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

[Goosey 3,017]

13 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

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

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

Terrorism has many definitions. If I look here, I see "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

By any reasonable definition they are not terrorists and the only reason certain people are calling them terrorists is because they want to make a point about the mass media's double standards.

That is all.

 

[lego 44,165]

8 minutes ago, Whispering said:

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. 

 

http://youtu.be/W_FkzbTf-KM

white guy pointing a gun in park and making out alive, surprise

 

You obviously didn't get it. 

 

Fays argued that it's an open carry state, so it's fine for them to be armed, occupy federal property and threaten with violence if they're removed;  it was an open carry state in Tamir's case too but he was killed because of a toy gun.

"Willing to kill and get killed" is an open threat and intimidation by these "militiamen" but unlike non-whites, they're treated with white gloves. 

It's interesting how many people are actually bothered.

 

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

5 minutes ago, ajhuffman219 said:

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?  

I'm not assuming people in this thread are quick to judge non-whites, I was making a general statement. 

[JbGaga 2,261]

2 minutes ago, Bebe said:

"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.

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.

So I could say ( And I  dont belive this im just makeing an example):

Title: Fa*'s are _____________

post an article that sources someone calling gay peopel fa*'s

Then write an enitre thread on why I (A Gaga daily member)  believe gay people are fa*'s?

 

Am I understanding that right?

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Terrorism has many definitions. If I look here, I see "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

By any reasonable definition they are not terrorists and the only reason certain people are calling them terrorists is because they want to make a point about mass media's double standards.

That is all.

 

FBI definition: 

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

They fit 2/3 already and the first was implied as they said they were ready to use violence and are armed.

TERRORISTS. 

[JbGaga 2,261]

8 minutes ago, ajhuffman219 said:

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?  

this

[JbGaga 2,261]

11 minutes ago, SubRosa said:

 

http://youtu.be/W_FkzbTf-KM

white guy pointing a gun in park and making out alive, surprise

 

You obviously didn't get it. 

 

Fays argued that it's an open carry state, so it's fine for them to be armed, occupy federal property and threaten with violence if they're removed;  it was an open carry state in Tamir's case too but he was killed because of a toy gun.

"Willing to kill and get killed" is an open threat and intimidation by these "militiamen" but unlike non-whites, they're treated with white gloves. 

It's interesting how many people are actually bothered.

 

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.

 

[AJH219 4,448]

Just now, 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.

 

It really is too bad some people are cemented in their one way thinking. Even though it has gotten heated at times, this has been an really invigorating discussion. 

[Bebe 17,289]

1 minute ago, JbGaga said:

So I could say ( And I  dont belive this im just makeing an example):

Title: Fa*'s are _____________

post an article that sources someone calling gay peopel fa*'s

Then write an enitre thread on why I (A Gaga daily member)  believe gay people are fa*'s?

 

Am I understanding that right?

No that doesn't make any sense. Firstly, you can't write your own threads in Word News, secondly if YOU started calling people f*gs that's clearly against our specific guidelines and rules . This is really a pretty ridiculous strawman argument you are having here. You are trying to pick the most outrageous scenario which will never happen.

If, in this ludicrous hypothetical scenario, you found a reputable article that calls gay people f*gs in the middle of it (or throughout) then yes I suppose you could post it. I'm sure most of the replies would be "OMG this is shameful, I hope the writer gets fired and this gets deleted ASAP" or "I can't believe *this news organisation* had the nerve to refer to people that way" but it's a got a source from a reputable article and can create discussion.

Look let me break it down to you like this and show you my reasoning here:

This isn't really a situation where the moderators are going to be able to please everyone. That's not going to happen. We leave it like this and people like you come at us for being "bias" and argue we are being unfair. We change it and the users on the other side of the argument come at us for being "bias" and argue we are being unfair.

The current title is actually a title from the source posted, the term terrorist is being used by other major news articles. In this case it seems ok to use that term, even if other users strongly disagree. If it was only social media labelling them terrorists and nobody from the mainstream media was labelling them terrorists then the title would have been changed.

If it's a term being used by MAJOR news organisations (Like CNN) then it doesn't make sense for us to turn around and say the term can't be used here.

 

[lego 44,165]

Just now, 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.

 

 

BLM are unarmed and aren't threatening with violence, they're protesting against police brutality. All protests can turn violent, because all kinds of hooligans and vandals join the crowd just to steal and break stuff. It happens everywhere in the world. These Oregon terrorists have planned this(as they said)150 of them, they are heavily armed and "ready to kill or be killed" - not comparable.

And you can't do anything about the title. 

[Goosey 3,017]

12 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

FBI definition: 

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

They fit 2/3 already and the first was implied as they said they were ready to use violence and are armed.

TERRORISTS. 

I don't see danger to human life—yet. At this point they are no different than many other protesters. If the Bundys are terrorists, BlackLivesMatter or Ferguson protesters, or even Occupy Wall Street are terrorists—and there has been more violence and gunfire at BlackLivesMatter, Ferguson, etc, than from the "militia" and friends.

There's a reason the general public doesn't see these people as terrorists, and it's not just because they're white. 

 

 

[mmm 879]

Everyone should watch this video (The Truth About The Oregon Rancher Standoff):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU

How do I embed the video?

[AJH219 4,448]

3 minutes ago, SubRosa said:

 

BLM are unarmed and aren't threatening with violence, they're protesting against police brutality. All protests can turn violent, because all kinds of hooligans and vandals join the crowd just to steal and break stuff. It happens everywhere in the world. These Oregon terrorists have planned this(as they said)150 of them, they are heavily armed and "ready to kill or be killed" - not comparable.

And you can't do anything about the title. 

https://www.rt.com/usa/217835-oakland-protest-black-violence/?

This was just last week. So don't come at us with your ignorance on the matter because we've got our facts ready

[JbGaga 2,261]

4 minutes ago, ajhuffman219 said:

Just now, SubRosa said:

 

BLM are unarmed and aren't threatening with violence, they're protesting against police brutality. All protests can turn violent, because all kinds of hooligans and vandals join the crowd just to steal and break stuff. It happens everywhere in the world. These Oregon terrorists have planned this(as they said)150 of them, they are heavily armed and "ready to kill or be killed" - not comparable.

And you can't do anything about the title. 

It really is too bad some people are cemented in their one way thinking. Even though it has gotten heated at times, this has been an really invigorating discussion. 

BLM have armed members, they have threatened violence, HAS CAUSED VIOLENCE, they have planed sit-ins on federal and public property. There is no difference in my mind. If Militia in Oregon are Terrorists then BLM are also Terrorists.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Just now, Fays1 said:

Everyone should watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU

How do I embed the video?

This is 30 minutes long, don't expect people to go head over heels about it  

Also, a quick scan of his account and hes clearly an extreme right winger AND a misogynist with a clear agenda