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

questionmark

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

So was the shoe bomber. I doubt that "not stupid" is a requirement to be a terrorist.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

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

There ain't no such thing as "aggravated protesting". If someone wants to protest, fine, occupy a building - but leave the guns at home. Then you're a protester and not a criminal/terrorist.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

So was the shoe bomber. I doubt that "not stupid" is a requirement to be a terrorist.

*snip* shoe bomber wanted to blow up the plane and kill everyone on board, these guys do nothing like that, yet you compare them? *snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed derogatory personal remarks
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

There ain't no such thing as "aggravated protesting".

Well, perhaps this is the start of a new offense?

:unsure2:

Edited by Aftermath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

*snip* shoe bomber wanted to blow up the plane and kill everyone on board, these guys do nothing like that, yet you compare them? *snip*

so, the amount of killed is the argument? And with how many do we start counting?

And no, I don't compare them,I apply the legal definition which makes anybody who by means of violence and/or instilling fear attempts to achieve political goals a terrorist.

Armed occupation is violence, no matter if somebody gets hurt.

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Armed occupation is violence, no matter if somebody gets hurt.

not always, sometimes it is called "liberation", and " winning hearts and minds"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

not always, sometimes it is called "liberation", and " winning hearts and minds"

If you get at least 50% of the population to join you and topple the government. Until then it is just insurrection. The first makes you a national hero the second a national convict.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

If you get at least 50% of the population to join you and topple the government. Until then it is just insurrection. The first makes you a national hero the second a national convict.

so armed occupation is ok as long as 50% agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

My vote is for terrorists. They took over a government building waving heavy weaponry around while declaring that they are "prepared to bleed" for their rights (or something to that effect). This is not peaceful protest, this is hostile takeover. They're intimidating their way to getting what they want, while threatening violence. That's terrorism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

so armed occupation is ok as long as 50% agree?

Yes, that is called a revolution and that is how this country got started. Now, lots of luck trying to get enough people when more than 50% cannot even be arsed to vote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Yes, that is called a revolution and that is how this country got started. Now, lots of luck trying to get enough people when more than 50% cannot even be arsed to vote.

that is because voting does not work, but revolutions do. i have no doubt a lot more believe in revolution than voting, make a poll if you do not believe me, see for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

that is because voting does not work, but revolutions do. i have no doubt a lot more believe in revolution than voting, make a poll if you do not believe me, see for yourself.

Boolcrappy, voting does not work because nobody can get his **** off his couch, nobody can be arsed to switch on his brain and nobody can be arsed to participate in the political process.

Makes a good excuse though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Boolcrappy, voting does not work because nobody can get his **** off his couch, nobody can be arsed to switch on his brain and nobody can be arsed to participate in the political process.

Makes a good excuse though.

now that is a Boolcrappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

If their names were like Mohammad Bundi'i what would they be called?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

that is because voting does not work, but revolutions do. i have no doubt a lot more believe in revolution than voting, make a poll if you do not believe me, see for yourself.

Voting in America doesn't work because the people elected feel they have a mandate to work for the people who got them elected rather than the people who elected them.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Voting in America doesn't work because the people elected feel they have a mandate to work for the people who got them elected rather than the people who elected them.

I would feel that too if I knew that I would be voted in again along partisan lines unless I was caught sleeping with an intern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

that is because voting does not work, but revolutions do. i have no doubt a lot more believe in revolution than voting, make a poll if you do not believe me, see for yourself.

Voting in America doesn't work because the people elected feel they have a mandate to work for the people who got them elected rather than the people who elected them.

<------

The vacancy shall go to the highest bidder. Meaning, the candidate who raises the most money from special interest groups or regular citizens (say after 12 months) buys the seat. All of the money raised between the candidates would then be donated to cancer research... oh wait, rather it'll be used to support St. Jude... better yet a split donation between their home state schools and the Special Olympics... um no, probably just go to their bank account.

