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 theyâre at least as alarming as a bomb threat.
And you donât have to succeed in terrorizing someone to be a terrorist.
And I suspect that at the time he justified this in his head as âdestroying the masterâs house with the masterâs toolsâ, as will his followers and supporters.
Wikipedia says
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: â(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 intendedâ (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 (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.â
Their actions seem to pretty clearly fall under B - ii, for starters
Anyone who comes near them since theyâve said theyâll 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 theyâre occupying is in the middle of nowhere? how close to schools are we talkin? Iâm 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 Coryâs invocation of the term âterrorismâ 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, whatâs winning in the race in his head? Hypocrisy or lack of self awareness?
why do i have to be a âsupporterâ to just want to know why weâre throwing this terrorism charge around? Whatever theyâre trying to accomplish they are certainly going about it the wrong way, but this just doesnât seem to fit the conventional meaning of terrorism to me.
See above:
Theyâre terrorists per section B.
Doesnât 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 theyâre 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 doesnât 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 Sheenâs character in The Chase explains the popular perception of the term: âTerrorists have ratty beards and blow up airports.â 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 havenât 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.
Youâre stumping awfully hard for a bunch of terrorists. I was wondering why?
Do you support what theyâre doing? If so, why?
If you donât, why do you think theyâre not terrorists, especially when the law has been cited more than once to you?
useful idiots have a reputation around here.
