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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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?

Why is your avatar what seems to be Mario raping Princess Peach? Is that a great thing to use as an avatar?

Anyway, Muslims get tired of being associated with terrorists, and acting like terrorism is a Muslim thing (in particular I want to say jihad isn't a thing intrinsic to terrorists, or exclusive to terrorists) does that. Most people in our countries don't know a lot of Muslims, so whenever people say things like that it deepens the association and there's not a lot to counterbalance it.

Also it's sort of complicated because whether "terrorist" is applied to someone is generally deeply political? For example, you probably wouldn't say that America is committing acts of terrorism even though it kills Daesh members, officials, infrastructure, etc. even including killing related civilians. It mainly seems to be a term used to delegitimise the use of force by some party?

It's probably best to leave Muslims out of it. They didn't even invent it (the French did).

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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?

Why is your avatar what seems to be Mario raping Princess Peach? Is that a great thing to use as an avatar?

What about my avatar screams rape?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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?

Anyway, Muslims get tired of being associated with terrorists, and acting like terrorism is a Muslim thing (in particular I want to say jihad isn't a thing intrinsic to terrorists, or exclusive to terrorists) does that. Most people in our countries don't know a lot of Muslims, so whenever people say things like that it deepens the association and there's not a lot to counterbalance it.

Also it's sort of complicated because whether "terrorist" is applied to someone is generally deeply political? For example, you probably wouldn't say that America is committing acts of terrorism even though it kills Daesh members, officials, infrastructure, etc. even including killing related civilians. It mainly seems to be a term used to delegitimise the use of force by some party?

It's probably best to leave Muslims out of it. They didn't even invent it (the French did).

I don't think you understood the references then. Isis and Al Qaeda are both major terrorist organizations. Both of them use jihad as an excuse to do what they do.

Apologies for making terrorist jokes referencing terrorist organizations aimed at a group of domestic terrorists.

Let them have their "fun"
I get concern when "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" start getting said. Then I start cleaning my rifles and side pieces

Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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?

Two reasons.

For one, because a lot of people currently take the muslim crazies as not crazies but as representative of mainstream muslim thinking. Most muslims are just ordinary people trying to get on with their lives peacefully and in accordance with law and do not need any more unfair discrimination from the majority.

For the second, 'jihad' has the meaning of personal struggle against religious failings. To equate it with ISIL's violence is the same kind of confusion as mixing up pilgrimage, crusade and invasion.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.

Bull gak.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.

Bull gak.

Ninja'd

 LordofHats wrote:
Option 4, all of the above.

Only way this ends without people dying is, unfortunately, by a crazy militia to grow some sense and stop being crazy, and since when is that something crazy militias do?

Hammonds have stated they don't want any of this. Local area is not supportive.

Protest fine. A sub group taking over a small office (its a simple park entrance office-no biggie) is a different thing.

Just cut off the power and water. they will be out in a week and then arrest the ringleaders.

Or we can freak out, call them terrorists, and napalm the place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is this the same Bundy guy from that dakka thread ages ago? The one Frazz wanted to run over with an Abrahams tank or something?

yes. Since that thread I have been reading Zologa books comparing the Sherman easy 8, Panther, Korea era M26s vs. T-34 85s, and now one on comparing the Tiger II vs. IS II.

Based on that I would have to modify my initial statement.

Instead of an Abrams use an M48 Patton. Its sturdy and they finally got the drive train and engine right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Issue them a deadline, wait for their reaffirm of violence if met with lawful action...

Take extreme action to remove them as they have placed themselves in the position of hostile combatants.

After seeing a pic of the building I have to suggest we wait them out and do the crush and grind once they leave. The building itself is a beautiful little thing with beautiful slate roofs and rock walls. Its hardly more than a large cabin and reminds me of the Inks Lake one where I spread the parents' ashes. To pretty to mess up.

Now once they leave, well its time to get that old M48 into gear!

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.

Bull gak.

Armed men take over a Federal building, there is talk of overthrowing the government and...nothing happens...

