DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

Can someone explain to me why the Oregon occupiers are not terrorist? Why isn't the media making this a huge issue?


____

Armed men, led by Bundy brothers, take over federal building in rural Oregon


BURNS, Ore. — A group of armed anti-government activists remained encamped at a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon on Sunday evening, vowing to occupy the outpost for years to protest the federal government’s treatment of a pair of local ranchers set to report to prison Monday.

The occupation of a portion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles southeast of Burns, Ore., began a day earlier, after a small group of men broke off from a much larger march and rally held on Saturday evening

The armed occupation is being led by Ammon Bundy, an Idaho rancher whose father, Cliven Bundy, led an armed standoff with federal agents in Nevada in 2014 and who has described his supporters as “militia men.”

Familiar faces among Oregon’s armed occupiers: The notorious Bundy family
View Photos “The war has just begun, “ Ammon Bundy said after his family won the spat with the government over grazing rights in 2014. Now, Ammon and two of his brothers are part of an armed militia that has taken over a building at a wildlife refuge to protest a pair of ranchers’ prison sentences for arson on federal land. Here’s a look at how the 2014 confrontation unfolded.
“Those who want to go take hard stand, get in your trucks and follow me!” Ammon Bundy declared to rally-goers at the conclusion of Saturday’s event, according to several people who were in attendance. Not long afterward, the group had taken over the federal wildlife preserve.

[What spurred the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in southeast Oregon]

Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said authorities from several law enforcement organizations were monitoring the ongoing incident.

Armed occupiers in Oregon say they are 'prepared' to fight
Play Video1:34
A group of armed men who seized a federal facility in Eastern Oregon say they are "prepared" to fight, but they won't say what they would actually do if federal authorities try to remove them by force. (AP)
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Ward said in a statement Sunday. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

Organizers of the rally say several hundred attended the procession through Burns, Ore. — a ranching town of less than 3,000 residents — in a show of support for Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, who in the conclusion of a decades of clashes with the federal government were sentenced last October to serve five years in prison.

Prosecutors accused the Hammonds of committing arson on federal land in 2001 and 2006. The men and their attorneys argued that the fires had been set on their own property — once to prevent the spread of an invasive species of plant and once in attempt to prevent the spread of a wildfire — and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. But prosecutors said the fires were set in attempt to destroy evidence that the Hammonds had been illegally hunting deer on the federal lands.

The two men have previously served prison time for the crimes, but earlier this year a federal appeals court concluded that their initial sentences had been too short — arson on federal property carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years — and ordered the men back to prison.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams,in a statement issued after the Hammonds were sentenced. “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

At a news conference on Sunday, Ammon Bundy said his group had not heard from law enforcement since taking over the unoccupied site and urged other citizens from across the country to join their effort.

If a standoff resulting in violence occurs, Bundy said, it would begin on the government’s side.

“This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it,” he said, adding that they plan to assisting ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land. “We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.”

The occupation of the wildlife refuge, which was not occupied when stormed by the men, comes at the conclusion of a lively weekend for an otherwise sleepy stretch of southeast Oregon.

Snowdrifts and miles of desolate highway studded with sagebrush and tumbleweed separate Burns, Ore., near the refuge, from Boise, Idaho, the nearest big city, which is about 220 miles away. Little traffic was headed toward Boise on Sunday evening, but regulars at the Oasis, a restaurant in Juntura, Ore., said groups of travelers coming from Idaho had been stopping for food and gas on the way to Burns, where they hoped to lend support to the protesters. They didn’t want to talk about it too much. The subject was too sensitive, they said.

Along the 60 miles from Juntura – more a restaurant stop than a town – to Burns, ranches could be spotted about every 20 miles or so among the rolling hills, along with horses and cattle. It was just below freezing, with nighttime lows headed toward 13 degrees.

Familiar faces among Oregon’s armed occupiers: The notorious Bundy family
View Photos “The war has just begun, “ Ammon Bundy said after his family won the spat with the government over grazing rights in 2014. Now, Ammon and two of his brothers are part of an armed militia that has taken over a building at a wildlife refuge to protest a pair of ranchers’ prison sentences for arson on federal land. Here’s a look at how the 2014 confrontation unfolded.


