Right wing terrorists take over federal building in Oregon; includes two of cliven buddy's sons

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/0...deral-building/

Edited January 4, 201610 yr by raBBit

Right wing terrorists take over federal building in Oregon; includes two of cliven buddy's sons

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/0...deral-building/

I would think this would be a bigger story....

Angry white people doing what angry white people always do. It's a non story.

I would think this would be a bigger story....

Yea I haven't heard anything on this until now...

Weird how our tyrannical govt has treated this group with such delicacy to prevent unnecessary violence. It's very atypical for a tyrant. Oh well.

Right wing terrorists take over federal building in Oregon; includes two of cliven buddy's sons

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/0...deral-building/

Terrorism isn't the right description. This isn't an attempt to make the populace fearful for random attacks. This is specifically directed at government, and is an armed seizure of property.

 

It is sedition.

 

Terrorism isn't the right description. This isn't an attempt to make the populace fearful for random attacks. This is specifically directed at government, and is an armed seizure of property.

 

It is sedition.

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism:

 

"Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; and

 

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

 

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

 

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

 

Seems pretty much in line with the bolded.

Edited January 3, 201610 yr by maggsmaggs

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism:

 

"Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; and

 

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

 

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

 

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

 

Seems pretty much in line with the bolded.

FBI's definition will at all times be broad, though the actual definition is narrower, by the nature of the role of the FBI.

 

Dictionary definition of terrorism:

1. the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

2. the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

 

Dictionary definition of sedition:

1. the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government

2. incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

 

The latter, to me, is much more accurate in this scenario. It is less terror and fear within "the people", and more rebellion against government. I can see your point, but to me, this is sedition.

 

Well that definition seals the deal that #blacklivesmatter is without a doubt a terrorist organization.

LOL

Well that definition seals the deal that #blacklivesmatter is without a doubt a terrorist organization.

 

Not that as much as I was thinking about the protests against Rahm where protesers were invading stores.

 

Though I will say I have no problem with the military going into this place in Oregon fully armed, as if they were terrorists, seeing as they are armed, and could very well be shooting at them.

Surprised no one has made a thread with this yet. Why the lack of coverage/interest overall in our environment?

There are a few posts in the new Democratic thread.

 

Honestly, I have no idea what these guys are trying to accomplish, just looks like they want to be martyrs. Seems like a dumbass thing to do.

They are so upset that the BLM doesn't allow land the federal govt owns has protections on it and want to get special treatment or else that means they can revolt.

I've tried to read about 5 articles about this situation, yet I still have no idea what is going on and really don't care whatsoever, no matter how many comparisons to ISIS or BlackLivesMatter I read.

They are mad because the BLM got 2 farmers convicted as terrorists for starting a fire on their land that also burned 150 acres of BLM controlled land. That terrorist designation will screw them up for the rest of their lives. Yet they often let other 'terrorists' go free (enviro protestors, BLM asshole, etc).

I've tried to read about 5 articles about this situation, yet I still have no idea what is going on and really don't care whatsoever, no matter how many comparisons to ISIS or BlackLivesMatter I read.

It will probably make more sense when you realize blm doesn't stand for black lives matter, ha. Well, still doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you dont use the # it doesnt count

I'm cheering for the billies.

Edited January 4, 201610 yr by Swingandalongonetoleft

They are mad because the BLM got 2 farmers convicted as terrorists for starting a fire on their land that also burned 150 acres of BLM controlled land. That terrorist designation will screw them up for the rest of their lives. Yet they often let other 'terrorists' go free (enviro protestors, BLM asshole, etc).

 

That's what they were originally mad about, but the 2 ranchers told these crazy militia guys to go away, they didn't want their "support" and neither did the local community, so the militia guys went and took over a national wildlife refuge. They believe that this land was illegally acquired by the federal government (along with most/all? federally controlled land in the west) and represents "tyranny." They want it turned over to "local control" aka ranchers/miners/loggers.