 Jihadin wrote:
Let them have their "fun"
I get concern when "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" start getting said. Then I start cleaning my rifles and side pieces

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45435_Video-_Ammon_Bundy_Says_God_Told_Him_to_Go_to_Oregon

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.

Bull gak.

Armed men take over a Federal building, there is talk of overthrowing the government and...nothing happens...

Armed men take over a small structure isolated in the woods on federal land where they are zero threat to anyone out of line of sight, yes, nothing happens. No 'cratering' takes place no matter what their skin color or religious affiliation or college football team preference. And as if skin color REALLY makes a difference in how the feds handle folks, see Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian compound. Compare to how they handled the Ferguson riots where innocent people were actually put in danger by the actions of the perps.

 Ustrello wrote:
Did you burn public land? And 139 acres of it also almost killing some people?

Its a separate issue.

One issue is the legal charges, and weirdness around that. Thats for attorneys and people legally marching/demonstrating, just like Chicago or anywhere else.

The other issue is an armed group occupying a park building, and trying to get the government to attack them. The US has a long history of not tolerating such, nor should it.
Blockade them with buses of hipsters brought in from Portland, complaining about how this is all so gauche and where's the nearest Startbucks. That'll drive em out!

TBf these sort of things happen over here too

http://newsthump.com/2016/01/04/warhammer-players-seize-branch-of-games-workshop/

Protesters have occupied a branch of Games Workshop in protest at rules changes which mean they may lose their favourite characters.

Described as ‘militant’ warhammer players, the group of 150 seized the Stevenage branch over New Year when it was lightly guarded and announced their intention to ‘kill or be killed’ in order to defend their expertly painted miniatures.

Warhammer fans are known as a tight-knit and insular group who live in seclusion, shun outsiders and massively overreact to any perceived threat to their highly prized armies.

Recent rules updates to Warhammer are believed to have sparked the protests, with thousands of players expected to lose to prized heroes and years of effort in learning complex, byzantine rules exploit, and this is seen as another flareup in years of conflict between Games Workshop and their customers.

Calling themselves Aelf-Queda, the group have confirmed their willingness to stay for years, as they’ve now got loads of figures and paints which will keep them occupied pretty much indefinitely.

Speaking to us through a pair of tin cans and a piece of string, Aelf-Queda member Simon Williams told us that the group had to take a “Hard Stand” over Games Workshop’s treatment of loyal customers.

“We’re calling on other groups to stand up and join us”, he said. “Especially anyone with a Chaos or Slaanesh army, as those bad boys can really tip things in your favour”.

“Why, no, I’ve never felt the loving touch of a woman, why do you ask?”

Games Workshop are reported to be ‘not that fussed’ by the protesters as they might not like the new rules but they’re still buying them.

 Jihadin wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”"

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

Even money says this is going to SCOTUS LOL

Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I back the Bundy in this. Till they make dumb racist remarks then I drop them em like a pesky Insurgent

So far they were sentenced, served, and release. Now they're going back in for the mandatory due to 9th Circuit decision.

They aren't going on trial again they are simply being put back in jail for the correct amount of time. So no they did not serve their time

If that's the case, then it need to be declared a mistrial and re-tried.

No they were found guilty. The issue is the sentencing. You are correct in that there should be new hearings on the sentencing.

None of that matters to the ones occupying the park building. they are committing an illegal act of tresspass and have threatened the use of violence. That ratchets it to a felony.
Sounds like a job for that legend of deputies: Barney Fife.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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?

Two reasons.

For one, because a lot of people currently take the muslim crazies as not crazies but as representative of mainstream muslim thinking. Most muslims are just ordinary people trying to get on with their lives peacefully and in accordance with law and do not need any more unfair discrimination from the majority.

For the second, 'jihad' has the meaning of personal struggle against religious failings. To equate it with ISIL's violence is the same kind of confusion as mixing up pilgrimage, crusade and invasion.

