who exactly are these people terrorizing?
Well, the federal government for starters. But the locals felt their takeover was enough to close the schools in the area. So they’re at least as alarming as a bomb threat.
And you don’t have to succeed in terrorizing someone to be a terrorist.
And I suspect that at the time he justified this in his head as ‘destroying the master’s house with the master’s tools’, as will his followers and supporters.
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be 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 United States.”
Their actions seem to pretty clearly fall under B - ii, for starters
Anyone who comes near them since they’ve said they’ll use the guns they have to shoot folks who challenge their illegal occupation of a federal building.
listening to interviews on NPR yesterday it definitely seemed that the community was far from unanimous on whether they supported or condemned what is going on. Also, it sounded like the building they’re occupying is in the middle of nowhere? how close to schools are we talkin? I’m going to look for a map.
Why are you an apologist for them? What about what they are doing is appealing to you?
Do you support armed citizens threatening law enforcement with shooting them if the the cops try to enforce the law?
My understanding is that Cory’s invocation of the term ‘terrorism’ here is licensed according to its legal definition in the U.S. federal code.
It does not matter. If the locals support a federal crime, it is still a federal crime.
So, what’s winning in the race in his head? Hypocrisy or lack of self awareness?
why do i have to be a ‘supporter’ to just want to know why we’re throwing this terrorism charge around? Whatever they’re trying to accomplish they are certainly going about it the wrong way, but this just doesn’t seem to fit the conventional meaning of terrorism to me.
They’re terrorists per section B.
Doesn’t it have be A, B and C?
A might be a stretch.
Sorta. It means it has to be A, one of the 3 under B, and C
ETA: A and C are no brainers. What they’re doing is against the law and in the jurisdiction of USA
yes i did see above. That answers somewhat my question of why are they considered terrorists but doesn’t answer the question of mine you quoted, but oh well.
What you perceive as the conventional meaning of terrorism is likely a culturally biased one. Charlie Sheen’s character in The Chase explains the popular perception of the term: “Terrorists have ratty beards and blow up airports.” But that was never the full meaning, just the popular one, or the one that sold the most newspapers.
These are domestic terrorists by the legal definition. They just haven’t blown up a federal building to reach full Timothy McVeigh status yet.
The north arrow points up. This seems like good advice to offer you.
You’re stumping awfully hard for a bunch of terrorists. I was wondering why?
Do you support what they’re doing? If so, why?
If you don’t, why do you think they’re not terrorists, especially when the law has been cited more than once to you?
useful idiots have a reputation around here.