Militia Seizes Federal Compound in Oregon

[Displaced Flames fan]

Of course. I hate autocorrect.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

It also includes killing innocent people. That is not this.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Totally agree.

This is civil disobedience.

I mean, it's really just a matter of semantics, isn't it? If it's civil disobedience, it's civil disobedience with guns. Does that entail the threat of violence? If so, is that enough to call it terrorism? Either way, these seem like questions for later to be answered on reflection about what happened.

I haven't got my bearings on this story yet, so I'm pretty agnostic about most of what's going on here.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

David Koresh says hi.

They haven't been there for nearly Branch Dividian lengths yet.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2483923


The definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

They're willing to use violence, obviously by the "kill or be killed" statement, and being armed to the teeth is certainly a method of intimidation, and they're clearly seeking some kind of political gain with this move.

Again, if this was a group of Muslims demonstrating in protest of anti-Muslim discrimination, or a group of Black Lives Matter activists protesting inhumane police practices (both of which are far more blatantly obvious in today's America than whatever these nutbars are "protesting"), there would be a huge reaction from law enforcement.

But they're just a bunch of dumb rednecks with guns, so clearly, not actually a threat.

If these guys wanted to kill people, they could have would have done it already. I just don't see the same desire for violence towards a civilian population that would be required in most definitions of terrorism.

Even if it turns into a shootout between police/army, I'd still argue there is a large difference between entering into an armed conflict with the government and purposely directing violence against the general population.

Currently, I'd define this as civil disobedience, which could escalate into an armed insurgency. Unless they start popping off unarmed government employees and or/civilians, I would not classify this as terrorism.

[afc wimbledon]

I just watched their press conference, they're to stupid to be terrorists.
They pepper their speeches with Homer Simpson like 'here to for's' and other olde worldly sounding phrases they clearly have no understanding of but like because it makes them sound like they're important.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

Currently, I'd define this as civil disobedience, which could escalate into an armed insurgency. Unless they start popping off unarmed government employees and or/civilians, I would not classify this as terrorism.

I am not ready to classify this as terrorism.


I think your definition of terrorism is a bit narrow, sorry if I am readying to much into your post.

USS Cole, was a terrorism, but it wasn't on unarmed peoples.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by nik-

I would agree it's not really terrorism, but it's also not protest. It's armed seizure of federal land. I would just call it treason.

Why in the world do you feel this justifies a treason charge?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am not ready to classify this as terrorism.


I think your definition of terrorism is a bit narrow, sorry if I am readying to much into your post.

USS Cole, was a terrorism, but it wasn't on unarmed peoples.

Firstly, I'm not sure I'd classify the USS Cole incident as an act of terrorism. It's a matter of perspective with that. From the militants perspective, it was them attacking a military objective. No different than a drone strike.

Even then, I'd say this incident would be different, as it lacks the element of surprise. This current standoff, if it does escalate into violence, would be an armed group essentially declaring war and then entering into conflict with armed members of their own government.

There is a clear difference between this kind of act and purposely targeting a civilian population.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly, I'm not sure I'd classify the USS Cole incident as an act of terrorism. It's a matter of perspective with that. From the militants perspective, it was them attacking a military objective. No different than a drone strike.

Even then, I'd say this incident would be different, as it lacks the element of surprise. This current standoff, if it does escalate into violence, would be an armed group essentially declaring war and then entering into conflict with armed members of their own government.

There is a clear difference between this kind of act and purposely targeting a civilian population.

I do consider USS Cole an act of terrorism, much like I consider the IRA's targeting of off duty squaddies an act of terrorism. I will say I am nowhere near an expert on terrorism or how it is classified.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I do consider USS Cole an act of terrorism, much like I consider the IRA's targeting of off duty squaddies an act of terrorism. I will say I am nowhere near an expert on terrorism or how it is classified.

Fair enough. It's definitely a blurred line, when attacks occur against off duty military/police officers. Conversely, you could argue that the US government doesn't check to see if militants are "on duty" before a drone strike.

Either way, that's not what's going on here in Oregon. We have no attacks against off duty police officers or law enforcement.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

Fair enough. It's definitely a blurred line, when attacks occur against off duty military/police officers. Conversely, you could argue that the US government doesn't check to see if militants are "on duty" before a drone strike.

Either way, that's not what's going on here in Oregon. We have no attacks against off duty police officers or law enforcement.

Which is why I said this:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am not ready to classify this as terrorism.
.

I am sure we can all agree that these people are idiots. To quote Mickey from Snatch:

Nobody brings a fella the size of you unless they're trying to say something without talking, right boy?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Why in the world do you feel this justifies a treason charge?

He might have meant sedition.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It also includes killing innocent people. That is not this.

Does it? They're threatening to kill police, doesn't that count?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He might have meant sedition.

Yeah, sedition would have been the better term.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Does it? They're threatening to kill police, doesn't that count?

Once again, I think there is a major difference here.

If they had just opened fire on unsuspecting policemen, you'd have a point. There's a big difference between that and responding to an attempt by armed enforcement to storm them.

The biggest issue here is intent. The current group in Oregon has gone to lengths to avoid civilian deaths by occupying buildings that they intend to be empty. Meanwhile, a terrorist group would go to great lengths to maximize civilian deaths.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again, I think there is a major difference here.

If they had just opened fire on unsuspecting policemen, you'd have a point. There's a big difference between that and responding to an attempt by armed enforcement to storm them.

The biggest issue here is intent. The current group in Oregon has gone to lengths to avoid civilian deaths by occupying buildings that they intend to be empty. Meanwhile, a terrorist group would go to great lengths to maximize civilian deaths.

But they're baiting the feds into an armed conflict. The shooter at the Parliament building didn't kill any civilians, so it's that still terrorism? These guys initiate armed conflict by taking guns to confiscate a federal building, baiting them to storm the building.

It's terrorism

[Parallex]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...ism-definition

"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.

If it's not terrorism then it's mighty close. Eventually the Feds will have to take back the compound and if one of these idiots even points a gun in the general direction of the guys that have to do that then it's not even debatable it just flat out is.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again, I think there is a major difference here.

If they had just opened fire on unsuspecting policemen, you'd have a point. There's a big difference between that and responding to an attempt by armed enforcement to storm them.

The biggest issue here is intent. The current group in Oregon has gone to lengths to avoid civilian deaths by occupying buildings that they intend to be empty. Meanwhile, a terrorist group would go to great lengths to maximize civilian deaths.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

But they're baiting the feds into an armed conflict. The shooter at the Parliament building didn't kill any civilians, so it's that still terrorism? These guys initiate armed conflict by taking guns to confiscate a federal building, baiting them to storm the building.

It's terrorism

Originally Posted by Parallex

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...ism-definition

[/LIST]If it's not terrorism then it's mighty close.

What really puts this closer to terrorist act for me is the weapons.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again, I think there is a major difference here.

If they had just opened fire on unsuspecting policemen, you'd have a point. There's a big difference between that and responding to an attempt by armed enforcement to storm them.

The biggest issue here is intent. The current group in Oregon has gone to lengths to avoid civilian deaths by occupying buildings that they intend to be empty. Meanwhile, a terrorist group would go to great lengths to maximize civilian deaths.

They are still disrupting people's lives. Schools are closed up there. At some point the season will change and those buildings I believe would open up again.