Well, for your first reason nobody has been discriminating against Muslims in here. Isis and Al Qaeda were singled out for jokes, but seeing as how the majority of the Muslim community has disowned them, I find it hard to see that making fun of them is the same as making fun of Muslims. It would be like Christians being insulted when people make fun of the Westboro Baptist Church. Regardless, twisting the names of known terrorist groups in an effort to make fun of a group of domestic terrorists using word play is far from insulting towards an entire religion.

For the second, 'jihad' has more than just one meaning in the Muslim world. It refers to an inner spiritual struggle as well as an outer physical struggle. Not really sure where you were going with the pilgrimage, crusade, and invasion thing. I think you may be forgetting what the Crusades were, which was a Holy Invasion to protect Pilgrimage.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.

I think you'll find some of us have maintained our position all along, and invented new and interesting ways involving tank treads for dealing with the situation.
However, I would not view this as terrorism, but more crime akin to other armed situations like Wounded Knee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Let them have their "fun"
I get concern when "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" start getting said. Then I start cleaning my rifles and side pieces

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45435_Video-_Ammon_Bundy_Says_God_Told_Him_to_Go_to_Oregon

Is he saying God's a Democrat? Thats Blue Country.

I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.

B; They do not represent militias and other pro-American groups. They represent themselves.

C: Guess: The administration, Hillary and anti-American media will use this as an example for another anti-gun go round.

D: The cause is actually just even if it is just an excuse for them to make the news. The Hammonds got screwed over by the corrupt A-holes at BLM who fabricated lies about them. The fact they lit this back fire to burn away brush to head off a massive lightning caused fire on government land heading towards them and effectively saved the land is not something the media is telling everyone. Nor are they mentioning that a 1975 study proved that these fires were very beneficial to the ecology of the area. They also fail to mention this was a BLM land grab starting back in the 80s. Fun fact, a bunch of ranchers refused to sell their land so BLM dammed up a river and effectively flooded out the ranchers and bought the property at a much reduced rate and then removed the dam. That's the kind of government people we are dealing with. Also the prosecution in the case had 6 days to present evidence and only allowed the defense 1 and somehow the jury selection was railroaded by the judge to not allow anyone with any knowledge or experience of ranching or farming.

D: The cause is actually just even if it is just an excuse for them to make the news. The Hammonds got screwed over by the corrupt A-holes at BLM who fabricated lies about them. The fact they lit this back fire to burn away brush to head off a massive lightning caused fire on government land heading towards them and effectively saved the land is not something the media is telling everyone. Nor are they mentioning that a 1975 study proved that these fires were very beneficial to the ecology of the area. They also fail to mention this was a BLM land grab starting back in the 80s. Fun fact, a bunch of ranchers refused to sell their land so BLM dammed up a river and effectively flooded out the ranchers and bought the property at a much reduced rate and then removed the dam. That's the kind of government people we are dealing with. Also the prosecution in the case had 6 days to present evidence and only allowed the defense 1 and somehow the jury selection was railroaded by the judge to not allow anyone with any knowledge or experience of ranching or farming.

And none of that is related to occupying a government building and threatening to kill people. Thats not how a country works under the rule of law.

Col. Dash wrote:
I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.

B; They do not represent militias and other pro-American groups. They represent themselves.

C: Guess: The administration, Hillary and anti-American media will use this as an example for another anti-gun go round.

D: The cause is actually just even if it is just an excuse for them to make the news. The Hammonds got screwed over by the corrupt A-holes at BLM who fabricated lies about them. The fact they lit this back fire to burn away brush to head off a massive lightning caused fire on government land heading towards them and effectively saved the land is not something the media is telling everyone. Nor are they mentioning that a 1975 study proved that these fires were very beneficial to the ecology of the area. They also fail to mention this was a BLM land grab starting back in the 80s. Fun fact, a bunch of ranchers refused to sell their land so BLM dammed up a river and effectively flooded out the ranchers and bought the property at a much reduced rate and then removed the dam. That's the kind of government people we are dealing with. Also the prosecution in the case had 6 days to present evidence and only allowed the defense 1 and somehow the jury selection was railroaded by the judge to not allow anyone with any knowledge or experience of ranching or farming.

