150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 09:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since it is an 'or' situation, we only need one. Are they not seeking a change in policy for the arson sentencing? Or possibly we could go with their overall issues with the policies of the BLM. Seems they fit the bill to me.


By bringing firearms to their sit-in they have thrown non-violence out the window. Non-violence would apply if Ryan Bundy said they are willing to be killed for their cause, without adding the willingness to kill.

But that's cool, you keep on denying the law. Non-violence is my thing as a pacifist, and what we are seeing here ain't non-violence because the threat of violence is ever present.

They have not hurt anyone to this point. Like I said if they do use violence then we can revisit whether this is an act of terrorism.

So by your logic: if the police storm the building and the folks peacefully surrender it has been an act of terror because they said they would fight back if attacked.

You can call it an act of terror if you wish (and you do), you just have to look in the mirror and tell yourself why you deem it as such. It appears you justification is I might have found a slight connection in an "or" situation.

I do not consider this an act of terror yet. But that may be because I have seen acts of terror up close and believe me: peacefully occupying a building was not one of them.