Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Are the Bundy crowd terrorist's or protesters

1,069 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword

So there seems to be a bit of a dispute over the difference between a protester and a terrorist.

In my opinion if you haven't killed anyone or taken someone hostage or destroyed property in the name of a political agenda then you are a protester.

The men currently occupying the wildlife preserve in Oregon are armed but have not threatened, harmed or taken prisoner any people so I am classifying them as protesters. On a different thread someone accuses them of being domestic terrorists and says they should all be killed. How do you feel and why?

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iron_Lotus

protestors. and dumb ones at that. if all militias are this poorly thought out and planned I just have to shake my head that these people could ever fight back against the government in a time of need.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

This is interesting, apparently other militia movements suspect this occupation may be a plot to discredit all militia movements.

Mike Vanderboegh, founder of the Three Percent movement wrote this on the initial day of the standoff:

I was first apprised of this a few minutes ago by folks on the ground out in Oregon. They report that Payne, Ritzheimer and every other “tiger-talking” fruit, nut and federal provocateur previously identified from the Bundy standoff were now in possession of the building and daring the Feds to do anything about it. My initial reaction was to observe that at least afterward we’ll know who the federal snitches are because they will be the only ones who survive the raid to take back the building. My understanding is that this premeditated action has been condemned by the Oregon Three Percenters and other groups but the fact of the matter is that these people are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood. And the Hammonds themselves are disavowing this action in the strongest terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

@ OverSword

I don't understand what you wrote here:

In my opinion if you haven't killed anyone or taken someone hostage or destroyed property in the name of a political agenda then you are not a protester.

Do you mean "not a terrorist" or "you are a protester"?

I think that they are armed protesters. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

@ OverSword

I don't understand what you wrote here:

oops, thanks for the heads up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Both, being armed makes them fulfill all requirements for terrorism charges.

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Yeah, to call them "terrorists", domestic or otherwise, in the classical sense does not fit in this case, it would seem.

Armed occupiers are what they are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Both, being armed makes them fulfill all requirements for terrorism charges.

would that apply to these people as well?

title-headline--60.jpg

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

I think they are a bunch of darn silly fools. They are not even as prepared as your average deer hunter is to be out in a winter camp for a few days, let alone at the level of preparedness required to be a terrorist, protester, or occupier for any length of time.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Terrorism seems more to be an activity designed to cause mortal fear to, generally, the public.

They have not done this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I think they are a bunch of darn silly fools. They are not even as prepared as your average deer hunter is to be out in a winter camp for a few days, let alone at the level of preparedness required to be a terrorist, protester, or occupier for any length of time.

Well, my view is that they seem to suffer from a delusion Hollywood and TV shows have firmly implanted in our brains: If you are right you don't need to be prepared, you become superman and at the end of the film you will win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HandsomeGorilla

I think they are a bunch of darn silly fools.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Language, ma'am!

Edited by Not Your Huckleberry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Terrorism seems more to be an activity designed to cause mortal fear to, generally, the public.

They have not done this.

No, terrorism us trying to force political changes by violent actions that could cause fear. The shoe bomber caused more amusement than fear but still...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Language, sir!

That would be ma'am, if you don't mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

would that apply to these people as well?

title-headline--60.jpg

Are those people using their firearms to threaten others?

The Bundy group are extremely stupid protesters BUT in backing up their words with firearms, and the obvious threat involved there, their actions do bridge the fuzzy line separating protesters and terrorists. Why did they need to take their guns with them when they occupied the building?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Are those people using their firearms to threaten others?

The Bundy group are extremely stupid protesters BUT in backing up their words with firearms, and the obvious threat involved there, their actions do bridge the fuzzy line separating protesters and terrorists. Why did they need to take their guns with them when they occupied the building?

To defend themselves against the evil guvmint, what else?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Are those people using their firearms to threaten others?

they do not have to, all they have to do is to make you think you are threatened. some are threatened by looks alone. so your argument is 0

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

. Why did they need to take their guns with them when they occupied the building?

If they didn't, they'd already be in jail

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

If they didn't, they'd already be in jail

And?

That is irrelevant to them using the threat of guns to induce fear regarding legally removing them from the premises.

aztek,

they do not have to, all they have to do is to make you think you are threatened. some are threatened by looks alone. so your argument is 0

You're usually wrong, and this time is no exception.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

They are armed to offer a clear suggestion that they will not be removed without their bullets flying.

That, in and of itself, constitutes a threat.

Hope this can end peacefully, though.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Are those people using their firearms to threaten others?

Did the guys in Oregon? I don't recall hearing it reported that they said they would harm anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Did the guys in Oregon? I don't recall hearing it reported that they said they would harm anyone.

The Bundy crowd made it clear they would resort to armed violence if an attempt to remove them was made. Why else use the language they did and bring their guns along with them?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

The Bundy crowd made it clear they would resort to armed violence if an attempt to remove them was made. Why else use the language they did and bring their guns along with them?

Can you find a quote of that? I googled but didn't see one. Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

The Bundy crowd made it clear they would resort to armed violence if an attempt to remove them was made. Why else use the language they did and bring their guns along with them?

I seriously doubt that anyone would shoot and unarmed law enforcement officer if they went to speak to the protesters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Can you find a quote of that? I googled but didn't see one.

He the Oregonian that they're 'willing to kill and be killed' if necessary, adding that the federal officials' actions have been 'in violation of the constitution'.

source

I appreciate it is only a partial quote and the context is not given, but it leaves little doubt as to why they took their guns with them when they occupied the building.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I still don't feel like these guys are terrorists, just stupid.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.