Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

[geezer]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

All the outraged screaming for blood kind of misses the whole point. There's no need to be so frightened.

We’d all do better to focus on forging red-blue alliances to address injustices of common concern rather than behaving as if it is either useful or morally righteous to denounce, demonize, and dehumanize the members of opposing ideological tribes.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

Can't believe that the feds backed down last time (with pops) either.

They won't do anything because WAAAAACCCCOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[alfablue]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

All the outraged screaming for blood kind of misses the whole point. There's no need to be so frightened.

While it's a good point that mandatory minimum penalties are something that we should question, I don't see why the level of holding a hostage or blowing up an airplane is needed to be called terrorists.

Does it really matter that they are occupying a remote location? They did it armed, and have stated that they will resort to violence if needed.

All to get their way.

How is that not terrorism?

If they kept it as a peaceful demonstration, fine. We can talk about minimum sentences being too harsh. But we have to bring up ALL of them- including the minor drug violations and abuse violations etc. Not just the ones that were used to send two guys to jail for burning public land (however twisted that procedure was).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

Which examples would those be?

And how does that not make what they are doing terrorism?

Forcing change via violence or threats of violence....

Considering the scorn we place on people who have non violent protests over excessive police violence, where's the scorn here?

I assume you are next going to call the Founding Fathers terrorists?

Also, I can't wait to see if you're going to try to justify that the SWAT team's no-knock raid or "highway profiteering" isn't terrorism.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

Why does the Federal government own the land in the first place? Should we/they?

As to the group in OR. Nobody gets in and if somebody leaves, they don't get back in. Eventually they'll run out of provisions and surrender.

Charge them with trespassing and possession of firearms at a federal facility. Then fine them and ignore them.

Gee, I am so shocked you want to give them a slap on the wrist for this. I wonder if their name was Ahmed whether you would say differently. At least Fraddude doesnt hide that he is a complete flake and fraud with his shtick

 

[geezer]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

While it's a good point that mandatory minimum penalties are something that we should question, I don't see why the level of holding a hostage or blowing up an airplane is needed to be called terrorists.

It's because when you use "terrorists" you're making a conscious choice to say they're like Al Qaeda or ISIS in some way, which are involved with raping and killing children, suicide bombs, and whatnot. (Y'ALL QAEDA, etc) It cheapens and poisons the dialogue. In fact you guys are being no different than the rednecks who were all up in arms about the scary "Soros-funded war against white policemen" in Ferguson.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

While it's a good point that mandatory minimum penalties are something that we should question, I don't see why the level of holding a hostage or blowing up an airplane is needed to be called terrorists.

Does it really matter that they are occupying a remote location? They did it armed, and have stated that they will resort to violence if needed.

All to get their way.

How is that not terrorism?

If they kept it as a peaceful demonstration, fine. We can talk about minimum sentences being too harsh. But we have to bring up ALL of them- including the minor drug violations and abuse violations etc. Not just the ones that were used to send two guys to jail for burning public land (however twisted that procedure was).

The Hammonds aren't terrorists, they're thieves. The Bundys are also thieves, but do have a political ideology. Still, they're not trying to terrorize civilians to get their way politically, so I would not call them terrorists. They are insurgents. If they start blowing up federal buildings and murdering people inside them (Oklahoma City) or mailing bombs to judges they disagree with ("pro-life"-ers) or telling people to get out of town by sundown or else (the Klan), then they're terrorists. But so far they're only guilty of sedition and extremely poor judgment.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

All the outraged screaming for blood kind of misses the whole point. There's no need to be so frightened.

Ya know I see protests for this all the time shouted down by the masses...of course the victims of the minimums look quite different. Now you are defending a terrorist (treasonous) act with the same BS because it is a bunch of rednecks in Oregon. Yeah no I cant see why black people think most Whites are racist at all...

Can you not see the double standard...would half the people defending or ignoring this be doing so if it was the BLM movement doing the same thing?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

It's because when you use "terrorists" you're making a conscious choice to say they're like Al Qaeda or ISIS in some way, which are involved with raping and killing children, suicide bombs, and whatnot. (Y'ALL QAEDA, etc) It cheapens and poisons the dialogue. In fact you guys are being no different than the rednecks who were all up in arms about the scary "Soros-funded war against white policemen" in Ferguson.

They brought snipers last time and threatened federal officers...yeah you are right these guys are the White Martin Luther King

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

The Hammonds aren't terrorists, they're thieves. The Bundys are also thieves, but do have a political ideology. Still, they're not trying to terrorize civilians to get their way politically, so I would not call them terrorists. They are insurgents. If they start blowing up federal buildings and murdering people inside them (Oklahoma City) or mailing bombs to judges they disagree with ("pro-life"-ers) or telling people to get out of town by sundown or else (the Klan), then they're terrorists. But so far they're only guilty of sedition and extremely poor judgment.

I think that is arguing semantics...

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

I think that is arguing semantics...

I think semantics is really important when we're arguing terrorism, because we have a huge flotilla of laws and processes for terrorism which are not (in theory) supposed to be brought into effect for just garden-variety criminality. It's unclear whether they should be applied to sedition. But these are pretty important legal distinctions when it comes to how the government should respond and what tools they have.

