Is what's going on in Oregon "Terrorism" ? Nope...

[cbelt3]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...story.html

"Really? Who is being terrorized? A big component of terrorism is instilling widespread fear. At the moment, neither federal nor local officials seem to be quaking at the sight of these right-wing militants. The occupiers have a political agenda, and they are potentially very dangerous. But absent violence or plausible threats of violence, they are not terrorists.

Slapping people with the charge of terrorism just because you detest what they are doing is not clear-eyed truth-telling. It's a lazy smear"


Ultimately it's a classic 19th century 'range dispute', with water rights up there too.

[SteveO]

Except for the fact that it's not the 19th century, those people grazed their livestock on federal land (a privilege to start with, not a right) and we've now amassed a large portfolio of white men and others with weapons killing innocents at home and abroad.

Tell the people who have been victims of previous "disputes" that this is not terrorism. Tell my friend whose brother was shot up on a US Army base on US soil and required several surgeries and now walks with a limp and is in constant pain that this is not terrorism.

I seriously hope you're being facetious and just pointing out media stupidity and spin.

[OWC Jamie]

You're not hiding under the covers shivering with the left wing media's white man terrorism narrative ?
You're supposed to be.
Fear, fear, fear.
It's not those muslims that want to destroy the world we have to be concerned with - it's a couple of nuts that could easily be ignored in the middle of nowhere.
Buy the bull, it's good for you.
Shiver under the covers of your nanny state blankets .

[rjmacs]

They're insurgents or rebels, not terrorists. I'm speaking specifically about the Bundys and their ilk.

[Speedy]

rjmacs wrote:
They're insurgents or rebels, not terrorists. I'm speaking specifically about the Bundys and their ilk.

Why, that's just un-American to call these patriots those kind of names. They are good Christian God-fearing men. Not like those nasty foreign Syrian refugee terrorists posting on social media and visiting other terrorists in the old country.

[Black]

Anti-terrorism laws have been abused and over-applied since there have been anti-terrorism laws.

[decay]

Seditionists and traitors, maybe.

[SteveO]

Cbelt, you have my apology for insinuating that you are stupid and ignorant like the media imo. That was crappy of me, and I'm sorry.

I consider them terrorists because they've taken over government property with their weapons and they've threatened to use them. Plus one could guess that many townspeople and schoolchildren in the area have been frightened, nanny blankets notwithstanding.

I do understand that others may not consider them terrorists. I can see where some would consider them insurgents, seditonists, traitors, but to me all of the terms above apply in this particular case.

[Carnos Jax]

Agreed. Bundy and his guys threaten violence with the brandishing of their weapons. These guys are cut from the same cloth as the ones who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, which was partly inspired by the events at Ruby Ridge and Waco (which were in the middle of no where too) yet one would be a fool in hindsight to dismiss their movement as non-terroristic.

[hal]

If you wanna call it stomping around menacingly with guns - I'm fine with that, but terrorism is so much shorter. It's just a fucking word - it means whatever we say it means.