OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

[Sonya610]

Why do we call these terrorists "militia"? Interesting choice of words in the media. <modsnip> #peaceout

Ummm....why are you calling them terrorists?

 

[Tillicum]

He had a really mean look on his face when he said it.

:giggle:

 

[Tawny]

Ummm....why are you calling them terrorists?

IMO, it's because they are threatening violence if they don't get what they want from the government.

 

[Brightbird]

So what exactly is their beef (pun intended) with this county and this wildlife refuge? Is it because the land belonged to ranchers, miners, loggers etc and the gov't took it back for the refuge? Do they have an issue with bird sanctuaries? What?

 

[ILOKAL]

IMO, it's because they are threatening violence if they don't get what they want from the government.

No, they are not threatening violence. They will DEFEND against violence brought about by the government.

 

[Tawny]

No, they are not threatening violence. They will DEFEND against violence brought about by the government.

They've said they would fire upon feds if they approach the compound.

 

[bluesneakers]

IMO, it's because they are threatening violence if they don't get what they want from the government.

Heavily armed. Threatening violence. Kill or be killed. Political agenda. Calling on others to pick up arms and join them.

 

[Brightbird]

No, they are not threatening violence. They will DEFEND against violence brought about by the government.

These are broadly the same people who had snipers aimed at police in the Bundy standoff. That's pretty threatening.

 

[bluesneakers]

No, they are not threatening violence. They will DEFEND against violence brought about by the government.

What exactly are they defending?

 

[bluesneakers]

So what exactly is their beef (pun intended) with this county and this wildlife refuge? Is it because the land belonged to ranchers, miners, loggers etc and the gov't took it back for the refuge? Do they have an issue with bird sanctuaries? What?

They have an issue with the government owning land they believe should belong to them. I don't think it matters what the government wants to do with it.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Ummm....why are you calling them terrorists?

Simple. Because of their actions. Terrorism as the use of intimidation in the pursuit of political gain/objectives. Causing distress in a population by means of threat of violence, or violence itself.

 

[seattlechiquita]

No, they are not threatening violence. They will DEFEND against violence brought about by the government.

When you are illegally occupying a government building/station/office as these ****s are, you are trespassing in federal/state property and committing a crime. You cannot defend illegal actions with violence and call it "defending".

 

[ILOKAL]

What exactly are they defending?

I said they stated they will "defend" against violence which was in response to Tawny's post #243, so my Post #245 (which you quoted) has already answered your question.

 

[pappa rob]

So what exactly is their beef (pun intended) with this county and this wildlife refuge? Is it because the land belonged to ranchers, miners, loggers etc and the gov't took it back for the refuge? Do they have an issue with bird sanctuaries? What?

The ranchers were leasing Government land for their own use. The Government can't steal or take land that already belongs to the Government in the first place.

 

[LaborDayRN]

It's kind of strange actually. The Hammonds have reported to prison, the Bundy bunch are hold up at the refuse saying they want land given back to local ranchers, and the locals (some ranchers I would imagine) say they don't want them there!

 

[Sonya610]

Heavily armed. Threatening violence. Kill or be killed. Political agenda. Calling on others to pick up arms and join them.

I don't think the public is the slightest bit afraid of being randomly attacked/targeted by the militia. The public maybe annoyed but that is light years away from terrorism.

Resisting/fighting with law enforcement isn't terrorism either.

 

[K_Z]

Look, I don't agree at all with what these guys are doing AT ALL, but I'd hardly characterize them (at this point in their protest) as "terrorists." Good grief!

They haven't hurt anyone, taken any hostages, or blown anything up. They haven't burned any businesses or homes, cut any fire hoses, shot any weapons, or thrown any rocks or molotov cocktails-- unlike our REAL domestic urban rioters who I WOULD call domestic terrorists.

I am intensely curious WHY this "protest" is not viewed as a "peaceful protest", like other urban social activist groups? Because it's in a rural area??

Is it because they are white, and have guns, and are open about what they are doing? Why doesn't the mayor "give them room to destroy" or something like that? Just because they have their lawfully owned guns at their little protest party? These guys are NO DIFFERENT than urban activist "protesters", or the "Occupy Wall Street/ San Francisco/ San Diego, etc" crowds of misguided misfits. They are no different than the Minneapolis group of disgruntled "protesters" that camped out at the 4th police precinct for 4 weeks or so. No different from the Alcatraz occupiers.

All these protesters have some issue/s they are perpetually aggrieved over, and want to make a point and have lots of publicity. But nothing is ever solved with this kind of behavior, whether in an urban or rural environment. But it makes people feel good, and important, to act out, so they do.