A: They are a illegally occupying a government building on government property, while armed and threatening to shoot the government if they attempt to remove them. I dunno, if somebody tells me they are going to shoot me, I get a little scared. Some would say, terrified. It seems the community in the area is taking them seriously enough, since schools have been closed.

B: That is pretty clear, people are distancing themselves from these guys real fast. It is pretty bad when the people you are protesting for tell you to go away, as well as the community you are attempting to

C: Come on, really? Lets just not.

D: What?

Col. Dash wrote:
I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.

Probably should have read through it, then you would have seen how this is a text book definition of domestic terrorism, per US Code.

Wait them out and arrest them like the common criminals they are.

Yup... and hopefully... they'd realize that it's always better to harness all of that energy and enthusiasm into getting a legal team to begin challenging the federal government in court, rather making themselves look like asses.

I don't think going before the court and arguing that the Federal government is oppressing people by charging them with arson when they committed arson, or followed federal statues when a lower court ignored them, is going to go far.

What they need is to write the Congressmen and repeal mandatory minimums. Maybe band together and gather in a lobby of some sort so they can make their voices louder and easier to hear

You had some of these guys making goodbye videos to leave for their family as if they were going to die. I think some of them really want it to become something.

 djones520 wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.

Probably should have read through it, then you would have seen how this is a text book definition of domestic terrorism, per US Code.

Per US criminal code. Other sections of the code say different things. Another commonly accepted definition (also in the US Code) is that terrorism must be aimed at innocent, noncombatant people. What the US criminal code refers to with "domestic terrorism" is what is more neutrally called civil disobedience or rebellion and is something that has been practiced by myriads of groups all over the world for perfectly valid and ethical goals. Calling it terrorism is just a convenient way for the government to put anti-government resistance away as "enemies of the people".
What these people do does not meet many other, more precise definitions of terrorism other than the one the US (and other governments) use to describe any anti-government group if it is politically convenient. Its definition is so broad that it makes pretty much every action against any government ever (including many US-supported groups, WW2 resistance groups and the US rebellion against Britain) into terrorists. It makes "Terrorist" into a meaningless buzzword.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.

Probably should have read through it, then you would have seen how this is a text book definition of domestic terrorism, per US Code.

Per US criminal code. Other sections of the code say different things. Another commonly accepted definition (also in the US Code) is that terrorism must be aimed at innocent, noncombatant people. What the US criminal code refers to with "domestic terrorism" is what is more neutrally called civil disobedience or rebellion and is something that has been practiced by myriads of groups all over the world for perfectly valid and ethical goals. Calling it terrorism is just a convenient way for the government to put anti-government resistance away as "enemies of the people".
What these people do does not meet many other, more precise definitions of terrorism other than the one the US (and other governments) use to describe any anti-government group if it is politically convenient. Its definition is so broad that it makes pretty much every action against any government ever (including many US-supported groups, WW2 resistance groups and the US rebellion against Britain) into terrorists. It makes "Terrorist" into a meaningless buzzword.

Yes... and the US Criminal Code is how these US Citizens will be dealt with, for the crimes that they are committing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.

Is that how it works in Oregon? That juries decide the sentence? Over here that's the Judge's job.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.

Is that how it works in Oregon? That juries decide the sentence? Over here that's the Judge's job.

Juries recommend a sentence but it's the Judge's job to make the final ruling and, in the case of statutory minimums, meet the expectations of relevant laws. The trial judge imposed a sentence less than the mandatory minimum and the higher court revisited the case, found the discrepancy, and is insuring the legal minimum is met.

People can dislike mandatory minimums but if it's the law of the land, it needs to be followed until it's changed.

Pretty clear case, even the two people involved were planning on reporting as ordered (though understandably not liking it) now these yahoos show up and take center stage for the grand show.

 Vash108 wrote:
You had some of these guys making goodbye videos to leave for their family as if they were going to die. I think some of them really want it to become something.

Yep.