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

[Zaac]

Did you?

Nope. I didn't see any members of the BLM movement doing anything that amounted to domestic terrorism. I know there were a lot of people that the general public ASSUMED were BLM people just because it was easy to point the finger at the black folks who were trying to take a stand and marginalize what they were doing by calling them terrorists.

Taking a stand doesn't amount to terrorism.

Now there were a whole lot of straight criminals looting in Ferguson. But that doesn't amount to terrorism.

The folks in Oregon have SEIZED federal property at gunpoint in order to force the government to do something.

And if folks can't see the difference between that and what the legitimate members of BLM are doing, then

. That's one of the reasons they are doing it.

 

[Zaac]

Did you call the looters and thugs in Ferguson terrorists?

Looting is looting. It doesn't meet the legal definition of terrorism. And just because you and a bunch of scared white people think someone is a thug doesn't make them terrorists.

This is sad but the expected response that many anticipated a lot of "conservative" white people taking when folks who look like them are the ones being painted negatively.

AMERICA!!!! Gotta love Her!!!

 

[poncho]

Nope. I didn't see any members of the BLM movement doing anything that amounted to domestic terrorism. I know there were a lot of people that the general public ASSUMED were BLM people just because it was easy to point the finger at the black folks who were trying to take a stand and marginalize what they were doing by calling them terrorists.

Taking a stand doesn't amount to terrorism.

Now there were a whole lot of straight criminals looting in Ferguson. But that doesn't amount to terrorism.

The folks in Oregon have SEIZED federal property at gunpoint in order to force the government to do something.

And if folks can't see the difference between that and what the legitimate members of BLM are doing, then

. That's one of the reasons they are doing it.

The folks in Oregon haven't "SEIZED" anything at gunpoint. To do that there would have to be someone to point their guns at. There's was no one there to point guns at. But let's not let facts get in the way of causing more fear and racial division.

 

[Zaac]

The folks in Oregon haven't "SEIZED" anything at gunpoint. To do that there would have to be someone to point their guns at. There's was no one there to point guns at. But let's not let facts get in the way of causing more fear and racial division.

Touche. They seized it with guns and made clear that if the government tries to take it back, they would be putting lives at risk.

Terrorism.

 

[poncho]

Touche. They seized it with guns and made clear that if the government tries to take it back, they would be putting lives at risk.

Terrorism.

The Bureau of Land Management seizing private property at gun point (cows) then threatening and using violence against the property owners for trying to take their property back.

Terrorism.

Black Lives Matter burning down private property and threatening to kill white people and police if they don't get their way.

Terrorism.

The US government and it's "allies" funding and arming Islamic extremists that kill thousands and threaten to kill thousands more while attempting to overthrow an elected government.

Terrorism.

 

[InTheLight]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx

They are asking for snacks! LOL. This is the most adorable little insurrection I've ever seen.
"We are in this for the long haul, we will stay years...or at least until we run out of Funyuns."

It's a Yee-Hawd!

 

[Zaac]

The Bureau of Land Management seizing private property at gun point (cows) then threatening and using violence against the property owners for trying to take them back.

Terrorism.

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).

Unfortunately, that example doesn't meet the terms of the FBI definition of terrorism.

Now I completely agree that what has happened to the Hammonds family is egregious and should be on the front page of every newspaper in America.

This is about natural resources and the feds desire to control them. They have played the bully because LEGALLY they can. Folks have been doing controlled burns that have gotten out of hand on BLM property for years. They, often times with help from BLM, get it under control. And likewise when BLM has done controlled burns that have gotten onto privately owned land.

Prosecuting the Hammonds was a bully move because they won't sell their land.

Maybe what the terrorists in the compound are doing will bring the needed attention this injustice deserves to the forefront. I don't know. Hopefully something will.

But what they are doing still meets the definition of domestic terrorism.

 

[TCassidy]

"Monica says people are afraid."

"George says people are not afraid."

George proves that your thesis is invalid.

 

[TCassidy]

You want us to provide names of people who want to use the Federal park land?

Why do you think you have to lie about what I said? I never mentioned people wanting to use the park land, which they are free to do. Shame on you for lying.

 

[InTheLight]

Why do you think you have to lie about what I said? I never mentioned people wanting to use the park land, which they are free to do. Shame on you for lying.

==========================






http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/why-aren’t-we-calling-the-oregon-occupiers-‘terrorists-’.97638/page-4#post-2196701

 

[poncho]

Unfortunately, that example doesn't meet the terms of the FBI definition of terrorism.

Why, because the government has chosen to exempt itself form the same standards it applies to citizens?

Like I said earlier the standards should apply equally to everyone or no one.

 

[Zaac]

Why, because the government has chosen to exempt itself form the same standards it applies to citizens?

Umm, pretty much. When have you known the government to produce laws that fight against itself? Sneaky
Gosh , Manifest Destiny, Eminent Domain, and now whatever it is the BLM is doing.

The government has been doing it since this country's founding. And we keep electing the same old folks who allow them to keep doing it.

 

[poncho]

Umm, pretty much. When have you known the government to produce laws that fight against itself? Sneaky
Gosh , Manifest Destiny, Eminent Domain, and now whatever it is the BLM is doing.

The government has been doing it since this country's founding. And we keep electing the same old folks who allow them to keep doing it.

And yet here you are telling me that a "legal" definition written by an entity that exempts itself from the burdens it put's on others has created the only standard by which we are to define domestic terrorism?

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.

