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.

 Hordini wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.

costanzabattingcage.png

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

It's not a terrorist if there not causing terror.
They are armed but they have killed no one, not started shooting anyone or taken any hostages.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What?

I was referring to the George Costanza in a batting cage meme you posted.

Because you can't claim self-defense when the police are using force on you for committing a crime. That's like me me murdering someone, then shooting the police when they try to arrest me and claiming I was just defending myself from the police.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?

Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+terrorism&rlz=1C1GIVB_enUS648US648&oq=definition+of+terrorism&aqs=chrome..69i57.3527j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

And yes, actually. Anonymous is considered a terrorist organization by the Federal government, as were the Black Panthers.

Anyone who uses the threat of violence to further a political goal is a terrorist.

Are you sure the Black Panthers were actually considered a terrorist group? Are you sure you're not confusing them with the New Black Panthers? In any case, I should have been less specific. There have been white and black open carry activists who have demonstrated while armed, and they are not domestic terrorists, even though they may have made some people uncomfortable while remaining peaceful.

Anonymous, on the other hand, has actually carried out cyber attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because you can't claim self-defense when the police are using force on you for committing a crime. That's like me claiming "self-defense" after shooting the police who tried to arrest me for murdering someone.

They haven't murdered anyone and don't seem as though they intend to. And I don't think they're referring to making a self-defense claim in court, they're talking about physically defending themselves. Is anyone who resists government use of force a domestic terrorist? Are occupy protesters who physically resist police attempts to clear them out of an area domestic terrorists as well?

 Hordini wrote:
Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist.

Only if the posts are sufficient to suggest a real threat... and well what does that look like?

Just because they have the means to defend themselves,

Defend themselves from what? Being lawfully removed while engaged in illegal activity? Last I checked, breaking into a house does not give one a right to defend themselves from the cops coming to arrest them.

Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists?

No. There had been a march in the town of Burns hours before this started, and some of the marchers were armed but no one called them terrorists.

But this is why I'd argue the word terrorist is an empty word. It means nothing beyond "scary person who poses a threat to me and my life in some hypothetical scenario." It exists more for political ends than anything else.

 Hordini wrote:
Is anyone who resists government use of force a domestic terrorist?

Anyone who uses force or threatens to use force to prevent the government from enforcing the law, in pursuit of a political goal, is a terrorist.

Are occupy protesters who physically resist police attempts to clear them out of an area domestic terrorists as well?

Any occupy protester who uses force or threatens to use force to prevent the government from enforcing the law, in pursuit of a political goal, is a terrorist.

Well, I guess if we're determined to use the word terrorist in the most hollow sense possible, fine. In that case these guys are definitely terrorists, as are all protesters who have ever refused to immediately comply with police commands. And they are all criminals as well. I suppose when you put it that way, I don't mind a little sensationalism myself.


I like my definition better though, quite honestly. Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

 Hordini wrote:
Are you sure the Black Panthers were actually considered a terrorist group? Are you sure you're not confusing them with the New Black Panthers? In any case, I should have been less specific. There have been white and black open carry activists who have demonstrated while armed, and they are not domestic terrorists, even though they may have made some people uncomfortable while remaining peaceful.

Well, I'm not sure the government used the same terminology in the 1960s to describe groups like the Black Panther Party that we would probably use in today's post-9/11 society.

For what it's worth, the FBI called the Black Panther Party a "black nationalist hate group," J. Edgar Hoover called them "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country," and it was the target of an extensive COINTELPRO investigation.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Are you sure the Black Panthers were actually considered a terrorist group? Are you sure you're not confusing them with the New Black Panthers? In any case, I should have been less specific. There have been white and black open carry activists who have demonstrated while armed, and they are not domestic terrorists, even though they may have made some people uncomfortable while remaining peaceful.

Well, I'm not sure the government used the same terminology in the 1960s to describe groups like the Black Panther Party that we would probably use in today's post-9/11 society.

For what it's worth, the FBI called the Black Panther Party a "black nationalist hate group," J. Edgar Hoover called them "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country," and it was the target of an extensive COINTELPRO investigation.

I ought not to have used the Black Panthers as an example, that was my bad. A better example would have just been African-American open carry activists.

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

So, to clarify, civil disobedience while armed, would be by your definition terrorism, because it includes an unspoken threat of force?

If you think civil rights activists never fought back, you need to look into the civil rights movement a bit more.

