#OregonUnderAttack

[Grand Vol]

I'd imagine they chose that location over something like a farmers barn or a Hess Mart. They wanted to make a statement, still, it doesn't change the premise of my question.

It was symbolic, nobody will deny that. And as a minimum when this is said and done, they'll likely get charged with trespassing or something along those lines. Provided this ends without incident. But they also picked an unoccupied building instead of a place where hostages would be a factor.

That doesn't sound very Islamic extremist-esque now does it? Doing something symbolic and not taking hostages or killing folks?

Was that the premise of your question?

 

[Septic]

The only butthurt in this thread is yours.

I take it you've never been to eastern Oregon.

I would love, absolutely love for the BLM morons to take over whatever wildlife refuge building they want in eastern Oregon under one circumstance, they never leave. This country will be a much better place.

These guys are idiots, but it's retarded to compare this to real disruption.

Thanks for making my point. Who's going to deliver the news to the OP?

 

[Obsessed]

I'm not sure anyone is being encroached upon. The Bundy guy is pissed he can't use federal land to earn a living. WTF, seriously. If that's legal I've got a nice spot in Smokies picked out for my summer retirement home.

You obviously don't know how farming works counselor.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

The #yallqaeda hashtag made me giggle.

 

[Septic]

It was symbolic, nobody will deny that. And as a minimum when this is said and done, they'll likely get charged with trespassing or something along those lines. Provided this ends without incident. But they also picked an unoccupied building instead of a place where hostages would be a factor.

That doesn't sound very Islamic extremist-esque now does it? Doing something symbolic and not taking hostages or killing folks?

Was that the premise of your question?

My question was not about a comparison of egregiousness, it was a simple closed ended question to the OP.

If these guys were Muslim, would you consider them terrorists? I think it's hilarious that some of you are trying to rationalize and deflect rather than answer with a simple yes or no.

This isn't a test and it's not a gotcha. Now however, I think it fascinating to witness all the stepping, fetching and qualifying.

 

[hndog609]

If the "armed guys" occupying the federal building were Muslims, would you call it terrorism?

Without someone showing "terrorism" as a matter of intent then not only do I not think it should be called that in your scenario I literally don't think it meets the definition.

 

[Grand Vol]

My question was not about a comparison of egregiousness, it was a simple closed ended question to the OP.

If these guys were Muslim, would you consider them terrorists? I think it's hilarious that some of you are trying to rationalize and deflect rather than answer with a simple yes or no.

This isn't a test and it's not a gotcha. Now however, I think it fascinating to witness all the stepping, fetching and qualifying.

Some of us lol

I merely asked for clarification as to the premise of your question. Now if a bunch of Islamic extremists took over an abandoned building and called for the release of their imprisoned brothers or whatnot, no, it's not really "terrorism." If they threatened violence, took hostages, planted explosives and were holed up in a safe place (or combinations thereof) the conditions would be different and I'd be calling for an armed response.

But again, it's symbolic in nature.

 

[hog88]

Rich, how so? You can't answer a simple question with a yes or no.

I'd wager a paycheck if it were a handful of mooslims with guns, holed up in federal property making demands half of this board would be demanding JDAMS and whining that Obama is a sympathizer for not leveling Oregon liberals sooner.

The OP's butthurt is as misguided as your pathetic attempts to dodge the question. It's fun exposing people like you who try and rationalize the hypocrisy.

The simple fact of you asking the question shows your dishonesty! How would we know their religion? The only way we would know is through their demands or if they volunteered it.

If their demands weren't terrorist related and they haven't hurt or detained anyone then I'd feel the same. Dumbasses who are going to jail.

 

[Septic]

Without someone showing "terrorism" as a matter of intent then not only do I not think it should be called that in your scenario I literally don't think it meets the definition.

Thanks for your answer, interesting perspective.

 

[Septic]

The simple fact of you asking the question shows your dishonesty! How would we know their religion? The only way we would know is through their demands or if they volunteered it.

If their demands weren't terrorist related and they haven't hurt or detained anyone then I'd feel the same. Dumbasses who are going to jail.

Have you been drinking?

I told you they were Mooslims and asked you a question based on that and other factors (guns, demands etc...) How you obtain the information is irrelevant, geezus.

It's a yes or no question man, nut up.

 

[Septic]

Some of us lol

I merely asked for clarification as to the premise of your question. Now if a bunch of Islamic extremists took over an abandoned building and called for the release of their imprisoned brothers or whatnot, no, it's not really "terrorism." If they threatened violence, took hostages, planted explosives and were holed up in a safe place (or combinations thereof) the conditions would be different and I'd be calling for an armed response.

But again, it's symbolic in nature.

OK, great. I think the fact that these guys left goodbye messages for their families indicates that they ain't goin' out like bit*hes.

 

[hog88]

Have you been drinking?

I told you they were Mooslims and asked you a question based on that and other factors (guns, demands etc...) How you obtain the information is irrelevant, geezus.

It's a yes or no question man, nut up.

The simple fact of you asking the question shows your dishonesty! How would we know their religion? The only way we would know is through their demands or if they volunteered it.

If their demands weren't terrorist related and they haven't hurt or detained anyone then I'd feel the same. Dumbasses who are going to jail.

I did nut up, can't you read?

 

[Grand Vol]

OK, great. I think the fact that these guys left goodbye messages for their families indicates that they ain't goin' out like bit*hes.

Or they know the playbook and historical background in things like this.

Ruby Ridge and Waco immediately come to mind.

Your problem is you are trying to create something that isn't there. Right now it's peaceful. Bunch of folks holed up in a building not harming a soul making some crazy demands. Best thing to do? Wait them out. They'll run out of supplies eventually or the weather will get really bad or the stench of not bathing for weeks will finally make some crack.

