Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

 d-usa wrote:
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that.

I'd argue anyone who dreams of gun stand offs with federal agents is dumb enough

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Agreed on all accounts.

 d-usa wrote:

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.

I was thinking the same thing.

I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.

But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.

But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.

I truly hope these people aren't stupid enough to shoot.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.

Yeah, that is not the way things should be solved in democratic, civilised states. Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.

And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.

Come on Bundy. Don't screw the pooch this time. Stick it to the Man!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.

Yeah, that is not the way things should be solved in democratic, civilised states. Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.

And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.

Wasn't Putin's solution to order to fire RPGs into a school gym filled with hostages?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.

Wasn't Putin's solution to order to fire RPGs into a school gym filled with hostages?

Putin had nothing to do with it, but yes, the FSB did that. Death to terrorists and all that. However I like to think US authorities have a higher regard for lives.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

The cite from Cornell is the accurate cite. The one Iron Captain uses is not from the criminal section of the US code, but rather the one used by the State Department for international relations; and that definition is limited to that scope.

They said they they won't rule out violence, which is pretty much any reasonable person's definition of threatening violence. Their own statements are textbook seditious conspiracy.

Ideally the situation will be resolved with the minimum of force required to apprehend and charge them; hopefully none. This is almost certainly a big hullaballoo about nothing; they claim there are as many as 150 people there and they are prepared to stay for weeks, but the initial report from before the police blockaded the area said about a dozen vehicles. You're not fitting anywhere near that number with anywhere near that level of supplies there.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.

But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.

I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."

Yeah, I asked but I didn't really think you'd say otherwise - it's a pretty hard argument to make that the police shouldn't shoot back if they're getting shot at.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.

Yeah, that is not the way things should be solved in democratic, civilised states. Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.

And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

It seems the US Code is self-contradictory then. Its definition of terrorism shifts from chapter to chapter...
Regardless, anti-government resistance is normally not seen as terrorism except by the affected government themselves, which just uses it as an "enemy of the people" kind of lable.

Read Ouze's post a few up.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.

But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.

I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."

Well, I didn't mean "one bullet and firebomb the place" although I can see how I could have phrased it better. But any aggression from the militia should be responded to appropriately. They can't play the victim if they start the mess.

 djones520 wrote:
Read Ouze's post a few up.

I did.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I asked but I didn't really think you'd say otherwise - it's a pretty hard argument to make that the police shouldn't shoot back if they're getting shot at.

I like to think I'm a pretty reasonable guy, even if I find certain definitions of terrorism problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.

But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.

I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."

Well, I didn't mean "one bullet and firebomb the place" although I can see how I could have phrased it better. But any aggression from the militia should be responded to appropriately. They can't play the victim if they start the mess.

Yes, and I didn't think that's really what you meant either. But I did feel as though that phrasing could imply a welcoming of a response that could be construed as overly aggressive, considering that you usually present relatively well-reasoned suggestions.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.

But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.

I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."

The best, yet hardest thing the Feds could do if these clowns shoot at them, possibly even killing one, is to wall them in and wait them out. That way they won't get martyrs and be accused of being trigger happy goons by other extreme right wingers. They would end up clearly becoming the heroes out of this in the eyes of far more people.

I'm just hoping that the idiots surrender soon and it doesn't blow completely out of proportion.

 Jihadin wrote:
Why not serve the remainder of their sentence parole status? Cheaper. Throwing them back in jail because their "Bundy's" to serve the remainder of their time is a bit stupid (after serving the original verdict). Seems like a personnel issue the Government have with these two.

I feel like I should tell you this, they are not "Bundy's". The Hammond's are attempting to distance themselves from this group. Even the people they are "protesting" for are saying they are loony balloonys.

Also, the Hammond's put a lot of people at risk for those fires. While I do not think minimum sentences are a good thing, I do feel that 4 months in prison for starting forest fires in an area that is at risk for them is pretty much a slap on the wrist.

You can get more time for smoking a plant, why get less time for smoking a forest?

Edit: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/oregon-ranchers-to-bundy-militia-go-home-we-dont-want-you-here/

I found this posted online. Warning, it is clearly biased and snarky because Occupy Democrats, but it does give a little more information. Schools are currently closed down on the area, which is confusing, because I didn't even know school started back up this early.

There is a nickname going around for these guys
YallQeada

To quote one of the militia:

This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country. Everybody’s looking for this hope because the government has beat us, oppressed us and took everything from us. They will not stop until we tell them no.

Really? You have no idea whatsoever about what true oppression or tyranny is do you? Just because you can't do what you want you feel that you're being oppressed? Words fail me. You do realise that this is 2016, not the 1800's? That the US is a civilised country, not some lawless frontier country?

It just highlights how useless the word "terrorist" has become. It's used to scare people and to turn the target from a person into a demon, someone who acts the way they do because they're intrinsically bad. Nobody is a demon.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
There is a nickname going around for these guys
YallQeada

I've seen "Vanilla isis" which whilst a bit wide of the mark trips off the tongue wonderfully.

 reds8n wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
There is a nickname going around for these guys
YallQeada

I've seen "Vanilla isis" which whilst a bit wide of the mark trips off the tongue wonderfully.

These guys are on a "YeeHawd".

I shamelessly stole it from somebody because it made me laugh, I also think we should start a petition for Jihadin to change his name to YeeHawdin.

Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"

I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"

I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?

I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?