Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

[Crabtownboy]

Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And theAssociated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them."

Not one seemed to lean toward terms such as "insurrection," "revolt," anti-government "insurgents" or, as some on social media were calling them, "terrorists." When a group of unknown size and unknown firepower has taken over any federal building with plans and possibly some equipment to aid a years-long occupation — and when its representative tells reporters that they would prefer to avoid violence but are prepared to die — the kind of almost-uniform delicacy and the limits on the language used to describe the people involved becomes noteworthy itself.

It is hard to imagine that none of the words mentioned above — particularly "insurrection" or "revolt" — would be avoided if, for instance, a group of armed black Americans took possession of a federal or state courthouse to protest the police. Black Americans outraged about the death of a 12-year-old boy at the hands of police or concerned about the absence of a conviction in the George Zimmerman case have been frequently and inaccurately lumped in with criminals and looters, described as "thugs," or marauding wolf packs where drugs are, according to CNN's Don Lemon, "obviously" in use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/

 

[Zaac]

I sure am calling them terrorists. They fit the definition and I have called them domestic terrorists and a prime example of why some are asking for gun control. The media doesn't seem to want to call them what they are for fear of showcasing that radicalized folks on the right who look like John Smith straight out of Middle America are more of a terrorist threat than a bunch of Syrian refugees.

These are the types where that California law would have allowed police to go into their residences and seize their guns for fear of them being a credible danger to themselves or others.

They are domestic terrorists pure and simple. And if America wants to know who really needs to be profiled when it comes to terrorist acts against this nation, they now know.

 

[InTheLight]

Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

Good question. I think they are terrorists. Can't wait to see what Obama calls this incident.

 

[TCassidy]

Because they aren't? There has been not bombs going off. No mass murders. No kidnapping and torture of victims.

You people calling them terrorists is as ignorant as President Obama calling Major Nidal Hasan shooting up Ft. Hood while screaming "Allah akbar" "workplace violence."

 

[InTheLight]

Because they aren't? There has been not bombs going off. No mass murders. No kidnapping and torture of victims.

You people calling them terrorists is as ignorant as President Obama calling Major Nidal Hasan shooting up Ft. Hood while screaming "Allah akbar" "workplace violence."

OK, so by your definition these people were not terrorists either:

Robert Reid
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

 

[matt wade]

Because they aren't? There has been not bombs going off. No mass murders. No kidnapping and torture of victims.

You people calling them terrorists is as ignorant as President Obama calling Major Nidal Hasan shooting up Ft. Hood while screaming "Allah akbar" "workplace violence."

Would you classify them the same if the situation was identical except they were Muslims (and US Citizens)?

 

[Zaac]

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be 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 outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"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.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

This is 100% Domestic terrorism designed to get the federal government to change it's policy and to affect the government's conduct.

The government has known for a while that radicalized right wingers who disagree with all sorts of government policies are growing in numbers every day and have been stockpiling guns and ammunition for these type of events.

This is the exact sort of thing that gives credence to the President's position of toughening gun laws.

And I say again, if this had been a group of BLM protesters or Muslims, this would be all over every station and every news outlet.

 

[HankD]

They are non-bloodshed terrorists.

I much prefer them to those who remove your head, crucify you, AK47 you, blow you up with a pressure cooker (Sears should ban their sales!!), lock you in a cage pour gasoline on you and set you on fire, cut off your body parts one-by-one, etc, etc... no matter they be leftist, rightists or in-betweenists...


HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Would you classify them the same if the situation was identical except they were Muslims (and US Citizens)?

Yes.

 

[TCassidy]

No violence. No civilians intimidated (they were in support of the civilians who were being intimidated by the government). No mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Just common, ordinary people defending their community against government over-reach and tyranny.

 

[TCassidy]

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

Please show where any of the people involved in the sit-in attempted to detonate plastic explosives.

 

[Use of Time]

No violence. No civilians intimidated (they were in support of the civilians who were being intimidated by the government). No mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Just common, ordinary people defending their community against government over-reach and tyranny.

Their community isn't happy that schools were closed because of this and a lot of people are frightened there.

Tyranny, give me a break. These people wouldn't know the first thing about tyranny. Defending? They are on the offensive here not the other way around.