One recent example is the Vieques Island protests, when many people, including several prominent Americans, participated in civil disobedience on a military installation where the United States government has been engaging in regular military exercises, which these protesters oppose. The protesters illegally entered the military base and tried to obstruct the bombing exercises. This conduct would fall within the definition of domestic terrorism because the protesters broke federal law by unlawfully entering the airbase and their acts were for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion. The act of trying to disrupt bombing exercises arguably created a danger to human life - their own and those of military personnel. Using this hypothetical as a starting point, we will go through the USA PATRIOT Act and explore the new governmental powers that could be brought to bear on Vieques Island protesters whose conduct falls within the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.

Continue . . . https://www.aclu.org/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

You should read the papers the SPLC have written on the subject of "domestic terrorism" Zaac you yourself are described as a potential terrorist threat in them as well every other American citizen who wears blue jeans, carries a cell phone and acts polite in public.

 

[Zaac]

The Bureau of Land Management seizing private property at gun point (cows) then threatening and using violence against the property owners for trying to take their property back.

Terrorism.

Addressed in other response.

Black Lives Matter burning down private property and threatening to kill white people and police if they don't get their way.

Do tell. What private property has a representative or an official member of BLM burned down or threatened to kill white people or police if they don't get their way? Just because you get a bunch of people together who look alike does not mean they are members or representatives of the same group.

The US government and it's "allies" funding and arming Islamic extremists that kill thousands and threaten to kill thousands more while attempting to overthrow an elected government.

Terrorism.

That's government. If you don't like what they do, vote them out.

 

[Zaac]

And yet here you are telling me that a "legal" definition written by an entity that exempts itself from the burdens it put's on others has created the only standard by which we are to define domestic terrorism?

Pretty much the way it is. Guess that's probably how black folks feel about the police. Eek

 

[poncho]

Addressed in other response.

Do tell. What private property has a representative or an official member of BLM burned down or threatened to kill white people or police if they don't get their way? Just because you get a bunch of people together who look alike does not mean they are members or representatives of the same group.

And yet this is exactly what you do when you are blaming "white people" for all the evil perpetrated against minorities.

The standards you apply to one should be applied to every one.

That's government. If you don't like what they do, vote them out.

I've tried but unfortunately the system is set up to keep the usurpers in power.

 

[Zaac]

And yet this is exactly what you do when you are blaming "white people" for all the evil perpetrated against minorities.

Nope. I point out a certain group of folks and their actions. If I mean to say ALL white people or ALL old white men, then that's what I'll say. If I mean to say ALL black people or the stupid black people who believe Al Sharpton, that's what I'll say.

The standards you apply to one should be applied to every one.

Oh they are as I just explained. You just don't think so because then your "gotcha" moment goes out the window.

Just like I can say there are a lot of white police officers who unfairly and unjustly police black and brown people to the point of murder, I can also say there are a lot of black opportunists who show up during a peaceful protest, who have nothing to do with the peaceful groups, who are bent on breaking the law.

But rest assured that you and I agree much more than we disagree.

I've tried but unfortunately the system is set up to keep the usurpers in power.

Ahh. There's the kicker. Just because you've got good enough sense to realize they are usurpers doesn't mean that the majority of everyone else does. The average person feels like if they aren't PERSONALLY being affected, it doesn't matter so they will just check off the person with the (I) next to their name.

That's how this little terrorist wannabe (Cynthia McKinney)

kept getting elected in Georgia until folks wised up and gave her the boot!

So in this regard, I say again that I applaud what the folks in Oregon are doing in order to highlight the injustice being done against the Hammond family. But their actions still qualify as terrorism.

But the same could have been said about The Boston Tea Party.

 

[poncho]

You'll have to point out where you've made all these distinctions Zaac. I must have missed them.

You do understand that you can become a "terrorist" just by being accused of being a "terrorist" right?

I mean you wear blue jeans, carry a cell phone and act polite in public right?

According to the SPLC (who put out a lot of the talking points you seem fond of repeating) that already makes you a potential "terrorist".

I'm not saying what these guys are doing in Oregon is right. But am saying that calling someone a "terrorist" doesn't make them a terrorist. Fitting a "legal" definition written by an entity who's own actions fit that definition makes me question the agenda of those writing the definition more than American citizens doing something ill advised and un-timely to gain media attention.

At this point I would have to say accusing the people freezing their rear ends off in the middle of nowhere being of guilty of stupidity is more rational than accusing them of being guilty of "terrorism".

 

[Zaac]

You'll have to point out where you've made all these distinctions Zaac. I must have missed them.

You do understand that you can become a "terrorist" just by being accused of being a "terrorist" right?

I mean you wear blue jeans, carry a cell phone and act polite in public right?

According to the SPLC (who put out a lot of the talking points you seem fond of repeating) that already makes you a potential "terrorist".

I don't even know what an SPLC is lol.
"Okay Google"-----Ahh. You must mean the Southern Poverty Law Center. I know of them. Just didn't make the connection.

One could say the same about your Alex Jones talking points according to some government sources.

 

[poncho]

I don't even know what an SPLC is lol.
"Okay Google"-----Ahh. You must mean the Southern Poverty Law Center. I know of them. Just didn't make the connection.

One could say the same about your Alex Jones talking points according to some government sources.

Sorry Zaac but the way you spread the SPLC's talking points around here made me think you must be on their emailing list.

We agree on some things to be sure but I can't bring myself to agree with what those on the regressive left who are posing as liberals are saying. For the simple reason they speak with forked tongues out of both sides of their mouths.