+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building (/Thread-150-Armed-Militia-Members-Take-Over-Federal-Building)
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Vas Deferens - 01-05-2016
(01-05-2016, 09:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because they hav e repeatedly said that they would not leave until their demands were met.
What else could that possibly mean?
Apparently we should just negotiate with the terrorists and give them whatever they demand, Fred.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-05-2016
(01-05-2016, 05:09 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I mean. Come on. I just don't see how anyone can decide they are going to fight the federal gov from the outside, with guns. GTFO. You want to change something? Run for ***** office and get people behind your cause. These guys are more like spoiled brat sons of a spoiled brat that thinks he can do whatever the **** he wants. Sorry buddy. Doesn't work that way.
What cracks me up is when this brats compare themselves to the patriots during the Revolutionary War. The American revolutionaries were fighting for a voice in the government, not for the idea that every individual with a gun can decide for himself what the law means.
Our founding fathers fought for the right to establish a system that would serve everyone. That system is still in place. It has not failed just because they do not agree with a court ruling. These people basically want the exact opposite of out founding fathers. Bundy and his followers want all disputes in the US to be decided with guns and violence instead of establishing a representative government.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Benton - 01-05-2016
(01-05-2016, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Roll with that. Just don't let the fact that they have not committed any violent act cloud your judgement.
terrorism doesn't always involve an act. More often it's the threat of action.
and just about every punishment for a crime is enhanced if a firearm is involved. Weren't you an mp? If a guy waves a gun at you and threatens to kill you if you don't do as he says, is he a) threatening violence or b) peacefully protesting?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - GMDino - 01-05-2016
The more I read Larry's "thoughts" the more I come to the conclusion that Bin Laden was not a terrorist. I mean sure, he THREATENED violent acts but did HE ever kill anyone? I don't think so! So why did the US go after him like a terrorist?!?!
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-05-2016
(01-05-2016, 10:02 PM)Benton Wrote: Weren't you an mp? If a guy waves a gun at you and threatens to kill you if you don't do as he says, is he a) threatening violence or b) peacefully protesting?
No way he was ever an MP. I made this same exact point about the law earlier in this thread and he had no clue what I was talking about. He thought I was talking about driving offenses. No MP could be that ignorant of the law.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Benton - 01-05-2016
(01-05-2016, 10:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No way he was ever an MP. I made this same exact point about the law earlier in this thread and he had no clue what I was talking about. He thought I was talking about driving offenses. No MP could be that ignorant of the law.
I get bfine usually falls on one side of an issue, I was just surprised this time it was on the side of those so far outside the law.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-05-2016, 10:02 PM)Benton Wrote:
terrorism doesn't always involve an act. More often it's the threat of action.
Reread the FBIs definition and get back to me.
I see nobody has answered the question of are the folks of BLM with their chants Terrorists.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-05-2016, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF they commit a violent act; then it is terrorisim.
(01-05-2016, 06:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree IF there is violence then they are to be held responsible. Not sure where the disconnect is here.
(01-05-2016, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet for some reason you believe them when they claim that they would not be the ones responsible for the violence if they start killing police or federal officers.Why do folks find the need to make things up?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-05-2016, 10:24 PM)Benton Wrote: I get bfine usually falls on one side of an issue, I was just surprised this time it was on the side of those so far outside the law.
Who the hell has said these guys aren't doing something illegal?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-05-2016, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Taking property while armed with a gun is an act of violence.
If a person robs you with a gun then that is an act of violence even if he does not shoot you.
Everyone else understands this. Yet for some reason you believe them when they claim that they would not be the ones responsible for the violence if they start killing police or federal officers. You even quoted this ridiculous comment to support your position.
(01-06-2016, 01:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do folks find the need to make things up?
Who is making something up? Here is your quote
(01-05-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They did not say they would be the ones creating the violence.
BTW a threat of violence is an "act".
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 01:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I see nobody has answered the question of are the folks of BLM with their chants Terrorists.
I thought that was just a joke.
If a police officer shot one of those black protesters and claimed it was because his life was threatened he would be sent straight to prison because that is not a realistic threat of violence. If a police officer shoots one of Bundy's armed thugs while trying to arrest them he will receive a commendation.
Not even the most extreme racists could compare the two situations. The chants are not realistic viable threats. Armed thugs taking government property and promising to shoot people who try to make them leave is about as realistic threat there is.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 01:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought that was just a joke.
If a police officer shot one of those people and claimed it was because hios life was threatened he would be sent straight to prison. If an police officer shoots one of Bundy's armed thugs while trying to arrest them he will receive a commendation.
