Ammon Bundy and 3 other arrested near Oregon refuge; shots fired - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49618950]Because they're not terrorizing? To cause terror isn't their goal?[/QUOTE] Well by classic definition they are terrorists. They use fear to further their political goals. Now that's not to say they follow what we accept as terrorism. They're not blowing up building or shooting into crowds of people. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;49618941]Perhaps, english isnt my main language, I might be wrong. But how different is Treason from Domestic Terrorism with malicious intent against the government in American legal system?[/QUOTE] In a nutshell Treason is completely betraying your country, as in siding with and/or aiding a known enemy of the state. Generally speaking a "known enemy of the state" is in reference to what we accept as a formal government of another nation. That is what separates it from terrorism. Where terrorism is usually caused by a lose group of individuals that are not recognized as a formal government treason involves recognized formal governments. People need to understand that under US law this is generally considered trespassing. They can also be hit with destruction of property as well as various other minor crimes. The DA could push for terrorism charges, but that's going to be a hard thing to make stick because they don't follow what your average Joe considers "terrorism".

[QUOTE=Lamar;49619001]If the rest of them are anything like these guys then there's probably going to be a shootout. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72MJLxSTiGM[/media][/QUOTE] They got another live stream up, they are waiting for something big.

[QUOTE=Lamar;49619001]If the rest of them are anything like these guys then there's probably going to be a shootout. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72MJLxSTiGM[/media][/QUOTE] #opsec

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49619135]This os rational, but they did more than squatting and trespassing, theres a bunch of video evidence and, well, facts, stating their intentions, and what means theyd use to pursue that. Theres also the fact that a gunfight happened, so I would be surprised if this was charged as a minor offense. Terrorism might be a stretch too, maybe something in-between. I just dont like to see these type of stuff happening in USA. I wouldnt want these people to walk away with little sentences or paroles.[/QUOTE] Odds are the only people that can be charged for the gunfight are those 3-4 men who participated in it, whom were far from the rest of the people in this.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;49618788]Shit, is that an Abrams? Why did they feel that was necessary?[/QUOTE] "Omg, the government didn't give them crazy militias a fair fight" Like come on guys. Government employees are [B]people as well[/B]. They shouldn't be expected to risk their lives when dealing with armed rebels. Is this the America you want? Where any gang can do whatever the hell they want and the government just lets em do it?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49619135]This os rational, but they did more than squatting and trespassing, theres a bunch of video evidence and, well, facts, stating their intentions, and what means theyd use to pursue that. Theres also the fact that a gunfight happened, so I would be surprised if this was charged as a minor offense. Terrorism might be a stretch too, maybe something in-between. I just dont like to see these type of stuff happening in USA. I wouldn't want these people to walk away with little sentences or paroles.[/QUOTE] Things like this have happened in the US, it was a lot more common before the 20th century but a few notable things have happened during. Folks like this love to point to "The Battle of Athens" as to why they're standing their ground. The thing was that situation was justified, since the local government was cooking the books and rigging the election. This however is debatable depending on how you view the notion of property and civil liberties. One could argue that since land owned by the federal government is owned by the people they could do whatever they please with it, under the concept that we the people are the ones paying taxes on it and so on. I'm pretty sure they fall under this line of thought to be doing what they are in the first place.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49619522] This however is debatable depending on how you view the notion of property and civil liberties. One could argue that since land owned by the federal government is owned by the people they could do whatever they please with it, under the concept that we the people are the ones paying taxes on it and so on. I'm pretty sure they fall under this line of thought to be doing what they are in the first place.[/QUOTE] Except that concept only works under absolute democracies. We live in a republic, we don't get to choose whatever the hell we want to do with that land because we appoint representatives to choose what to do with it for us. Don't like what's being done? Talk to your representatives or elect someone else.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;49618788]Shit, is that an Abrams? Why did they feel that was necessary?[/QUOTE] It was brought in from the National Guard, because it was suspected that the Branch had anti-tank weapons, which in truth they had quiet a few of tbh. The thing is though, it really, really escalated the situation. Before they were brought in Koresh himself was willing to walk out and be arrested so that everyone in the compound would be safely freed. That all went to hell when they decided to run over Koresh's personal muscle car he had been restoring and pretty much sent him into a hellfire.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49619190]"Omg, the government didn't give them crazy militias a fair fight" Like come on guys. Government employees are [B]people as well[/B]. They shouldn't be expected to risk their lives when dealing with armed rebels. Is this the America you want? Where any gang can do whatever the hell they want and the government just lets em do it?[/QUOTE] Aren't there pictures of FBI and ATF agents posing over the burnt wreckage of the place, holding their guns and everything?

Eyup. [t]http://copsproductions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/093-01046.jpg[/t] Needless to say, those pictures were pretty uh... Bad.

