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

You were the one saying you were checking off mass murder of innocent civilians. If it doesn't belong then why is it on your checklist?

did they not say they are willing to fight til the death?

you don't think that means somebody is gonna die?

it doesn't NEED to be a mass murder.

hell, by terrorism definition, nobody even needs to die.

but fight til the death is what i checked off. it's the same thing the losers did to us down range.

my checklist is comprised of their similarities with ISIS. they don't need to be a direct reflection to be compared.

it's funny how the only thing on the checklist you can cry about is the murder part.

it's like you completely ignored everything else, because you can't say anything about it.

but if you wanna dance tonight, we can. this is entertaining.

Sorry Swish, but you're the one dancing. I said "mass murder of innocent civilians" and you said you'd check it on the list. That's all she tried to point out, and you threw everything but the kitchen sink into the debate.

Yep he dances and deflects and makes up stories to fit his points. It gets old.

No I dont...I think its a bunch of hot air...what are they going to say...hey Mr Fed and Mr. Policeman...I'm going to fold at the first sign of pressure??

We will see if I'm wrong about that.

The Isis thing..idk man I agree with you on a lot of stuff pertaining to that part of the world...but they arent chopping peoples heads off or burning them alive...or even have a history of murder or doing the same stuff Isis does.

And part of me wonders if brother Swish is making the connection to have entertainment for yourself...or just screw with people...and keep the discussion going

I think a lot of them are jackholes and run their mouth to sound tuff and draw attention to the situation...but I HIGHLY doubt anyone will be getting killed over this...unless the feds or police get a hair up their behind and pull a Waco kind of deal...

But carry on man...I enjoy reading the responses myself

Terrorism: the use of force or threats to intimidate etc., esp. as a political policy

terrorist n., adj.

How do these Oregon folks fill these shoes?

not really.

you see she dodged all the other questions, right? and you see she only responded after somebody came to her defense, right?

1 person being murdered, nobody being murdered, or multiple people being murdered. it doesn't matter bro.

they fit the description of terrorism. THAT's a direct response to your question, J.

here's a nice little nugget:



so by her own definition of terrorism, religion plays a part.

i already posted an article of the guy saying he was sent by God. he's following what God told him to do.

isn't that what ISIS says, as well J?

so y'all can get mad at me all you want, but at the end of the day, they have A LOT that they compare to of ISIS and other terrorist organizations.

so don't get mad at me Eve, i'm not the one who engaged in this crap out there in Oregon.

i've answered your questions, made comparisons, and everything else as politely as possible.

Eve is the one constantly calling me racist, taking personal shots and all that.

I'm just calling it how i see it.

they stormed into a federal building armed.

thats a threatening posture. that also shows they are willing to shoot if needed. if not, why bring the guns?

this is a political issue. another check mark.

they're trying to get the feds to adhere to their list of demands, that's intimidation, especially since they have weapons.

i don't know why everybody is upset with me, when all i did was put two and two together.

I'm not upset with you...I just disagree that they are going to go out guns a blazing...unless the po po does what I referenced earlier...even then I'm not sure.

But I enjoy reading everyones responses

I'm not mad at you, I'm just calling you out on your crap. Fact is, these people won't be terrorising anyone in an empty building. Also, fact is, our very own federal government refuses to call anyone a terrorist unless it involves mass murder and radical Islam.

You can come up with whatever definition you want, but if the rest of the country marches to a different drummer, well, good luck with that. Start your own country.

then why come armed?

nobody has answered that yet.

Well if you research Oath Keepers thats what they do...would it make a difference if it was anything but guns?

what crap?

and you still haven't responded to my questions about you dodging my other part of the check list.

i didn't come up with the definition of terrorism. whoever put it in the webster dictionary did.

and so empty building matters now? so if muslims bombed an empty federal building, it wouldn't be terrorism, right?

i'm only using your words.

And to my recollection they have never so much as broke the law..let alone perform terrorist acts...though I guess that last statement is left to interpretation now isnt it..

Swish, no one is upset. I, personally, just have a difficult time comparing these people to the animals in San Bernardino or ISIS.

Have you seen any of the interviews?

Have they taken lives of innocent men or women?
Have they taken lives of innocent children?

Why have you never referred to the BLM people as terrorists?

They threaten, attempt to (unsuccessfully) intimidate police officers, shut down roads, wreak havoc in public places, scream swear and disrespect others (and themselves in the process) disrupt the lives of people who have nothing to do with their issue and accomplish very little with their disrespect and demeaning of themselves.

it could be a bunch of machetes.

they would still be considered armed.

they are trying to forcefully take something that never belong to them

they sent a list of demands, and came in armed.

also, their leader was sent by god, and is following what God told him.

^^^^^^^ all of that are straight facts.

so, if we attached the word "muslim" to it, everybody on this board would be calling them terrorist.

you know it. i know it.

but because they aren't muslims, for sooooome reason, they get the benefit of the doubt?

ok.

they are trespassing on federal property.

Muslims wouldn't waste their time. ISIS objective is to kill people, not blow up empty building.

And I'm not aware of you having any relevant questions. Most/all of your responses are spin.

Have a great night man...I just dont agree with comparing them to Isis...if they was muslim with the exact same situation I would say they are doing what they think is their patriotic duty...but they aint muslims or arab...and only partly agree with their methods.

But people are getting sick of what the government is doing and I think we will witness more pushing back.

Does that make them terrorist?? maybe..guess who's side you line up with..

