Militia Seizes Federal Compound in Oregon

[Kavvy]

Despite any FBI, CIA, oxford or anyone's definition, I still personally struggle to label these dummies as terrorists.

They took over an empty building and physically hurt no one, with no intent of hurting civilians (albeit threatened to hurt anyone who tries to remove them).

I am not defending them or their cause - they need to be arrested, but.... I mentally struggle to group them with the same term we label people who blow up other people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Having read the argument here and been involved in a similar one on twitter yesterday, I'm still not totally sure what the definition of "terrorism" should be. But I do think there should be a line drawn between people who deliberately target civilians, and those who do not. One group of people is clearly more dangerous and morally "worse" than the other, in my view. So if we're calling people "terrorists" whether they target civilians or not, we do need another word to specify the innocent-civilian-targeting sort of terrorist.

I'm inclined to agree with those who instead say we should simply call them "terrorists", and call non-civilian-targeting armed insurgents "militants". Similarly, I'd call an act a "terrorist" act only if it harms civilians. Not to say that militant actions aren't bad, they're just different kinds of activities with very different goals.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Having read the argument here and been involved in a similar one on twitter yesterday, I'm still not totally sure what the definition of "terrorism" should be. But I do think there should be a line drawn between people who deliberately target civilians, and those who do not. One group of people is clearly more dangerous and morally "worse" than the other, in my view. So if we're calling people "terrorists" whether they target civilians or not, we do need another word to specify the innocent-civilian-targeting sort of terrorist.

I'm inclined to agree with those who instead say we should simply call them "terrorists", and call non-civilian-targeting armed insurgents "militants". Similarly, I'd call an act a "terrorist" act only if it harms civilians. Not to say that militant actions aren't bad, they're just different kinds of activities with very different goals.

I said this earlier in the thread, but the inclusion of weapons in the activities lead make me lean towards the "terrorist" tag.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Having read the argument here and been involved in a similar one on twitter yesterday, I'm still not totally sure what the definition of "terrorism" should be. But I do think there should be a line drawn between people who deliberately target civilians, and those who do not. One group of people is clearly more dangerous and morally "worse" than the other, in my view. So if we're calling people "terrorists" whether they target civilians or not, we do need another word to specify the innocent-civilian-targeting sort of terrorist.

I'm inclined to agree with those who instead say we should simply call them "terrorists", and call non-civilian-targeting armed insurgents "militants". Similarly, I'd call an act a "terrorist" act only if it harms civilians. Not to say that militant actions aren't bad, they're just different kinds of activities with very different goals.

Understandable, and yet, the Charleston shooter and the Planned Parenthood shooter aren't named as "terrorists," despite definitely having politically motivated beliefs and harming civilians. Because they're not brown.

[Lanny_McDonald]

So we are a shot being fired from these clowns meeting every measure of the FBI definition? I think that by meeting the rest of the criteria they are easily categorized as terrorists. I know they are definitely a criminal enterprise at the moment. I also know that if you or I went into a government facility, armed and making threats and demands of the government, regardless of the number of bodies in said facility, we would be lumped into that category. Again, it is almost like people are trying to justify the actions of these hicks so we don't have to classify them as what they are.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I said this earlier in the thread, but the inclusion of weapons in the activities lead make me lean towards the "terrorist" tag.

I hear you, but what I'm saying is that people with guns who refuse to target innocent civilians, and explicitly want to avoid hurting them, are different from people whose explicit goal is to hurt civilians, are very different sorts of people.

So whatever the terminology we settle on, we should call those different types of people different things, rather than lumping them together.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Understandable, and yet, the Charleston shooter and the Planned Parenthood shooter aren't named as "terrorists," despite definitely having politically motivated beliefs and harming civilians. Because they're not brown.

I can only speak for myself; in my view those are terrorist actions.

Originally Posted by New Era

So we are a shot being fired from these clowns meeting every measure of the FBI definition? I think that by meeting the rest of the criteria they are easily categorized as terrorists.

Well, no, that's not how non-independently-sufficient criteria work. You have to meet all the qualifications to fit the definition. But the FBI definition isn't gospel anyway; maybe they have it wrong. I see no particular reason to rely on who the FBI thinks should be called "terrorists".

Again, it is almost like people are trying to justify the actions of these hicks so we don't have to classify them as what they are.

No one is trying to justify their actions. Stop attempting to assign implicit secret motives to people. Again, I can only speak for myself, but I'm just trying to get the terminology down, because I do think it's important that when bad things happen we're clear about what we're talking about. Terrorist attacks will happen again, and in the hysteria that follows I'd like for everyone to think as clearly as possible. I think these guys are morons and criminals, regardless of whether you want to call them "terrorists" or not.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I hear you, but what I'm saying is that people with guns who refuse to target innocent civilians, and explicitly want to avoid hurting them, are different from people whose explicit goal is to hurt civilians, are very different sorts of people.