Edited by Aftermath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Voting in America doesn't work because the people elected feel they have a mandate to work for the people who got them elected rather than the people who elected them.

i agree, whatever the reason is, it does not work, system that does not work needs to go, regardless of the reason it does not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

My vote is for terrorists. They took over a government building waving heavy weaponry around while declaring that they are "prepared to bleed" for their rights (or something to that effect). This is not peaceful protest, this is hostile takeover. They're intimidating their way to getting what they want, while threatening violence. That's terrorism.

You just described the actions of the government toward the property owners in the western US states. The only difference is that the government is too gutless to actually spell out the threat. They use force to steal land and or deny the free use of a person's own property through fiat of legislation. I think these guys could have found a better way but I won't fault them for their anger - it is righteous. The US government is slowly strangling citizens, business owners and even punishing political enemies under the aegis of "environmental protection". It's just one in a long list of usurpations that a tyrannical government feels free to indulge in. Left and Right are guilty of pandering to this movement but the Liberals are wed to them and the line seems to have been drawn. If these guys go out in a blaze like Ruby Ridge or Waco, it will just lead to more groups standing up. I think the government is scared spitless of small militia groups like this.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

You just described the actions of the government toward the property owners in the western US states. The only difference is that the government is too gutless to actually spell out the threat. They use force to steal land and or deny the free use of a person's own property through fiat of legislation. I think these guys could have found a better way but I won't fault them for their anger - it is righteous. The US government is slowly strangling citizens, business owners and even punishing political enemies under the aegis of "environmental protection". It's just one in a long list of usurpations that a tyrannical government feels free to indulge in. Left and Right are guilty of pandering to this movement but the Liberals are wed to them and the line seems to have been drawn. If these guys go out in a blaze like Ruby Ridge or Waco, it will just lead to more groups standing up. I think the government is scared spitless of small militia groups like this.

If your government is doing that, then they're engaging in terrorist acts, too. That being said, the actions of the american government don't make the y'all-qaeda group any less terrorists. At best, it means they're terrorizing each other. Both are dumb and both need to stop.

I don't know much about the minutia of american evironmental law, so I won't pretend otherwise. How does your government "use force to steal the land"? Does it wave guns in the faces of the rightful owners with thinly0veiled threats of physical violence? How do they stop an owner from using their own land in a legal way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

Local indian tribe has said that these lands belong to them.

As an outsider I understand why the authorities have not yet intervened, how ever for what I've read these guys are have crossed the line for what they've declared after occupied the federal building. They are not peaceful protestors, they have to , in my worthless opinion, be considered highly dangerous criminals when they said threatened police officers with deadly confrontation if there was an attempt to remove them.

These morons didn't think this through, they'll end up in jail or dead. Hopefully a deal can be reached and minor charges will be charged on them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

How do they stop an owner from using their own land in a legal way?

The problem there seems to be "the legal way". There are enough who would like to use their land as dump, or just cut off every tree they see, or kill every critter that roams it. The problem is that there are laws against that. And somehow they don't seem to grasp the principle that the common interests precede the individual interest (else government would be impossible).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

The problem there seems to be "the legal way". There are enough who would like to use their land as dump, or just cut off every tree they see, or kill every critter that roams it. The problem is that there are laws against that. And somehow they don't seem to grasp the principle that the common interests precede the individual interest (else government would be impossible).

So these are just a bunch of whiny rednecks who are mad that they can't pollute/destroy their land in any way they see fit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

they want to raise their livestock, but feds took all the water from them, if i'm not mistaken.

also all farms create manure and urine, when there is a lot of it, it poisons land, but i do not think this is something feds care thou.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

So these are just a bunch of whiny rednecks who are mad that they can't pollute/destroy their land in any way they see fit?

Not to forget not paying the rent on the Federal land they leased.

But, there are concerns out there that need to be addressed and that due the dysfunctional of Congress never did get addressed. Just Clyven Bundy and his would be guerrillas are using the wrong way to change any of that. Now Congress has to use its little functionality to create new laws and safeguards against "domestic terrorism".

  • Like 1

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.