So apparently there are like 5 idiots left at the refuge and they’re sitting around a campfire and, according to some twitter posts, smoking pot and getting drunk on their livestream. The livestream is just a black screen that shuts off every so often and is the most boring pointless thing ever. I can’t be bothered to watch it long enough to see if they really are drunk and stoned, but they were like totally freaking out about how really awesome the stars looked earlier.
If the black guy is a criminal who had a standoff with the police, who was shot while charging them after trying to escape… As opposed to the stories that do outrage us silly Libs of black people being shot with little provocation and not in the act of committing crimes…
But otherwise, yeah, totally the same thing.
There’s a Facebook group called Citizens for Constitutional Freedom Support Group that posted earlier that they were in contact with the patriots inside the refuge who said they had been in contact with some Navy SEALs who were going to parachute in to help them make a stand. Then they posted some time later that the FAA had established a no fly zone above the refuge.
Those damn feds think of everything.
One of them was just bragging about his tiny dick in the same breath as he talked about how God knows him. He claimed he’s a reality tv star now, and that the whole world loves him.
Comedy gold.
What about if existing supporters were motivated to take over federal buildings and land because they saw how they would get away with it without consequences?
Seems to me that most people will be far more likely to take over buildings if they see that they can than if they might wind up dead.
Yes, there’s the wackadoo factor. But by definition they’re a minority. And when we start making our law enforcement decisions based on what may or may not trigger wackadoos, we’ve lost the plot.
The AP is reporting 3 more arrests, but there’s no details yet.
How about impersonating a law officer?
Well played, gentlemen. Cracked me up.
And by golly, there is an NOTAM issued today for the area.
I still think the CCFSG is lying–when did the “rules” ever stop the Navy Seals? Especially when Charlie Sheen is leading the way?
In times like these, it’s best to call the Navy’s WALRUS Team EZ-Chair. All they ever ask in return is a simple “Thank You” and keg of beer.
Oh don’t give me that shit. You know damn well I was saying that a bunch of dumbasses would consider him to be one, not that I think he is one or deserves to be one.
WTF are you talking about?
You could I suspect make a start by reading my actual posts as opposed to making wild and completely wrong assumptions about where I’m coming from.
Of course all those acts you mentioned were terrorism. They fit the standard definition. The Bundyites not so much.
Yeah, it’s a tough one alright. The question I suppose is whether if they waited a bit longer till these guys had fallen apart even more, they might have been able to pick them up even more easily and without creating “martyrs”*.
*Not, like, actual deserving martyrs, you understand. Just undeserving people that may be perceived to be martyrs by dangerously stupid and impulsive dumbasses. Let me know if I need to explain this more clearly, won’t you Frank?
No matter how it played out, the other dumb asses would consider the dumb ass who got killed this time to be a martyr. Actually, they’ve been considered martyrs from the moment they started this stupidity.
So, we shouldn’t consider armed right wingers taking over a federal building, refusing to leave and then rushing at law enforcement agents while brandishing a weapon to be terrorists? Why not?
Because they didn’t carry out any terror attacks. Terror attacks are those explicitly on innocent civilians to get media attention for your cause. Planting a bomb to kill both police and soldiers would be a terrorist act. Attacking a federal officer would make them insurgents or rebels (and stupid) but not terrorists. In warfare (even civil war) officers of the government are legitimate targets.
Terrorist has a specific meaning, not just “people we don’t like”.
Since there seems to be an argument on what defines terrorism, let me quote from the applicable Federal Regualations:
Press on.
I agree: “Terrorist” has become an over-used word.
Can we go back to calling this lot “crypto-fascist anarchists”?
These days no fly zones seem to be mainly to keep news helicopters away.
I have often wished the chopper ops would man up and fight it in court. Back when I used to fly in a news chopper regularly my pilot was a very experienced ex cop pilot and he insisted that ‘because we don’t want you to see’ was not a good enough reason to create a no fly zone.
How about “we don’t want you to broadcast something the criminals might see”? Sniper positions, for example.
Charging police, armed, is provably dangerous to human life (the charger’s in this case) - Tick
Wasn’t one of the main purposes to coerce “a government” (the Federal one) to give them grazing rights? - Tick
This is a gimme - Tick.
Looks like “Domestic terrorism” fits, to me.