-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Extremist Militia Occupies Federal Building In Oregon
- Thread starter jmood88
- Start date
- Status
Mr_Antimatter
Member
If i was the feds, i'd just surround the place and blockade it. No utilities, no one allowed it. Those who surrender and leave will be arrested, but no supplies will be allowed in. The longer they hold out, the harsher the punishment.
IrishNinja
Member
i respect the sentiment of A), even if i don't agree with how it's being framed. and B) is a fair point, but given the overlap & fed history with cliven, i think there's some continuity in this & how we got here.
i can also appreciate your later point on feds post-WACO, but i likewise think posters here might be on about more than protocol & FOX narratives - everything from how this might play out in court, reluctance for some agencies to call this terrorism, etc - i do think it's disingenuous to say this'd be the same case overall with blacks/other minorities involved
Captin Quacker
Member
I can't blacks aren't crazy or privileged enough to do something like this
But the question now is why hasn't anything been done
Bornstellar
Member
kame-sennin
Member
WHY IS THAT A GOOD THING???
my goal when i twist around common elements of conservative rhetoric is to demonstrate exactly why it is so ridiculous in the hopes that those rhetorical strategies will be retired after they are no longer cloaked by favorable object-level obfuscators, such as their inability to feel empathy towards non-white people
i would much rather these white terrorists be rehabilitated than killed, but this is an excellent time to rhetorically demonstrate why following their conservative paradigms would make for a terrible ending, now that people aren't blinded by their own prejudices
if you say "wow, that sounds bad" and can then recognize how that happening to non-white people would also be bad, then it's working
i would much rather these white terrorists be rehabilitated than killed, but this is an excellent time to rhetorically demonstrate why following their conservative paradigms would make for a terrible ending, now that people aren't blinded by their own prejudices
if you say "wow, that sounds bad" and can then recognize how that happening to non-white people would also be bad, then it's working
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I really think calling them terrorists is a stretch. If they were holding anybody captive, that would absolutely be a fair term to use because the fact that they're armed could not be separated from that, but they're not threatening nor have committed a specific act of violence in the absence of a change of government policy or social attitudes. They're holed up in an unoccupied building and are trying to goad the feds into a fight so they can look like martyrs to their radical anti-government compatriots. Nobody is in danger, and the only people that they plan to put in danger are federal LEOs who come too nearby. That's rebellion, absolutely, but it's not really in the spirit of the term terrorism unless the threat is more specific and has a guarantee of happening in the absence of some kind of societal alteration, even if, legalistically, you could stretch it under that umbrella.
You are forgetting the kids who are in danger.
Their supporters seems like swell people as well...
Left to right, twitter is awful
A state rep hitting back at being calling out by saying you're gay? What the fuck is this shit? Stay classy Tennessee.
Left to right, twitter is awful
A state rep hitting back at being calling out by saying you're gay? What the fuck is this shit? Stay classy Tennessee.
Bornstellar
Member
.
As an aside, Obama should commute the Hammond's sentences.
Check. Your move.
Damn... Didn't expect left field homophobia there.
At least its just a random twitter dude and not an elected offici-
oh.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Endangering minors is already a crime. They're not holding the kids captive against their will nor threatening violence against them. Again, calling people terrorists generally connotes the idea that someone is holding the potential for violence over the heads of a populace or of decision makers in order to affect political change. These guys are holed up in a building, and as of right now, nothing will happen if nobody goes there. There is no imminent danger to anybody, unless stupidity sets in amongst LEOs.
Chie Satonaka
Member
Given the current conversation surrounding doublestandards and how different this would be if there were black or brown folks doing this, I felt like this article I just saw on twitter was appropriate:
"Oregon Militants Say They're Getting Worse Treatment Than Black Lives Matter Movement"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ives-matter_568aaad9e4b014efe0db065c?1tmuc8fr
Presented without comment.
Edit:
A minor comment.
That twitter exchange above makes this even better.
"Oregon Militants Say They're Getting Worse Treatment Than Black Lives Matter Movement"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ives-matter_568aaad9e4b014efe0db065c?1tmuc8fr
Presented without comment.
Edit:
A minor comment.
That twitter exchange above makes this even better.
They are threatening violence against people who come near them or attempt to force them to leave. One would hope the situation never escalates to that point but they have gone out of their way to use intimidation against a government facility with the intent on changing a legal outcome. That under the current definition of federal or state terrorism would make them domestic terrorists should legal duties actually be engaged in this matter. But thanks to Waco disaster federal authorities are of course trying other ways of remedying the situation short of just waiting for them to leave and not letting people back in once they do. But don't try to sugar coat this despite how 'harmless' they appear to be by not taking hostages, they are still using the threat of violence to enact a political result.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
If there was no threat of violence, local PD could probably just roll up, arrest them and that's that.
They have literally asked for a fight. Just because they probably won't get it doesn't free them of an imminent danger threat.
