Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

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.

They have been labeled terrorists. FYI. : )

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

By whom exactly?

a reply to: theySeeme

I did from the start, a definition is a definition.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: EternalSolace

Well I won't be one to shy away from a definition. By definition they are terrorists.

Are you eluding to the color of thier skin? As mentioned numerous times before;

IE, if they were (insert color,religiin,ethnicity HERE), they would be terrorists. .

If you are curious do a simple search. Here is a link / viewpoints for your reading pleasure discussing your question.

m.voanews.com...

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

a reply to: theySeeme
Because of history. Since Reagan, the angry tax dodger, the Bundy types,had a political party to get behind. And they have a lot of money and influence. But the Hammonds rejected their help, so I think that political faction is getting weaker. And The history of Ruby Ridge,Waco,shows tax dodgers and cults will go all the way.

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

Just because they haven't hurt anyone doesn't mean they aren't terrorist. The actions they have taken shows that they are terrorist. So if a guy holds up a bank but gets no money due to the safe being locked is he still a bank robber?

a reply to: redoubt

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?

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.

So the government would be considered terrorists then too I guess if you happened to live in a country we have invaded.

Terrorists generally terrorize the people not the government. People breaking the law are criminals.

Was al capone a terrorist? Billy the kid? Is aipac a terrorist organization? Where exactly does the definition start and stop.

I don't think you can terrorize a government of highly armed and in some cases highly skilled police and soldiers. That would be gurilla warfare.

These guys haven't done anything but overtake an abandoned building in the wilderness.

By the looks of the media interaction with them no one is being terrorized.

Just your basic outlaws here.

From Europe, I can only say that those people don't scare me, don't do anything that makes me want to stay at home and I would happily walk past the place without fear of being murdered. Which IMO needs to be present to be called 'terrorism'. Can't say I would think the same if they would shout 'Allah ackbar' and call me an infidel. Just saying.

The reason behind something is very important, plus the incentive and the longterm effect on the majority. Sometimes even the 'nice' people need to up it one notch and it won't be terrorism.

originally posted by: buster2010

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

Just because they haven't hurt anyone doesn't mean they aren't terrorist. The actions they have taken shows that they are terrorist. So if a guy holds up a bank but gets no money due to the safe being locked is he still a bank robber?

So these guys are armed trespassers not terrorists.

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?

I don't know exactly how they define it in the states. But over here in Australia, muslims have been charged for terrorism charges for just talking nonsense over the phone with there mates.

These guys in Oregon have illegally broken into a federal building, one has even made a youtube video claiming to be prepared to kill or be killed for his beliefs... How can that possibly not be considered as terrorism?

I'm still personally waiting for the hardcore conservatives to start questioning why these people don't have jobs to go to, like they were on every second post on all those Ferguson threads, lol.

a reply to: buster2010

You do realize that by definition the actions taken by the US government in the situation of the Hammonds could label them as a terrorist organization right?

Noun 1. terrorist organization - a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals

I'd say getting the Hammonds to agree to a plea of arson and willingly disposing of their right to appeal, only to then appeal the sentence might possibly fit that scenario.

That would, by definition, make every government employee a terrorist...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: redoubt

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?

Are these guys about to blow up a building?

a reply to: luthier

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

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.

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).

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

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.