Militia takes over federal building in Oregon

I don't think it's terrorism, they are not trying to cause terror.

The Feds should surround the building, cut the power and not allow water or food inside.

Seize any assets these people have and use the money to rent new space.
 
Occupy, Black Lives Matter. These leftist groups harrassed and disrupted the public peace. Violence occurred, destruction of private and public property. I saw left leaning posters here defend these groups to the hilt. I read numerous excuse making posts.

I agree that no protester has a right to take over buildings, or parks, or block bridges and roadways. The only non violent group protests in the past few years have been the TEA Party. Yet leftists, media, politicians and the liberal public screamed when they assembled.
 
Basically, what they are doing is certainly illegal, is not protected by the 1st Amendment, but it isn't terrorism.
 
Damocles said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sorry, legally they are trying to coerce the government to change policy by overtaking a federal building and not leaving,
They are armed, sorry Damo, legally, they are domestic terrorists.
 
By the current definition you are using, Rana, people who gathered in Ferguson then later violated businesses in the area were all terrorists.
 
Damocles said:
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?
Click to expand...

What do you suppose will happen if federal agents arrest them and carry them into paddy wagons?
Ya think they will go peacefully with side arms remaining holstered?
The simple fact that they are armed makes them terrorists.
The arms are a threat that they will not be arrested peacefully.
 
Last edited:
Buckly J. Ewer said:
What do you suppose will happen if federal agents arrest them and carry them into paddy wagons?
Ya think they will go peacefully with side arms remaining holstered?
Click to expand...

What happened when protesters in Ferguson used molotov cocktails?

images


Do you think the Ferguson protests were terrorism?

What they are doing is illegal, but not terrorism.
 
Damocles said:
By the current definition you are using, Rana, people who gathered in Ferguson then later violated businesses in the area were all terrorists.
Click to expand...

They were when they became violent, but these two things are different, you even said do yourself, earlier. They became terrorists and not just protestors when they occupied the building demanding that the two rangers be released.
 
Damocles said:
What happened when protesters in Ferguson used molotov cocktails?

images


Do you think the Ferguson protests were terrorism?

What they are doing is illegal, but not terrorism.
Click to expand...

Those who set fires might have been terrorists. Depends on the intent of the perp.
 
Jarod said:
Those who set fires might have been terrorists. Depends on the intent of the perp.
Click to expand...

They gathered to force a political change and had weapons. Per Rana's current definition, that is terrorism itself. They didn't even have to throw the cocktail. Even being among them would then include you in her terrorist definition.
 
Rana said:
Nope those that used violence were terrorists.
Click to expand...

So, these guys are not yet terrorists. At least by this statement. Gathering with the weapons isn't enough... only when they actually throw a cocktail do they become "terrorists"... Why are you not demanding they face a terrorism trial?
 
Damocles said:
They gathered to force a political change and had weapons. Per Rana's current definition, that is terrorism itself. They didn't even have to throw the cocktail. Even being among them would then include you in her terrorist definition.
Click to expand...
We'll see how it all turns out, but their willingness not leave will determine the outcome. I personally would just let them stay there, and ignore them. The two Rangers are going to jail and their staying there won't change that fact. We will see how long they stay, how much provisions they have and how they get resupplied. They don't have enough provision to stay for years, they will eventually need supplies.
 
Rana said:
We'll see how it all turns out, but their willingness not leave will determine the outcome. I personally would just let them stay there, and ignore them. The two Rangers are going to jail and their staying there won't change that fact. We will see how long they stay, how much provisions they have and how they get resupplied. They don't have enough provision to stay for years, they will eventually need supplies.
Click to expand...

IMO, that would be the smartest way to handle it.
 
Rana said:
We'll see how it all turns out, but their willingness not leave will determine the outcome. I personally would just let them stay there, and ignore them. The two Rangers are going to jail and their staying there won't change that fact. We will see how long they stay, how much provisions they have and how they get resupplied. They don't have enough provision to stay for years, they will eventually need supplies.
Click to expand...

I figured their phrasing of wanting to stay there for years meant "we want to come and go and use this building however we see fit" more like claiming the building as their own and not just a standoff situation.

Having a standoff that long doesn't seem feasible IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top