You guys are so damn bloodthirsty for no reason, it's really baffling. Also the liberal application of the word terrorist is wrong and has become some fucked up newspeak. It is way overused and I don't think it applies. At the very worst they are criminals for squatting and trespassing, not "terrorists". No one probably has the attention span to listen but I think Dan Carlin did an awesome overview of the Oregon stand off going on: [url]http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/4/d/3/4d3f76ef250ca119/cswdcd00.mp3?c_id=10653470&expiration=1453933752&hwt=ee7afd66d46cd609f66c0b335205615f[/url]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49619538]Except that concept only works under absolute democracies. We live in a republic, we don't get to choose whatever the hell we want to do with that land because we appoint representatives to choose what to do with it for us. Don't like what's being done? Talk to your representatives or elect someone else.[/QUOTE] And that's my point. How they believe it should work and how it really does are two different things. Still, one could perceive it as an act of civil disobedience against a perceived injustice with the current system. If you were to take away the guns and leave the people you would be left with a straight up protest no different than people occupying city hall. And I think that's part of the reason why the government isn't going after them as if they were terrorists. If weapons are the only thing separating protesting from terrorism it creates a serious issue. I think the other problem is people here are unwilling to try and take their view on things. One could argue that this is no different than a BLM protest, except they have guns. If BLM protesters set up shop in front of a police station and trash the street and public property we all tend to blow it off saying they're protesters and that's what happens. People are looking at this purely on context and not the objective value. Swap the bundys and their group for a bunch of black people and people praise it. With that being said personally I don't agree with the bundy's or their asinine logic, but objectively they are doing an act of civil disobedience. Now the real question lies in within their motives, and if they're looking to start a WACO 2.0.

[QUOTE=Aman;49619567] At the very worst they are criminals for squatting and trespassing, not "terrorists".[/QUOTE] Occupy federal land and threatening to shoot anybody that fucks with you is not terrorism?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49619660]Occupy federal land and threatening to shoot anybody that fucks with you is not terrorism?[/QUOTE] It's really what UncleJimmema said. How is this simply not civil disobedience? This is way closer to a protest than terrorism and flaunting the word terrorism around just makes it lose its meaning, like it already has.

[QUOTE=raz r23;49617630]Just roll in one M1A1 tank. That's all you would need to end this shit. You would not even need to shoot the thing[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Propane Addict;49617837]Really hope we can bring back as many as possible alive to try for treason.[/QUOTE] Apparently people absolutely love their freedom and law [B]until[/B] it comes to people they don't like, then suddenly we should roll out armed responses and punishments like we're the NKVD. I can't actually find any cases of someone being charged specifically for a stand-off, it's always for the crime they were originally wanted for. In this case that would be mostly trespassing and property damage. They could probably nail them with reckless endangerment too, maybe with death threats, but I don't know if you can apply that to such a broad group of people. Terrorism and Treason are definitely not applicable because they're not spreading terror or pledging to a foreign combatant, they're just sitting on their asses and saying "don't come near us". [QUOTE=ewitwins;49618788]Shit, is that an Abrams? Why did they feel that was necessary?[/QUOTE] The government didn't know how to handle it and thought "send a message" would be a good approach. They also brought in Black Hawk helicopters from the National Guard, which I think is also where the Tanks and IFV's came from.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49619660]Occupy federal land and threatening to shoot anybody that fucks with you is not terrorism?[/QUOTE] No, it's Federal Trespassing, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Destruction of Public Property, Inciting a Riot and/or Unlawful, Illegal Gathering, and I wouldn't put it past a couple of these chuckle fucks being ex-con's but still having guns so, Felon in possession of a Firearm.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49619074]Well by classic definition they are terrorists. They use fear to further their political goals. Now that's not to say they follow what we accept as terrorism. They're not blowing up building or shooting into crowds of people. In a nutshell Treason is completely betraying your country, as in siding with and/or aiding a known enemy of the state. Generally speaking a "known enemy of the state" is in reference to what we accept as a formal government of another nation. That is what separates it from terrorism. Where terrorism is usually caused by a lose group of individuals that are not recognized as a formal government treason involves recognized formal governments. People need to understand that under US law this is generally considered trespassing. They can also be hit with destruction of property as well as various other minor crimes. The DA could push for terrorism charges, but that's going to be a hard thing to make stick because they don't follow what your average Joe considers "terrorism".[/QUOTE] They aren't terrorists. They are protestors more than anything. They are occupying a government structure and show effectively zero hostility towards civilians. Redneck morons? Sure. Terrorists? Not really.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49620004]They aren't terrorists. They are protestors more than anything. They are occupying a government structure and show effectively zero hostility towards civilians. Redneck morons? Sure. Terrorists? Not really.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's what I essentially was saying. By the classic definition you could apply terrorism since they are essentially using overt force as a threat in order to achieve political goals. However you could apply that to protesters as well, since a large gathering of people could be construed as threatening in order for them to achieve their goals. Strictly adhearing to that definition is inadequate. Long story short they're not terrorists [URL="http://www.vice.com/read/everything-we-know-about-the-fbi-shootout-that-left-an-oregon-militiaman-dead?utm_source=vicefbus"]http://www.vice.com/read/everything-we-know-about-the-fbi-shootout-that-left-an-oregon-militiaman-dead?utm_source=vicefbus[/URL] According to vice the people who were arrested are being charged with "conspiracy to impede federal officers".

