Oregon terrorists don't plan siege very well, put out plea for snacks

[Luiz 4,253]

2 minutes ago, ajhuffman219 said:

A visitor's center on a wildlife preserve, or wherever the place is at, is hardly an intimidating place though. 

 the guns are intimidating and obviously the threat to possibly use them is intimidating.

 

i guess i should call it quits on repeating myself   i see how someone can see it both ways and i dont really think it matters

[JbGaga 2,261]

4 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Whether people agree or  do not, they have been labelled as terrorists by a CNN National Security Analyst: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/index.html

This has been echoed by the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/

and large international headlines are remarking that they are terrorists: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-occupiers-terrorists-20160104-glza7p.html

Tom Mockaitis, who is an "International security analyst/military historian. Prof. of History, DePaul University [and] teaches counter- terrorism courses around the world." has written this for The Huffington Post:

"I have a strong suspicion, though, that objections to the terrorist label are more visceral. Terrorists are supposed to be dark-skinned and non-Christian. People are thus quick to apply the term to outsiders and far more willing to find a gentler word to describe those from their own social group. If members of the Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street movements had shown up to their protests as heavily armed as the men in Oregon, the same people defending the "militiamen" would probably be calling on the government to use all necessary force to apprehend the "terrorists.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mockaitis/the-oregon-standoff-and-t_b_8910690.html?ir=Australia

Whether you agree or you do not, the label "terrorist" has been picked up by many reputable news sources. If CNN, The Washington Post and The Huffington Post can call terrorism then I think the title is fine. If you want to argue that it isn't terrorism, that's your prerogative, but the title is fine from my perspective. Especially when it is taken into account that there are major news sources referring to them as "terrorists".

Ok Im going to look and find a source from a news channel or media calling black lives matter or  another protest group terrorist and im posting a thread that supports that claim. Lets see how long that last here. Thats so dumb.

If a commentator or politician called/ "Labeled" a gay person a Fa* and I wrote an article referring to gay people as Fa*'s then that should be ok right?

Many news organizations are not calling them terrorists (In fact ive been watching all day not one has called them terrorists on tv). You are only taking into account Liberal media.  Your being Bias and you know it. No Offence but how are you a moderator?

 

mod·er·a·tor

ˈmädəˌrādər/

noun

noun: moderator; plural noun: moderators

1.

an arbitrator or mediator.

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

I love seeing how bothered people get.

People are bothered because it's not correct, as you just implied yourself here:

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

If these were not white men you KNOW "terrorism" or "thugs" would be thrown around without question. Maybe next time you'll re-consider the words you used against non-whites. 

Nope, because if people agree with the failed logic of these gleeful linguistic counterattacks, we'll just end up calling everyone a terrorist. 

 

8 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

If your prepared to called every protest group (Black Lives Matter and All) Terrorists im ready to leave here and let you keep your title. But I doubt you will cause your pushing a different agenda here.

Exactly.

[Bebe 17,289]

4 minutes ago, ajhuffman219 said:

Its hard to take moderation seriously when they are biased as well. But, what else should I expect on a site like this?

Yeah boo-hoo, I'm really biased about some farm state in another country to me.

Yes, I read the story and it seemed like terrorism to me. I hardly have any huge, passionate thoughts about this story though to be completely real. You are well within your right to argue that it isn't terrorism, nobody is warning you for that, but when major news sources are content with calling this terrorism it would be silly of us to argue that the title must be changed.

The title has news sources backing it up, from my perspective that makes it ok. If you want to argue that those major news sources shouldn't be calling it terrorism then fine, but really your problem is with their headlines not ours.

[Whispering 18,865]

39 minutes ago, SubRosa said:

 

Law enforcement is threatened if they try to remove them by any means, since they are "ready to kill and be killed". That is a threat of violence to pursue a political goal. 

Tamir wasn't pointing at cops and he was not given enough time to comply.

And my comment was reply to this

"They are allowed to have guns in that state and they threatened the government if the government used illegal force against them"

 

It's not that hard to understand why I mentioned him.

He was pointing at civilians. That was why he was considered to be a threat to citizens and why 911 was called. Pointing a gun at random people in a park is seen as an immediate danger. 

There are no civilians in immediate danger in this current situation. These groups are protesting by occupying a bird sanctuary that is unstaffed. 

When you look at protests, the rioters in Ferguson were far more dangerous, since many of them were armed with guns and knives and they were setting fires across the city that put others at risk. They weren't self contained in a single unoccupied building. 

[JbGaga 2,261]

11 minutes ago, Luiz said:

taking over a government building and threatening to use lethal force if removed is intimidating. their goal seems political. like i said i can see it both ways.

 

whether you call the terrorists, protesters, farmers or even care bears it doesnt change the situation imo  

Not saying it changes anything. Im just not here for unfairly labeling people.

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

1 minute ago, Goosey said:

People are bothered because it's not correct, as you just implied yourself here:

Nope, because if people agree with the failed logic of these gleeful linguistic counterattacks, we'll just end up calling everyone a terrorist. 

 

Exactly.

They fit the description of a terrorist so it's not incorrect.

You may not like it, but that's another question. 

[JbGaga 2,261]

3 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Yeah boo-hoo, I'm really biased about some farm state in another country to me.

Yes, I read the story and it seemed like terrorism to me. I hardly have any huge, passionate thoughts about this story though to be completely real. You are well within your right to argue that it isn't terrorism, nobody is warning you for that, but when major news sources are content with calling this terrorism it would be silly of us to argue that the title must be changed.