Not even the most extreme racists could compare the two situations. The chants are not realistic viable threats. Armed thugs taking government property and promising to shoot people who try to make them leave is about as realistic threat there is.
So BLM threat of violence is not an act? Talk out of both sides of your mouth much?
Provide me a single quote where these occupiers have promised to shoot people who make them leave. Cause you have been known to put words in folks mouths from time to time.
FWIW, I don't think the BLM march and chant is an act of Terrorism; it just fits the criteria many here are trying to assign to it.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 01:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Who is making something up? Here is your quote
BTW a threat of violence is an "act".
If you read that as me saying they would not be responsible for violence if it occurred; then I have found the basis of our disconnect.
Go back, reread the quote (not provided by me BTW) more slowly, read my reply (remember the slow reading tip), and get back to me as to how any reasonable person could interpret that as me saying they would not be responsible. I have said they would be and are breaking the law numerous times.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - GMDino - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If you read that as me saying they would not be responsible for violence if it occurred; then I have found the basis of our disconnect.
Go back, reread the quote (not provided by me BTW) more slowly, read my reply (remember the slow reading tip), and get back to me as to how any reasonable person could interpret that as me saying they would not be responsible. I have said they would be and are breaking the law numerous times.
Was Bin Laden a terrorist? He never killed anyone. Just threatened it.
A simple yes or no will do.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 08:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Was Bin Laden a terrorist? He never killed anyone. Just threatened it.
A simple yes or no will do.
Yes.
He ordered the death of thousands.
Now back to not taking you seriously.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - GMDino - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 09:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes.
He ordered the death of thousands.
Now back to not taking you seriously.
But all he did was say that they would do something...he didn't do it. He merely threatened the act if the US didn't change its policy.
He never killed anyone.
Now back to the the question...does that make him a terrorist in your definition?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-04-2016, 10:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Feds buy up land around them
Feds try to buy their land
They refuse
Feds restrict access to part of their property, water rights
Court rules for Hammond
Controlled fires used to stop wildfire from destroying their land, by Hammond
Fire spreads onto Fed land, burning 127 acres of grass
Hammonds puts out fire themselves
Feds file charges, accuse them as Terrorists under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Fed attorneys tamper with jury, use less than credible witness
Judge issues shorter than mandatory minimum
2 Hammond men serve time (3 months for father, 12 months for son)
Feds file appeal for men to serve full 5 years
Hammonds ordered to offer First Right of Refusal to BLM (first shot at buying property)
Men ordered to finish 5 year sentences, starting Jan 4th
People pissed
Govt can suck it
Posting the Hammonds version proves nothing. They had a fair trial before a jury of their peers (not the federal government) and it was determined that they were lying about the fires.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Provide me a single quote where these occupiers have promised to shoot people who make them leave. Cause you have been known to put words in folks mouths from time to time.
It has already been posted multiple times in this thread, but you just keep ignoring it. They have clearly said that they will kill people who try to remove them. The exact quote was that they were willing to "kill or be killed"
I don't know how we can make it any clearer for you. These people are going to get what they want or else they will kill people who try to stop them.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So BLM threat of violence is not an act?
Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you were of the law.
If a person stands outside you house and says "I am going to kill you" you are not allowed to kill that person in self defense unless the threat is viable. Words alone do not rise to the level of a nthreat of violence.
But if a person with a gun stands outside your house and says he is going to kill you you are justified in killing that person in self defense because the threat is viable.
The marching protesters were using threatening language, but they were not carrying guns, and they were not breaking the law and saying they will kill anyone who tries to stop them from breaking the law.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 01:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you were of the law.
If a person stands outside you house and says "I am going to kill you" you are not allowed to kill that person in self defense unless the threat is viable. Words alone do not rise to the level of a nthreat of violence.
But if a person with a gun stands outside your house and says he is going to kill you you are justified in killing that person in self defense because the threat is viable.
The marching protesters were using threatening language, but they were not carrying guns, and they were not breaking the law and saying they will kill anyone who tries to stop them from breaking the law.
Talk out of one side of your mouth only: Is stating you are going to kill someone/ want someone killed an act?
Also you have no idea if anyone was carrying a gun in that protest; just you making up more stuff. But noted that you only consider it a terroist act if you are holding a gun when you make the statement
But there's the Fred we all know and love that insists on calling someone ignorant.
Nowhere have I said these folks are not guilty of a crime; nor have a stated whom LEOs would be justified in shooting. What do you guys call that: Strawsomething?
The quote kill or be killed is what a reporter said he was told over the phone. What do you guys call that: Hearsomething?