Are they technically causing terror to civilians while holed up in this building? I would say no.
eu pfhor ia
Neo Member
Uh, mandatory min. sentences have been questioned for quite a while now, seeing as how they were originally introduced a few decades ago to prosecute non-violent drug offenders (lawyers/legal historians feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that). The only reason it's an issue with these people is that now it's happened to one of their own and under different circumstances.
In other words, why should the media pretend that two good 'ol boys are the poster boys for mandatory minimums rather than the thousands of other people already imprisoned? (unjustly? That's another conversation) Nah. I'm no fan of the concept but these two ranchers were convicted and now have to suffer the consequences. They can continue to appeal their cases if they want, like anyone else.
Captin Quacker
Member
Wellthereitis.gif
you see, the problem these days is that real conservative rhetoric is so absurd that if i wrote that as a parody it would be considered unfairly harsh... and yet it's real
remember when "republicans want to ban muslims until further notice" was a strawman? or the calls to close down five random government agencies including the department of commerce twice? or the fabled three page tax code?
they said they are "willing to kill or be killed if necessary," which is a pretty clear threat of violence to me
and depending on the validity of the religious angle this could be construed as Radical Mormon Terrorism
and if ted cruz is to be believed, "political correctness" and not slandering religions through attempting to conflate their entirety with terrorism will be our downfall
They are basically the least threatening terrorists ever; but I'd still say they qualify at this point due to them threatening LE.
If they give up peacefully and lay down their guns I'd also be fine with them not getting domestic terrorist charges; but I'd hope their actions would otherwise be punished to the fullest extent of the law, including child endangerment and all kinds of possible charges.
If you remove the guns and the threats it IS more an act of civil disobedience than anything else; you can't really say the same of most "Terrorists." They are teatering on the line and the moment they open fire on anyone; definitely terrorism charges at hand.
(obviously a personal opinion not an educated legal one, but I'll add that for context lol)
If they give up peacefully and lay down their guns I'd also be fine with them not getting domestic terrorist charges; but I'd hope their actions would otherwise be punished to the fullest extent of the law, including child endangerment and all kinds of possible charges.
If you remove the guns and the threats it IS more an act of civil disobedience than anything else; you can't really say the same of most "Terrorists." They are teatering on the line and the moment they open fire on anyone; definitely terrorism charges at hand.
(obviously a personal opinion not an educated legal one, but I'll add that for context lol)
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I said, specifically, that one could probably nail them on terrorism from a legal perspective, because of the legal vagueness of the term. My point was that, colloquially, we generally understand terrorism as a more direct threat against the populace, and an armed protest in which the violence is used as a means of furthering the protest, not as a direct route to achieving the political aim, doesn't seem to meet that definition.
You should watch the documentary "The House I Live In" as it deals with the harmful effects of mandatory minimums. It focuses on them from the perspective of the war on drugs but that's fine since mandatory minimums are a large part of why the war on drugs is as fucked as it is.
A) Thank ya
B) I don't think most posters here remember Waco to be honest - the conflating of city police / state police shooting unarmed black civilians over and over with Federal agents not running into a firefight with armed protestors who have no hostages and have taken something of as zero consequence as one can find makes me believe that most of the posters don't really care about the specifics, and want to talk about their issue.
A) Orrrr maybe you could look up earlier in the thread and see when the Black Panthers marched around armed in public and never do a thing. Two giant differences.
1) Federal agents are not the local police.
2) Pre Waco is not Post Waco.
B) Because it's been like a day or two, the building is of zero consequence, and people's lives are actually kind of important? Also, it's a handful of chumps protesting for people who don't actually even want to be protested for - and responding with force would make the situation worse, rather than better? They might also just be asking the Hammonds (who the protest is for but didn't actually want the protest) to talk to them.
C) In weird bedfellows part 234987982340, the main crux of their protest is something BlackLivesMatter has been protesting about as well - mandatory minimum sentencing. My dad and I volunteer for the Innocence Project and while I sort of get the initial idea behind it (to reduce racism in sentencing) - it promptly got co-opted as a way to further codify racism.
That's actually an awesome idea.
Follow it up with a speach about mandatory minimum sentencing in general. Turn it into a bleading heart liberal moment lol.
eu pfhor ia
Neo Member
They've already gone on record, repeatedly, saying that the "tyranny" of federal management of lands is the main crux. The fact that two of their own received a prison sentence is a corollary to the latest chapter of this story, not the cause.
Also, somehow I suspect that the elder Bundy's racist tirades would make any kind of partnership with people who actually do have legitimate grievances a little difficult
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Captin Quacker
Member
they also never took a fed building by force and walking around armed isn't illegal in some states
Armed chumps who threatened the government with said arms
SaviourMK2
Member
I watched an interview with the thugs who are supporting this group and screaming at Police.
I'm disgusted how little they know what the federal government does, it's like, how can you be so independant and yet know that everything they do is bad.
