Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: theySeeme

They aren't causing any terror. They are protesting. They can do that.... So can I. 2 completely different things

So I take it when you go out to protest you normally bring your guns, threaten the police and storm + takeover a federal building?

They didnt "storm" or "takeover", the building was unoccupied, disused, and miles from nowhere.

originally posted by: snypwsd

originally posted by: theySeeme
I'm just curious, these armed Oregon "protestors" are basically committing an act of terrorism and threatning the police with the use of violence while trespassing - can you imagine if these folks were black, mexican, indian or muslim? This would be labeled all kinds of things, but for some reason the media and everyone else looks at this as some kind of peaceful protest, even though the protesters are not only breaking the law, they are threatening the lives of law enforcement..

Nothing peaceful about this protest.

Definition of terrorism -

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Because they are white.. Its only terrorism in the states if your anything but white. Every time its a white person commiting an act of terrorism its generally called an isolated incident.

In the states white people are able to get away with everything from taking over government buildings, to walking into a black church and killing innocent people. But innocent people fleeing terrorism in the middle east are all called terrorists and denied entery. Black protesters are called thugs and terrorists even when white guys sgow up with guns and shoot them.

You cant do anything wrong if your white in the states. Im thankful Im canadian.

Pretty sure nobody knows how many of them there are and if they are all white. The last militia showings were not all white. In Ferguson or Nevada. They even had a Hispanic leader. But just shout racism its all the rage

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: theySeeme

They aren't causing any terror. They are protesting. They can do that.... So can I. 2 completely different things

So I take it when you go out to protest you normally bring your guns, threaten the police and storm + takeover a federal building?

They didnt "storm" or "takeover", the building was unoccupied, disused, and miles from nowhere.

"Miles from no where" makes absolutely no sense and has no bearing on the situation.

They took over a federal building on federal property, are occupying it, and have stated that if the feds return to reclaim the land, they are willing to die for it.

Sounds like armed robbery if you ask me..

a reply to: theySeeme

Go ahead and call them terrorists, no one is stopping you.

Free speech!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In all likelihood they'll just get misdemeanor offenses if they get anything at all. The perpetrators of the last Bundy nonsense haven't been prosecuted yet. It is likely that the same outcome will apply here. Which just shows their terrorist actions are working. The government is scared to prosecute them.

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: theySeeme

They aren't causing any terror. They are protesting. They can do that.... So can I. 2 completely different things

So I take it when you go out to protest you normally bring your guns, threaten the police and storm + takeover a federal building?

They didnt "storm" or "takeover", the building was unoccupied, disused, and miles from nowhere.

"Miles from no where" makes absolutely no sense and has no bearing on the situation.

They took over a federal building on federal property, are occupying it, and have stated that if the feds return to reclaim the land, they are willing to die for it.

Sounds like armed robbery if you ask me..

Which is not terrorism.

The protest is over federal land. However wrong and criminal their behaviour is.

a reply to: intrptr

I love how the narrative at first was "Militia takes over Federal Building in Oregon". No, it's a federally owned building in the woods. Got to give it to them though, the MSM tried hard to push the "terror" angle. But people see this for what it is at the moment. Could it change? Maybe. But the administration knows it's not worth lighting that fuse. Yet.

a reply to: stolencar18

I was going to mention the fact that the occupy movement people would be considered terrorists also if this issue with occupying buildings to influence political change by protesters were to be also.

Now if they were holding people hostage to bend political will, and not the police or anybody else as they are the hostage takers in reality, I may view it differently.

Unfortunately, it seems the government likes to take public opinion polls to decide on many things and the public is for the most part clueless as the only thing they have to get information to develop that opinion is the media and internet which are manipulated to skew the opinions of the ignorant masses.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theySeeme

Go ahead and call them terrorists, no one is stopping you.

Free speech!

Strange, I don't want or need to call them terrorists, I'm wondering why no one else is, that's all.

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theySeeme

Go ahead and call them terrorists, no one is stopping you.

Free speech!

Strange, I don't want or need to call them terrorists, I'm wondering why no one else is, that's all.

So you don't want to call them terrorists.

okay.

Why do you care what other people call them?

"Terrorist" is the most abused word in the English language today.

First corrupt the language, as Orwell noted, and then the thought processes will be corrupted soon after. That's pretty much what's happening since 911

I don't call them terrorists because they haven't killed any innocent people, nor am I worried they will. Comparing some disgruntled ranchers occupying government property with their guns to a jihadist itching to get to paradise while taking as many his enemies with him, is an obscenity of political motivation.

They aren't terrorists unless they commit acts of terrorism or plan to commit acts of terrorism. This isn't the minority report.

a reply to: theySeeme

You obviously have never understood civil disobedience.

You think writing letters to their congressmen would have been better. Go through channels? There are no channels left, just the systemic abuse by the law both local and federal of the average Americans rights. When the channels for redress of grievance are dried up then its tome make a stand that garners more attention, an act of civil disobedience, occupying a disused federal building miles from nowhere and refusing to leave until their case is heard in the peoples court.

Of course, thats "illegal" nowadays. Because they are armed is the only reason this has a wider audience, they would have already otherwise been arrested and imprisoned for trespassing and any number of other charges.

This way they get to make a stand and be wider known. The poor ranchers tale of 'legal' injustice would never have made the news otherwise.

a reply to: intrptr

Too bad everyone has pretty much written them off as idiots.

originally posted by: HoldMyBeer
a reply to: intrptr

I love how the narrative at first was "Militia takes over Federal Building in Oregon". No, it's a federally owned building in the woods. Got to give it to them though, the MSM tried hard to push the "terror" angle. But people see this for what it is at the moment. Could it change? Maybe. But the administration knows it's not worth lighting that fuse. Yet.

People here see it, less on Main Street. They'll believe the government when it tells them through the media they are radicals and extremists.

The conditioning of "man with a gun, man with a gun!" is strong with main stream America.

It seems that as often as the word "terrorist" is used to tag certain people, that maybe some people consider a misdemeanor and a terrorist act to be similar things.

Nobody ever seems to get hurt or killed until the government steps in to "fix things".

As an aside, who the hell cares if any of them make racist comments or whatever.

Really, what difference does it make that any of them have an ignorant view or say inappropriate things like I am hearing the media lighting up on right now?.

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: theySeeme
I'm just curious, these armed Oregon "protestors" are basically committing an act of terrorism and threatning the police with the use of violence while trespassing - can you imagine if these folks were black, mexican, indian or muslim? This would be labeled all kinds of things, but for some reason the media and everyone else looks at this as some kind of peaceful protest, even though the protesters are not only breaking the law, they are threatening the lives of law enforcement..

Nothing peaceful about this protest.

Definition of terrorism -

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

By that definition we could also call the Occupy movement terrorists. Same for Black Lives Matter.
Oh, and most world governments.

Terrorism isn't that simple of a definition. It also requires context.

When did Occupy movement use violence or intimidation in pursuit of political aims? Peaceful protest, sure, Ive' yet to see violence or intimidation though. But hey, nice try. If you want to compare BLM & Occupy to storming a federal building with guns, threatening to shoot the police and any other law enforcement, then go ahead.

I still disagree.

in·tim·i·date

frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.

o·ver·awe

impress (someone) so much that they become silent or inhibited.

I seem to remember lots of events by lots of different groups of people in america over the past year that fit the textbook definition of terrorism. Shall we we toss them all in Guantanamo?

a reply to: theySeeme

Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

Hmmmmmm..... I gotta tell ya I'm seriously questioning what exactly you are really asking here. Either you simply worded this question very poorly, or... I don't know.

But in answer to the question as asked, the premise is flawed; plenty of people are calling them terrorists. In fact, if I remember correctly, a CNN reporter was demanding that Donald Trump call them terrorists. So are you really asking why the media isn't calling them terrorists? Why politicians aren't calling them terrorists? Or perhaps why the legal authorities are not calling them terrorists, and more important, charging them as terrorists? Or perhaps why we the people aren't calling them terrorists?

In the case of the people, I would say it's because they have not done anything to instill terror into the people. And especially to us old folks, we still define "terrorism" as violent acts committed upon civilians in pursuit of political aims. No violent acts have been committed upon civilians, and there has been no threat to do so, therefore it does not rise to the level of terrorism for many (perhaps most) people.

On the other hand, according to a dear friend with family/friends in Oregon, those most affected by the bad behavior of the feds/BLM, are in fact terrified of the feds/BLM, and especially retaliation by the feds/BLM if they support these protesters in any way. Much like the Hammonds were more worried about the inevitable retaliation of the Feds than serving an unjust prison sentence.

At least some of us are far more concerned with the terrorist tactics of our government against the people.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

Too bad everyone has pretty much written them off as idiots.

"Everyone" that watches TV news, maybe.

Imo, they are some of the last real Americans. People cry on the internet all day about this mis carriage of justice and that law breaking agency… but don't actually do anything about it.

a reply to: theySeeme

Seems to me that Obama's executive order--not to keep this tangent alive or anything--mandates background checks for places who are in the "business of selling firearms."

From the White House:

Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

◦ A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.

◦ Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

◦ There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

Now, even though there are penalties for not doing so, this appears to leave the onus of applying for a license to sell and using the background-check system to the seller. What this vagueness does is basically threaten every person who is wanting to sell a gun or two (as I did recently to another private party) with the concern that, just maybe if they don't try to get licensed to do so, the feds will come down on them for selling their firearm(s). But hey, I made a firearm trade in a state (commonwealth) that doesn't necessitate firearm registration, so I'm probably their worst nightmare.

Funny thing is, where does any of this say that someone can't barter and trade firearms? It doesn't. Now, I have the honesty and presence of mind to ensure the person to whom I traded had a CCDW license--the only indicator I can have to semi-prove that they're not a felon and can own firearms. Many people don't do that.

My point here is that the "gunshow loophole" getting closed won't necessarily equate to less guns getting into the hands of criminals--they'll just get in to the their hands another way, and at slightly higher cost because it'll be on the black market, like many of the guns in the hands of criminals found their way there in the first place.

What this does is try to scare the individual wanting to sell a couple guns legally with possible federal indictments for not having a license to do so or for not having run background checks. It's a fear tactic that will not make much of a dent in the number of criminals with firearms.

Mods, if this is too off-topic, I apologize and kill this comment if you must.