Nobody wants to see this end in a blaze of gunfire, but for the life of me, I can't understand the drum beating and saber rattling by the authorities. Ignore them, or negotiate, but don't bring in any armed law enforcement. Treat them like every other urban protester. I really don't think these men will shoot anyone. They just want to have their tantrum and their protest. Leave them be and stop the coverage-- they will eventually get tired of the whole thing in a few months or a year.

Geez-- what we put up with from urban rioters/ protesters/ occupiers-- tents, people using sidewalks as bathrooms, graffiti and property damage, fires, for weeks to months on end, freeways blockaded, airports shut down, train lines shut down, etc. No one runs in with guns blazing when those kind of protests are going on. We have to "tolerate" their "frustration" with whatever they say they are "frustrated" about. And find them a "safe space."

These guys are far away from any populations-- there is just no need to whip this up into a blaze of gunfire. Cooler heads should prevail!

Let them have their peaceful little protest party, and carry their guns around. Keep an eye on them, but media and government authorities should pretty much ignore them UNLESS they start destroying stuff or firing weapons (which they won't, IMO). Government authorities should not be GOADED or PROVOKED by these guys. IMO!

(And by the way, the scope in the fire tower looks to me like a high power spotting scope--NOT the scope on a rifle.)

 

[LaborDayRN]

I don't think the public is the slightest bit afraid of being attacked by the militia. The public maybe annoyed but that is light years away from terrorism. Being confronted by law enforcement and fighting with them isn't terrorism either.

Oh, I don't know......

Keith Landon, a longtime resident of Burns and employee at the Reid Country Store, said he knows local law enforcement officials who fear their kids will be targeted by angry militia members.

The mother of one of his kids is now involved with an officer, and they decided to send their children to another town after feeling threatened by an angry protester, Landon said.

"I'm hoping most of it's just muscle, trying to push," he said. "But it's a scary thing."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/04/burns-oregon-residents_n_8911286.html

 

[LaborDayRN]

Look, I don't agree at all with what these guys are doing AT ALL, but I'd hardly characterize them (at this point in their protest) as "terrorists." Good grief!

They haven't hurt anyone, taken any hostages, or blown anything up. They haven't burned any businesses or homes, cut any fire hoses, shot any weapons, or thrown any rocks or molotov cocktails-- unlike our REAL domestic urban rioters who I WOULD call domestic terrorists.

I am intensely curious WHY this "protest" is not viewed as a "peaceful protest", like other urban social activist groups? Because it's in a rural area??

Is it because they are white, and have guns, and are open about what they are doing? Why doesn't the mayor "give them room to destroy" or something like that? Just because they have their lawfully owned guns at their little protest party? These guys are NO DIFFERENT than urban activist "protesters", or the "Occupy Wall Street/ San Francisco/ San Diego, etc" crowds of misguided misfits. They are no different than the Minneapolis group of disgruntled "protesters" that camped out at the 4th police precinct for 4 weeks or so.

All these protesters have some issue/s they are perpetually aggrieved over, and want to make a point and have lots of publicity. But nothing is ever solved with this kind of behavior, whether in an urban or rural environment. But it makes people feel good, and important, to act out, so they do.

Nobody wants to see this end in a blaze of gunfire, but for the life of me, I can't understand the drum beating and saber rattling by the authorities. Ignore them, or negotiate, but don't bring in any armed law enforcement. Treat them like every other urban protester. I really don't think these men will shoot anyone. They just want to have their tantrum and their protest. Leave them be and stop the coverage-- they will eventually get tired of the whole thing in a few months or a year.

Geez-- what we put up with from urban rioters/ protesters/ occupiers-- tents, people using sidewalks as bathrooms, graffiti and property damage, fires, for weeks to months on end, etc.

These guys are far away from any populations-- there is just no need to whip this up into a blaze of gunfire. Cooler heads should prevail!

Let them have their peaceful little protest party, and carry their guns around. Keep an eye on them, but media and government authorities should pretty much ignore them UNLESS they start destroying stuff or firing weapons (which they won't, IMO). Government authorities should not be GOADED or PROVOKED by these guys. IMO!

(And by the way, the scope in the fire tower looks to me like a high power spotting scope--NOT the scope on a rifle.)

I agree that at this point they haven't done any permanent damage but in answer to your question BBM above, I would imagine it's something about the heavy weaponry they have with them. It's not like it's a "sit in" where there singing Give Peace a Chance.

 

[ohreally]

It's kind of strange actually. The Hammonds have reported to prison, the Bundy bunch are hold up at the refuse saying they want land given back to local ranchers, and the locals (some ranchers I would imagine) say they don't want them there!

It really makes me think there is maybe a dozen or less that are part of the 'occupation' and making these threats. Media has reported that they only see about twenty out there and that not all armed. From what I understand they are begging people on social media to come and help thier cause. I may have missed it, but I haven't read that they are growing in numbers.