150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[fredtoast]

(01-06-2016, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote:   Let's see if the FBI or White House has labeled it as Terrorism as many here have..........Nope.

So if the FBI charges them for any acts of terrorism then you will admit that you were wrong?

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2016, 11:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you posted comments from a reporter to support your claim about waht the BLM gang did in a library.  So what is your point.

The media source I cited gave an exact quote from a named source.  It was not a "rumor" or "secondhand".  It was a direct quote from on of Bundy's thugs.

Oh no'ss!!! Not an exact quote from one of Bundy's thugs!!! Any proof of this besides what the reporter told you?

The difference is the reporter in the BLM case didn't cause me to label them as terrorists; I'm not so influenced by media. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I think the feds are handling this perfectly. Right now these guys look like clowns with their heads up their asses. The feds have refused to legitimize their childish tantrum and they look more foolish with every day.

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2016, 11:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So if the FBI charges them for any acts of terrorism then you will admit that you were wrong?

If nothing more than what has happened happens then absolutely. As soon as there is a violent act (what are the requirements again?) That  all may change. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2016, 11:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the feds are handling this perfectly. Right now these guys look like clowns with their heads up their asses.  The feds have refused to legitimize their childish tantrum and they look more foolish with every day.

I agree. They are currently not a threat to anyone. I would cut their supply lines and power (not sure this hasn't already been done) and let them count the snowflakes until they got cold and hungry. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2016, 11:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank goodness you finally figured it out.  I was wondering how many times I would have to explain it to you.

You are welcome.  Let me know when I can explain anything else to you.

Yes, Boston was a case of Terrorism because the citizenry was at risk and violent acts towards citizens had already  been committed; Oregon, not so much. 

Thus the difference in the approaches by LEOS

Thanks for the explanation?

[Vlad]

Because we have been so accustomed watching the method of operation of Muslim terrorists as they take innocent lives by murdering/blowing things up, it becomes difficult to place a "terrorist" label on these folks. However, the raid on the Federal building was an act of terror because rest assured the people working inside had to have been terrified as these folks barged into the building armed with guns.

The problem is that liberal Muslim apologists ignore the distinction and would rather just place the actions of these country bumpkins under the same umbrella of Islamic terrorism, as if they're both the same shit. It makes them feel good inside, after all the Bundy gang most likely are Christians anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(01-07-2016, 12:25 AM)Vlad Wrote: Because we have been so accustomed watching the method of operation of Muslim terrorists as they take innocent lives by murdering/blowing things up, it becomes difficult to place a "terrorist" label on these folks. However, the raid on the Federal building was an act of terror because rest assured the people working inside had to have been terrified as these folks barged into the building armed with guns.

The problem is that liberal Muslim apologists ignore the distinction and would rather just place the actions of these country bumpkins under the same umbrella of Islamic terrorism, as if they're both the same shit. It makes them feel good inside, after all the Bundy gang most likely are Christians anyway.

Something you may want to know about that....

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2016, 12:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, Boston was a case of Terrorism because the citizenry was at risk and violent acts towards citizens had already  been committed; Oregon, not so much. 

Again you miss the point that a viable threat is an act of terrorism.

If someone takes over your house with a gun and says he will not leave and will shoot police who try to arrest him he has committed an act of violence.

That is the law.

Everyone gets it except you. 

[fredtoast]

(01-06-2016, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  As soon as there is a violent act (what are the requirements again?) 

They have already done thius




Main article: threatening terrorism against the United States
18 U.S.C. § 2332b(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.[4]

[BmorePat87]

4 days since this thread has been made and they're still terrorists.

[Bengalzona]

[Bengalzona]

[Rotobeast]

(01-07-2016, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Something you may want to know about that....

Like the majority of the community supporting the Hammond's and the "take-over" being coordinated with park employees ?

Shhhhhhhh.....

Doesn't make for a good story.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2016, 12:28 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Like the majority of the community supporting the Hammond's and the "take-over" being coordinated with park employees ?

Shhhhhhhh.....

Doesn't make for a good story.

Hell, I support the Hammonds on their thing. I don't support the Bundys, though. From what I have read, that is the majority opinion of the community as well.

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2016, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hell, I support the Hammonds on their thing. I don't support the Bundys, though. From what I have read, that is the majority opinion of the community as well.

I have serious concerns about the potential for government abuse of its powers of imminent domain and some other issues similar to that, but theses problems can not be fixed by armed threats.

The community supports the Hammonds just because they are local icons, but most of them do not agree with what the Bundys are doing.  

[Rotobeast]

For the record again, I do not agree with the Bundy's.
I'm thinking they used the Hammond's.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2016, 01:07 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: For the record again, I do not agree with the Bundy's.
I'm thinking they used the Hammond's.

Absolutely. Hell, the LDS church came out against the Bundys on this stuff. When the CJCLDS thinks you're crazy enough as a member of their denomination to come out and say they don't agree with you, you've got some problems.

[fredtoast]

When Bundy's father tried this it kind of blew up when he made some racists remarks. Lots of conservative politicians were actually backing him until that point then the whole movement kind of died out.

I'll bet that is why his son is running the show this time.

[Rotobeast]

(01-07-2016, 01:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When Bundy's father tried this it kind of blew up when he made some racists remarks.  Lots of conservative politicians were actually backing him until that point then the whole movement kind of died out.

I'll bet that is why his son is running the show this time.

Not that one person's view means much but....