Like I’ve said, you’ve firmly established yourself as an idiot and a moron. Your opinion is worth absolutely nothing.
Resorting to personal attacks and refusing to actually address my points is the mark of a moron. On that score you’re 11 out of 10. Explain why I’m wrong instead of insulting me, or admit you’re just a clueless dipshit.
Nah, this is the Pit. It’s not worth it. You’re a fucking moron and everyone knows it.
Last I heard I was doing pretty well in life, and I didn’t inherit anything, maybe I’m some kind of idiot savant? Who knows, but anyway I’m enjoying my life probably a fair bit more than your bitter existence.
Just to be clear coremelt the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, terrorism or not?
CMC fnord!
To be fair, civilians were killed on the plane, so that’s a poor example.
Exactly, and the world trade centre is civilian. If they had solely bombed the pentagon by planting a bomb thats not terrorism, its insurrection. Seriously read the laws, they agree with me. We don’t need to make everything terrorism because its already plenty illegal to attempt to overthrow the government by force.
When the IRA attacked police armoured vans it wasn’t terrorism. When they planted bombs in London it was. One group can do both terrorist and non terrorist acts.
Just because he’s an idiot and a moron does not mean he’s wrong.
The fact that these deadbeats terrorized the local community prior to taking over the center is what makes him wrong.
With regards to terrorism charges, does the term civilian mean “anyone who is not in the military” or does it mean “anyone who is not in the military or is not a law enforcement officer”?
Anyone who is not in the military…
Thanks, Justin Bailey. That makes coremelt wrong yet again. Or still wrong. Your choice on the adverb.
Terrorism is the use or threat of violence for political means to influence a government to act a certain way, whether that is to leave the Middle East or give up land possession.
End thread.
Hi Coremelt, I haven’t followed every post here, but generally agree with your take. Not terrorism as I understand it, but I’m not a lawyer.
Anyone seriously think that 10 or 20 years from now we’re going to be debating whether to call these guys terrorists? Undoubtedly, our collective brains will soon be filing them away in the same file as McVeigh and Rudolph.
All the hair splitting happening right now is going to look like a joke if this standoff inspires a copy catter who happens to be less disorganized and more competent than the present bunch.
If you’re the kind of intellectual coward that wants to brand anything threatening a terrorist then you deserve the NSA and TSA surveillance police state you’ll end up living in. Personally I prefer to have a set of balls . We don’t need terrorist laws to deal with numnuts like the bundys. Branding them terrorists is only playing into the hands of the ever growing security apparatus that is taking over your lives .
Ooh, scary security apparatus. Guess your balls aren’t as big as you thought.
Wouldn’t they have to have been US citizens for it to be insurrection? Insurrection legal definition of Insurrection
This may be a topic for another thread, but I think we granted the government a lot of power when we allowed them to write strict laws to deal with terrorism, and we need to be very mindful of that power. The concern, of course, is that they’ll take advantage of overly broad language in the laws to re-brand certain crimes and activities as terrorism because they don’t find the conventional, more restrictive laws useful enough. And sure enough, we see with the Hammonds that that’s exactly the sort of thing that is happening; a conventional case of arson to cover up deer poaching was prosecuted using a strict law that was passed under the guise of anti-terrorism. That’s not good.
I don’t know if the great Bundy siege of 2016 amounts to terrorism, but I do know that I’m not excited to call it that; I’d rather err on the side of calling a terrorist act something else than get comfortable with the idea of calling normal criminals terrorists in order to throw the book at them. If enough information comes out that terrorism does seem to be the appropriate label then so be it, but I don’t like the zeal I see here. I also can’t help but feel that there’s a bit of tribalism going on; that is to say, the “other side” frequently trots out the terrorism label where it doesn’t apply, and they’re unwilling to do so in other cases, so let’s point it out and rub their noses in it. But the corrective fix isn’t to allow terrorism creep because “they do it to.”
“We Don’t Like Bundys”
The acne zits inside their beards
Wasn’t the only thing to explode.
And nobody’s going to the Nature Preserve,
They’re going to make them stay at home.
Normal people don’t understand it,
(How could they Believe this Comedy Gold?)
They were never going to see reason
They lack the capacity to reason
And now ones dead by the side of the road?
Tell us why?
“You Don’t Like Bundys.”
Tell us why?
“You Don’t Like Bundys.”
Tell us why?
“You Don’t Like Bundys.”
“You just went in… and shot them all down…!”
::Eye-roll::
::Eye-roll::
::Eye-roll::
<chord>