Nevadan Farmer not allowed to use public land for his grazing cattle

  • Thread starter Enemem
  • 228 comments
  • 12,006 views
its certainly not terrorism.

How is this not terrorism?
They stormed a building that does not belong to them
They are heavily armed
They are calling others to become armed and join them
They said they will shoot or kill anyone that tries to remove them from the land.

If they were waving around an ISIS flag and did the same thing the media would have gone on and on about terrorists take federal building.
 
How is this not terrorism?
They stormed a building that does not belong to them
They are heavily armed
They are calling others to become armed and join them
They said they will shoot or kill anyone that tries to remove them from the land.

If they were waving around an ISIS flag and did the same thing the media would have gone on and on about terrorists take federal building.
Clearly we disagree on what constitutes terrorism. They "stormed" an unoccupied building. Fired no shots. Killed no people, took no hostages and have done not a single thing to terrorize anyone in this situation. Not a single act of terrorism has occurred. Being armed lightly it heavily still isn't illegal in the US, and so far, the only law broken is occupying a federal facility.
Where is the act of terrorism, or are you really into using the word as a catch all?
 
"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

No violence was committed and I have not seen any real acts of intimidation so far. Just them sitting in a building and some state troopers idling in a few cars.
Now, I do not expect it to stay this way for long. But no, I still don't see this as terrorism.
 
No violence was committed and I have not seen any real acts of intimidation so far. Just them sitting in a building and some state troopers idling in a few cars.
Now, I do not expect it to stay this way for long. But no, I still don't see this as terrorism.

As we're discussing a point of law it's only interesting to note that you disagree with the Patriot act's definition - that's fine, but probably for another thread. In this case it's an act of terrorism as defined in the law.

As already noted by @GTPorsche they've offered to "shoot anyone who tries to remove us". That gives you a Yes to the first test ("involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"), then "appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" gives you a Yes to the second.
 
"Involves acts...." Soooo, did they shoot or hurt anyone? Last I checked, the have not. So no actsbof violence. I'll admit that my last follow-up was early yesterday, at that time the only thing I could find having been said is that they intended to stay a long time, not that they would shoot anyone who tries to remove them. And no, I do not subscribe to really any portion of the PA. With its vague definitions, a person speeding while listening to rage against the machine could be seen as terrorism.
 
The act of their illegal stand-off in a wildlife refuge and stating that anyone trying to remove them will be shot, for the purpose of them trying to gain what they want through coercion and intimidation.

The definition is an act of violence or intimidation.
 
"Involves acts...." Soooo, did they shoot or hurt anyone? Last I checked, the have not.

Presuming that English isn't your first language (and I genuinely intend no offence if it is), most English speakers would take a threat of being shot by an armed cohort seriously - particularly if that cohort put themselves and their weapons in the way of their removal from an illegally occupied building. That's how "Involves acts" translates.

The definition is an act of violence or intimidation.

Apologies, I thought they were additive tests. Still, that strengthens the case for this being a defined act of domestic terrorism :)
 
"Involves acts...." Soooo, did they shoot or hurt anyone? Last I checked, the have not. So no actsbof violence. I'll admit that my last follow-up was early yesterday, at that time the only thing I could find having been said is that they intended to stay a long time, not that they would shoot anyone who tries to remove them. And no, I do not subscribe to really any portion of the PA. With its vague definitions, a person speeding while listening to rage against the machine could be seen as terrorism.

I just want to make sure I understand your position: If a group of armed Muslims broke into and occupied, oh let's say The National Cathedral, and declared that they would shoot anybody trying to remove them, you wouldn't classify that as terrorism?
 
9/11 changed how we define terrorism. Sadly, any kind of political uprising counts today. Under today's definition many in the civil rights movement of the 1960s would be called a terrorist.

Our founding fathers were terrorists by today's definition.

Today's terrorists might be tomorrow's revolutionaries. It's all defined by who wins.
 
How is this not terrorism?
They stormed a building that does not belong to them
They are heavily armed
They are calling others to become armed and join them
They said they will shoot or kill anyone that tries to remove them from the land.

If they were waving around an ISIS flag and did the same thing the media would have gone on and on about terrorists take federal building.
If this is terrorism, why weren't the riots in Ferguson & up north terrorism? Beyond not being armed, those people created violence & unrest specifically in the name of "justice".
 
The land that government claims to own is technically private property that have been confiscated.

How did the previous owner acquire said land before the government took it? What if it was donated to the city for a park?
 
If the government has claim over it, it's not "public" land in the sense that it's free to all. It is managed by the state on behalf of the citizens of the state.

The legitimacy of that claim isn't the question. Because if the claim isn't legitimate, it would be going back to the indigenous tribes, not a bunch of ranchers.
 
If this is terrorism, why weren't the riots in Ferguson & up north terrorism? Beyond not being armed, those people created violence & unrest specifically in the name of "justice".

