Osama Been Loanin': head of Oregon terror-cell borrowed $530,000 from fed-backed loan program

It’s only Mooching when Minorities, like Urban Americans (wink wink), do it.


I think the sticking point for me is that a terrorist actually does something, rather than just be somewhere. The only thing that makes it remotely fit (A) is that they have guns, and if you consider just having a gun to be an “[act] dangerous to human life” and also it turns out that having a gun where they have it is also considered to be in and of itself a violation of criminal laws, which for all I know may be the case.

Provided they haven’t pointed their guns at anyone yet— and they’d be incredibly stupid to do so —then yes, I agree, it doesn’t seem like they’ve met this criterion.

Hanging out in that area all winter without heat or food (no legal hunting either) puts their own lives at risk.

If it were their own land, maybe we could argue about their ‘castle doctrine’ rights, but it ain’t their castle.

@snowlark, I wrote that as you wrote yours. What do you think?

1 Like

I guess I need to recalibrate what ‘stumping hard’ means if I can be doing it with a couple questions on the internet.

No, I don’t support an armed protest in a federal building in the middle of nowhere, OR.

I feel like the situation is a stretch to be considered as fitting all the requirements in the law posted here (which only needed to be cited once, thanks).

1 Like

The law and common sense disagree. If your goal is to effect terrorist acts (such as intimidate people into change, including the government) and you occupy a building with guns, you’ve committed a terrorist act.


They’ve offered to shoot any law enforcement that attempts to remove them. Rather than just doing it anyway and having a shoot out, the cops have held off. It doesn’t change their threats.


being somewhere you arent supposed to be, while armed, and THEN threatening ‘self-defense’… that IS DOING SOMETHING.

You can not really stand your ground… on someone elses ground, can you? Isn’t that, at some point, explicitly a threat ATOP the actual violations of law and human decency and, well, everything we learned in kindergarten?

A threat that if you hold them accountable to a democratic standard like anyone else, they might just use their ‘tools’.


What’s one little bomb on an airplane between friends. You can trust these guys to do right. They would never.

I hear they’re sittin around watching Rifleman reruns and practicing being those ‘good guys with guns’ we all celebrate.


Oh, they’ve definitely met criterion (B)(ii) by making such threats. What I haven’t come across is any report of them aiming their guns at anyone or otherwise creating a situation where they endanger someone’s life.


what about their own? Long cold winter with a case of peaches and no poaching allowed?

Seems suicidal, and suicide is a violent crime.

As is armed insurrection, but we’re clearly ignoring THAT elephant.


I guess the obvious thing to do then is abandon common sense?

Whatever, I didn’t come here for an argument. Thanks to whoever originally posted the reasoning under which these people might technically be correctly labeled as terrorists, that’s all I wanted to know in the first place. I’ll see myself out.

Interesting point. I suppose I’d read it as implying that such acts imposed a danger to human life other than that of the person committing the act. Anyone here who is a legal scholar?

Calling them terrorists gives them too much credit. They are Redneck thugs, and they can die in a (Hammond set) fire.

I still say set up a bunch of BBQ pits surrounding the area with brisket and pulled pork. They’ll surrender in no time.


10 to 20 years hard credit, I hope.


If even one member of Bundy’s posse felt that he was being coerced to stay with the rest on the refuge, then yes, it seems their coercion could plausibly be interpreted as an act endangering human life in a way that conforms with criterion A for domestic terrorism. Again, good point— hadn’t considered that before.


Maybe he doesn’t want to talk about the loan because he’s not making payments. Or got some kind of relief from his obligations.


Your tone and behavior, in contrast to your statement, causes me to, again, question your good faith and your capacity to accurately assess your internal state.


if one brady was there alone, it would still be suicidal.

Atop the armed insurrection.


Could be. Could also be that some part of him perceives the hypocrisy of getting help in the form of a loan from an entity that he despises and is apparently set on destroying.