[QUOTE=timothy80;49615222]Person who was killed was Tarp Man aka LaVoy Finicum.[/QUOTE]Not even remotely surprised at all. Seriously, for those of you who have never dealt with this guy he was the quintessential "radical militia man." Here's an eyewitness account of what happened: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybOTwsGkPk[/url] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49620091]Yes, that's what I essentially was saying. By the classic definition you could apply terrorism since they are essentially using overt force as a threat in order to achieve political goals. However you could apply that to protesters as well, since a large gathering of people could be construed as threatening in order for them to achieve their goals. Strictly adhearing to that definition is inadequate.[/QUOTE]Well even if you go with the classic definition of terrorism they still barely qualify as terrorists, and going off that definition any protest that gets physical is a terrorist attack. Using a more modern definition has issues because the definition changes on who you ask and then you have the issue of the definition being broadened, which I've always thought was complete idiocy.

Casual use of the phrase "terrorist" for things like this is just a response to people calling immigrants/refugees/BLM/student protests/protests in general terrorism, for much less.

[QUOTE=emly;49620647]Casual use of the phrase "terrorist" for things like this is just a response to people calling immigrants/refugees/BLM/student protests/protests in general terrorism, for much less.[/QUOTE] responding to who, though?

[QUOTE=emly;49620647]Casual use of the phrase "terrorist" for things like this is just a response to people calling immigrants/refugees/BLM/student protests/protests in general terrorism, for much less.[/QUOTE] If BLM were armed and threatening to shoot anybody that tried to break their federal highway blockade it'd be terrorism. If BLM occupied buildings in the same way it'd also be terrorism.

they are livestreaming again. talk of them shooting their way out with them loading up on ammo

[QUOTE=timothy80;49620712]they are livestreaming again. talk of them shooting their way out with them loading on on ammo[/QUOTE] The fact it's being streamed is great. Proof exists that they're not peaceful, that they're the ones causing this crap to escalate, and, if they go through with it, the feds will have a perfectly valid justification for using lethal force against them. So by all means, let them try and shoot their way out. It won't end well for them.

[QUOTE=Govna;49620756]The fact it's being streamed is great. Proof exists that they're not peaceful, that they're the ones causing this crap to escalate, and, if they go through with it, the feds will have a perfectly valid justification for using lethal force against them. So by all means, let them try and shoot their way out. It won't end well for them.[/QUOTE] Sadly, this looks like the way they're gonna end this. Blithering morons.

whats with this gleeful attitude about them potentially storming the feds and getting killed while also killing federal agents? this is not a good thing at all, jesus christ

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49620626]Not even remotely surprised at all. Seriously, for those of you who have never dealt with this guy he was the quintessential "radical militia man." Here's an eyewitness account of what happened: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybOTwsGkPk[/url] Well even if you go with the classic definition of terrorism they still barely qualify as terrorists, and going off that definition any protest that gets physical is a terrorist attack. Using a more modern definition has issues because the definition changes on who you ask and then you have the issue of the definition being broadened, which I've always thought was complete idiocy.[/QUOTE] Yes. That is why I said the classic definition is inadequate.

[QUOTE=Govna;49620756]The fact it's being streamed is great. Proof exists that they're not peaceful, that they're the ones causing this crap to escalate, and, if they go through with it, the feds will have a perfectly valid justification for using lethal force against them. So by all means, let them try and shoot their way out. It won't end well for them.[/QUOTE]I associate heavily with your usual anti-government rugged individualist types and they're really starting to say "wow these guys are retarded" in greater numbers so if [I]that[/I] extreme is even turning away then clearly Bundy's merry men have fucked up somehow. I'm glad that the elements who have very deep concerns and fears about our government turning against us aren't willing to do what these retards hope they're going to do. [editline]27th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;49620782]has anyone said "this is gonna be awesome fuck yeah lmao owned" or anything along those lines saying that there is concrete evidence that they're likely to be the agitators is great doesn't mean fuck yeah gunbattle time baby![/QUOTE]In the first thread about this hell yeah there were people saying that very thing.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49620782]has anyone said "this is gonna be awesome fuck yeah lmao owned" or anything along those lines saying that there is concrete evidence that they're likely to be the agitators is great doesn't mean fuck yeah gunbattle time baby![/QUOTE] in this thread and previous threads there were people who seemed to be aching for them to give fbi agents a reason to storm them, wanting them to be stomped out. you're right that saying that having evidence they are agitators is great isn't approving of killing them but i don't know how else you can take "the feds will have a perfectly valid justification for using lethal force against them" other than an implied approval of a gun battle

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49620782]has anyone said "this is gonna be awesome fuck yeah lmao owned" or anything along those lines saying that there is concrete evidence that they're likely to be the agitators is great doesn't mean fuck yeah gunbattle time baby![/QUOTE] I don't know if this counts but it's awfully close to it: [QUOTE=Govna;49620756][B]The fact it's being streamed is great.[/B] Proof exists that they're not peaceful, that they're the ones causing this crap to escalate, and, if they go through with it, the feds will have a perfectly valid justification for using lethal force against them. [B]So by all means, let them try and shoot their way out. It won't end well for them.[/B][/QUOTE]