I agree it is semantics when trying to determine the merits in the court of public opinion, but the Justice Department should treat this differently than terrorism, IMO. For example, I don't want DHS wiretapping these dipsh-ts. I want the FBI doing it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

I think semantics is really important when we're arguing terrorism, because we have a huge flotilla of laws and processes for terrorism which are not (in theory) supposed to be brought into effect for just garden-variety criminality. It's unclear whether they should be applied to sedition. But these are pretty important legal distinctions when it comes to how the government should respond and what tools they have.

I agree it is semantics when trying to determine the merits in the court of public opinion, but the Justice Department should treat this differently than terrorism, IMO. For example, I don't want DHS wiretapping these dipsh-ts. I want the FBI doing it.

I just cant agree with you. An act against the federal government and previous threats of violence and murder rise above thievery. You cant treat these guys like normal criminals...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

I bet the BLM didn't even compensate them during the "land grab", which is why they're fighting for their land. If they don't go after them now, it will only be a matter of time before the government grabs up all land and us peasant slaves end up in government slums.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

I assume you are next going to call the Founding Fathers terrorists?

Also, I can't wait to see if you're going to try to justify that the SWAT team's no-knock raid or "highway profiteering" isn't terrorism.

The British did. It's a matter of perspective. These guys are trying to take down government, if you agree- they are patriots, if you don't, they are terrorists. Since their end goal is to get stuff for free via violence, I see them as terrorists. They went from legally protesting sentences that appear to violate the 8th amendment to using arms to strong arm people into taking their side.

Again, do you have specific examples of these no knock raids? Still, how does that justify what they are doing? Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's because when you use "terrorists" you're making a conscious choice to say they're like Al Qaeda or ISIS in some way, which are involved with raping and killing children, suicide bombs, and whatnot. (Y'ALL QAEDA, etc) It cheapens and poisons the dialogue. In fact you guys are being no different than the rednecks who were all up in arms about the scary "Soros-funded war against white policemen" in Ferguson.

Is there some kind of measure where we define armed protesters rednecks and then some other change makes them terrorists? Does one have to have children killed or raped to be terrorists?

No, they are not extremists, but they are using weapons and the threat of death to force people to take their way. How is that not terrorism?

As far as I'm concerned, they cheapened the debate when they went from legal assembly and protest to an armed take over of a building that they don't own, with the threat of further violence to anyone who would attempt to stop them.

Basically, they had a temper tantrum because nobody would listen or agree. That does not mean they get to raise up in arms.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

I bet the BLM didn't even compensate them during the "land grab", which is why they're fighting for their land. If they don't go after them now, it will only be a matter of time before the government grabs up all land and us peasant slaves end up in government slums.

For land that nobody owns, what is a logical alternative to government ownership?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

For land that nobody owns, what is a logical alternative to government ownership?

You're assuming that someone has to own it. It could be completely first come, first serve. Government is only there to resolve a dispute over ownership, which is why said charters exist. If there's no ownership, why should anyone or anything have any sort of rights of dictation?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

Again, do you have specific examples of these no knock raids? Still, how does that justify what they are doing? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Someone doesn't pay attention to SWAT team activity in the "war on drugs". Either that, or the MSM doesn't cover it. But in either case, because it's big daddy government doing it, people use that to justify it being OK.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

I just cant agree with you. An act against the federal government and previous threats of violence and murder rise above thievery. You cant treat these guys like normal criminals...

Like I said, that's probably sedition, but I think terrorism is a very specific thing: using violence to terrorize innocent civilians in an attempt to influence politics. The guy who lobs a Molotov cocktail at a mosque is a terrorist. The guy who occupies the local library and won't let anybody in until the county promises to burn all the copies of the Koran is a trespasser and a public nuisance and an a-hole, but he's not a terrorist.

I understand there is a threat of violence here, but the threat is about the removal of the protesters, and it's against law enforcement and not civilians.

These are important distinctions because on terrorism the public has lost its mind and traded all our freedoms and privacy for the illusion of safety, and it is vital that betrayal of our civil liberties not be extended to anything else. While it's just terrorism there's a path back if there is a big reduction in the terrorist threat over the next century or so. If it just becomes SOP for all law enforcement then we are lost.

 

[joecct]

Gee, I am so shocked you want to give them a slap on the wrist for this. I wonder if their name was Ahmed whether you would say differently. At least Fraddude doesnt hide that he is a complete flake and fraud with his shtick

If Ahmed was doing the same thing, yep. But if Ahmed started shooting, burning the place down, and most serious of them all, molesting the sheep, I'm calling in the big guns.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!

Your move, Capt. Moroni...

Federal authorities are planning to cut off the power of the wildlife refuge in Oregon that has been taken over by militia , exposing the armed occupiers to sub-zero temperatures in an effort to flush them out.

Armed militants will begin their third day at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a remote federal outpost in eastern Oregon, on Tuesday, and have vowed to remain for months in protest over the treatment of two local cattle ranchers.

A federal government official told the Guardian that authorities were planning on Monday to cut the power at the refuge.

“It’s in the middle of nowhere,” said the official, who is based in Washington, DC, and has knowledge of the planned response to the militia. “And it’s flat-*** cold up there.”

I can't be the only person hoping this degenerates into cannibalism.