Militia Seizes Federal Compound in Oregon

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

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.

How can you possibly begin to answer the latter question without first answering the former? In other words, how can you determine whether their actions define them as terrorists, without first settling on a definition of the term "terrorist"?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

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

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

The articles line up with everything else I've read. I wonder what the talk would be if they were Muslim. No I don't wonder I know exactly what it would be.

[Flash Walken]

One thing we can't really appreciate as Canadians the the long standing history resistance movements have in the US of being completely crushed by the US government and it's law enforcement arms.

Were I do peacefully protest something in a government building in the US, it would be tempting to have a firearm with me just in case the FBI decided to firebomb the building

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

One thing we can't really appreciate as Canadians the the long standing history resistance movements have in the US of being completely crushed by the US government and it's law enforcement arms.

Were I do peacefully protest something in a government building in the US, it would be tempting to have a firearm with me just in case the FBI decided to firebomb the building

Except the militia men aren't planning a peaceful protest and have said as much. This is a base for future operations

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

One thing we can't really appreciate as Canadians the the long standing history resistance movements have in the US of being completely crushed by the US government and it's law enforcement arms.

Were I do peacefully protest something in a government building in the US, it would be tempting to have a firearm with me just in case the FBI decided to firebomb the building

Honest question, has there been a lot of buildings that were occupied by unarmed individuals fire bombed by the FBI?

[Dan02]

I do see some peoples point about how we would call them terrorists if they were muslims but we shouldn't

These guys are squatters. If all the middle east terrorists just went and occupied empty buildings we wouldn't have much of a problem would we?

[ernie]

It's worth pointing out that in one of the linked articles it notes that in the county they are in there is a large percentage of federal employees. This is not going down well with the population and unlike Nevada the Bundy's don't have any historical ties or homesteads in the area.

[jayswin]

A thread that is almost completely dedicated to an argument over a definition. This is like the Superbowl for CorsiHockeyLeague.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I do see some peoples point about how we would call them terrorists if they were muslims but we shouldn't

These guys are squatters. If all the middle east terrorists just went and occupied empty buildings we wouldn't have much of a problem would we?

If they brought guns and said they would use them as bases for future operations?


Umm, hell yes

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I do see some peoples point about how we would call them terrorists if they were muslims but we shouldn't

These guys are squatters. If all the middle east terrorists just went and occupied empty buildings we wouldn't have much of a problem would we?

Abolsutely, there'd be a huge problem....and they'd immediately be called terrorists, and there'd be 24 hour news coverage on how scary it is.....and the government would move in immediately, likely with force.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Except the militia men aren't planning a peaceful protest and have said as much. This is a base for future operations

Lots of groups/fanatics/activists etc etc say lots of things.

The point I was making is there is justification for these groups to arm themselves with the expectation that the US government will infiltrate the compound and kill most or all of them.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Except the militia men aren't planning a peaceful protest and have said as much. This is a base for future operations

It seems to me me the militia men are hoping to martyr themselves or force the governments hand. They seem to want a Waco to happen where the government storms in just to prove their point or they want to get away with theft theft and violation of US laws.

It's as unreasonable as if the Freemen of the Land movement got their hands on guns. Law enforcement should be the ones to deal with this... though it probably will be bloody.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

How can you possibly begin to answer the latter question without first answering the former? In other words, how can you determine whether their actions define them as terrorists, without first settling on a definition of the term "terrorist"?

There's the difference. I already have a clear definition of the term from the ultimate authority on the subject in the US. I'm well past arguing that point. It's kind of like having a climate change discussion where one side is arguing the science isn't in while the other is long past that and is talking about the changes happening or possible to come. If you want to get hung up on definition then maybe violent right wing extremist Malitia members might be more to your liking?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

It seems to me me the militia men are hoping to martyr themselves or force the governments hand. They seem to want a Waco to happen where the government storms in just to prove their point or they want to get away with theft theft and violation of US laws.

It's as unreasonable as if the Freemen of the Land movement got their hands on guns. Law enforcement should be the ones to deal with this... though it probably will be bloody.

There was a video on Reddit a few months ago of another "character" who filmed a similar martyr video. He was claiming ownership of a house he didn't have title to and he claimed the federal government was tyrannical and he was a freeman and they were going to send a swat team to come shoot him.

I wish could find it right now because it is the exact same style and mentality here.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Honest question, has there been a lot of buildings that were occupied by unarmed individuals fire bombed by the FBI?

