Where is the National Guard?

[cmad1977]

They've been exactly as peaceful as the occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were. They're less disruptive than the occupy movements were, and they're in outside civilian population centers. The only 'violence' they've threatened is that they are ready and willing to defend themselves if the authorities try to use force to remove them.

They're criminals, yes and no doubt, but they aren't engaged in terrorism, nor is this any kind of threat to civilian populations. You (and others) are blowing this way out of proportion. There's no need to storm the ramparts of a bunch of idiots posturing out in the wilderness because they're not a threat to anyone but themselves. The urge to recreate Waco is unaccountably strong.

The've threatened agents of the federal government. That counts as terrorism in my book.
The 'terrorism/not terrorism' argument is silly to me(except that it shows how differently we cover issues when one group is brown and another is white).

 

[SkidAce]

I want these people killed quite frankly. What they are doing is treason and rebellion. I would fully support a joint tactical strike to wipe them out.

You want those people killed?

/sigh

 

[Janx]

They've been exactly as peaceful as the occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were. They're less disruptive than the occupy movements were, and they're in outside civilian population centers. The only 'violence' they've threatened is that they are ready and willing to defend themselves if the authorities try to use force to remove them.

They're criminals, yes and no doubt, but they aren't engaged in terrorism, nor is this any kind of threat to civilian populations. You (and others) are blowing this way out of proportion. There's no need to storm the ramparts of a bunch of idiots posturing out in the wilderness because they're not a threat to anyone but themselves. The urge to recreate Waco is unaccountably strong.

I think you are confusing the resolution strategy for the crime.

Goldie and have have refuted Umbran's terrorism checklist by covering all 3 points. Nobody has countered, so we win, it's Terrorism (feel free to counter argue my point on 2ii of the checklist, and I'll cede victory).

That said, this being redneck Terrorism aka " bunch of idiots posturing out in the wilderness", has nothing to do with the solution, well, out in the wilderness does.

It's winter, in the woods. they can be starved out, blinded from internet deprivation. If this was Nakatome Tower, that might call for a a different response. There's no need to storm the ramparts because there's no hostages and no risk to collateral damage. Which would ironically enough, be the safest way to storm them.

However, given the very topic they are on about is Arson, it is possible they may decide to burn the place down, which is federal property and could also carry risk for forest fire. So doing nothing may be complicated as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The've threatened agents of the federal government. That counts as terrorism in my book.
The 'terrorism/not terrorism' argument is silly to me(except that it shows how differently we cover issues when one group is brown and another is white).

Saying "if you use force to remove us, we may choose to defend ourselves with force" is terrorism/threatening the US government? Seriously, step back from the edge a moment and consider that they're posturing blowhards, but not terrorists. Saying 'if you shoot at me, I'll shoot at you,' even to a cop, isn't terrorism. It isn't even a threat. It may be (and I think it is) incredibly stupid, but that's it.

It's not even illegal to say that (ie, it's not a threat to say that you will response with equal violence to a violent provocation, even if the government is the agent initiating). So far, the only law they've broken is criminal trespass. Those are right scary terrorists, there.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

They've been exactly as peaceful as the occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were.

How many "armed protesters" did Occupy Wall Street have?

They're less disruptive than the occupy movements were, and they're in outside civilian population centers.

It's their first day. Give them time. They'll be disrupting government workers who have jobs to do in those buildings.

The only 'violence' they've threatened is that they are ready and willing to defend themselves if the authorities try to use force to remove them.

The question is, what does this group of terrorist consider "violence" from the government?

They're criminals, yes and no doubt,

Good, I'm glad you can at least admit that.

but they aren't engaged in terrorism,

Yes, they are.

nor is this any kind of threat to civilian populations.

Yet. It's now day two. Give them time. The idiots at father Bundy's ranch started stopping civilians driving by and pulling guns on them. You think these guys are going to be less violent?

You (and others) are blowing this way out of proportion.

Nope, but thanks for trying to play it like that.

There's no need to storm the ramparts of a bunch of idiots posturing out in the wilderness because they're not a threat to anyone but themselves.

Awesome, let's set a precedent were any group of "armed protesters" can take over government property and threaten violence if they don't get their way. That's sure to turn out well.

The urge to recreate Waco is unaccountably strong.

Waco was a completely different situation. Those were religious people being persecuted for their beliefs.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Seriously, step back from the edge a moment and consider that they're posturing blowhards, but not terrorists.

