• 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

If you commit a robbery with a weapon, regardless of intent, it is a more serious crime.

This is more than trespassing.

They have destroyed a $100,000 fence.
 
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.

I understand why you'd see it this way. I get it. I think we just have different definitions of terrorism. For me, directly threatened or carried out violence is the line.
 
I understand why you'd see it this way. I get it. I think we just have different definitions of terrorism. For me, directly threatened or carried out violence is the line.

Once again, what's the purpose of the firearms?
 
I believe the FBI definition of terrorism includes "violence against person or property"

From the UN Security Council:

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,"

We're splitting hairs here. The hillbillies in Oregon deserve to be arrested and prosecuted for whatever laws (quite a few, I'm sure) they have broken. Honestly, calling them terrorists gives them too much credit. They want that attention.
 
From the UN Security Council:

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,"

We're splitting hairs here. The hillbillies in Oregon deserve to be arrested and prosecuted for whatever laws (quite a few, I'm sure) they have broken. Honestly, calling them terrorists gives them too much credit. They want that attention.

Fair enough. I agree that in a vacuum, considering only the Oregon issue, that it does not matter what label is attributed. On the other hand I don't like that a group of white, militant, anti-federal government, right-wing morons take over a federal building in Oregon and get to order pizza, snacks, have mail delivered, and generally just shoot the shit with local law enforcement doesn't get lumped in as "terrorists" and thus permits for the continued (predominantly conservative) narrative that terrorism is solely a Muslim/people of color occurrence.

As for this specific case I'm 100% on board that we're just splitting hairs though.
 
If you commit a robbery with a weapon, regardless of intent, it is a more serious crime.

This is more than trespassing.

They have destroyed a $100,000 fence.

So what you're saying is, there are people entering a piece of the United States that by law do not have a right to be there, and you would like them removed and further, you would like them to pay for the cost of the fence to keep them out in the future.

Have I got a candidate for you...
 
stretch-visualizing-words.jpg
 
Back
Top