Mostly you're beaten and arrested for unarmed civil disobedience. Maybe get attacked by a dog or two, outside chance of being shot and killed.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Mostly you're beaten and arrested for unarmed civil disobedience. Maybe get attacked by a dog or two, outside chance of being shot and killed.

So if you occupy a building all tooled up you face a situation of a deadly armed confrontation.


If you occupy a building with out weapons you don't.


Flash, do you have example of each?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So if you occupy a building all tooled up you face a situation of a deadly armed confrontation.


If you occupy a building with out weapons you don't.


Flash, do you have example of each?

Example 1:

After my stories last week on the 30th anniversary of the MOVE siege in West Philadelphia in 1985, in which Philadelphia police dropped a bomb on a residential neighborhood, leaving 11 dead — including five children — we were surprised by how many people told us they'd never heard of the bombing.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...e-move-bombing

Example 2:

Around 8:00 pm, another rally was held on the campus Commons. By 8:45 pm the Guardsmen used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and the students reassembled at the intersection of Lincoln and Main, holding a sit-in with the hopes of gaining a meeting with Mayor Satrom and the university president, Robert White. At 11:00 p.m., the Guard announced that a curfew had gone into effect and began forcing the students back to their dorms. A few students were bayoneted by Guardsmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_S...ay.2C_April_30

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Mostly you're beaten and arrested for unarmed civil disobedience. Maybe get attacked by a dog or two, outside chance of being shot and killed.

There is a huge difference between unarmed and armed disobedience. Most of the time, with unarmed civil disobedience, the government is tolerant for a long long time. This was the case with Occupy Wallstreet was it not? If a bank is occupied with individuals armed with heavy weaponry (who claim to have no intent on robbing it but are occupying it none the less), what is the expected law enforcement response for this? Typically, if no innocents were in immediate danger, it'd be SWAT along with heavy police presence before the place got stormed. Police would try to negotiate an end to the standoff and starve them out, but eventually they'd storm the place, as they must, since the occupiers will have no leverage. This would be same play book with almost all law enforcement, even in Canada, no?

This case is armed, they are committing robbery and seizure/holding hostage a government facility, demanding release of political affiliates. These are far more in line with actions of a terrorist group and less so with regular acts of civil disobedience. The response would be aligned as such. I'd expect the National Guard to blockade the place, shut down their water and power, limit their movement and close the noose if they resist.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Example 1:


http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...e-move-bombing

Example 2:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_S...ay.2C_April_30

I was hoping for something less than 30 years old, I would hope (but sadly don't think) that things had changed in the US.

So the moral is, if you don't want to experience a life and death situation don't bring weapons.

As I alluded to earlier in the thread. If you don't show up to something like this with a tonne of weapons, unless you want it to turn violent. Yes, I believe that a segment of those in the buildings want this to be violent.

Also, to be fair the Philly incident (while unacceptable) wasn't exactly peaceful.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...e-move-bombing

When I see phrases like:

MOVE, a radical group that had turned a row house at 6221 Osage Ave. into a fortified compound.

MOVE members had built a bunker on the roof of the house, giving them a clear view of the police positions below

Around 6 a.m., the members were told they had 15 minutes to come out. Instead, someone from the MOVE house began shooting at the police. The police returned fire in kind — over and over and over. According to the official report on the event, the police fired 10,000 rounds of ammunition at the MOVE compound over the next 90 minutes; they eventually had to ask the police academy to send more bullets.

Furthermore if this was there approach to living in the community....

Spoiler!

Over time, though, the group's reputation grew more menacing. MOVE members began squatting in a home in Powelton Village, a neighborhood in West Philadelphia not far from the University of Pennsylvania. It was an area whose residents were known for being amenable to countercultural, nontraditional family arrangements. But even there, it didn't take long for MOVE to exhaust the patience of its neighbors. MOVE members would pace the roof of the house they occupied, dressed in fatigues and brandishing weapons. In megaphoned harangues, often issued by a member named Delbert Africa, they would call for the release of imprisoned MOVE members and threaten city officials. Federal agents seized a cache of weapons from MOVE that included dozens of pipe bombs. At one point, the city barricaded several blocks surrounding the MOVE compound for 56 straight days.

In short, if you come armed for a fight you will generally get a fight. To me those people in Oregon have come armed for a fight.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Lots of groups/fanatics/activists etc etc say lots of things.

The point I was making is there is justification for these groups to arm themselves with the expectation that the US government will infiltrate the compound and kill most or all of them.

There's justification for a bank robber or home invader to bring a gun too. Does that make the crimes less violent? No. The threat of force is the violence.