 

As for the original two guys, there are allegations that they started the first fire to cover up illegal poaching from BLM land. There's also the nature of Western wildfires, where a small 150 acre fire can become 1500 acres in a matter of hours. The second 1-acre fire was set as a firebreak, but allegedly endangered volunteer firefighters who were in the area fighting a lightning-caused wildfire. More information on the backstory of that here. They weren't "convicted as terrorists" but were sentenced to a mandatory minimum 5 years under a law called Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which includes the mandatory 5 years for arson which destroys any real property owned by the federal government. They aren't designated as terrorists, and they were never called terrorists by the government.

 

Environmental groups are much more likely to be followed, tracked and harassed by the FBI than right-wing militia groups, generally speaking. The FBI spent a lot of time and effort in the mid 00's on ELF/ALF, and it even resulted in very similar sentences for arson in Oregon.

 

The feds really can't back down again like they did the first time these guys pointed weapons at BLM officials.

That's what they were originally mad about, but the 2 ranchers told these crazy militia guys to go away, they didn't want their "support" and neither did the local community, so the militia guys went and took over a national wildlife refuge. They believe that this land was illegally acquired by the federal government (along with most/all? federally controlled land in the west) and represents "tyranny." They want it turned over to "local control" aka ranchers/miners/loggers.

 

As for the original two guys, there are allegations that they started the first fire to cover up illegal poaching from BLM land. There's also the nature of Western wildfires, where a small 150 acre fire can become 1500 acres in a matter of hours. The second 1-acre fire was set as a firebreak, but allegedly endangered volunteer firefighters who were in the area fighting a lightning-caused wildfire. More information on the backstory of that here. They weren't "convicted as terrorists" but were sentenced to a mandatory minimum 5 years under a law called Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which includes the mandatory 5 years for arson which destroys any real property owned by the federal government. They aren't designated as terrorists, and they were never called terrorists by the government.

 

Environmental groups are much more likely to be followed, tracked and harassed by the FBI than right-wing militia groups, generally speaking. The FBI spent a lot of time and effort in the mid 00's on ELF/ALF, and it even resulted in very similar sentences for arson in Oregon.

 

I cant help but think, that if other groups were heavily armed and taking over federal property/land, it would be a Fox News "Breaking Story"...

The feds really can't back down again like they did the first time these guys pointed weapons at BLM officials.

 

This group really isn't a threat of anything except embarrassing themselves. Not making them martyrs is the smart move. Nobody thinks Waco was handled well, and that started with them shooting at ATF agents.

 

Let it ride, do not go in. Maybe play loud music, cut power, etc. Treat it like a hostage situation.

 

Although I'm not sure what it says when basically any obstinate behavior in an episode with a police officer where you end up dead is considered justified, but if the Feds went in guns blazing to a group that has taken over federal property with guns gets people the benefit of the doubt.

This group really isn't a threat of anything except embarrassing themselves. Not making them martyrs is the smart move. Nobody thinks Waco was handled well, and that started with them shooting at ATF agents.

 

Let it ride, do not go in. Maybe play loud music, cut power, etc. Treat it like a hostage situation.

 

Although I'm not sure what it says when basically any obstinate behavior in an episode with a police officer where you end up dead is considered justified, but if the Feds went in guns blazing to a group that has taken over federal property with guns gets people the benefit of the doubt.

Oh yeah, definitely not saying they need to storm the compound or anything, but they can't just let them win like they did at the Bundy ranch. If they want a siege and to live in a tiny cabin with allegedly 150 dudes (more like 20) for months/years like they're saying, give it to them. Nobody needs to die here, despite their "willing to kill or be killed" rhetoric.

I cant help but think, that if other groups were heavily armed and taking over federal property/land, it would be a Fox News "Breaking Story"...

 

It's been on the top half of the front page of foxnews.com for a few days now.