2300oregonrefuge0103
Noting that the group isn’t holding hostages, Ryan Bundy, who is also involved in the siege, echoed his brother, telling the Oregonian that the group doesn’t want to resort to violence but will not rule it out if authorities attempt to remove the occupiers from the property.

The group is calling for the Hammonds’ release and said the militia was planning an occupation that lasted “for years.”

“The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control,” Ryan Bundy told the Oregonian. “What we’re doing is not rebellious. What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.”

One tearful occupier, expecting not to come home, recorded a video railing against the Hammonds’ sentence and saying goodbye to his family. He said he was trying to win the “hearts and minds” of Oregonians.

One of the militia men occupying the fed wildlife refuge in OR left a goodbye video to his family. https://t.co/GIg65GbieV

— JJ MacNab (@jjmacnab) January 3, 2016

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established Aug. 18, 1908, by President Theodore Roosevelt “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds,” according to the park’s website.

“The Refuge represents a crucial stop along the Pacific Flyway and offers resting, breeding, and nesting habitat for hundreds of migratory birds and other wildlife,” a statement on the site says. “Many of the species migrating through or breeding here are highlighted as priority species in national bird conservation plans.”

At Sunday’s news conference, Ammon Bundy said the refuge’s creation was “an unconstitutional act,” one that removed local ranchers from their lands, thrusting the county into an economic depression.

In a video interview with reporters on Saturday that was posted on his Facebook page, Ammon Bundy said the group is standing up against government “overreach” because “the people have been abused long enough.”

“I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we’ll be in a position where we’ll be no longer able to do so,” he said.


Ammon Bundy told the Oregonian that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. (Les Zaitz/the Oregonian via AP)
A video posted days earlier on Bundy’s Facebook page urged militia members from all over the country to join him:

“**ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED.”

[Bundy ranch standoff ‘invigorated’ anti-government groups, report says]

Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told the AP that the bureau was aware of the situation at the wildlife refuge, but she declined further comment.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson told CNN that the agency and the Bureau of Land Management are monitoring the armed protesters.

“While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety, and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident,” the spokesperson said. “We will continue to monitor the situation.”

Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he wasn’t involved in the standoff, but he struck a sympathetic tone.

“That’s not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn’t know what to do,” he said. “You know, if the Hammonds wouldn’t stand, if the sheriff didn’t stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn’t in on that.”

Sign to the Malheur refuge covered with American flags. #BundyMilitia pic.twitter.com/MLT8jsHXmK

— Amanda Peacher (@amandapeacher) January 3, 2016

#bundymilitia supplies head into blocked off camp. Appears to be fuel, food, hiking boots. #burnsoregon pic.twitter.com/yXWfmEu7AJ

— Amanda Peacher (@amandapeacher) January 3, 2016

"I didn't come here to shoot I came here to die."#bundymilitia, (will ID only as "Capt. Moroni") pic.twitter.com/sh83SfWTll

— Amanda Peacher (@amandapeacher) January 3, 2016

MILITIA UPDATE: The local school district in Burns announced it will keep schools closed all week because of the militia situation.

— Les Zaitz (@LesZaitz) January 3, 2016

Bundy & Co. have picked isolated place to make stand – a refuge way out in the desert where it will get -10 or so tonight.

— Les Zaitz (@LesZaitz) January 3, 2016

Militia group members occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge @KTVZ pic.twitter.com/M9TXEBJhP7

— Wanda Moore (@WandaKTVZ) January 3, 2016

@fringeaggressor @instapundit Picture of the "government building" Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters. pic.twitter.com/9HC8WSbuYy

— Just My Thoughts (@PuppetWhySo) January 3, 2016

Late Saturday, the occupiers blocked the entrance of the federal headquarters with a pickup truck and placed an American flag over the welcome sign, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. An Oregon State Police car “idled by the side of the road just outside Burns,” the broadcaster reported, but there were no signs of a larger law enforcement presence in the area.

“We are not hurting anybody or damaging any property.,” Ammon Bundy told OPB. “We would expect that they understand that we have given them no reason to use lethal force upon us or any other force.”

Ron Gainer, the owner of a nearby RV park who dropped off some chili for the occupiers, told the broadcaster that he counted about 15 people, a half-dozen vehicles and a trailer at the site. The estimate differed sharply from the Bundy family accounting, which put the number of people at the refuge at about 150, according to OPB.

