of an online outburst:

“Don’t be afraid of those roadblocks, drive up there and shoot them. They are dishonorable, not following their oath.


koin.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You and I label things differently. Terrorism, without looking in a dictionary old or new, from what I understand, from observing the events of terrorism that have occurred around the world for decades, it is the intent to suddenly kill, maim and destroy as many lives and as much property as possible with the use of violent means. [Gee, that sounds like what is sanctioned as wars. Ahem!] The intent is to cause terror. Once the act is committed it's considered to be a success.

I can see how what happened at the refuge could be considered to be extremism but not terrorism. The intent was different.

The Judicial Dept.'s attempt to blur the lines, as in the article I linked, does not sit well with me.

I don't condone what was done at the refuge. I think a lot of very unwise choices were made which ended up backfiring on everyone involved. I think a tragedy-in-the-making was set in motion the day the refuge was taken over. I think it was done out of desperation and frustration.

I don't belong to any religion, sect, political party, group of like-minds, engage in radicalism, or any of the like so my assessment comes only from my own sense of integrity, morals and contemplation of events.
edit on 12-2-2016 by tweetie because: correction



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Quoting David Fry:


“As a citizen of the Constitution, I declare war against the federal government right now,” he said.


www.rawstory.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: spy66

Are you seriously trying to advance the notion that people "often" break the law simply because somebody made a law against"it?" Seriously?


People and the government break the Law for personal reasons. Nothing else.

Breaking the Law is a personal Choice.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Quoting David Fry:


“As a citizen of the Constitution, I declare war against the federal government right now,” he said.


www.rawstory.com...


Do we know what version of the Constitution David is a citizen of?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

This is really the only definition of domestic terrorism that matters:

from 18 US Code § 2331



(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) 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
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tweetie

This is really the only definition of domestic terrorism that matters:

from 18 US Code § 2331



(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) 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
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.


Many people wrongly believe that to be terrorism involves blowing something up or killing someone. Even mobsters used terrorism to change public policy the threat of force can be very effective



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Point well-taken ...


And my overall point, we don't get to "decide" what we think is terrorism or not.

The endless opining we see here is just that.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join