Can anyone one outside of the "leaders" of that mess explicitly say what their intentions are?


Listen, nobody brings weapons to an event they hope is peaceful.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, it's not entirely clear to me what they think is going to happen here. Maybe they're trying to provoke a standoff. I do doubt they're trying to hurt innocent civilians though, because if they wanted to do that, their actions make even less sense.

[polak]

For such a bad ass title, this thread is super lame.

I was expecting Die Hard and got 6 pages of arguing about the dictionary.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... and that's the thing about the "War on Terror".

Armed insurgents that folk like (or alternatively dislike less then the folk they're pointing the arms at) = Freedom Fighter
Armed insurgents that folk don't like = Terrorist

Terrorist/Terrorism as mere words are all just propaganda.

If you want to accept that this is "terrorism" then you also have to accept that there are varying degrees of terrorism. This brand of terrorism didn't involve any of the shock associated with the murder of unexpecting civilians. In fact, these people went out of their way to avoid civilian casualties by ensuring the buildings they were occupying would be empty.

If this whole thing in Oregon had started with a group of men opening fire on a room of civilians, you can bet the reaction would be different.

So yes, you may be right about us changing our definition based on what we "like". Generally, people don't like mass murder. This isn't an issue of racial profiling.

[Resolute 14]

^Actually, I would argue it *is* an issue of racial profiling. Except in a positive fashion rather than the usual negative.

Originally Posted by polak

For such a bad ass title, this thread is super lame.

I was expecting Die Hard and got 6 pages of arguing about the dictionary.

These are people who had to send out messages begging for snacks and food less than two days into their occupation. We're dealing with hillbilly versions of Mr. Bean here, not John McLanes.

[Lanny_McDonald]

@Corsi

You see no particular reason to rely on the FBI to decide if these clowns are terrorists? You are aware the FBI is responsible for that actual function? You are aware they are responsible for dealing with those types of crimes? If the FBI isn't making the call, then who is responsible for making it?

It is funny, but when this type of thing (armed individuals take over a government building) has happened in other countries (Russia, Ukraine, Ireland, etc.) the groups were quickly identified as terrorists. What is the difference here? They have unlawfully occupied a government facility, brandishing weapons and stating their willingness to die for their politically motivated cause, while making demands of the government. That doesn't sound like terrorists to you?

Come on. DHS saw this coming almost a year ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politi...land-security/

[ernie]

The leader of this militia are the sons of the ass hat Clive Bundy from Nevada who was in the news a year or two ago for the same land rights issue but in Nevada (i might be wrong but I think one of these sons got tasered in that orginal standoff). In that case he was told to stop using land that was set aside for an endangered tortoise and he didn't pay his fees to use the land he was using. He didn't and was issued over a million dollars in fines. After his little standoff and media attention the Feds let him off the hook. The Bundy's view this as a win and are doing it again in Oregon. The hesistancy for the Feds to do something about armed anti-government extremists stems from the Waco and Ruby Ridge disasters.

That's what these guys want...the government to give up control of the land OR come in shooting. I guess so private land owners can charge them more for pasture (fed lands cost ranchers 90% less on average than private lands from something I read today). They also want the two guys convicted to be freed. They were convicted for poaching on Federal lands without required permits AND for starting a fire to cover up the evidence.

The government has said that Clive Bundy still owes that $1 million dollars they have just been reluctant to follow up. They may need to now because this type of thing can't start happening. Bring some guns and take over a building to avoid paying millions of dollars is not something that can continue. ON the other hand the government can't just go in and create the martyrs these idiots desperately want. These guys aren't patriots..they are anarchists and straight up anti-government nearly in the vein of Tim McVeigh. They want the wild west where whoever is the best with their gun wins.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

@Corsi

You see no particular reason to rely on the FBI to decide if these clowns are terrorists? You are aware the FBI is responsible for that actual function? You are aware they are responsible for dealing with those types of crimes? If the FBI isn't making the call, then who is responsible for making it?

Yes, I'm aware. But the fact that the FBI is making a call on what to do does not give them some sort of jurisdiction over the English lexicon. The meaning of words isn't dictated by a government agency from one particular country. We're asking, "what is terrorism? What does the word "terrorism" mean?" If your answer is, "Well, the FBI thinks X", that's not somehow the end of the discussion.

It is funny, but when this type of thing (armed individuals take over a government building) has happened in other countries (Russia, Ukraine, Ireland, etc.) the groups were quickly identified as terrorists. What is the difference here? They have unlawfully occupied a government facility, brandishing weapons and stating their willingness to die for their politically motivated cause, while making demands of the government. That doesn't sound like terrorists to you?

