150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[J24]

(01-04-2016, 07:41 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: What about Baltimore riots?  Occupy property damage?  Was that called terrorism?

Yes if your using violence or threat of violence for political reasons then yes it is called terrorism.

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this instead of flapping our yaps:

Do you consider this incident to date an act of terrorism and those involved terrorists?

It is going to be he hardest answer because it requires a yes or no.

I'll start:

No.

Who is next?

I had shut down my tablet and went to bed after my last post or I would have responded earlier. Yes, as I have already stated.

(01-05-2016, 12:39 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: This got me to wondering why the Feds didn't jump in and charge this one cat with terrorism ?
Granted, he got more than the mandatory minimum that would apply, but he destroyed a business and put peoples lives at risk to in fact have the federal government change their policies on investigating police brutality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-st-louis-protester-sentenced-to-8-years-in-quiktrip-arson/

What "privilege" is at play here ?

Not enough information. Was the purpose of his violence to cause public policy change, or was it violence for the sake of violence? If someone goes home from church and murders their spouse, did they kill for their religion? The article may clarify things but I am too lazy this early to read. So, if he burned down the store with the intent to coerce or intimidate the government or to, I forget the others, then yes, it is terrorism.

[GMDino]

Why are cats discussing this with Larry?

He will always be right. Either because he won't change his mind or because there is one word somewhere in a response or website somewhere that he can cling to and talk about for page after page.

(01-05-2016, 02:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I just don't see that act as terrorism either. But of course I'm not as quick to throw the term around as others are. Even though this act seems to meet all the requirements of the FBI definition. 

Americans kill Americans in CA? Not terrorism.

Americans don't kill Americans but do what's going on in OR? Not terrorism.

Oh, and yes Larry, this is about you and how you discuss argue on the boards.

Thank you for your solid contribution.

[Benton]

(01-04-2016, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this instead of flapping our yaps:

Do you consider this incident to date an act of terrorism and those involved terrorists?

It is going to be he hardest answer because it requires a yes or no.

I'll start:

No.

Who is next?

at the start, no. After the threat of using force, yes.

[fredtoast]

To compare this to a 60's "sit in" is absurd.

People who participated in "sit ins" were non-violent. This gang in oregon is armed to the teeth and promise to use their guns if necessary.

I guess you could split hairs and claim that they have not threatened any individual citizens, but they are clearly saying that they will use violence to accomplish their political goals.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 10:03 AM)Benton Wrote: at the start, no. After the threat of using force, yes.

This.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 10:03 AM)Benton Wrote: at the start, no. After the threat of using force, yes.

Obviously this is the part I am missing.

All I have read is they do not want to hurt anybody, but would not rule out violence.

Perhaps if someone can provide me with the link/quote the stated they we hurt people if their demands were not met then we can revisit this as terror.

I have not seen anywhere where they have threatened violence to achieve what they desire. They are sitting in an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere. No one is currently in danger

It is what I have said all along.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 01:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To compare this to a 60's "sit in" is absurd.

People who participated in "sit ins" were non-violent.  This gang in oregon is armed to the teeth and promise to use their guns if necessary.  

I guess you could split hairs and claim that they have not threatened any individual citizens, but they are clearly saying that they will use violence to accomplish their political goals.

Do you find it absurd to compare this to what happened in San Bernidino?

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Why are cats discussing this with Larry?

He will always be right.  Either because he won't change his mind or because there is one word somewhere in a response or website somewhere that he can cling to and talk about for page after page.




Americans kill Americans in CA? Not terrorism.

Americans don't kill Americans but do what's going on in OR? Not terrorism.

Oh, and yes Larry, this is about you and how you discuss argue on the boards.

Thank you for your solid contribution.

Seek help.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you find it absurd to compare this to what happened in San Bernidino?

Yes.

[GMDino]

(01-05-2016, 02:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seek help.

Solid post.

[Sovereign Nation]

Since when is telling somebody that if you attack me, I will fight back considered a threat?

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 02:14 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Since when is telling somebody that if you attack me, I will fight back considered a threat?

I haven't even read where they say they will; they have said they won't rule it out.

i just did a quick google search of the incident and read the first 4-5 stories on this.

None of them classified this as an act of terrorisim to date.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 01:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously this is the part I am missing.

All I have read is they do not want to hurt anybody, but would not rule out violence.

Perhaps if someone can provide me with the link/quote the stated they we hurt people if their demands were not met then we can revisit this as terror.

I have not seen anywhere where they have threatened violence to achieve what they desire. They are sitting in an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere. No one is currently in danger

It is what I have said all along.

Why do they need the guns if they are not threatening violence?  The civil disobedience of the civil rights movement did not require guns because they were no threatening violence.  These people in Oregon are different.  they intend to use violence if their demands are not met.

If a group of armed men took over your house and said they would not leave unless their demands are met you would not consider that an act of violence?  Seriously?

[GMDino]

(01-05-2016, 02:14 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Since when is telling somebody that if you attack me, I will fight back considered a threat?

When you are illegally on their property that you broke into?

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 02:14 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Since when is telling somebody that if you attack me, I will fight back considered a threat?

When they are breaking the law.

If an armed person took over your house and said he would not shoot anyone unless he was attacked by the police would you say that he was not making a threat?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-05-2016, 02:14 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Since when is telling somebody that if you attack me, I will fight back considered a threat?

I'm going to break into your house, occupy it, threaten to stay there for years, and if you try to remove me, I just might kill you.

If you don't consider this a threat, you're a moron.

[Belsnickel]

(01-05-2016, 02:14 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Since when is telling somebody that if you attack me, I will fight back considered a threat?

Since when is an officer arresting you for illegal actions an attack?

(01-05-2016, 02:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I haven't even read where they say they will; they have said they won't rule it out.

Ryan Bundy (I can't keep track of which one is which, so I think that is the right one) has been deemed the spokesperson for the group and he has said that "if they force the issue...lives could be lost." Quite frankly, even "not ruling out violence" when faced with being arrested for breaking the law, is a threat of violence. Bringing weapons like they did to a protest of this type is in and of itself a threat of violence. And a threat of violence is a danger to human life, this is why a person can be charged with assault based on a threat.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 02:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why do they need the guns if they are not threatening violence?  The civil disobedience of the civil rights movement did not require guns because they were no threatening violence.  These people in Oregon are different.  they intend to use violence if their demands are not met.

If a group of armed men took over your house and said they would not leave unless their demands are met you would not consider that an act of violence?  Seriously?

Not If the house was unoccupied and no neighbors were in harms way (Where's the violence?). As soon as I tried to return and they tried to stop me with force; then it has become violent.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not If the house was unoccupied and no neighbors were in harms way (Where's the violence?). As soon as I tried to return and they tried to stop me with force; then it has become violent.

They are armed to the teeth and they insist that they will not leave until their demands are met.  This is about as clear a threat of violence as possible.

Jjust answer one simple question.  If they did not intend to threaten violence then why did they even bring their guns?

If a man pulls a gun on you and demands your money would you consider that "non-violent" until he actually pulled the trigger?

Anyone who does not consider an armed person breaking the law and making demand a threat of violence has been brainwashed.