DCLugi Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/
shirgall Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Seems to have the most information, but I have not vetted it: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
Coonage Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Terrorists? Lol! "Patriots" taking a big risk for love of their fellow countrymen. It is refreshing, to see the mouth-foaming savagery coming from the idiot "progressive" left. Bunch of establishment minions, fearful that their place at the vein is put at risk by these freedom-loving Americans. Hopefully this is resolved with more peace, freedom and prosperity for the American people (and at the expense of the parasitic left, would be a nice bonus too). And if not; well, I'm sure that rural whitey will figure something out 1
DCLugi Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 Will this simply boil down to the question of legitimate ownership?
shirgall Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 And, of course, this all happens in the week Obama plans to push gun control... http://www.examiner.com/article/will-obama-exploit-malheur-takeover-to-push-gun-control-agenda 1
shirgall Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Tyler Durden's analysis of the deliberate escalation: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/oregon-standoff-terrible-plan-we-might-be-stuck
sweathog1 Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Terrorists? Seems to me, it would be in order to examine organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and the United Nations Agenda 21. Requires little effort to google maps, of existing/planned parks, wildlife management areas, sanctuaries for endangered species, game/waterfowl preserves, areas withdrawn from industry and so on. It is no secret, that there is a goal of having wildlife corridors stretching from Mexico to Alaska, so species such as Grizzly bears can walk unmolested from north to south or vice versa.
grithin Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Tyler Durden's analysis of the deliberate escalation: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/oregon-standoff-terrible-plan-we-might-be-stuck It is an interesting system, and the notion of this being used to promote further gun restriction is quite possible. First, the system is such that you have a controlled media and a majority of leftist floaters. Leftist floaters in the sense they move whichever way the tide moves, and as such, the system is a controlled reactionary system. In this system, in order to promote a regulation contrary to tightly held right beliefs, you must have an event which causes the lefts to react. It is not enough to have previous events, like school shootings, since, their being in the past, diminishes their reaction-creation effectiveness, and presents more coolness in which the deficiencies in linking gun control to the events can be brought up an seen. So, wouldn't it be suiting if we had at least one felon (see article), shooting and killing one or more of federal employees and tourists right before or around the time in which the new gun restrictions are presented, for use by the controlled media and the left to fuel the agenda. If these events weren't related, you would expect that the occupiers would have some comment on the impending gun restrictions.
Bill Matheson Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 The standoff is not well thought-through. This could turn into a PR blunder and allow the left to push the "white men as terrorist" narrative much further than they've been able to thus far. Possibly advance from there to gun confiscation. Possibly start a civil war. Unnecessary and poorly timed.
grithin Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 The standoff is not well thought-through. This could turn into a PR blunder and allow the left to push the "white men as terrorist" narrative much further than they've been able to thus far. Possibly advance from there to gun confiscation. Possibly start a civil war. Unnecessary and poorly timed. A civil war as a consequence, or even gun confiscation is pretty far fetched as a result of even the worst case outcome. If gun confiscation were that easy, then it would have been achieved with any of the other mass shooting events. A positive side to this story, and the reason I imagine that, if the feds do not use this as an agent provocateured shoot out, the media will give this very little coverage, is, it presents two necessary topics which mainstream loses on if they even touch: - that the right to bear arms is a right every individual has; set forth, not for protection or hunting, but to prevent tyranny or other forms of oppressive government, and that this occupation is possible through the exercising of that right - that the federal accumulation of land is an extreme overreach of power
rosencrantz Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Terrorism is the use of force to achieve political change. Thus it is an terroristic act.
Guest Gee Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Terrorism is the use of force to achieve political change. Thus it is an terroristic act. I didn't know you could terrorise a concept.
rosencrantz Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 I didn't know you could terrorise a concept. ?
Guest Gee Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 ? My knowledge of grammar is bad but my understanding is that terrorism is an act, a doing word (verb?). So something (someone?) has to be terrorised for there to be terrorism right? And that thing being terrorised in this case would be the government right? But my understanding is that the government is a concept. So a concept is being terrorised.
Coonage Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Food for thought: Is attempting to prevent a political change, "a political change" in itself? Hmmm? Also, the definition speaks of intimidation and violence, more so than it does "use of force." Intimidation, yes. Violence, no. Plus, this is a movement "for the common good" of the people, and not just the self-interest of those committing the act. I think that "good guys" get a pass on things otherwise called "terrorism" as long as they are in fact, doing for the common good (pathway to hell....am I right?). The timing of this move is highly suspect though. Smells "trappy." (queue Admiral Akbar impression )
sweathog1 Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 surprising what you learn somedays. AckNak "Just to be clear - these people are terrorists according to Canadian law. (not sure in US law). They fit the description:In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."They are acting on ideological purposes with the intent of intimidating the public to compel the government. Very much the definition of terrorist in Canada.The original issue (the arson) had no intent to intimidate but was meant to change the government's mind so it would not be classified the same way" Off of the cbc site
Coonage Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Aha, yes sir! Too much "Akbar" in the news these days, eh. According to Canadian law, as gun owners (especially as RPAL holders) these men are already 'criminals in waiting.' Is that 'terrorism inclusion' a result of C-51, or was that the existing law before that piece of legislation? "...or compelling a person, a government or...." like how they just snuck themselves into that definition. I don't think 'terrorism' should include civilian action against the government (action up to, and including violence). Well, I don't like that buzzword "terrorist" much anyways. Too close to the buzzword of the left ("racist") for comfort. Just curious why the government is allowed to break the very law, they claim to be enforcing; all the while enjoying the protection from the very legislation...technically they themselves are guilty of breaking. Welcome to the forum, sweathog1!
sweathog1 Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Aha, yes sir! Too much "Akbar" in the news these days, eh. According to Canadian law, as gun owners (especially as RPAL holders) these men are already 'criminals in waiting.' Is that 'terrorism inclusion' a result of C-51, or was that the existing law before that piece of legislation? "...or compelling a person, a government or...." like how they just snuck themselves into that definition. I don't think 'terrorism' should include civilian action against the government (action up to, and including violence). Well, I don't like that buzzword "terrorist" much anyways. Too close to the buzzword of the left ("racist") for comfort. Just curious why the government is allowed to break the very law, they claim to be enforcing; all the while enjoying the protection from the very legislation...technically they themselves are guilty of breaking. Welcome to the forum, sweathog1! Thanks, tightening the screws comes to mind, contradictions such as the niqab is okay in the voting booth however masks at civilian demonstrations are not . This old dinosaur has watched an ever increasing amount of regulation in all aspects of our lives for our own good. I don't know if it was an existing law before C-51. I know civil disobedience has some heavy punishments available before that. As an old miner in our klondike placer association when we first fought the greenies, we were threatened with this although the placermining act had not yet been changed in parliament in the late 70's. Think about that for a moment.
rosencrantz Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 But my understanding is that the government is a concept. So a concept is building roads?
shirgall Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 So a concept is building roads? A concept is giving the justification for some people to extract value from some people (who tacitly accept that concept, whether or not they accept the claim to their value) to give to other people to make roads.
rosencrantz Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 I get that Shirgall. But to extend that idea would imply that Apple or Generals Motors don't exist as well. Not to speak of more abstract ideas like freedom or happiness.
shirgall Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 I get that Shirgall. But to extend that idea would imply that Apple or Generals Motors don't exist as well. Not to speak of more abstract ideas like freedom or happiness. They don't, except as a construction of the state. Corporations are legal fictions intended to give specific powers to people that others do not have, specifically limiting the liability of investors and employees.
Recommended Posts