Militia takes over federal building in Oregon

Damocles said:
Actually occupying a building is not an aspect of a right to assemble. That is what they used to call civil disobedience, it isn't an aspect of free speech or assembly. You don't get to take over buildings as a matter of course or right.
Click to expand...

Do you expect ILA to be able to understand that?
 
Sheogorath said:
It is nice seeing pushback against the state. I wonder how, when all is said an done, things will change.
Click to expand...

I always support a groups right to protest, but not like this, taking over a building and saying they will stay for years. This is domestic terrorism, they should have stayed outside in a legal fashion
 
Rana said:
I always support a groups right to protest, but not like this, taking over a building and saying they will stay for years. This is domestic terrorism, they should have stayed outside in a legal fashion
Click to expand...

The state is ALWAYS a legitimate target, so no, it's not "terrorism".
 
Rana said:
I always support a groups right to protest, but not like this, taking over a building and saying they will stay for years. This is domestic terrorism, they should have stayed outside in a legal fashion
Click to expand...

Let em stay, at least they won't be causing trouble in the general public. It will be cheaper than putting them in a real jail.
 
Sheogorath said:
The state is ALWAYS a legitimate target, so no, it's not "terrorism".
Click to expand...
It is when you occupy a building illegally, keep people from going to work and from their livelihood. When you disrupt society and most likely threaten violence on those who try to enter the building, that is domestic terrorism.
 
Rana said:
It is when you occupy a building illegally, keep people from going to work and from their livelihood. When you disrupt society and most likely threaten violence on those who try to enter the building, that is domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

No. It's not. Domestic terrorism is killing them. Tim McVeigh... terrorism. These guys, illegal occupation but not terrorism.
 
Rana said:
It is when you occupy a building illegally, keep people from going to work and from their livelihood. When you disrupt society and most likely threaten violence on those who try to enter the building, that is domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

They don't think McVeigh was a terrorist either...
 
Damocles said:
No. It's not. Domestic terrorism is killing them. Tim McVeigh... terrorism. These guys, illegal occupation but not terrorism.
Click to expand...
Nope

(B)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


(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 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;
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
They are armed... That's where peaceful civil disobedient protest ends and domestic terrorism begins...
Click to expand...

I would agree if the shot up the place on the way in. This isn't terrorism, they didn't kill people to make a political point. Insurrection maybe... Illegal occupation definitely. Terrorism... not quite.

Although Tim McVeigh... definitely terrorism.
 
Rana said:
Nope

(B)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


(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 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;
Click to expand...

They aren't trying to intimidate a population. It just isn't terrorism. They aren't threatening a civilian population, they didn't try to kill anybody, they aren't intimidating me nor do I fear that they are "coming for me" or even the people that worked there.

Are there hostages? No. Whose life is being threatened?
 
Rana said:
Nope

(B)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


(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 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;
Click to expand...

If they were unarmed I could support their demonstration against the state....
They are armed terrorists ...plain and simple...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top