It's kind of cute when you get so selectively outraged...

(05-24-2016 08:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OMG.

You guys can't possibly be this dense. They threatened the use of violence as they confiscated a federal building.

They threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF A TERRORIST!

Look it up. Honestly folks.

I would call the wackos but they aren't terrorists. It was a protest.

(05-24-2016 08:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OMG.

You guys can't possibly be this dense. They threatened the use of violence as they confiscated a federal building.

They threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF A TERRORIST!

Look it up. Honestly folks.

So Ferguson (both times) and Baltimore were terrorist acts?

(05-24-2016 08:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OMG.

You guys can't possibly be this dense. They threatened the use of violence as they confiscated a federal building.

They threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF A TERRORIST!

Look it up. Honestly folks.

So George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.. were domestic terrorists.

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would call the wackos but they aren't terrorists. It was a protest.

Threatening, possibly violent wackos. At least they didn't kill anyone, though I wonder what would have happened if the government had been more assertive in re-taking the place.

(05-24-2016 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would call the wackos but they aren't terrorists. It was a protest.

Threatening, possibly violent wackos. At least they didn't kill anyone, though I wonder what would have happened if the government had been more assertive in re-taking the place.

Would have wound up being another Ruby Ridge/Waco situation. I'd say them not being assertive goes down with lessons learned.

(05-24-2016 03:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would call the wackos but they aren't terrorists. It was a protest.

Threatening, possibly violent wackos. At least they didn't kill anyone, though I wonder what would have happened if the government had been more assertive in re-taking the place.

Would have wound up being another Ruby Ridge/Waco situation. I'd say them not being assertive goes down with lessons learned.

Yeah, the feds learned it's easier to assassinate someone in an ambush rather than a frontal assault.

(05-24-2016 05:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. In modern times, terrorism is considered a major threat to society and therefore illegal under anti-terrorism laws in most jurisdictions. It is also considered a war crime under the laws of war when used to target non-combatants, such as civilians, neutral military personnel, or enemy prisoners of war.[1]

I'd disagree with you here. Of course a word means whatever enough people agree that it should mean... but if you look at the term, TERRORism, the intent of a TERRORist is to instill TERROR. By implication, TERROR is a threat that goes far beyond the victims of any individual act... i.e. the WTC wasn't merely about killing the people on the planes or even in the buildings, but to erode faith in our safety across the nation.

I don't think anyone not within rifle shot of that camp (which means nobody) was intimidated by what they did... even if they disagreed with it.

The FBI requires that an act of terrorism 'appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population' or to influence a policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. I am confident that what they would describe that they had done was civil, if armed disobedience. They weren't running around killing people and the government was only at risk if they sought to remove them. A threat, yes... but not like having 'a bomb hidden in some government vehicle that will explode if our demands aren't met.' All they had to do was say 'no' and isolate them. Hardly a threat.

Otherwise literally every act of armed insurrection, including the American Revolution, the Civil war and lots of battles in the war for civil rights would be considered acts of Terrorism.

I think those guys were wrong to threaten to use force to resist... but I suspect that the Brits similarly thought the yanks were wrong to threaten to use force to resist. My point isn't that they were right, just that it doesn't in any way constitute trying to instill fear in a civilian population or to intimidate the government. As many have pointed out, 20 guys in a bunker aren't a threat to the US military. They were a threat to that one otherwise unoccupied spot of what they considered to be 'public' land.

Odd that some of those who are against Bundy and co are the same ones who think that cops are out of control.

The group definitely tried to intimidate the US govt. by thought, word, and deed.

So... the title of the thread is wrong.

Why?

(05-25-2016 08:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Why?

Because they aren't. They were asked to by the attorney.

I might have posted the wrong link. Funny. 6 pages and you are the first to notice. I had an article that said they were providing defense funds through a subsidary of Koch industries.

I looked for it. The article was in February. I just googled it. It was on another website I look at from time to time to get ideas to post on here. I can't find it.

(05-23-2016 01:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02...dy-agenda/

post the content of the article so we don't have to give them clicks.

I don't think that GTS would appreciate that.

Correct. You can summarize. You can quote some excerpts. In both cases please link back. And never post a full article.