Lay off the Spy Thriller films
I'm disgusted how little they know what the federal government does, it's like, how can you be so independant and yet know that everything they do is bad.
Lay off the Spy Thriller films
on a note, aggressively applying the label "terrorist" to non-central cases is generally a poor paradigm because of the attached connotations to the word: people have tried to accuse "black lives matter" of being a terrorist organization, a more tenuous connection than the white militia that actually fits the definition - this is not a desirable paradigm at face value because connotation smuggling in general is undesirable
but hopefully this will be another case where extreme conservatives are forced into decrying their own rhetorical strategies because they turned out to be once again more applicable to themselves than their intended targets
i feel like semantic asides like this are necessary as a way to eliminate currently existing trends of obfuscating discussion and demonstrate why certain popular rhetoric is harmful
but hopefully this will be another case where extreme conservatives are forced into decrying their own rhetorical strategies because they turned out to be once again more applicable to themselves than their intended targets
i feel like semantic asides like this are necessary as a way to eliminate currently existing trends of obfuscating discussion and demonstrate why certain popular rhetoric is harmful
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
The Vox article is trash, the Post one is much better.
Also read up on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion as well, as it's really at the core of what's led to both the Bundy incident and this incident.
The fact that right-wing militias and Bundy's son have hijacked this is disappointing, but it's good to get educated on these little known issues, that honestly really effect very few people overall.. but impacts massive patches of land, the over-whelming majority of Harney County and the State of Nevada is federally owned and operated.
The Sagebrush Rebellion fell apart because Reagen appeared to be on their side, but as the years went on things have gone more towards the side of conservation.. but really nobody is happy with it.
Ranchers and miners are the most economically impacted parties, but conservationists, environmentalists, recreational users and hunters are also in play.
There's a very long history at play here, and I do see the side people like Cliven Bundy and the Hammond's have... it does suck that Cliven is such an unsympathetic party, and the Hammond's have some major flaws as well.. but for ranchers who rely on the public land for grazing, and have to pay the fees and have their future well being controlled by a difficult to deal with bureaucracy.. it's not a good position to be in. Keep in mind, all the other parties I listed above have issue with that same bureaucracy, from the people who want to preserve this land, to the people who want to use this.
Thequietone
Member
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
"The people"
SaviourMK2
Member
I'm curious, would you consider calling them "thugs" the same as calling them terrorists?
Not trying to attack or snip, I'm just curious.
Incredibly stupid. Do these people just watch Far and Away over and over and want their turn at the land grab?
That would be god tier Obama trolling. I wholeheartedly support this.
They SHOULD be partners doesn't mean they will be partners, alas.
A) They took a (knowingly) uninhabited federal building "by force". Can you take a building by "force" if no one's actually in there to use force...on?
B) There are a lot of armed chumps who regularly threaten the government. Some are even not white and threaten the police or courthouses. I'd rather not have the default response of the police be "lets go in and take everyone out"; regardless of their race.
SaviourMK2
Member
They are clueless. Case in point:
omg, I wanna share that so bad on my FB, but I dont wanna gie this anymore attention than it's getting
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Are you talking about the Refuge Building, or the land in question, be it Cliven Bundy with cattle on BLM land or the land burned by the Hammond's which was also BLM land?
If you mean the later, I think many would prefer that they had the option to purchase the land, and if not that, for that land to transfer to State control as dealing with the State would have a better chance of suiting their individual needs.
Then again, keep in mind that all this land was federal until they allowed people to homestead it, but they only gave them so much, so that the vast majority of the land stayed in federal hands because nobody claimed it... which make sense if you've been to any of it... it's not great land... it was called the Sagebrush Rebellion, because, well it's mostly just that.. sagebrush... not a ton of water, no very fertile land, very rough land.. but there's people that do use it, and have needs for it, but they have to deal with the BLM to get rights.
Buttered Sasquatch
Banned
A protest covered nationally by the news media, no one was killed, public property wasn't destroyed and looted, and for once the people being protested for were actually wronged by the government. White people really are better at everything.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Also of note, the Hammond's have already surrendered to federal authorities and are going to prison.
Good on them for that.
Good on them for that.
not the same in terms of what the words mean, but similar in the attempt to demonstrate how these words are being codified to produce an image of a particular racial stereotype
"thug" doesn't typically produce as intense of a protypic image as "terrorist" though, so outside of people both aware of and disapproving of the dogwhistle no one would take notice - and those people already understand
Chie Satonaka
Member
Nope.
Not taking the bait.
Not taking the bait.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Bait? Where?
eu pfhor ia
Neo Member
They think, as far as I can tell, that all public lands should be sold into private ownership.
(or at best managed at the state/county level because that level of bureaucracy would be much better equipped to manage it because...[reasons] )
At the same time they claim to be "outdoors-men" who think that people have a common right to the land. I don't think they have thought the issue through very well. Or probably any issue, really.
Well that's one interpretation of US history, I guess.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked