Yup. This is For Certain.

[Minimalist]

It's the media's fault.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/22/...kil/201978

Fox News' Double Standard For Right-Wing Cop Killers

And of course FOX is in it up to their necks.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't know, comparing them to ISIS is pretty silly and obvious propaganda. They haven't done anything violent yet or terroristic yet. As for how they'd be treated if they were black, the black panthers did their marches armed quite frequently and weren't gunned down in mass. They were perceived as extremists, which they are, same with these guys. They are definitely extremists. But I don't think the idea that they'd be gunned down if they were black is backed up by much. A lone black man has a lot to fear from the cops, an armed group of them has less.  That's just a silly statement that ignores the history (and modern times actually)

Ah,  so the Oklahoma bombing wasn't violent?

I didn't know those guys in Oregon were part of that. Seems like they should be in prison for that.

[Minimalist]

This article is now obsolete,

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/republi...in-oregon/

Republican presidential candidates silent on armed militia takeover of federal building in Oregon

At least to the extent that Cruz and Rubio have called on the protesters to "stand down"  (whatever the fuck that means) although they should have said "surrender."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Intimidation? I mean they haven't committed any violence. It's a peaceful protest, the only thing that makes it different from hippies sitting in in the redwoods is the guns.

You realize that even brandishing a gun is considered violence, right? There's nothing peaceful about taking over a building by force. The thing that is befuddling you is that there aren't any dead bodies. But that is not the sine qua non of terrorism.

Even if you accept that, the comparison to ISIS is totally silly, actually kind of offensive. ISIS enslaves and beheads people. These guys haven't done anything like that.

The article did not compare these guys to ISIS. What the article said was that if these guys weren't white, they'd be dead by now. Did you read the object of your commentary?

That's aside from the point I was making though, which is that if the guys were Muslims or Black they would be killed. Now I can't speak for being Muslim, but Black protesters have done pretty similar armed demonstrations and not being massacred, as was implied in the first post. So I just think it's factually wrong to say that.

Wait, when have armed black protesters taken over a federal building and issued a call to insurrection?

That sounds like a load of horseshit to me. Back that up or retract it, forthwith.

[CapnAwesome]

Intimidation? I mean they haven't committed any violence. It's a peaceful protest, the only thing that makes it different from hippies sitting in in the redwoods is the guns.

You realize that even brandishing a gun is considered violence, right? There's nothing peaceful about taking over a building by force. The thing that is befuddling you is that there aren't any dead bodies. But that is not the sine qua non of terrorism.

Even if you accept that, the comparison to ISIS is totally silly, actually kind of offensive. ISIS enslaves and beheads people. These guys haven't done anything like that.

The article did not compare these guys to ISIS. What the article said was that if these guys weren't white, they'd be dead by now. Did you read the object of your commentary?

That's aside from the point I was making though, which is that if the guys were Muslims or Black they would be killed. Now I can't speak for being Muslim, but Black protesters have done pretty similar armed demonstrations and not being massacred, as was implied in the first post. So I just think it's factually wrong to say that.

Wait, when have armed black protesters taken over a federal building and issued a call to insurrection?

That sounds like a load of horseshit to me.  Back that up or retract it, forthwith.

Nothing as specific as that. What did I say, they've done armed demonstrations. In fact the Black Panther party marched similarly armed on the california state capital and weren't gunned down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pant...Statehouse That's one of dozens of times the black panthers have marched or protested armed. It happened recently in Texas too. 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

Obviously I read it, as I replied specifically too it. The comparison to ISIS is made in the first paragraph of that article! Did you read it? If you took away the guns these guys sound more like hippies sitting in on a national park. The comparison to ISIS is embarrassing. Also what happens when people protest unarmed? They get the crap kicked out of them by the police. Since when did you guys start sucking the dicks of cops?

[The Valkyrie]

Brokeback Oregon...

[paulpablo]

]Since 9/11, more people in America have been killed by right wing terror attacks than violent jihadists (48 deaths to 45 deaths)[/i][/b][/url]

This part of the article is pretty funny.
Another way to look at this statistic is
Since the day before 9 11, more people have been killed by Islamic attacks than right wing attacks, 3041 to 45 deaths.
Additionally I would question the numbers they have used there, I've seen so many variations on that statistic.

Yet, the Department of Homeland Security buried an analyst’s early 2009 warning about the growing threat of rightwing terror groups to focus solely on Muslim extremists

I don't know what the article means by buried the warning, I don't really know why the article continues to talk about Islamic and right wing terror groups.
Compare statements by the white guys, the militia men.

We're not about fear, we're not about force, we're not about intimidation," Bundy told reporters at the refuge. "If the government is bringing that fear and intimidation, it needs to be checked and balanced."

And then Islamic terrorists.

I say to the European countries that we are coming, coming with booby traps and explosives, coming with explosive belts and (gun) silencers and you will be unable to stop us because today we are much stronger than before

The comparison is just stupid, as far as I know Islamic terrorists have no motive to occupy federal parks, and besides America should be very wary of Islamic terrorists, Muslims massacred the city of Paris a few weeks ago and several other Muslims are basically saying "HEY YOU'RE NEXT AMERICA."  Followed by the other Muslims

Basically the article seems to have an obvious goal of inflating what this group is doing while downplaying Islamic terrorism.

I don't consider myself bias towards an American political side but this looks like stereotypical leftwing propaganda.

The article could really have said anything and it would have got a roar of appreciation from offended people.

HEY I BET IF THESE WHITE DUDES WERE WOMEN THE POLICE WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING SEXIST TO THEM BY NOW, AND IF IT WAS A BLACK MUSLIM WOMAN THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING SEXIST LIKE "YOU HAVE BEAUTIFUL EYES" THEN GUNNED THEM DOWN AND KILLED THEM!!!

[Minimalist]

But Johnson’s career took an unexpected turn in 2009, when an analysis he wrote on the rise of “Right-Wing Extremism” (.pdf) sparked a political controversy. Under pressure from conservatives, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repudiated Johnson’s paper — an especially bitter pill for him to swallow now that Wade Michael Page, a suspected white supremacist, killed at least six people at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. For Johnson, the shooting was a reminder that the government’s counterterrorism efforts are almost exclusively focused on al-Qaida, even as non-Islamist groups threaten Americans domestically.

The right-wing does not want to hear that these self-proclaimed "patriots" are terrorists.  That would not be exceptional for 'Murrica.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But Johnson’s career took an unexpected turn in 2009, when an analysis he wrote on the rise of “Right-Wing Extremism” (.pdf) sparked a political controversy. Under pressure from conservatives, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repudiated Johnson’s paper — an especially bitter pill for him to swallow now that Wade Michael Page, a suspected white supremacist, killed at least six people at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. For Johnson, the shooting was a reminder that the government’s counterterrorism efforts are almost exclusively focused on al-Qaida, even as non-Islamist groups threaten Americans domestically.

The right-wing does not want to hear that these self-proclaimed "patriots" are terrorists.  That would not be exceptional for 'Murrica.

They've a blind spot that would inspire Ray Charles to pity.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I don't know, comparing them to ISIS is pretty silly and obvious propaganda. They haven't done anything violent yet or terroristic yet. As for how they'd be treated if they were black, the black panthers did their marches armed quite frequently and weren't gunned down in mass. They were perceived as extremists, which they are, same with these guys. They are definitely extremists. But I don't think the idea that they'd be gunned down if they were black is backed up by much. A lone black man has a lot to fear from the cops, an armed group of them has less.  That's just a silly statement that ignores the history (and modern times actually)

The OED defines terrorism as the use of violence or intimidation to achieve political goals.

They have committed a terrorist act, by definition.

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.