Martin Luther King also owned firearms for defense. I agree with you that he wasn't a terrorist though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

Not dispersing could be construed as using force because people are physically blocking entry into an area or building. If they are also blocking exit paths, it could even be considered kidnapping in some jurisdictions.

 whembly wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?

Yup, I would also label Samuel L Jackson a terrorist for holding a college hostage in the 60's.

That's kind of the thing about definitions... they don't change just because you like or dislike somebody.

 Hordini wrote:
So, to clarify, civil disobedience while armed, would be by your definition terrorism, because it includes an unspoken threat of force?

using your arms to be disobedient or stating that you intend to use your arms if the authorities attempt to stop your civil disobedience is terrroism.

If you think civil rights activists never fought back, you need to look into the civil rights movement a bit more.

That's not what I said, but nice try.

Not dispersing could be construed as using force

A toaster could be construed as an airplane if you think about it from a certain point of view.

This is clearly one of those times where cooler heads need to prevail. this govt building is a log cabin in BFE. so far noone has been killed, noone has been hurt. Lets keep it that way. these folks are not terrorists, they are idiots. Idiots need to be handled with care. they believe they have a legit beef, so let them vent, let them talk, then send their dumb ...... 's home.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?

Yup, I would also label Samuel L Jackson a terrorist for holding a college hostage in the 60's.

That's kind of the thing about definitions... they don't change just because you like or dislike somebody.

At least you're consistent.

BTW... MLK is widely known to be armed while he was protesting. (for good reason). Obviously, he wasn't a terrorist.

EDIT: ninja'ed by Hordini

 whembly wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?

I wouldn't. Again, I'm not saying I would support the action either, but I wouldn't consider occupying a building in protest terrorism just because some of the members were armed.

Man, I worked in Burns for a month about 10 years ago. I hated it. Nice people, but jesus that town... yuck. Had to drive through it over the holidays last week. Still not a fan.

There is going to be a fairly simple solution. Invest the encampment. Wait. It is 7 degrees there in the day time. Make arrests. This is clearly an illegal form of protest. Its felony B&E. Bye bye Bundy. Enjoy the lovely Ontario, Oregon Prison.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.

Because NEWS, Inc. needs there to be white protestants who are terrorists. There is an activist mindset in journalism today that just can't tolerate the idea of terrorism being an Islam-only phenomenon.

You know there's this place called "Northern Ireland" right? EDIT: Or have I just fallen for a Poe again?

Partly Poe's Law. Partly not. My intent could have been clearer but I like being snarky.

By NEWS, Inc., I meant American news media not European mostly because I'm not familiar with European news outside the BBC. You brought up Norther Ireland, but consider that people from Norther Ireland aren't known for conducting terror activities in the USA, therefore IRA actions don't fit the template American journalists are looking for. In this country "our" media seem to have been longing for a local, home-grown terrorist to pop up, especially if they can tag "right-wing" or "militia" to the headline. It's obvious in the bias over what they want to call a terrorist action and what they want to say isn't terror related. Look at their early headlines of the attack in San Bernardino and the headlines of what's happening in Oregon.

 CptJake wrote:

Relapse wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.

So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.

Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.


And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.

where do you find this nonsense? faux news?

occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.

Wrong.


http://www.ibtimes.com/occupy-wall-street-has-cost-local-businesses-nearly-500000-369174

The occupy movement shut down three west coast ports. A single day of that fethed over a lot more people than occupying a building in the woods will do in the course of a year.

Very true. Yet people seem eager to lionize the occupiers as some sort of heroes.

 whembly wrote:

BTW... MLK is widely known to be armed while he was protesting. (for good reason). Obviously, he wasn't a terrorist.

If he was armed for the intention of shooting some crazy white boy who wanted to walk up to him and blow his head off, that's not terrorism. If he was armed for the intention of popping a cap in the first police officer who attempted to arrest him- that would be terrorism.

Best tweet of the day:

Blow them up, and get the new TRUMP Civil war and Casino underway!

Basically, it's better to just ignore them, as hitting them with a drone strike just makes them both right and martyrs. (After all, no one ares if you drop a drone strike on a US citizen in a foreign country, terrorist or not, but drop one in the US of A, and it's gak to fan contact)

I agree though that it seems a bit odd that they did their time, and on release were determined to need more time in jail. that doesn't sound quite right or at all like the US justice system is supposed to work.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.