By nightfall, the broadcaster noted, the temperature had plummeted to 10 degrees, prompting occupiers to bundle around a campfire. Some of those present identified themselves as nearby residents and supporters of the convicted ranchers.

Asked by an OPB reporter how many militia members were at the headquarters, Bundy didn’t divulge.

“I will not disclose,” he said. “Operational security.”


Link

come on dude, we all know why.

i hate to bring it to that but...lets be real here.

they claimed they aren't gonna hurt anybody, but in the same breath, said they're willing to fight to the death?

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/militia-member-jon-ritzheimer-posts-video

oh and by the way, they took it over armed to the freaking teeth.

Angry white Christians with guns can't be terrorist, it's a demonstration. smh

We don't call American Citizens who rise up against what they feel is a tyrannical Federal government which threatens their livelihood, land and freedoms, terrorists.

Checking out the facts of this matter I have started to smell another Ruby Ridge and Waco. Is the Federal Government serving its citizens by their actions here? What has caused these loyal Americans to take the stand they are taking?

that's funny, cause you're more than happy to call a group of americans who protest because of what they feel is systematic racism and unfair treatment by the federal government thugs, criminals, entitled, welfare queens, etc.

but i guess as long as it's a cause YOU personally agree with, everything is A-ok.

anyway, my issue is this:

this wasn't even being reported that great of a deal until people started pointing out the clear biased in how this is being viewed.

personally, i don't have a problem with what they feel is injustice. now....do i agree? maybe not, but i understand.

however, anything with Clive Bundy's name attached to it is gonna make me question motives, as HE was a clear scumbag.

this group? not so much, i mean basically the judge gave them their initial punishment, then turned around and said "nah, you didn't serve enough time".

that's a load of BS. that also shouldn't be allowed.

however, the big picture is that people aren't even worked up that they are doing this.

it's the fact that these guys get to be called patriots for standing up for whats right, and not have cops or the fed's start a civil war style shoot out, but anybody else who isn't white gets instantly called thugs and criminals, or worse, terrorist.

THAT'S the problem.

Here are several major news publications asking why news publications aren't calling them terrorists. Some published almost 24 hours ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...tia-terrorists/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-militia-takeover-oregon-debate-meaning-of-terrorist/

In other words, they *are* calling them terrorists... but it's fun to hike up semantics to drive debate.

i just got this from your first link:

As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And the Associated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them."

which is from the washington post...asking why the washington post aren't calling them terrorist.

odd...but whatever.

also, it's clear that a good number of major news outlets who are quick to throw a label on everything else, refuses to call similar situations what they are.

Fox news isn't. limbaugh isn't. beck isn't. obviously the washington post, new york times, and AP aren't as well.

also, a ton of people on social media who are......pale in color, aren't calling them terrorist, either.

Quick, and serious non-baiting question - other than them being armed, what are they doing that would make the qualifier "terrorist" versus "armed activist'?

Are they actually conducting themselves in a way to incite fear, or is this more of a defensive posture on their part? It seems to me - and I have NOT looked into this story at all except little bits that I have been unable to avoid - that it is much more the latter than the former, which leads me to be inclined to say that the label "terrorists" simply does not fit. They aren't running around shooting people up to make their point, and they have no political goal except that their Rights stop being infringed upon (supposedly), and they are not using their weapons to impose a clear and immediate threat to anyone.

While they are DEFINITELY walking a thin line, it seems that so far they are still on the correct side of it. Please correct me where I am wrong.

Just for reference, here are a couple background articles. While I think that sending them back to jail is BS, and that there seems to be some other agenda for the government, I do not support the folks that have taken over the wildlife refuge.


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ve-years-prison

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northw...feds_spark.html

i dunno bro.

as i said before, i don't personally see what their doing as wrong. if they feel the feds stepped over their power, hey, do what you gotta do.

the issue isn't that though, its the labels attached to certain groups by certain people/media. certain people can fight the government and be called patriots, others can fight the feds and be labeled thugs and terrorist.

some people might think that isn't important, but it absolutely is.

Ironic because you label groups day after day on here...

I am just shocked to find out that there are non-hipsters in Oregon.

They are telling the government that they are armed and not leaving the property even if police require them to leave the property.

Some are willing to die for this cause(posted videos).

The definition of terrorism :


So by the definition it seems like terrorsim to me.