The title has news sources backing it up, from my perspective that makes it ok. If you want to argue that those major news sources shouldn't be calling it terrorism then fine, but really your problem is with their headlines not ours.

Really???????????????????? Is that how you treat the people here and how you talk about people in another country? Your a Moderator?

[FlopSlut 1,190]

apparently people on GGD too don't know the difference between race and ethnicity 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

#YallQaeda 

 

[Sizzily 14,571]

4 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

Really???????????????????? Is that how you treat the people here and how you talk about people in another country? Your a Moderator?

*You're

This thread is great. No one's dead so it can't be that serious. But good discussions about terrorism.

[AJH219 4,448]

12 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I'm glad people in this thread are debating on whether the word "terrorist" can be used in this situation and honestly it can go either way.

I am choosing to call them terrorists.

I love seeing how bothered people get. If these were not white men you KNOW "terrorism" or "thugs" would be thrown around without question. Maybe next time you'll re-consider the words you use against non-whites. 

But how/why do you assume that because myself and other don't agree with them being labeled "terrorist" we are quick to call non-whites such things? Or that we are ignorant to the fact that if they were indeed African-Americans or another non-white race they would be labeled with such derogatory words?  

[Bebe 17,289]

13 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

Ok Im going to look and find a source from a news channel or media calling black lives matter or  another protest group terrorist and im posting a thread that supports that claim. Lets see how long that last here. Thats so dumb.

If a commentator or politician called/ "Labeled" a gay person a Fa* and I wrote an article referring to gay people as Fa*'s then that should be ok right?

Many news organizations are not calling them terrorists (In fact ive been watching all day not one has called them terrorists on tv). You are only taking into account Liberal media.  Your being Bias and you know it. No Offence but how are you a moderator?

 

mod·er·a·tor

ˈmädəˌrādər/

noun

noun: moderator; plural noun: moderators

1.

an arbitrator or mediator.

"Im going to look and find a source from a news channel or media calling black lives matter or  another protest group terrorist and im posting a thread that supports that claim. Lets see how long that last here. Thats so dumb."

Ehh if it's from a reputable source then fine? People can argue with the article for claiming that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group in the same way you can argue here, but the problem isn't with us. This section is for the posting of World News events with a reputable source. If that's how your source frames it then fine, if it's a complete fringe publication there may be issues, but if it's from Fox News then whether I like it or not that's how major news outlets are reporting it.

"If a commentator or politician called/ "Labeled" a gay person a Fa* and I wrote an article referring to gay people as Fa*'s then that should be ok right?"

If you found a reputable news source that read: Politician calls gay people F**s then that would of course be an acceptable headline. The story however would likely be something along the lines of controversy regarding that, you couldn't just start calling people F*gs because that is clearly against a particular rule of this forum. You also can't write your own article you have to have a source like everyone else.

As for other news organisations NOT calling them terrorists, that's fine too? We are not forcing everyone to call them terrorists it's just that some big and notable media outlets are. I get that you don't believe they should be labelled terrorists, that's completely fine, but if the title is okay for CNN we can't really turn around and say that it's not ok here - That would seem pretty bias.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

46 minutes ago, Luiz said:

kinda sucks that the actual story isnt reallly being paid any attention and everyone just wants to argue about if the reaction is racist or what to call them  

i wonder if the protesters actually have a good reason to protest i mean was there really a poaching operation going on? is the government overstepping? it must suck for them trying to do what they believe is right and the only thing people talk about is racism and ignoring their grievances entirely. they're getting attention but entirely the wrong attention  

From what ive read the "actual story" seems quite uneventful  The dispute, imo, doesnt seem like its going to end in the armed people's favor, seeing as how exploiting wildlife and resources on land that they don't own (federal, native, etc) is not really protected or generally condoned 

Spoiler

Someone fact check me, I read about this yesterday

Anyway, I think the crux of the racial aspect to this discussion is that regardless of whether this is defined as terrorism --(definitions are relative and tend to be prescriptive rather than descriptive but thats a whole other topic) its the media and millions of bandwagoners who aren't critical of it if it supports their worldview - 's reaction that is racially motivated. As in, many reporters and sources originally called them "patriots" and "peaceful protestors" even though the first one is entirely irrelevant and the latter is demonstrably false in the sense that they are armed and WILLING to kill and be killed as necessary for a cause. Peaceful protestors do not bring guns and threaten others. I think the initial response and reaction would be ENTIRELY different if these protestors were black or muslim. The implicit biases at work are pretty strong.

 

[AJH219 4,448]

12 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Yeah boo-hoo, I'm really biased about some farm state in another country to me.

Yes, I read the story and it seemed like terrorism to me. I hardly have any huge, passionate thoughts about this story though to be completely real. You are well within your right to argue that it isn't terrorism, nobody is warning you for that, but when major news sources are content with calling this terrorism it would be silly of us to argue that the title must be changed.

The title has news sources backing it up, from my perspective that makes it ok. If you want to argue that those major news sources shouldn't be calling it terrorism then fine, but really your problem is with their headlines not ours.

You're right, nobody is warning me. I haven't said anything to warrant any type of warning and haven't received such. And also, I never had an issue with the freaking title. I couldn't care less, my argument/critiques have solely been based on the fact the larger media's description. That issue with the title of this thread came from someone else.