So you think these guys won't fire on police officers if police officers try to get them out of there? At all?

 

[Janx]

There are plenty of videos on the net of white people who open carry and are approached slowly and non-violently by cops because people in the neighborhood felt intimidated or threaten. It can get tense, but usually there is talk and no shooting. In the case of Tamir Rice, the kid was in a open carry state... and black. The cops rushed in and shot him immediately. Same case with John Crawford who was in a open carry state, black, was holding a toy gun and was shot by a cop. Heck, a NYPD cop shot an unarmed blackmen in a stairwell just because it was dark and the cop got scared. There is a bias toward black people. They are seen as violent and a menace. Same with Muslims. Its ugly, but true.

If armed black people or Muslims did what these guys are doing, the narrative wouldn't be about peaceful protestors in a wildlife refuge.

Bear in mind, you aren't here to sell me on how cops mishandle black people. Already agree with you. I am saying there are contextual differences with THIS situation from the typical black guy got shot by cop scenario.

Consider that this is rural Oregon. I'd bet mostly white and has a sizable demographic of paranoid gun-nuts like these terrorists. So the Oregon police are probably used to handling yet another Bundy call.


Contrast that to the inner city which is populated by poor people who tend to do more crime, who happen to be black. Where the majority of calls are black guys doing crime, so show up and take them down. When 90% of your calls are blacks actually being bad, you probably get your reflexes trained to treat all black people as crooks.


No doubt, the cops need to relearn how to handle all cases the same, and how to handle all cases carefully to preserve life. But there's a feedback loop which is conditioning cops in these places to act this way.

If we're going to say it's not wholly black people's fault for being poor and being desperate to resort to crime, then we also have to accept it's not wholly the cop's fault for being hard on the demographic that makes their job hard (which in turn makes their job harder).

Both problems need to be solved.

 

[Janx]

So you think these guys won't fire on police officers if police officers try to get them out of there? At all?

yup.

That would be part of item 2 on the checklist. If I was a cop and my boss told me to go up there and ask them to leave or be arrested, I would be worried about my safety.

That intimidation is why the cop boss would be wary to send somebody up there in the first place.

These Terrorists haven't done violence yet, but the threat and intimidation is there.


What sucks about these terrorists is that their cause is about "Government bullying". So anything the government does in response to defend itself or reclaim its land will be used as propaganda against it.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

yup.

That would be part of item 2 on the checklist. If I was a cop and my boss told me to go up there and ask them to leave or be arrested, I would be worried about my safety.

That intimidation is why the cop boss would be wary to send somebody up there in the first place.

These Terrorists haven't done violence yet, but the threat and intimidation is there.


What sucks about these terrorists is that their cause is about "Government bullying". So anything the government does in response to defend itself or reclaim its land will be used as propaganda against it.

Exactly.

 

[billd91]

Can we lay off the overused terrorism label? I'm getting kind of sick of people branding one group or another terrorists largely because of political disagreement. Having been reading quite a bit on the history of the Vietnam protests on college campuses, there's not a lot these goons in Oregon are doing that is significantly worse than most Vietnam protesters. It's true they're better armed, but that is legal. Misuse of the terrorism label just serves to weaken it and it's getting tedious. The presence of weapons complicates the situation pretty badly, but that doesn't turn them into terrorists, particularly when they're not really seeking to intimidate broadly outside their immediate targets (federal authorities). The FBI definition of domestic terrorism as quoted by Umbran is highly self-serving with item 2 (ii). The UN is significantly stricter by defining terrorists as trying to intimidate the public.

There are plenty of videos on the net of white people who open carry and are approached slowly and non-violently by cops because people in the neighborhood felt intimidated or threaten. It can get tense, but usually there is talk and no shooting. In the case of Tamir Rice, the kid was in a open carry state... and black. The cops rushed in and shot him immediately. Same case with John Crawford who was in a open carry state, black, was holding a toy gun and was shot by a cop. Heck, a NYPD cop shot an unarmed blackmen in a stairwell just because it was dark and the cop got scared. There is a bias toward black people. They are seen as violent and a menace. Same with Muslims. Its ugly, but true.

If armed black people or Muslims did what these guys are doing, the narrative wouldn't be about peaceful protestors in a wildlife refuge.

As true as this might be, it's relevant to the broader issue of race relations and racism in the US... but not really to the resolution of the situation in Oregon. That authorities and the media might behave badly if these were African-Americans or Muslims shouldn't be justification for behaving badly with the current situation.