Here's the long story that I found.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...ly-persecution/

It's from a conservative site, so those liberals who have already made up their minds can avoid a 2nd opinion or other side of the story. It's a very long history of federal land grabs, persecutions, and prosecutions, depending on your point of view.

Thats the thing. Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys is all about perspective. Im sure the folks in ISIS are sure that they are they good guys against the world tyrants. Its all perspective.

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson
Founder
United States of America

I don't consider it terrorism because they are not trying to terrify but rather they are holding a protest. They are not even scary. A tank or two rolls in there and there is not much they can accomplish. I mean seriously.

Far as I know no one has been hurt and no one will be if they are left alone on a piece of land no one even really cares about except them.

I actually think they are brave to do what they are doing even if I don't know if they are right or wrong to do it. I mean its a big issue with ranchers and farmers in the Northwest that the government keeps annexing more and more private land to force people off land that many have owned for over 100 years.

I think the government is abusing its power and lets face it if these guys weren't waving guns around no one would have even known they were there or what they are doing. As it is I doubt even now many people care and would be just fine with them freezing their butts of in no man's land.

i understand you love following me around like a lost puppy in the rain.

but if you could comment on the topic at hand, that would be great.

maybe they are rednecks for hire.

http://www.cmt.com/show/hillbillies_for_hire/series.jhtml

It's not perspective. If the police say you must leave then by law you must leave. If you refuse, then the police can physically remove you. They are saying if you physically remove us we are going to attack you.

I whole heartily disagree.

These militia groups are armed the teeth, many ex-military, they have real-live training exercises and they all believe in a specific ideology.

I think they are very dangerous and a real threat to our society as a whole.

This event made me think of this picture...

Free country bro, you sidetrack threads too so its cool

Terrorist's...These guys just want a gun fight IMO.

They are breaking the law. But call themselves law abiding concerned citizens. That's so typical. They have to know the fed isn't going to give back lands taken by eminent domain. It's how our interstate hwy system was built. These guys will be facing charges in federal court or worse soon enough.

Native's, Settlers, ranchers and farmers have been losing their lands to the federal Gov't since independence day 1776. Bet some native American's all over this land are getting a good laugh and saying we know how this story ends.

I agree. I think they are in the wrong. Im just saying from their point of view they are right.

So let me ask this, if the Feds go in and take back the federal building by force, would y'all be mad?

I wouldn't be mad.

You mean like they did in Waco and Ruby Ridge? Big changes were forced on the Feds after the facts came out about those two incidents. People who learned the facts were mad, real mad.

Depends on if anyone is wearing a hoodie.

I fully expect that is what will happen, and no I wont be mad at all.

I wouldnt be...didnt the occupy wall street do something similar??

I don't remember occupy Wall Street taking over a building with no intention of giving it back.

Or armed. If they did, then I apologize for my ignorance.

Well they didn't go and pop Clive bundy, even though he had it coming because he was 100 percent in the wrong.

Sorry man not armed sorry for leaving that out...but I couldve sworn they did the government building thing...sorry for the confusion Swish..mea culpa.

I'm not so sure of that he was 100% wrong, nor are the ranchers that are going to jail for arson. In case you didn't read the article on the link I posted, here are some excerpts.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

Erik when you post links like that you gotta give me time to read those and understand it. I really do read the links you guys post, but if I don't know anything about the topic like that, I need a bit to digest it.

But to answer the thread from the limited understanding I have, I don't agree with the Feds.

I don't think anybody should have claim to open land, and as far as the Feds go, their only reach should be enforcing things such as endangered species and making sure people aren't polluting.

As far as cattle grazing, I don't really care. But the law is the law, right?

Personally, I wish when it comes to wide open land and wilderness, it was set up like Norway. As long as no one owns the land privately, people are free to explore and do as they wish, as long as they don't trash the place.

Yea I looked bro, they took one building as well. You was right.

They wasn't armed, but I think in the grand scheme of this, it shouldn't matter if they were or not. It was dumb of them to do it.

Just out of curiosity...and may not have anything to do with this..maybe it does....have you saw the maps of just how much land the Federal Government is taking over in this country?

Ive saw many theories as to why...but why do you think they taking over huge amounts of land? Maybe I didnt word it right..excuse me man I'm having a foggy brain moment.