01-04-2016, 10:01 PM
(01-04-2016, 09:49 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guess this is supposed to be their side of the story.....
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
There was more than that (tweets and video) but if someone needs to see it, they can go to the link.
Figured that was more than enough to provide example of their issues.
Oh.... and I stand corrected, after reading this story.
The threat to the winter feed/range was not from insects, but from fire.
I like that the thing you posted does not make reference to the death threats and the attempted homicide of a federal agent. Two sides to every story. The BLM has done some shady stuff, but these two aren't spotless for sure.
(01-04-2016, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.
The threat of violence is just as good as committing the act to me. After all, the threat of violence is enough to constitute an assault charge.
It doesn't need to be an IED or a suicide attack to be terrorism. It comes in many forms. I just have a much lower tolerance for violence than you, apparently.
