Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 4, 2016.
Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’
I sure am calling them terrorists. They fit the definition and I have called them domestic terrorists and a prime example of why some are asking for gun control. The media doesn't seem to want to call them what they are for fear of showcasing that radicalized folks on the right who look like John Smith straight out of Middle America are more of a terrorist threat than a bunch of Syrian refugees.
These are the types where that California law would have allowed police to go into their residences and seize their guns for fear of them being a credible danger to themselves or others.
They are domestic terrorists pure and simple. And if America wants to know who really needs to be profiled when it comes to terrorist acts against this nation, they now know.
Good question. I think they are terrorists. Can't wait to see what Obama calls this incident.
Because they aren't? There has been not bombs going off. No mass murders. No kidnapping and torture of victims.
You people calling them terrorists is as ignorant as President Obama calling Major Nidal Hasan shooting up Ft. Hood while screaming "Allah akbar" "workplace violence."
OK, so by your definition these people were not terrorists either:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Would you classify them the same if the situation was identical except they were Muslims (and US Citizens)?
This is 100% Domestic terrorism designed to get the federal government to change it's policy and to affect the government's conduct.
The government has known for a while that radicalized right wingers who disagree with all sorts of government policies are growing in numbers every day and have been stockpiling guns and ammunition for these type of events.
This is the exact sort of thing that gives credence to the President's position of toughening gun laws.
And I say again, if this had been a group of BLM protesters or Muslims, this would be all over every station and every news outlet.
They are non-bloodshed terrorists.
I much prefer them to those who remove your head, crucify you, AK47 you, blow you up with a pressure cooker (Sears should ban their sales!!), lock you in a cage pour gasoline on you and set you on fire, cut off your body parts one-by-one, etc, etc... no matter they be leftist, rightists or in-betweenists...
No violence. No civilians intimidated (they were in support of the civilians who were being intimidated by the government). No mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Just common, ordinary people defending their community against government over-reach and tyranny.
Please show where any of the people involved in the sit-in attempted to detonate plastic explosives.
Their community isn't happy that schools were closed because of this and a lot of people are frightened there.
Tyranny, give me a break. These people wouldn't know the first thing about tyranny. Defending? They are on the offensive here not the other way around.
This is an attempt to overthrow the government according to this sheriff. They are terrorists.
IMO, these "terrorists" are just regular citizens making a redress of grievance because their elected representatives are too yellow bellied to help them.
Of course the spineless authorities are going to use rhetoric like "attempt to overthrow the government" so as to not upset the Emperor on the hill in his new clothes surrounded by his cronies and yes-men.
No one wants to spoil his one year lame duck vacation and/or golf game with a legitimate redress of grievance.
The traditional way of doing this is through the ballot box and elections.
Hey, you set the criteria, and this guy meets it:
There's a LEGAL process for this. If need be, remove the elected representatives. But taking up arms against the Federal government is an act of insurrection and war.
What does this have to do with the Emperor on the hill? If anything, these actions give rise to more people understanding and agreeing with the Emperor about gun laws.
Again, there is a process to be followed if people believe their grievances aren't being heard. In this instance, the folks who have taken control of the federal land and building, have no standing to bring such a grievance as the Hammonds have explicitly expressed they did not want this.
An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. See also terrorism.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
If they went in to occupy the building, without authorization - I would call that a threat of violence - and thus - terrorism.
Here is my questions - did those individuals use all political means possible?
and while I'm at it - how many of them voted in the last 4 elections
How many of them have run for office?
Two people get convicted of committing arson on a federal game refuge to cover up poaching. A person unrelated to these guys, and from out-of-state, drives up to this neck of the woods armed to the teeth and take over a federal game refuge. The people convicted of arson want nothing to do with the terrorists.
The "ordinary people" are not from the local community. They're not defending anyone. There is no government overreach in this instance (the convicted people are peaceably going to jail.)
The folks spearheading this aren't a part of that community so I imagine they weren't too concerned about the legal political or legislative means.