Nevada Rancher Hilarity: The Tragic Death of Y'All Qaeda's Tarp Man - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

6, irrelevant

Stupid Nevada rancher and friends aren't brown and aren't part of a religious minority. Nobody will take the terrorist label seriously even if they met a reasonable definition of terrorist.

and 7, wrong

Attacking civilians is a pretty important element of being a terrorist. One might even call it a defining element.

Well 6 is obv given right wing terrorists kill more people in America than Muslim terrorists - something that literally offends some people to the point a tiny amount of resources are dedicated to stopping them and it has become the unspoken rule that white people cant be terrorists in America nowadays

7 isnt correct

04-18-2014 , 08:56 PM

#53

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

Bring on the drones!

Signature strikes!

04-18-2014 , 09:05 PM

#54

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

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

2) 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

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

You can argue 2 and 3 occurred, but kicking a dog and legally holding guns doesn't live up to number 1. It still isn't terrorism even by this ridiculous definition.

Last edited by will1530; 04-18-2014 at 09:17 PM.

04-18-2014 , 09:05 PM

#55

El Rata

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 31,720

I bet this Bundy fella really hates moochers.

04-18-2014 , 09:31 PM

#56

yeSpiff

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,313

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

If you are going to choose to use the word terrorist then you should probably give us your definition of the word. Using anything beyond attacking civilians (I would even grant extending that to noncombatants) so greatly dilutes the word that is ceases to have a relevant meaning. For the moment I suppose we can use the US government's own definition of the word.

You can argue 2 and 3 occurred, but kicking a dog and legally holding guns doesn't live up to number 1. It still isn't terrorism even by this ridiculous definition.

Errorism,imo

http://news.intelwire.com/2014/04/do...terrorism.html

Last edited by yeSpiff; 04-18-2014 at 09:40 PM. Reason: 3+4

04-18-2014 , 09:33 PM

#57

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

2nd amendment apologists..

is that what you were imagining when you make that "gotta defend against the govt" argument?

Last edited by goofball; 04-18-2014 at 09:44 PM.

04-18-2014 , 09:38 PM

#58

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

I mean, it's certainly arguable whether or not them threatening to start killing anyone that comes for their illegally grazing cattle has terroristic intentions. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that kicking a dog is terrorism. Not even holding guns. It's the threats of violence (combined with past violence from these types of people) that enables one to throw the word around but it's still probably a little much.

That being said, terrorism isn't restricted to just civilians which you seem to have backed down from which was the point :P

04-18-2014 , 09:42 PM

#59

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

It's armed robbery of the people's money. Let's poll the ranch defenders see how many say yep when asked if tax is theft. My educated guess is plenty.

04-18-2014 , 09:56 PM

#60

Howard Beale

Formerly red

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,190

Why not rustle his cattle out in the middle of the night a few at a time? Or do it 'Alien abduction' wise and lift them out w/ helicopters?

Failing that rounding up a couple of hundred wolves and letting them loose is the best play.

04-18-2014 , 10:22 PM

#61

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Wtf, they were threatening to shoot federal agents if they tried to leave with the legally obtained cattle, including setting up sniping positions in anticipation and openly talking about illegally shooting them on camera to journalists. They clearly met 1.

04-18-2014 , 10:52 PM

#62

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

jfc Phil.

Morons saying moronic things does not meet the definition of "acts dangerous to human life". Talking **** isn't an action dangerous to human life. These morons aren't a threat to the government. Even if you take them 100% at their word they aren't a legitimate threat. They aren't hiding. They aren't planning an attack against a government facility or civilian targets. They are sitting around like the morons they are waiting for their own massacre if the government decides to engage them. Calling any moron who says something threatening to the government a terrorist is is beyond terrible.

04-18-2014 , 10:59 PM

#63

longmissedblind

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,733

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

I think you're classification of talking **** is a little loose. These dudes were talking **** about shooting federal agents while they were holding the guns they were talking **** about shooting those federal agents with.

04-18-2014 , 11:02 PM

#64

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

jfc Phil.

Morons saying moronic things does not meet the definition of "acts dangerous to human life". Talking **** isn't an action dangerous to human life. These morons aren't a threat to the government. Even if you take them 100% at their word they aren't a legitimate threat. They aren't hiding. They aren't planning an attack against a government facility or civilian targets. They are sitting around like the morons they are waiting for their own massacre if the government decides to engage them. Calling any moron who says something threatening to the government a terrorist is is beyond terrible.

100+ people threatening to kill people (taking them 100% at their word here) isn't a legitimate threat?

04-18-2014 , 11:03 PM

#65

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 04-18-2014 at 11:06 PM. Reason: Just remember, black people have been shot for less

04-18-2014 , 11:06 PM

#66

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Rjoe, Against the federal government when the government knows exactly where you are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

A morbid part of me wants to see this play out in the worst way possible, if only so that all those dudes clinging to the 2nd Amendment because they need to be able to stand up to the government discover just how futile those efforts would be. Push ever comes to shove, you have guns, they have tanks and bombs. Crank it up ****ers.

I call it a massacre. Do you see it differently?

LMB, yes I call it talking ****, these tards aren't willing to die over a bunch of cattle. They wanted to walk around with their guns on camera and get a little youtube time.

Edit: You guys are seriously trolling right? You don't look at these idiots and see something that is actually threatening do you?

04-18-2014 , 11:09 PM

#67

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Rjoe, Against the federal government when the government knows exactly where you are?

I assume when the US government launches a drone strike they know exactly where the person they are targeting is at. Is that person no longer a terrorist?

04-18-2014 , 11:10 PM

#68

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Honestly I think the mistake is that when Americans think terrorists they think of foreign people. Domestic people commit hate crimes or are run of the mill criminals.

04-18-2014 , 11:13 PM

#69

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

BLM considered them a legitimate enough threat to end their round up so I'm not sure what I should think of them without being there.

04-18-2014 , 11:14 PM

#70

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Right, people who shoot up Jewish community centers are terrorists. People who show off for the cameras with their guns are morons.

04-18-2014 , 11:20 PM

#71

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Right, people who shoot up Jewish community centers are terrorists. People who show off for the cameras with their guns are morons.

Hey I agree they are morans. But that doesn't make them not terrorists.

04-18-2014 , 11:29 PM

#72

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

You basically had a bunch of attention whore open carriers getting together in one spot to taunt the police. This isn't terrorism, and not engaging them is the correct decision. Calling someone a terrorist for making a threat is a joke. You might as well make terrorist and criminal completely interchangeable.

04-18-2014 , 11:31 PM

#73

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

I'm perfectly fine with making terrorism a criminal offence and not some kind of magical offence that requires drones,secret sites, and tribunals. But, and again this has to be pointed out time and time again, they pointed guns and threatened law enforcement officers. If they were any other color than pale white they would have been shot down without a second thought. But making threats and demands to the government to get their way is, like, what terrorists do.

04-18-2014 , 11:52 PM

#74

AngusThermopyle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,929

If the US Government cedes the land [back] to Nevada, will the guy pay Nevada the fees to graze his cattle?

Or does he think that Nevada will let people graze on State land for free?

04-19-2014 , 12:42 AM

#75

revots33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 13,448

Heard Mark Levin going on about how the land is only federal land because of an endangered tortoise or something and now the tortoise is no longer endangered... so guy should just get to graze his cattle forever for free I guess?

It doesn't matter how obviously illegal it is - as long as Obama's president, anything that involves white people "showing resistance against an overreaching govt" will all of a sudden become acceptable to the wingnuts.

Page 3 of 90

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53

Last

...

Page 3 of 90

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53

Last