Have a good night Swish...I'm sure there will be more events for us to discuss my friend.

Alrighty this is getting old. I have work to do and have entertained you guys for far too long

why does everybody keep on bringing up BLM?

it's like you guys intentionally ignore when i say i don't support their movement.

some of the stuff they do could very well be considered terrorism.

but unlike most of you, i don't have a double standard, i call things as i see it.

but let's make this clear, C.

what did i say at the beginning of the thread? i didn't consider them terrorist, as i thought they had merit on what they thought was right. especially with the guys getting punished over again.

but see, people wanna ignore that. i've noticed that when i agree with people, they ignore everything i say as if i didn't post anything. but the moment i have a different opinion, people come out the woodwork to argue.

but since alot of posters seem to think religion has a factor of terrorism, what did i do next, C?

i posted a link that had the guy said he was following god's orders.

but you see what happened next, right? i showed them the qualifying factor of religion, and now people are now trying to spin it to "mass murder"

basically, you guys just keep back pedaling and back pedaling.

and then, the BLM factors come out of nowhere, thus trying to spin it as if to say "but but but...what about those guys!!!"

so at this point, it's become less of a discussion and turned into pure entertainment.

i waiting on somebody to say i'm a terrorist because i'm turkish, next. i have a feeling it's gonna come sometime this year.

so you're not gonna answer the question about the other parts of the check list?

if nobody is gonna call you out on dodging, then i will.

Youre a terrorist because youre Turkish

I'm a terrorist because I'm a middle aged white male who believes in the constitution and the 2nd amendment

Have a great night man.

But as the thread progressed, you questioned most people as to why they didn't call them terrorists.

Your first post was a race bait post, and you know it.

Not calling you out, just calling it as I see it from the posts.

yes, because there's a clear double standard of when the label gets applied in this country.

that was the entire point.

if you're not gonna call a group terrorist, then don't apply it to the others.

by the legal definition of terrorism, there are a ton of groups that it can be applied to.

No, dude, I have other things to do than worry about your imaginary made up checklist. Especially since your list keeps changing. Get a secretary for it or something.

but the list didn't change.

you just can't counter anything. didn't you say you was leaving?

you still here?

It'ss hard to leave a trainwreck.

i know, especially when you're actively part of it.

I can agree with that haha.

Turkish Terrorist Trainwreck.

Where is the use of occupier-initiated violence thus far?
Without violence, in some form other than self-defense, there is no terrorism.

There isnt...and I dont think there will be either but we are living in strange times...

From everything I've seen of this, they are pretty much the ONLY people out there.

It may as well have been a kid with a cap gun walking into a State park in the dead of winter and claiming the BBQ pavilion as his.

Yeah, yeah... they have guns; but, unless someone/something shows up, they have absolutely nothing to use them on and nobody is even heading out there.

They basically selected a spot for this specifically and very carefully.

1. Oregon is an open-carry state. Them having guns and showing them is perfectly legal there. Thus, this is NOT a problem.
2. They are peacefully assembled. Them being on federal land is not a problem.
3. They say that they'll fight back if someone tries to forcibly remove them.... well, once you accept that there is no issue with #1 & #2, then #3 is really just their right to defend their Constitutional Rights.

As crazy as it sounds, because of WHERE they chose to do this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing. Add in that the place is ridiculously remote, and they actually pose zero threat to anyone.

i can argue all those points, but #3 is the most obvious.

they don't belong there in the first place, as they are trespassing.

the land doesn't belong to them, right? which is why they needed permits in the first place, or anything they do on that land with regards to cattle is illegal.

their right to assemble is being trumped by the fact that they have no legal argument in the first place.

also, you guys are arguing feelings now, which is odd because everybody likes to cite sources, and love using facts, but when it comes to the term terrorism, feelings come in to play.

a perfect example being this notion that somehow because it's open land in a non busy area, it must be ok?

no. wrong is wrong, no matter the lack of people surrounding it.

so if the building was occupied, then would it matter?

it doesn't but according to this board, it is.

if i hit punch you in the head in the middle of the woods, is it still assault? if i punch you in the head in the middle of downtown cleveland, is it something else?

oh....it's the same crime regardless of location? ok.

Agreed, and they got their Press time as they planned.

Not so Elmer Fudd after all.
Murica!

It's Federal land, it DOES belong to them. It belongs to ALL of us.... or did you forget that We the People ARE the Federal gov't, and it's Masters?

Permits may be required simply to prevent multiple groups from assembling/protesting in the same area on the same day (also as a way for the gov't to collect money)

No, the Right to Assemble is not being trumped by anything. Their chosen reason to assemble doesn't matter in any regard; they have the Right to Peacefully Assemble.



I'm not. I'm stating facts and law.

It is an Open-carry state, and they are peacefully assembled - LEGALLY - on federal land.

What laws have they broken at this point that warrant any action being taken against them?

they stormed a federal building armed, purp.

they didn't pay their permits.

key word: permits.

which means they need PERMISSION to be allowed to do what they want to do with their cattle.

oh, and federal building, and weapons

Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

so don't get upset with me for pointing out the issues.

man, i wish you guys was this passionate when talking about civil injustices. but i'm not in the least surprised. these are y'all boys.

but i'm not surprised anymore. you guys blast the people that look like me, and blast me for defending them sometimes, but defend your own with such force.

i'm out of here.

My family and I stormed a picnic shelter last summer at one of our local state parks. We established one heck of a lunch, then followed it up with a massive assault on a playground. It was a good day.