What do those riots have to do with this situation? How does their status (or lack thereof) as terrorist incidents have any bearing on whether or not this is terrorism?

But, whatever. Let's, for a moment, say those riots were terrorism, and follow your thinking to its conclusion.

The Little Rock School Desegregation Crisis? Terrorism.

When a sports team wins a championship, and its fans rampage through the streets burning cars and looting? That's terrorism too.

How about the Boston Tea Party? By your reasoning, one of the US's most fondly remembered patriotic events is now terrorism.

I think we can all agree it's ridiculous to classify any of those three as terrorism. A riot is a (usually) short-lived, spontaneous episode of civil unrest in response to a specific event.

Acts of terrorism are anything but spontaneous; they're often part of some long-term, high-level campaign; and they're not a reaction to anything - the whole point to carrying out a terrorist attack is to provoke a response.

--

Now, unless you have something else to prop this strawman up, let's talk about the situation at hand. Your post leads me to assume that you don't think the Oregon situation is terrorism. Why not?
 
Now, unless you have something else to prop this strawman up, let's talk about the situation at hand. Your post leads me to assume that you don't think the Oregon situation is terrorism. Why not?
It's not a straw man because it's a rhetorical response. You've already been told by another member why this isn't terrorism.

They aren't seizing the building with intent to cause terror & the statement about shooting anyone who tries to remove them; what they've said is they'll shoot IF they are fired upon first.
Brandon Curtiss, who identified himself as president of an Idaho militia group, repeatedly tried to tamp down fears of violence.

"We are not coming into your town to shoot it up," Curtiss said. "We won't fire anything unless we're fired upon."
That's the nicest terrorist I've ever seen.

:rolleyes:
 
It's not a straw man because it's a rhetorical response. You've already been told by another member why this isn't terrorism.

And he was wrong. Remember that it isn't an opinion - it's what's defined in law in that area. By definition their actions and threats constitute domestic terrorism.

Whether or not they should constitute that definition is a different point.
 
It's not a straw man because it's a rhetorical response.

Rhetorical or not, it was an extension of the argument that the Oregon situation is terrorism to situations that are only superficially related, in an attempt to muddy the waters. Call it whatever you want, but that's a strawman.

You've already been told by another member why this isn't terrorism.

As @TenEightyOne pointed out, he was wrong. You have anything else to add?

They aren't seizing the building with intent to cause terror

Then why the guns?

They're using intimidation and the threat of violence to discourage law enforcement from doing their job. That hits nearly every single point of the definition of terrorism.
 
Rhetorical or not, it was an extension of the argument that the Oregon situation is terrorism to situations that are only superficially related, in an attempt to muddy the waters. Call it whatever you want, but that's a strawman.
Nope.
As @TenEightyOne pointed out, he was wrong. You have anything else to add?
TenEightyOne is on my ignore list. There is nothing he posts I would waste time reading anymore.

Then why the guns?
For their protection. You might have caught that if you didn't selectively quote the post.
They're using intimidation and the threat of violence to discourage law enforcement from doing their job. That hits nearly every single point of the definition of terrorism.
Really? Because that sounds a lot like what rioters did in Ferguson as well, but that wasn't terrorism and neither is this.

So, it was quite convenient of you to ignore the quote from one of the militias stating they have no intention of harming anyone.

But that would completely go against your entire argument about how they're terrorists. This isn't worth debating such a comedic notion. A group of terrorists who don't want to terrorize people. :lol:
 
TenEightyOne is on my ignore list. There is nothing he posts I would waste time reading anymore.

I can't imagine how much he agonizes over this.

For their protection. You might have caught that if you didn't selectively quote the post.

Funny, if I go back and read the entire post, it says nothing about protection. What it does say is that they're willing to shoot law enforcement who attempt to do their job and remove them from a place they've no legal right to be in. That's not self protection, that's a hostile act towards the United States, pure and simple.

Really? Because that sounds a lot like what rioters did in Ferguson as well, but that wasn't terrorism and neither is this.

No. The Oregon militia is trying to stop law enforcement from doing their job, while the Ferguson rioters were doing the opposite - they wanted law enforcement to act.

And again, by trying to classify a riot as terrorism, you need to be ready to classify all riots as such. So I'll pose it again: was the Boston Tea Party terrorism?

So, it was quite convenient of you to ignore the quote from one of the militias stating they have no intention of harming anyone.

Empty words.

"We don't wan't to hurt anybody, but the only way to avoid violence is to allow us to continue our illegal behavior until we decide we don't want to anymore."

You're right, how noble of them. :rolleyes:

But that would completely go against your entire argument about how they're terrorists.

As I just pointed out, those words are so empty, they weren't even worth addressing.

This isn't worth debating such a comedic notion.

You may find humor in setting a precedent that allows armed thugs to intimidate law enforcement into standing down and allowing them to do as they please, but I don't.

