Where is the National Guard?

What Im getting from this: Islamic terrorism=We must ban Islam!!! Christian terrorism = ok, cause Jesus!!!

The_Silversword said:

What Im getting from this: Islamic terrorism=We must ban Islam!!! Christian terrorism = ok, cause Jesus!!!

Click to expand...

That's correct.

Not sure jurisdiction, it is a National Park, which means it may be a federal issue and not a state one, thinking this would be FBI.

Ryujin said:

They are 'getting away with' the sort of behaviour that our own Canadian indigenous peoples get away with, every few years, in areas like Tyendinaga, Kanesatake, and Ohsweken. Different issues and different incidents demand a different response. Remember the Kanestake incident? No one wants more of that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

Oka was a just a long grind and a Mohawk got away with murder. So we should accept more armed protests?

Eltab said:

Is there some reason to believe this group is a clear and present danger to the general public?

Click to expand...

Worse, they are willing to kill law enforcement officers. Black Lives Matter was blamed in the media for the murder of some police officers when the movement isn't about killing officer. These guys are pretty said they will kill and people shrug. Imagine if they were black or Muslims. They would be labelled clear and present dangers.

Ovinomancer said:

Yeah, occupy everything didn't ever happen.

Click to expand...

I know. Occupiers were so armed that the feds and the media just shrugged them off.

Homicidal_Squirrel said:

You have to love how these guys are called "protesters" and "activist," rather than what they actually are - terrorist.

Had these guys been black, or appeared to be Muslims, they'd be called terrorist even before they were interviewed and allowed to talk. Hell, they'd probably have police rushing in ready to start shooting them up.

Click to expand...

False. Obama has at every chance, called Muslim terrorism in the U.S. "Workplace violence." The Fort Hood shooting was a Muslim who had radicalized and shot people based on that radicalization, but was it terrorism? Noooooooo, it was workplace violence. He held off on calling the San Bernardino shooting an act of terrorism as long as he could, but the evidence was just too great for him to call it workplace violence.

Terrorism is a goal, not an act. If the goal of these "protesters" and "activists" isn't to incite terror as one of their goals, then it's not terrorism.

Maxperson said:

Terrorism is a goal, not an act.

Click to expand...

Terrorism is a violent means to a political end.

You can google it or go at your local library.

Maxperson said:

False. Obama has at every chance, called Muslim terrorism in the U.S. "Workplace violence." The Fort Hood shooting was a Muslim who had radicalized and shot people based on that radicalization, but was it terrorism? Noooooooo, it was workplace violence. He held off on calling the San Bernardino shooting an act of terrorism as long as he could, but the evidence was just too great for him to call it workplace violence.

Terrorism is a goal, not an act. If the goal of these "protesters" and "activists" isn't to incite terror as one of their goals, then it's not terrorism.

Click to expand...

You can argue it all you'd like, but you'll still be wrong.

goldomark said:

Terrorism is a violent means to a political end.

You can google it or go at your local library.

Click to expand...

Hm. Not sure that the internet entirely agrees with you. Right now, they're in violation of a few laws, I expect, but while they say they are armed, they've not used violence.

The first definition that Google gives for terrorism is, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

There's a political aim here, yes. But as noted there's been no violence as yet, and I'm not sure anyone's intimidated.

The FBI says:

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

1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2) 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
3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

#3 we have.

#1 - I assume they're violating some laws, yes. But have as yet committed not acts that were in and of themselves dangerous to human life, have they?

#2 - The folks in Oregon are not trying to intimidate civilians, as there are none present. There's been no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. So, the only possibility is that it falls under ii - influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

A bunch of folks holed up in a building are not terribly intimidating to the government. So, that leaves us with coercion. That is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. The only force or threat as yet applied has been of the form, "if force is used on us, we'll use force on them". That doesn't seem a solid claim of coercion against the government on the land policy they say they want to change.

Simply put, nobody's really scared or intimidated here. Not much terror. Not much terrorism. Their acts have so far been armed, but peaceful, and that makes terrorism hard to make stick.