 

[Zaac]

Oregon sheriff says refuge occupiers terrorists trying to overthrow government

PORTLAND, Ore. » A group of armed activists who have seized control of part of a federal wildlife refuge in southern Oregon appear to be aiming “to overthrow the county and federal government,” a local law enforcement official said today.


Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said authorities from “several organizations” are working to peacefully resolve the standoff, which began Saturday when an unknown number of armed activists occupied an uninhabited building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles outside the town of Burns, Ore.


“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said in a statement Sunday.


There were no signs of confrontation Sunday at the small refuge headquarters building, seized in what activists said was a protest against the federal prosecution of two ranchers and a bid to reclaim local control of federally managed land.


“We ask that people stay away from the refuge for their safety,” Ward said.


“At this time, we do not have any information that any other areas in Harney County are in immediate danger,” he said.


County officials announced that schools would remain closed through the week pending a resolution.


U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the FBI was leading the law enforcement response, in coordination with the Oregon State Police and local law enforcement authorities. Wyden said he was himself heading to southern Oregon to meet with local residents.


“I understand why rural Oregonians are so frustrated about this economy,” Wyden said a news conference. “But the next step from frustration is not to walk off a cliff, misled by some outsiders who seem willing to take the law into their own hands.”


Those leading what amounts to an armed occupation at the small, remote building say they are the vanguard of a national movement to resist the government’s ownership of vast stretches of land in the West.


The move began Saturday after a peaceful rally near Burns, where more than 150 people gathered in support of the ranchers who are facing additional jail time for arson.


A small, armed breakaway faction then moved on the wildlife refuge, which was closed and empty.


Dozens of protesters who marched through the town of Burns called for the federal government to back down in its enforcement of public lands regulations.


“We’re here to stand up for our brothers and sisters and show the world, show America: You mess with us, you mess with all of us,” co-organizer Jeff Roberts told a gathering.


“This isn’t an Oregon problem, this is a national problem, and it’s happening everywhere,” he said.


Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, said they set fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their Harney County property from wildfires.


The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — Dwight three months, and Steven a year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.


Hammond has said he and his son plan to report to prison Monday in Los Angeles as ordered by a judge, but the court decision has generated controversy across the West.


Protesters at the Burns rally came from as far away as Idaho, Nevada and Arizona.


“It’s about this community being trampled on,” one of the organizers, who did not identify himself, said as he stood on the bed of a pickup truck in the parking lot of a Safeway supermarket.


“This is the public saying we’re not going to take it anymore, we’ve had it … . The people of the republic are tired, and it starts right here in this parking lot, guys.”


The procession stopped briefly at the Hammonds’ home, where supporters greeted the elder Hammond on the front porch and sang “Amazing Grace.”


The group at the wildlife refuge is apparently led by sons of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who in 2014 led a standoff against federal agents who sought to collect Bundy’s cattle over his $1 million debt to the Bureau of Land Management for grazing fees.


Hundreds of self-styled militiamen flocked to Bundy’s ranch and, after pointing weapons at federal agents, ended the standoff.


At the time, BLM and law enforcement officials worried privately that the standoff would embolden the movement and cement Bundy’s status as a movement leader.


“We can enforce the Constitution in Harney County and that’s what we intend to do,” Bundy’s son Ammon told reporters at the rally. “We have a lot of plans.”


His father told Oregon Public Broadcasting that he had spoken to his son and it appeared he and his cohorts were equipped with food and a generator.


“He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they’re going to be there for whatever time it takes — and I don’t know what that means,” the elder Bundy said.


Another of Bundy’s sons, Ryan, who also appears to be at the wildlife refuge, told the Oregonian that the protesters want to see local control of federal land.


“The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control,” he said.


“What we’re doing is not rebellious. What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.”


The main body of protesters sought to distance themselves from the breakaway faction, which Ammon Bundy said does not consider itself a militia, and the father and son for whom the protest was held are similarly unaffiliated with the occupation.


A number of Western conservatives have called for the return of federal lands to state and local government. The movement has waxed and waned since the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980s, which centered on ranchers’ rights and the money that could be made from timber harvesting, mining and ranching, if only the federal government didn’t forbid such profitable endeavors.


The movement has picked up steam in recent years, led by Utah legislator Ken Ivory, who helms a national organization called the American Lands Council that tries to persuade county and state governments to pursue the ownership of federal lands. A watchdog group has accused him of fraud in three states for his use of taxpayer dollars.