I think where I've gotten to is that the terminology needs to make the distinction that I highlighted - that is, targeting civilians vs. not targeting civilians. If armed individuals take over a government building in the Ukraine but go out of their way to avoid harming civilians and specifically only target soldiers or other government individuals, I think we should call them something other than terrorists on the basis of those actions.

Of course, then we have to have a difficult discussion about borderline cases, like targeting civilian government representatives (eg a member of parliament), or targeting an off-duty soldier, and whether we should consider those people "civilians" for the purpose of the definition.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ernie

The leader of this militia is the son of the ass hat from Nevada who was in the news a year or two ago for the same land rights issue. In that case he was told to stop using land that was set aside for an endangered tortoise or something. He didn't and was issued over a million dollars in fines. After his little standoff and media attention the Feds let him off the hook. The Bundy's view this as a win and are doing it again in Oregon.

That's what they want...the government to give up control of the land. I guess so private land owners can charge them more for pasture (fed lands cost ranchers 90% less on average than private lands from something I read today). .

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10716462...oregon-militia

I can't speak to the validity of everything in this article.

They also want the two guys convicted to be freed. They were convicted for poaching on Federal lands without required permits AND for starting a fire to cover up the evidence

http://www.opb.org/news/article/burn...ilitia-groups/

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, I'm aware. But the fact that the FBI is making a call on what to do does not give them some sort of jurisdiction over the English lexicon. The meaning of words isn't dictated by a government agency from one particular country. We're asking, "what is terrorism? What does the word "terrorism" mean?" If your answer is, "Well, the FBI thinks X", that's not somehow the end of the discussion.


I think where I've gotten to is that the terminology needs to make the distinction that I highlighted - that is, targeting civilians vs. not targeting civilians. If armed individuals take over a government building in the Ukraine but go out of their way to avoid harming civilians and specifically only target soldiers or other government individuals, I think we should call them something other than terrorists on the basis of those actions.

Of course, then we have to have a difficult discussion about borderline cases, like targeting civilian government representatives (eg a member of parliament), or targeting an off-duty soldier, and whether we should consider those people "civilians" for the purpose of the definition.

People also need to remember that a criminal code is written in a way that most crimes could actually fit under the definition of several dozen crimes. This one in particular.

You choose the most appropriate crime to charge someone with based on the overall circumstances. So reading a single piece of the code and applying it because it technically comes with the definition based on that reading alone is not the way criminal law is applied.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by New Era

@Corsi

You see no particular reason to rely on the FBI to decide if these clowns are terrorists? You are aware the FBI is responsible for that actual function? You are aware they are responsible for dealing with those types of crimes? If the FBI isn't making the call, then who is responsible for making it?

It is funny, but when this type of thing (armed individuals take over a government building) has happened in other countries (Russia, Ukraine, Ireland, etc.) the groups were quickly identified as terrorists. What is the difference here?/

Well one difference is the Chechen terrorists that took over government buildings in Russia started with guns and ended with suicide vests and killed about 85 people in the process. As well they've been responsible for several attacks before and after. That's one difference. According to the FBI description, that's why these jamokes aren't terrorists.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Well one difference is the Chechen terrorists that took over government buildings in Russia started with guns and ended with suicide vests and killed about 85 people in the process. As well they've been responsible for several attacks before and after. That's one difference. According to the FBI description, that's why these jamokes aren't terrorists.

Wait, has this all ended?

Because until this is ended peacefully:

[Hack&Lube]

They aren't terrorists, they are petty criminals who should be prosecuted for breaking, entering, and trespassing.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, I'm aware. But the fact that the FBI is making a call on what to do does not give them some sort of jurisdiction over the English lexicon. The meaning of words isn't dictated by a government agency from one particular country. We're asking, "what is terrorism? What does the word "terrorism" mean?" If your answer is, "Well, the FBI thinks X", that's not somehow the end of the discussion.


I think where I've gotten to is that the terminology needs to make the distinction that I highlighted - that is, targeting civilians vs. not targeting civilians. If armed individuals take over a government building in the Ukraine but go out of their way to avoid harming civilians and specifically only target soldiers or other government individuals, I think we should call them something other than terrorists on the basis of those actions.

Of course, then we have to have a difficult discussion about borderline cases, like targeting civilian government representatives (eg a member of parliament), or targeting an off-duty soldier, and whether we should consider those people "civilians" for the purpose of the definition.

Okay, I see where the diconnect is. You are arguing the definition of the term terrorist and then seeing if it applies. I am arguing the actions define whether the individuals are terrorist behavior. I think this is the difference in our approaches to all subjects. You are fully engaged in the hypothetical, the theoretical, and the philosophical. I'm engaged in the actual, the behavioral, the interpretive and the explanitive. Just different ways of looking at things and different schools of thought. I now have better insight into your thought process and will respond accordingly.