• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The STFU Thread

Most are wondering why the Oregon terrorists are being coddled by the FBI and not labeled as terrorists by an appreciable portion of the media. I don't know that anyone has said this makes anything else okay to do
 
“We’ve never, in the history of this country, passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion.”
-Gov. Haley

Please don't Fox Newsify this -- completely taken out of context.

"When you've got immigrants who are coming here legally, we've never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion. … We've gone too far than to go back into a race and religion issue. I've been through those fights. That’s not worth it."

She may be wrong, but her intentions are at least in the right place.
 
Last edited:
Please don't Fox Newsify this -- completely taken out of context.

"When you've got immigrants who are coming here legally, we've never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion. … We've gone too far than to go back into a race and religion issue. I've been through those fights. That’s not worth it."

She may be wrong, but her intentions are at least in the right place.

Good point.
 
So the Republicans in Congress did their job.
 
Most are wondering why the Oregon terrorists are being coddled by the FBI and not labeled as terrorists by an appreciable portion of the media. I don't know that anyone has said this makes anything else okay to do

To be terrorists, don't you have to do or threaten harm? Were the Occupy people terrorists?
 
To be terrorists, don't you have to do or threaten harm? Were the Occupy people terrorists?

I think of terrorism as the use of force or intimidation as a means of gaining or exerting political pressure to further a goal(s).

This is almost certainly terrorism, and it has been referred to as such by the government. This group took over a federal building with guns, how would that not be terrorism?

The Occupy groups, with some exceptions where people were arrested (Moral Monday type stuff), were generally occupying public space and were presumably protected by the First Amendment.

Taking over a federal building with guns is a clear-cut crime and it's clearly terrorism. I really don't see how you could reasonably argue to the contrary at all.
 
i'd say occupying the buildings with high powered weapons is pretty threatening

Occupy - stands in public space unarmed outside private buildings and chants slogans
Militia - stages armed takeover of public building and threatens violence against those who try to stop them

Which one looks like a terrorist?
 
Occupy - stands in public space unarmed outside private buildings and chants slogans
Militia - stages armed takeover of public building and threatens violence against those who try to stop them

Which one looks like a terrorist?

The dirty brown ones with beards.
 
I think of terrorism as the use of force or intimidation as a means of gaining or exerting political pressure to further a goal(s).

This is almost certainly terrorism, and it has been referred to as such by the government. This group took over a federal building with guns, how would that not be terrorism?

The Occupy groups, with some exceptions where people were arrested (Moral Monday type stuff), were generally occupying public space and were presumably protected by the First Amendment.

Taking over a federal building with guns is a clear-cut crime and it's clearly terrorism. I really don't see how you could reasonably argue to the contrary at all.

Didn't they explicitly say that they meant no one harm? They occupied a remote building that they knew was empty. They are fucking idiots, not terrorists.
 
Occupy - stands in public space unarmed outside private buildings and chants slogans
Militia - stages armed takeover of public building and threatens violence against those who try to stop them

Which one looks like a terrorist?

You sure about that?
 
Didn't they explicitly say that they meant no one harm? They occupied a remote building that they knew was empty. They are fucking idiots, not terrorists.

why do they need big guns if they mean no harm?
 
Basically because nobody has been hurt they aren't terrorists? The government is purposefully avoiding confrontation with them because of the threat of violence.
 
You sure about that?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/oregon-militia-threatens-showdown-with-us-agents-at-wildlife-refuge?CMP=share_btn_tw

One of the occupiers, Ryan Payne, said by telephone that they did not intend to resort to violence, but that when local and federal authorities arrived “whatever else is going to happen will happen”.

https://news.vice.com/article/armed-militiamen-occupy-wildlife-refuge-in-oregon-and-threaten-showdown-with-feds

I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary. #OregonUnderAttack

"Dwight, do you want die in prison labeled as a terrorist by these oppressors?" Ritzheimer asks. "Or do you want to die out here with us a free man? I want to die a free man."
 
So were the protesters that burned down building in Ferguson and rioted in Baltimore terrorists? By the definitions you all propose, they are. (I don't think any of them are)
 
Didn't they explicitly say that they meant no one harm? They occupied a remote building that they knew was empty. They are fucking idiots, not terrorists.

And if idiot Muslims did the same thing trying to embarrass the US government?


Terrorists or just idiots that happen to be Muslim?
 
And if idiot Muslims did the same thing trying to embarrass the US government?


Terrorists or just idiots that happen to be Muslim?

I don't understand the need to validate your perceived moral superiority. "If these guys weren't white, you'd be pissed because you're a racist!!11!!1"

I don't care if Muhammad himself came down to do it. If they take over a remote, unoccupied building with no intention to harm anyone, then they are a bunch of idiots trespassing, not terrorists. If they start threatening and/or doing harm, then they are certainly terrorists.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to stick with an armed takeover of a federal building and subsequent refusal to leave when asked to do so by the American government as an act of "terror." The point is to use the armed insurrection to leverage political capital to get the government to cede to their demands. I ask again, how is that not an act of terror?

The violence aspect may be somewhat limited, but they have guns on their person and they know the FBI/government knows this.
 
Back
Top