(January 6, 2016 at 5:29 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: They have actually engaged in an armed insurrection against the USA.  They are domestic enemies of the American people and should be killed.  

George Washington would have sent the army against them.

I don't know that they should be killed; that's for a court to decide, your own opinion notwithstanding. They are certainly breaking the laws, and also being general cunts-at-large.

I don't know what ole George would have done were he alive today, nor do you. We know what he did in the Whiskey Rebellion, no doubt. But in this day, when rebels can organize via the Internet, what one man sitting in one executive office can do seems mighty small. Maybe you can say how you envision Washington's reaction, but I don't think you're an expert, and don't pay much attention to amateur opinions.

(January 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Also taken over by force? Force implies the use of, you know, force. Nobody was hurt, nobody was shot, nobody was terrorized. You guys are really stretching

You realize that force doesn't require violence, only the threat of it, right?

I think you need to understand the terms being used here. If I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, that is taking your wallet by force. Simply because I didn't shoot you doesn't mean force wasn't involved.

As for "terrorized", I didn't say anyone was. What I said was that this is a textbook case of terrorism, which it is.

(January 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The comparison to ISIS is made in the first paragraph of that article! Did you read it?

Yes. Here's that first paragraph:

Quote:If, in a vacuum, I told you that a bearded man with his head covered had posted a video on social media calling on his followers to leave their homes with weapons, migrate to a new area, take over government property “as long as necessary” and use violence if confronted by law enforcement, you’d probably assume that I was talking about the latest propaganda video released by Isis, filmed in Iraq or Syria and intended to recruit violent Muslim extremists.

That isn't a comparison. That is pointing out the assumptions most Americans hold. I've emphasized where that point is made.

(January 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Since when did you guys start sucking the dicks of cops?

You'll need to change your name to Captain Dumbass if that's the takeaway you got from my post. Really, I had thought you were smarter than this.

Trevor Noah works over the gun nuts.

http://uproxx.com/tv/the-daily-show-oregon-standoff/

Includes both segments.

A more serious take on the issue.  The fact that it appears in Al Jazeera only demonstrates how the US media has been gelded.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion...36857.html

Quote:Oregon standoff and a clear case of white privilege

(January 6, 2016 at 2:28 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Also taken over by force? Force implies the use of, you know, force. Nobody was hurt, nobody was shot, nobody was terrorized. You guys are really stretching

You realize that force doesn't require violence, only the threat of it, right?

I think you need to understand the terms being used here. If I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, that is taking your wallet by force. Simply because I didn't shoot you doesn't mean force wasn't involved.

As for "terrorized", I didn't say anyone was.  What I said was that this is a textbook case of terrorism, which it is.

(January 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The comparison to ISIS is made in the first paragraph of that article! Did you read it?

Yes.  Here's that first paragraph:

Quote:If, in a vacuum, I told you that a bearded man with his head covered had posted a video on social media calling on his followers to leave their homes with weapons, migrate to a new area, take over government property “as long as necessary” and use violence if confronted by law enforcement, you’d probably assume that I was talking about the latest propaganda video released by Isis, filmed in Iraq or Syria and intended to recruit violent Muslim extremists.

That isn't a comparison.  That is pointing out the assumptions most  Americans hold. I've emphasized where that point is made.

(January 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Since when did you guys start sucking the dicks of cops?

You'll need to change your name to Captain Dumbass if that's the takeaway you got from my post.  Really, I had thought you were smarter than this.

Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?

I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.

(January 6, 2016 at 3:53 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?

I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.

This is a armed group that has taken over government property. Why you defend them escapes me.  If they'd done this in the UK the armt would have gone in.

(January 6, 2016 at 3:53 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?

I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.

These guys have made it extremely well-known that they are perfectly willing to use violence to achieve their goals and occupy the building "for years" if necessary. It's not as if they're simply protesting with weapons on their backs. They've openly admitted they are planning to use their guns if they're demands are not met.

That definitely sounds like terrorism to me, even if it doesn't rise to the level of what we see from ISIS or such. I don't know if you can say definitively that if these were black men involved in armed insurrection against the U.S. government they would be dead by now, but I'm certain there would be a much stronger reaction, not to mention Fox News shitting bricks.

Once again we see the "it can only be terrorism if they are muslims" mantra in action.

(January 7, 2016 at 1:08 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 3:53 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?

I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.

These guys have made it extremely well-known that they are perfectly willing to use violence to achieve their goals and occupy the building "for years" if necessary.  It's not as if they're simply protesting with weapons on their backs.  They've openly admitted they are planning to use their guns if they're demands are not met.

That definitely sounds like terrorism to me, even if it doesn't rise to the level of what we see from ISIS or such.  I don't know if you can say definitively that if these were black men involved in armed insurrection against the U.S. government they would be dead by now, but I'm certain there would be a much stronger reaction, not to mention Fox News shitting bricks.

This is the problem with labeling them terrorists. What do you think the government is supposed to do if terrorists seized federal land? Obvious the government would go in with force and wipe them out. Is that what you think should be done to people who haven't committed any acts of violence? Are we the thought police that we are willing to use force against people for future crimes?

(January 7, 2016 at 12:41 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 3:53 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?

I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.

This is a armed group that has taken over government property. Why you defend them escapes me.  If they'd done this in the UK the armt would have gone in.

I defending not making something a blood bath against people who haven't done anything to deserve it. Are you really advocating killing these people? That's an insane position.