It's far easier to wait for their "resolve" to break rather than an armed intrusion. And I'd be saying the same thing about Islamic extremists holed up. They'll get cold and hungry eventually.

 

[Septic]

I did nut up, can't you read?

Technically, you qualified your answers based on factors that weren't a part of the given equation. But at least you committed - this wasn't a test, but if it were I'd only feel right about giving you a C+.

 

[Septic]

Or they know the playbook and historical background in things like this.

Ruby Ridge and Waco immediately come to mind.

Your problem is you are trying to create something that isn't there. Right now it's peaceful. Bunch of folks holed up in a building not harming a soul making some crazy demands. Best thing to do? Wait them out. They'll run out of supplies eventually or the weather will get really bad or the stench of not bathing for weeks will finally make some crack.

It's far easier to wait for their "resolve" to break rather than an armed intrusion. And I'd be saying the same thing about Islamic extremists holed up. They'll get cold and hungry eventually.

I wasn't creating anything - it was a closed ended question. It it my objectors who are have injected subjectivities not relevant to my question. As for the rest I agree, wait them out. They're harmless.

 

[Grand Vol]

Technically, you qualified your answers based on factors that weren't a part of the given equation. But at least you committed - this wasn't a test, but if it were I'd only feel right about giving you a C+.

Technically, I'd give you an F. And is "you really got yourself all F______ed up asking such silly questions."

 

[Grand Vol]

I wasn't creating anything - it was a closed ended question. It it my objectors who are have injected subjectivities not relevant to the question.

Here's your initial question:

If the "armed guys" occupying the federal building were Muslims, would you call it terrorism?

To which I joked about the "federal building" because it is kind of silly to refer to it as same.

And went on to answer your question. Now do I get an A+ for giving the same damn answer you gave on page 1?

 

[Septic]

Technically, I'd give you an F. And is "you really got yourself all F______ed up asking such silly questions."

Mugging for the crowd? I assumed you were better than that - though I've thought that before...

Hilarious that you and your ilk are afraid to answer such an "silly" question without hemming and hawing all over the thread.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You obviously don't know how farming works counselor.

I can use land that belongs to others without payment?

 

[hndog609]

Technically, you qualified your answers based on factors that weren't a part of the given equation. But at least you committed - this wasn't a test, but if it were I'd only feel right about giving you a C+.

I think the argument at this point is if your question is one of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. If you'll indulge me I'd submit that if you modified your question to:

If the "armed guys" under identical circumstances were Muslims, would you call it terrorism?

it might have made it more clear. Not sure but that's how I approached it and with nothing to point to as an "act of terror" (or at least threat of such) I don't see how one could call it terrorism.

 

[Septic]

Here's your initial question:



To which I joked about the "federal building" because it is kind of silly to refer to it as same.

And went on to answer your question. Now do I get an A+ for giving the same damn answer you gave on page 1?

I'll let you teach if you can link to this "answer" in which you "went on to answer" on page 1.

I see where you joked about the federal building, but the meat pretty much ended there. Nary a yes or no to the question of whether you believed my scenario would be terroristic in nature.

 

[Grand Vol]

Mugging for the crowd? I assumed you were better than that - though I've thought that before...

Hilarious that you and your ilk are afraid to answer such an "silly" question without hemming and hawing all over the thread.

Are you missing the obvious answers both Hog and I have given? Or are you just in the mood to argue today?

Here's three answers given:

Without someone showing "terrorism" as a matter of intent then not only do I not think it should be called that in your scenario I literally don't think it meets the definition.

If their demands weren't terrorist related and they haven't hurt or detained anyone then I'd feel the same. Dumbasses who are going to jail.

Now if a bunch of Islamic extremists took over an abandoned building and called for the release of their imprisoned brothers or whatnot, no, it's not really "terrorism."

And I even went further to say exactly the same thing you said on page 1:

Best thing to do? Wait them out. They'll run out of supplies eventually or the weather will get really bad or the stench of not bathing for weeks will finally make some crack.

It's far easier to wait for their "resolve" to break rather than an armed intrusion. And I'd be saying the same thing about Islamic extremists holed up. They'll get cold and hungry eventually.

You're still at an F grade. And only an F because I can't go lower than that without you going to a safe place from my macro aggressive posts.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'll let you teach if you can link to this "answer" in which you "went on to answer" on page 1.

Your post:

No water, electricity or food will bring these guys out eventually. They will and should be charged -they'll get theirs. Not reason to go Ruby Ridge or Waco...

My post:

Right now it's peaceful. Bunch of folks holed up in a building not harming a soul making some crazy demands. Best thing to do? Wait them out. They'll run out of supplies eventually or the weather will get really bad or the stench of not bathing for weeks will finally make some crack.

It's far easier to wait for their "resolve" to break rather than an armed intrusion. And I'd be saying the same thing about Islamic extremists holed up. They'll get cold and hungry eventually.

Go sit in the corner and put this on:

 

[Septic]

Are you missing the obvious answers both Hog and I have given? Or are you just in the mood to argue today?

Here's three answers given:


And I even went further to say exactly the same thing you said on page 1:



You're still at an F grade. And only an F because I can't go lower than that without you going to a safe place from my macro aggressive posts.

Nope, sorry. You don't get to claim their answers earlier for yours. You tried making a joke about the building and claiming it as an answer - which it was not. Fail.

 

[Septic]

Your post:



My post:



Go sit in the corner and put this on:

Pages later you echo what I said on the first page. Strong work - it was the most intuitive thing you've said in this thread.

Cute picture, mugging for the simps in the crowd again?