The Southern Poverty Law Center, in a report on the Bundy standoff, said the militiamen and the federal land-return movement are part of the same spectrum.


“Anti-government extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the evils of federal law enforcement,” the center said in the report.


The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, incorporated in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt, has grown since its inception and presents challenges to the ranching families in the area, who say they are increasingly hemmed in by the federal preserve.


Beginning about one month ago, Ammon Bundy and others arrived in Burns and agitated locals, who wondered what they were up to. By Saturday, the plan became clear, and the Bundys, via their ranch’s Facebook page, called for “all freedom-loving people” to help occupy the wildlife refuge.


“The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility,” read a post by the Bundy Ranch on its Facebook page.


The wildlife preserve is in a remote region of south-central Oregon, and the protest overwhelmed the already limited Harney County Sheriff’s Office, which asked the public to stop calling on Saturday because residents were having trouble reaching emergency dispatchers.


“A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution,” Ward said in a statement Saturday night. “For the time being, please stay away from that area.”
https://www.staradvertiser.com/brea...uge-occupiers-trying-to-overthrow-government/

This is an attempt to overthrow the government according to this sheriff. They are terrorists.

 

[HankD]

This is an attempt to overthrow the government according to this sheriff. They are terrorists.

IMO, these "terrorists" are just regular citizens making a redress of grievance because their elected representatives are too yellow bellied to help them.

Of course the spineless authorities are going to use rhetoric like "attempt to overthrow the government" so as to not upset the Emperor on the hill in his new clothes surrounded by his cronies and yes-men.

No one wants to spoil his one year lame duck vacation and/or golf game with a legitimate redress of grievance.

HankD

 

[InTheLight]

Just common, ordinary people defending their community against government over-reach and tyranny.

The traditional way of doing this is through the ballot box and elections.

 

[InTheLight]

Please show where any of the people involved in the sit-in attempted to detonate plastic explosives.

Hey, you set the criteria, and this guy meets it:

There has been not bombs going off. No mass murders. No kidnapping and torture of victims.

No mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

 

[Zaac]

IMO, these "terrorists" are just regular citizens making a redress of grievance because their elected representatives are too yellow bellied to help them.

There's a LEGAL process for this. If need be, remove the elected representatives. But taking up arms against the Federal government is an act of insurrection and war.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Of course the spineless authorities are going to use rhetoric like "attempt to overthrow the government" so as to not upset the Emperor on the hill in his new clothes surrounded by his cronies and yes-men.

What does this have to do with the Emperor on the hill? If anything, these actions give rise to more people understanding and agreeing with the Emperor about gun laws.

No one wants to spoil his one year lame duck vacation and/or golf game with a legitimate redress of grievance.

Again, there is a process to be followed if people believe their grievances aren't being heard. In this instance, the folks who have taken control of the federal land and building, have no standing to bring such a grievance as the Hammonds have explicitly expressed they did not want this.

 

[Salty]

terrorist
An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. See also terrorism.

ter·ror·ism
(tĕr′ə-rĭz′əm)
n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

If they went in to occupy the building, without authorization - I would call that a threat of violence - and thus - terrorism.

Here is my questions - did those individuals use all political means possible?

and while I'm at it - how many of them voted in the last 4 elections
How many of them have run for office?

 

[InTheLight]

Just common, ordinary people defending their community against government over-reach and tyranny.

Two people get convicted of committing arson on a federal game refuge to cover up poaching. A person unrelated to these guys, and from out-of-state, drives up to this neck of the woods armed to the teeth and take over a federal game refuge. The people convicted of arson want nothing to do with the terrorists.

The "ordinary people" are not from the local community. They're not defending anyone. There is no government overreach in this instance (the convicted people are peaceably going to jail.)

 

[Zaac]

terrorist
An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. See also terrorism.

ter·ror·ism
(tĕr′ə-rĭz′əm)
n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

If they went in to occupy the building, without authorization - I would call that a threat of violence - and thus - terrorism.

Here is my questions - did those individuals use all political means possible?

and while I'm at it - how many of them voted in the last 4 elections
How many of them have run for office?

The folks spearheading this aren't a part of that community so I imagine they weren't too concerned about the legal political or legislative means.