Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

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.

Who are their victims?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

hardcore conservatives to start questioning why these people don't have jobs to go to

That's how they roll. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, regardless of job security. Most people are like that.

originally posted by: luthier
Be interesting if we had unarmed police go in to arrest them. It would be a Lusitania move but would certainly move the needle.

It truly would be, because they've explicitly stated that if violence is going to occur, it will be on the part of the feds. Well, then send the feds in unarmed--something tells me they wouldn't have any takers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
It's a complicated discussion not a yes or no answer.

If that is the case then I'd wager the poster I was responding to was comparing apples to oranges then.

It depends. Should the justice dept send armed guards to say Gibson guitars and shut the business down because the trade agreement with India is that all rough lumber needs to be cut in India? Does that make sense from even a resource stand point of manpower? Doing India's police enforcement? They were busted with some large UN milled boards.

At what point do people come together instead of push apart?

I don't agree with the methods and they discredit the cause but there needs to be a change. Or the short fuses among us will snap.

A lot of militia members are ex military and feel betrayed by the government. Can you blame them? I don't agree with it but I am lucky to have spent my youth in philosophy and music classes not a battlefield.

The militia problem is directly correlated to vets. Some of the most organized militias are from vets. Is there a correlation to social injustice and forming "tribes" within the social contract...? I think so.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for that post Boadicea, I don't know why but it made me feel better again. I've been getting myself worked up way too much over this Oregon issue the last couple of days, even though I'm all the way over in Europe and have absolutely no stakes in it at all

Through my frustration I haven't even posted much, but I've been reading a lot of misdirected hatred. The fact that people are even considering calling these folks "terrorists" is really appalling to me. It's just as revealing as the fact that many are unknowingly stating that the Hammonds deserved to be re-tried under an Antiterrorism act, for starting a backfire.

Bush upgraded the word "terrr" to what people believe it to be these days. Obama made sure to cash-in on it and if Trump gets miraculously elected he will probably be the best in the world at it

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: luthier
Be interesting if we had unarmed police go in to arrest them. It would be a Lusitania move but would certainly move the needle.

It truly would be, because they've explicitly stated that if violence is going to occur, it will be on the part of the feds. Well, then send the feds in unarmed--something tells me they wouldn't have any takers.

Yeah prob so but it would shift the morality to the feds with the public for sure. Hence the Lusitania reference.

a reply to: luthier

I'M a veteran who served in Iraq in 05. Do you know how -I- feel betrayed by the government? I feel betrayed for having been lied to about starting that stupid war, having to go over and fight it, then no one be held responsible for it. That is the only thing I accept a veteran should be upset about the government over (well that and VA benefits, but that is a whole other can of worms).

I certainly don't sympathize with people (veteran or otherwise) who either don't fully understand the Constitution or the legal precedent that has defined it over the last 200+ years, and that is the case with these idiots in Oregon. They have a very weak grasp of Constitutional law (mostly buzzphrases or what they likely admire the most about it), yet anyone with even a tenuous grasp of Constitutional law can see they don't have legal basis for their claims and the government hasn't done anything wrong in this case.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I'M a veteran who served in Iraq in 05. Do you know how -I- feel betrayed by the government? I feel betrayed for having been lied to about starting that stupid war, having to go over and fight it, then no one be held responsible for it. That is the only thing I accept a veteran should be upset about the government over (well that and VA benefits, but that is a whole other can of worms).

I certainly don't sympathize with people (veteran or otherwise) who either don't fully understand the Constitution or the legal precedent that has defined it over the last 200+ years, and that is the case with these idiots in Oregon. They have a very weak grasp of Constitutional law (mostly buzzphrases or what they likely admire the most about it), yet anyone with even a tenuous grasp of Constitutional law can see they don't have legal basis for their claims and the government hasn't done anything wrong in this case.

Served in 2007 when I was just 18 years old, and again in 2009 - I know exactly how you feel. And the 'disease' created over there was so strong it would have been dangerous to my life if I were to report on or speak out against what I was witnessing - despite my government (through my comrades) supporting it all entirely (or pretending to like I, for the same fears).

a reply to: theySeeme

The "disease" you are referring to is the reason ISIS exists in Iraq right now... But because we didn't want to acknowledge our mistakes the first time, we have to go back over AGAIN. THAT is betrayal. The government not admitting its failure and telling us that we need to fix new problems with the same actions that failed the last times.

I've been called a shill or pro-government several times today by various conservative posters all because I don't agree with their opinions, yet they know nothing about me and how I, personally, am critical of the government.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theySeeme

The "disease" you are referring to is the reason ISIS exists in Iraq right now... But because we didn't want to acknowledge are mistakes the first time, we have to go back over AGAIN. THAT is betrayal. The government not admitting its failure and telling us that we need to fix new problems with the same actions that failed the last times.

Exactly! This betrayal is the biggest slap in the face considering the horrific actions and blood that have been spilled on that soil!

And this disease is being fueled by the ideology that only Muslim's are terrorist, the disease is literally mutating before our very eyes.

I am all for positive logical government rebellion with solid established goals and leadership - these ranchers have none of that. Does something need to be done about the government? Absolutely, this is absolutely not that 'something', and will only give birth to a new breed of 'disease'

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I'M a veteran who served in Iraq in 05. Do you know how -I- feel betrayed by the government? I feel betrayed for having been lied to about starting that stupid war, having to go over and fight it, then no one be held responsible for it. That is the only thing I accept a veteran should be upset about the government over (well that and VA benefits, but that is a whole other can of worms).

I certainly don't sympathize with people (veteran or otherwise) who either don't fully understand the Constitution or the legal precedent that has defined it over the last 200+ years, and that is the case with these idiots in Oregon. They have a very weak grasp of Constitutional law (mostly buzzphrases or what they likely admire the most about it), yet anyone with even a tenuous grasp of Constitutional law can see they don't have legal basis for their claims and the government hasn't done anything wrong in this case.

We agree. But that doesn't equate with reality. Not everyone's feeling and mental health came back with Iraq the same, And our VA problem is a massive injustice that the effect is rage and confusion.

If you truly can't see how issues like this happen I don't know how to get through to you.

I agree with you about their illegal actions, I agree they could be dangerous, but I don't agree it came from no where and that their anger isn't justified. Their actions are the problem. How they dealt with this is the problem.

Unless they start a revolution and win then they would be heroes and freedom fighters.

Meh my point is don't declare them terrorists and waste even more resources and judicial mis doing on them. So far the FBI seems to agree. You will just create more sympathy.

The social contract goes both ways. When sides start destroying it unrest happens.

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.

Are you going to honestly suggest that BLM/Occupy didn't try to use violence or intimidation to reach an objective? "Occupying" government buildings, private business, and public parks, while preventing the general public from using these same areas? There were more violent people in the BLM/Occupy movements and more crimes committed than this group has committed, so far.

The only difference is that you support one political cause and reject the other.

a reply to: theySeeme

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sad how serving one's country can lead to distrust and downright disdain for the government that you served while in. I luckily never had to deploy (ETS process was already signed off before 9/11, so I ETS'd in May '02), but my wife went to Iraq in 2005. She didn't see the terrible stuff that people like some of my other good friends in the 101st did, but it still changed her outlook on our government and foreign policy--but mostly about how the government uses and abuses its troops and veterans without a second thought, and then barely takes care of them afterward.

Serving in the military is what has made me a borderline isolationist, akin to Ron Paul's views on war, for the most part.

originally posted by: luthier
We agree. But that doesn't equate with reality. Not everyone's feeling and mental health came back with Iraq the same, And our VA problem is a massive injustice that the effect is rage and confusion.

If you truly can't see how issues like this happen I don't know how to get through to you.

Oh I can see with perfect 20/20 vision why things like this happen. Idiots let idiotic conservative propaganda (I have trouble calling it media since it is mostly lies) influence their thinking and warp their idea of the Constitution, the law, as well as history. Then they act on those misconceptions when they perceive they've been slighted. We usually call such things radicalization.

I agree with you about their illegal actions, I agree they could be dangerous, but I don't agree it came from no where and that their anger isn't justified. Their actions are the problem. How they dealt with this is the problem.

The grievances certainly didn't come from "nowhere". They're just unfounded.

Unless they start a revolution and win then they would be heroes and freedom fighters.

Low level history books ARE written by the victors.

Meh my point is don't declare them terrorists and waste even more resources and judicial mis doing on them. So far the FBI seems to agree. You will just create more sympathy.

I'm actually enjoying watching the FBI sit back and watch those idiots stew in the cold. It's pretty funny watching them make fools of themselves yelling about how the feds are about to come attack them guns blazing while the feds have no intention of ever doing that.

The social contract goes both ways. When sides start destroying it unrest happens.

Though there is a large problem of deceptive propaganda being fed to the masses that lies about how things really are, and it requires careful evidence analysis and standards to sort through to find out what is real and what isn't. It also helps to be a student of history.

a reply to: Balans

Bless your heart for caring so much about people and principles so far away... but in the end, so close to your heart We need more of that!!!

While the situation in Oregon is disturbing for so many reasons, we can at least be thankful for the bright spotlight on the whole dirty affair. The more people investigate and share the background/history -- both traditional and alternative media -- the better. The more people understand and discuss the abuses of power by the government, all the better. The more people are attacked by those who cheer these government abuses and bullying tactics, even better. Knowledge is power. As is discussion, debate and dialogue.

We're living in crazy times. But this too shall pass, and I am still optimistic that we will be the better for it in the end simply because the vast majority of people are good people at heart. Everyone knows that something is wrong, that our political class is bought and paid for, and that something has to change. We just can't seem to agree on exactly what is wrong and exactly what needs to change. And we spend far too much time hating and fighting each other!!! But everyone knows we're sitting on a powder keg ready to blow. Everyone is watching and waiting, and perhaps even preparing for it at some level. At some point, the scales will tip, the PTB will cross the wrong line, the enough people will stand together that "they" cannot stand -- and I have faith it will be in our favor. I expect it will get worse before it gets better, but sometimes we just have to hit rock bottom before we can do better.

And I refuse to believe otherwise until I absolutely positively have to

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: theySeeme

Why are the Oregon protesters not called terrorist?

How many people have they shot?
How many people have they beheaded?
How many people have they tossed from the top of tall buildings?
How many people have they, literally, crucified, set on fire and/or drawn and quartered?

I don't know exactly how they define it in the states. But over here in Australia, muslims have been charged for terrorism charges for just talking nonsense over the phone with there mates.

These guys in Oregon have illegally broken into a federal building, one has even made a youtube video claiming to be prepared to kill or be killed for his beliefs... How can that possibly not be considered as terrorism?

I'm still personally waiting for the hardcore conservatives to start questioning why these people don't have jobs to go to, like they were on every second post on all those Ferguson threads, lol.

I have beliefs that I would be willing to kill and most certainly die for. Don’t you?

I believe the job these guys have is being a rancher.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
We agree. But that doesn't equate with reality. Not everyone's feeling and mental health came back with Iraq the same, And our VA problem is a massive injustice that the effect is rage and confusion.

If you truly can't see how issues like this happen I don't know how to get through to you.

Oh I can see with perfect 20/20 vision why things like this happen. Idiots let idiotic conservative propaganda (I have trouble calling it media since it is mostly lies) influence their thinking and warp their idea of the Constitution, the law, as well as history. Then they act on those misconceptions when they perceive they've been slighted. We usually call such things radicalization.

I agree with you about their illegal actions, I agree they could be dangerous, but I don't agree it came from no where and that their anger isn't justified. Their actions are the problem. How they dealt with this is the problem.

The grievances certainly didn't come from "nowhere". They're just unfounded.

Unless they start a revolution and win then they would be heroes and freedom fighters.

Low level history books ARE written by the victors.

Meh my point is don't declare them terrorists and waste even more resources and judicial mis doing on them. So far the FBI seems to agree. You will just create more sympathy.

I'm actually enjoying watching the FBI sit back and watch those idiots stew in the cold. It's pretty funny watching them make fools of themselves yelling about how the feds are about to come attack them guns blazing while the feds have no intention of ever doing that.

The social contract goes both ways. When sides start destroying it unrest happens.

Though there is a large problem of deceptive propaganda being fed to the masses that lies about how things really are, and it requires careful evidence analysis and standards to sort through to find out what is real and what isn't. It also helps to be a student of history.

Sure does but I haven't seen much of that from your conversation here. What historical facts are you addressing here? Certainly not the history of these types of standoffs in the US.

The whole term terrorism is propaganda your falling into. If your so estute in history your moral philosophy study should help you figure out what is what.

Right now the situation is nothing like McVae who is a white terrorist. Home grown.

This in a historical context has occurred over and over and has never been called terrorism.

Especially so in the west where they are.

Yeah they are criminals arrest them. If they want to win the moral debate with the public go in unarmed and arrest them.

Or just fence them in. No deer or wood.

But please this is not a mcvae situation at least not yet.

What is a terrorist? The definition you provided puts a lot of questions as to how many people can be classified terrorist. Especially historically.

Are gurrila fighters terrorists? Or do terrorists blow up public buildings and terrify that public?

I mean is this really the same as oaklhoma city? It could be if they set some kind of ambush up but come on...

I don't understand why these Bundy's are so angry with the government when they can borrow money like this:

"Mother Jones is also reporting that Ammon Bundy's truck repair business benefited from a $500,000 federal small business loan with an estimated cost to taxpayers of $22,000. That's enough money to put seven families on food stamps for a whole year." Source: www.washingtonpost.com...

It is tribal politics and cults ruling the country for a long time. As long as it benefits ME, it ain't govment.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, guerrilla fighters are terrorists. I apply definitions across the board without worrying about what it happens to label. The reason I do so is to highlight hypocrisies in the usage of words (which identifies rhetoric or propaganda) or to identify problems with the definition so that we can fix it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yes, guerrilla fighters are terrorists. I apply definitions across the board without worrying about what it happens to label. The reason I do so is to highlight hypocrisies in the usage of words (which identifies rhetoric or propaganda) or to identify problems with the definition so that we can fix it.

And when the US invaded Iraq were we/you a terrorist? Where does the definition end?

Is terrorism ever justified?