Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 4, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’



     
  2. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    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.
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    610
    Good question. I think they are terrorists. Can't wait to see what Obama calls this incident.
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    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."
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    610
    OK, so by your definition these people were not terrorists either:

    Robert Reid
    Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
     
  6. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Would you classify them the same if the situation was identical except they were Muslims (and US Citizens)?
     
  7. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    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.
     
    #7 Zaac, Jan 4, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2016
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    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...


    HankD
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Yes.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Please show where any of the people involved in the sit-in attempted to detonate plastic explosives.
     
  12. Use of Time

    Use of Time
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    98
    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.
     
  13. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220

    This is an attempt to overthrow the government according to this sheriff. They are terrorists.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    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.

    HankD
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    610
    The traditional way of doing this is through the ballot box and elections.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    610
    Hey, you set the criteria, and this guy meets it:

     
  17. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    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.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,075
    Likes Received:
    217
    terrorist
    An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. See also terrorism.

    ter·ror·ism
    (tĕr′ə-rĭz′əm)
    n.
    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?
     
  19. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    610
    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.)
     
  20. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...