A group of terrorists who don't want to terrorize people. :lol:

Except that's exactly what they want to do.
 
while the Ferguson rioters were doing the opposite - they wanted law enforcement to act.
By throwing rocks, bricks, Molotov Cocktails, creating a situation where five people were shot in chasing off three white teens for not doing a simple action as taking off their masks? Okay, I got you.

All of that happened in Minnesota, by the way.
 
By throwing rocks, bricks, Molotov Cocktails, creating a situation where five people were shot in chasing off three white teens for not doing a simple action as taking off their masks? Okay, I got you.

All of that happened in Minnesota, by the way.

I'm not saying their behavior was justified, or even particularly laudable. But when determining what is and is not terrorism, the impetus behind the action, and the intentions of the movement when it starts are pretty important.

People taking to the streets in large numbers in order to protest? Not terrorism. The idiocy that ensued in some places was unfortunate, but that doesn't suddenly change why the protests originally started. And you can't completely let the police off the hook for the direction things went, either.

A bunch of armed self-described militia men who trespass and declare that they'll shoot at anybody who tries to remove them? That's an entirely different ballgame. And if you can't see that, then nothing is going to get through your biases.
 
I'm not saying their behavior was justified, or even particularly laudable. But when determining what is and is not terrorism, the impetus behind the action, and the intentions of the movement when it starts are pretty important.

People taking to the streets in large numbers in order to protest? Not terrorism. The idiocy that ensued in some places was unfortunate, but that doesn't suddenly change why the protests originally started. And you can't completely let the police off the hook for the direction things went, either.

A bunch of armed self-described militia men who trespass and declare that they'll shoot at anybody who tries to remove them? That's an entirely different ballgame. And if you can't see that, then nothing is going to get through your biases.
Oh, and you think that influencing local government to "speed up" an investigation ISN'T terrorism? Under the definition of the Patriot Act, it most certainly does. Just because guns were involved in one case, doesn't excuse the other of the same crimes.

The common thread that any of these BLM protesters have is that one version of the story doesn't add up to the actual facts. Darryl Wilson, the two officers in Minnesota, the Baltimore 6, and so on were guilty as sin to this group, and want all of the facts out now so that they can basically line up their stories with any video evidence that is out there. If that isn't influencing local government using violence, then I don't know what is.

Oh, did I forget to mention that in all three of the mentioned "protests", they blocked off traffic as well?
 
I can't imagine how much he agonizes over this.



Funny, if I go back and read the entire post, it says nothing about protection. What it does say is that they're willing to shoot law enforcement who attempt to do their job and remove them from a place they've no legal right to be in. That's not self protection, that's a hostile act towards the United States, pure and simple.



No. The Oregon militia is trying to stop law enforcement from doing their job, while the Ferguson rioters were doing the opposite - they wanted law enforcement to act.

And again, by trying to classify a riot as terrorism, you need to be ready to classify all riots as such. So I'll pose it again: was the Boston Tea Party terrorism?



Empty words.

"We don't wan't to hurt anybody, but the only way to avoid violence is to allow us to continue our illegal behavior until we decide we don't want to anymore."

You're right, how noble of them. :rolleyes:



As I just pointed out, those words are so empty, they weren't even worth addressing.



You may find humor in setting a precedent that allows armed thugs to intimidate law enforcement into standing down and allowing them to do as they please, but I don't.



Except that's exactly what they want to do.
You're reaching so far you could touch the moon with this baloney. Empty word only according to you bc it doesn't fit your argument. They haven't done anything violent and won't unless violence is brought upon them first.

Again, hilarious that's these folks are being called terrorists when they've haven't done anything near actual terrorism and then stand up for people who've actually committed violence in response to the govt also doing something that upset them. Give a hello to TenEighty for me. :lol:
 
Oh, and you think that influencing local government to "speed up" an investigation ISN'T terrorism?

I don't know what you're referring to here, but no, that's not terrorism.

Under the definition of the Patriot Act, it most certainly does.

If you could provide details about the situation, as well as what part of the Patriot Act relates to it, I'd be happy to educate myself about this. Until then, I don't really have much to say.

Just because guns were involved in one case, doesn't excuse the other of the same crimes.

Since my entire last post centered on the intent of the people involved, then I'm not sure what you're rebutting.

The common thread that any of these BLM protesters have is that one version of the story doesn't add up to the actual facts.

What story? What facts? Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a really hard time keeping track of what you're talking about.

Darryl Wilson, the two officers in Minnesota, the Baltimore 6, and so on were guilty as sin to this group, and want all of the facts out now so that they can basically line up their stories with any video evidence that is out there. If that isn't influencing local government using violence, then I don't know what is.

Again, what are you talking about? Who is "this group?"

Oh, did I forget to mention that in all three of the mentioned "protests", they blocked off traffic as well?

If you think that's even remotely similar to publicly stating that you're willing to shoot at law enforcement officers, then I'm done here.
 
Back