Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.

No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.

So I take it if a group of American muslims did this, you would be saying the same? That they are simply outlaws?

Yes I would. Because there is a difference of Muslims taking over an abandoned building fr away from the public and protesting than trying to create panic in public

Yea right, you'd be screaming your lungs out saying they are staging a headquarters on American soil, cut it out.

a reply to: theySeeme

It's interesting watching people dance around the definition of terrorism or change it to suit their needs so they don't have to admit to these yahoos being terrorists but still have carte blanche to label other demographics as terrorists as they please. This despite the definition of terrorism having been posted several times in the thread (and subsequently ignored every time).

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.

No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.

So I take it if a group of American muslims did this, you would be saying the same? That they are simply outlaws?

Yes I would. Because there is a difference of Muslims taking over an abandoned building fr away from the public and protesting than trying to create panic in public

Yea right, you'd be screaming your lungs out saying they are staging a headquarters on American soil, cut it out.

Uh no and you don't know me..

But there is a public perception of Muslims because of the actions some have taken. Not the case here. These groups have never been involved in mass killing

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a dance your just being dramatic.

Real simple. Terrorists use violence in public on unarmed people to create hysteria.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.

No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.

So I take it if a group of American muslims did this, you would be saying the same? That they are simply outlaws?

Yes I would. Because there is a difference of Muslims taking over an abandoned building fr away from the public and protesting than trying to create panic in public

Yea right, you'd be screaming your lungs out saying they are staging a headquarters on American soil, cut it out.

But there is a public perception of Muslims because of the actions some have taken. Not the case here. These groups have never been involved in mass killing

So you've never heard of Jonestown then?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

easier sentence and release are two entirely different things, if the time was DROPPED to an additional 6 months, no one would complain. It's the 5 years thing...5 years.

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

Political trolling nice

It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.

No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.

So I take it if a group of American muslims did this, you would be saying the same? That they are simply outlaws?

Yes I would. Because there is a difference of Muslims taking over an abandoned building fr away from the public and protesting than trying to create panic in public

Yea right, you'd be screaming your lungs out saying they are staging a headquarters on American soil, cut it out.

But there is a public perception of Muslims because of the actions some have taken. Not the case here. These groups have never been involved in mass killing

So you've never heard of Jonestown then?

They are connected to Jonestown?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

easier sentence and release are two entirely different things, if the time was DROPPED to an additional 6 months, no one would complain. It's the 5 years thing...5 years.

I can list 100 stories of blacks being sentenced to more than 5 years for less serious crimes, so I don't get your point...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

Political trolling nice

It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.

According to the FBI's definition -

www.fbi.gov...

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

Political trolling nice

It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.

According to the FBI's definition -

www.fbi.gov...

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

And ?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

Political trolling nice

It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

If you are a terrorist a whole different set of protocol, hearings, law enforcement, etc is used.

These guys are just your standard criminals.

They are not planning to kill anyone.

Put a fence around them don't let them leave let the media have their 24 hr feed.

When they get hungry arrest them.

No need to ship them off to secret courts and prisons.

According to the FBI's definition -

www.fbi.gov...

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

And ?

And you said

Your definition of terrorism (websters) is not a criminal definition.

When it was clearly stated the definitions are both websters and FBI's - which FBI deems criminal, despite you saying otherwise. Who are you kidding?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

It may not have any bearing on this situation, but to answer your question, yes, they're all white.

"KING: Armed militia that took over federal buildings in Oregon protected because they are white"
www.nydailynews.com...

a reply to: theySeeme

Why are we bringing blacks into this? Of those 100 can you give me their criminal history (if any) to determine their bad habits, or lack of them?

Oh, and it's already been extended to 5 years, unjustly.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They're not labeled terrorists because they are lily white, thus the nicknames Y'all Queda and Vanilla ISIS. If they were people of color, they would've been smoked, shot, or droned out of there by now.

Sad reality though isn't it? The down-playing of their actions and what not? I don't think it has everything to do with their skin-color; though that's a big part of it.

Look at what happened in Waco, so of course race is not the end-all be-all here, it's a group of things. How much money do we put on these ranchers being Trump supporters? Any takers?

It has nothing to do with race. Are you certain they are all white?

It may not have any bearing on this situation, but to answer your question, yes, they're all white.

"KING: Armed militia that took over federal buildings in Oregon protected because they are white"
www.nydailynews.com...

Not always a fan of King, but the man is dead-on with this situation. And King is white himself, he is just telling it like it is.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yes they are. Their demands are to release two people indicted on federal arson charges as well as having the federal government hand over federal land to local ranchers.

No they are not. They are not terrorizing the public to bring about change. They are simply outlaws.

So I take it if a group of American muslims did this, you would be saying the same? That they are simply outlaws?

Yes I would. Because there is a difference of Muslims taking over an abandoned building fr away from the public and protesting than trying to create panic in public

Yea right, you'd be screaming your lungs out saying they are staging a headquarters on American soil, cut it out.

But there is a public perception of Muslims because of the actions some have taken. Not the case here. These groups have never been involved in mass killing

So you've never heard of Jonestown then?

They are connected to Jonestown?

I never claimed that.

You were instigating that only 'Muslim' extremists (in general) are more prone to mass murder... I'm simply pointing out that it is simply not true.

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

easier sentence and release are two entirely different things, if the time was DROPPED to an additional 6 months, no one would complain. It's the 5 years thing...5 years.

I can list 100 stories of blacks being sentenced to more than 5 years for less serious crimes, so I don't get your point...

Classic unthought Ultra liberal response.

They are both wrong silly that's the point. Just because it happens to blacks does not make it OK.

Big question when does one become a terrorist? We're the forefathers terrorists? How about the Pine ridge incident were the Lakota terrorists? Rosa Parks? Martin Luther King? I could fit them in your definition even though they were not armed.

Al Capone was he a terrorist? Will you be a terrorist if trump is elected?

The word should be reserved for people like McVae not some outlaws who are in fact criminals I am not defending them.

I just think the definition of terrorism has become loose enough to include anyone who creates a public upheavel.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are we bringing blacks into this? Of those 100 can you give me their criminal history (if any) to determine their bad habits, or lack of them?

Oh, and it's already been extended to 5 years, unjustly.

Weird way to structure your question, but the reason I make the reference to blacks being sentenced to more time for less serious crimes is because it's completely relevant; for the simple fact that if these ranchers were black people protesting the arrest of 2 criminals (yes, they were criminals who broke the law and were arrested) everyone of you folks would be going NUTS! They would of all been dead or apprehended (not without injury) long ago, let's not beat around the bush here.