If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.

So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?

Yup, I would also label Samuel L Jackson a terrorist for holding a college hostage in the 60's.

That's kind of the thing about definitions... they don't change just because you like or dislike somebody.

 Hordini wrote:
So, to clarify, civil disobedience while armed, would be by your definition terrorism, because it includes an unspoken threat of force?

using your arms to be disobedient or stating that you intend to use your arms if the authorities attempt to stop your civil disobedience is terrroism.

If you think civil rights activists never fought back, you need to look into the civil rights movement a bit more.

That's not what I said, but nice try.

Not dispersing could be construed as using force

A toaster could be construed as an airplane if you think about it from a certain point of view.

I didn't say you said that, I said if you think that, you should look into it more. If you are already well spun up on the subject, then obviously there is no issue. If you don't see how your statement of "When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism" could be seen as you potentially thinking that civil rights activists didn't fight back, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not trying to play a game of gotcha, I'm just making suggestions. I can also see how you could make a statement without thinking of every single possible implication prior to posting it. I do it all the time, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. If I make a statement based on something you posted, and it turns out that I misconstrued it because I don't know everything involved in your thought process, and based on that I made a suggestion that you look into a subject more, that's okay. It doesn't mean I was "trying" for something. The civil rights movement being peaceful is a common misconception that many people have, so me suggesting that you look into it further based on your post isn't that far beyond the pail, and it certainly isn't "nice try" or gotcha material. If I post something like that, I mean it in good faith.

I think our definition of terrorism simply diverges at a critical point. It's not about liking or disliking someone more. I just tend to put more weight on action and stated intent than on potential action. I also tend to view terrorism based more on actual kinetic capabilities and actual intent rather than simple threats. Primarily because I don't want to devalue the use of the word any more than it already has been. For example (and I'm not referring to this case), I don't think armed demonstrators at a rally should be considered domestic terrorists just because someone saw them and felt intimidated or threatened for whatever reason.

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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 whembly wrote:

BTW... MLK is widely known to be armed while he was protesting. (for good reason). Obviously, he wasn't a terrorist.

If he was armed for the intention of shooting some crazy white boy who wanted to walk up to him and blow his head off, that's not terrorism. If he was armed for the intention of popping a cap in the first police officer who attempted to arrest him- that would be terrorism.

What if the crazy white boy who wanted to blow his head off was also a police officer?

I like how I asked a non American why they cared about America's gun laws (and was looking forward to a response) and I got banned from posting for a week. And yet I e seen posts where people on here are calling others dumb or ignorant. Repeatedly. Anyway back on topic

 Hordini wrote:
What if the crazy white boy who wanted to blow his head off was also a police officer?

Then you're supposed to let him do it. Then he goes to jail. fethed up, ain't it?

Laws don't exist to prevent crime, merely punish it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
What if the crazy white boy who wanted to blow his head off was also a police officer?

Then you're supposed to let him do it. Then he goes to jail. fethed up, ain't it?

Laws don't exist to prevent crime, merely punish it.

"Supposed to." That doesn't mean it's necessarily ethical. And I'm not anti-police, just thinking about the times in the south were some police officers were known KKK members. It seems like it would be a terrible situation to be in. Regardless of legality, I don't think someone involved in such a situation who exercised force to defend themselves could rightly be considered a terrorist for that act. Unless we just really want the word to have no meaning whatsoever.

 Hordini wrote:
I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.

I'm a bit mixed.

Do I think that an armed group that has taken illegal possession of a federal building, who are threatening to use lethal force against government agents for enforcing federal laws, and who are calling for people to rise up against the government and "take it back" have earned the title of "terrorist group"? Yes.

Would I consider this a "terrorist attack"? Not really. If they would have shot out some windows, thrown in a couple flashbangs, then stormed the building with guns drawn ready to shoot anybody in there, then I would be very willing to call it an attack. Right now they are more along the act of setting up a Terrorist Winter Camp Adult Day Care.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I agree though that it seems a bit odd that they did their time, and on release were determined to need more time in jail. that doesn't sound quite right or at all like the US justice system is supposed to work.

I'd probably have more sympathy if the first fire hadn't been used to cover up another crime, and the second hadn't put the lives of firefighters at risk (well... more risk). 3-4 Months for what they did was far too lenient, even without the whole mandatory minimums curfluffle.