Shootout in Oregon: one terrorist killed, eight arrested

Look at it this way:

A.) The PLO takes a plane hostage and makes demands of the Israeli government.

B.) Cowboys take a Federal building hostage and make demands of the US government.

The cowboys to their credit did not take any people hostage, but the idea is still the same: if you are going to use arms as a way to change the law then you are basically privatizing war, and that can easily be defined as terrorism. In both cases they may have legitimate grievance with the government, but that doesn’t change the nature of the act. This is a far cry from dedicated non-violent protest, where the protesters are willing to be beaten and thrown in jail to make their point; Gandhi and MLK never threatened violence.


I will give him props for mentioning Boogieland, though I’m not sure he knew what he was talking about at that point.

1 Like

I see that this article frames this as a terrorist plot so I can’t really take it seriously. If it was an objective appraisal of the civil disobedience in Oregon then I might have read further but it’s just trash. I expect more from BoingBoing but I guess I won’t anymore.

Two comments above did,

easy first pass filter:
nonviolent protest - acceptable
armed paramilitary operations - never acceptable”

I’d say the opposite. If you need a gun in order to protect a supposed act of free speech, then you’re not using your 1st amendment rights, but rather committing a criminal act. The presence of the gun changes the nature of the speech because it carries the potential threat of violence (not even counting the actual stated threats of violence that these guys made). If you have to resort to being armed, you’re not truly free.”

I couldn’t figure out how to multi-qoute and didn’t want to make the same reply twice. Apoligies for not sourcing better.

[quote=“JosephCool8, post:172, topic:72851”]
If it was an objective appraisal of the civil disobedience in Oregon then I might have read further but it’s just trash.[/quote]
Your problem is that people here HAVE done an objective appraisal of the “civil disobedience” in Oregon, and are responding accordingly.


A brand new user disappointed in BoingBoing… quick someone add him to the list.


Sorry bro, but using weapons and the threat of violence to try and change the law fits the definition of terrorism in my book.


I bet you do with your long tenure on the site…

It isn’t “civil disobedience” if you’re carrying guns and threatening to shoot anyone that tries to stop you, especially law enforcement. That’s sedition and terrorism.


@codinghorror you were looking for a testcase thread with a troll and reddit pile on by new folks, weren’t you?


A hate group? Sure,if the experts who know say so. The historical protests also were generally unmolested, when the members were in groups. The police targeted individuals etc to break up the groups. And if they are a hate group that makes the comparison to armed groups of white supremacists even closer, right?

Let me google that for you, here’s an article:

Heres’s another heavily armed group of protesters who are people of color going unmolested by police

Neither is an occupation but an armed group of people of color watched, but not interfered with.either. the point being that armed groups are afforded more leeway from cops then unarmed groups, regardless of color.

Admittedly it is hard to gather good statistics on this as most armed groups are white and most people of color choose not to arm themselves or organize armed groups for various reasons. And those reasons have merit. But the idea that it is never OK is a poor one for minority groups. Those who are most likely to need arms are generally the least likely to chose them.

The racist history of gun control doesn’t help this either.

1 Like

Is there some requirement that we all must agree with the tactics of the Black Panthers and the Deacons for Defense and Justice? I missed that in the Ts & Cs. Sorry, I’m more of a Thoreau/Gandhi/MLK non-violent protest person. Feel free to disagree if you believe threats of violence are a politically acceptable form of protest, it’s off the table for me. People carrying guns in the US to politically intimidate and coerce others can all go to hell, regardless of whether I agree with their concerns, and regardless of their race.


Define “new folks”? Not really seeing new people in the above, most of the letter avatars check out for older accounts, some back to 2013. What’s applicable here?

Give it time. I’ve seen at least two brand new accounts spouting nonsense.



1 Like

Why not both?
If you want to convince me that racism influences police decisions to use force, you’re wasting your ink because I already agree with you.
If you want to convince me that racism is the sole determining factor, and that things like weapons, tactics, and media coverage have no influence, you’re also wasting your ink because that is a cartoon view of the world.

As supporting evidence, I’ll remind you (and @RogerStrong)that some Ferguson protesters did have and use guns against the police, and police responded by backing down, not by going Kent State. In fact, more protesters were killed by the authorities in this Oregon standoff than in the entire Ferguson uprising.

Does that mean that police aren’t racist? Of course not. Obviously the authorities want to suppress Ferguson protesters way more than they want to suppress the Bundy Militia. It just means that other factors (like gun-having) can also play a role in making the authorities stand down.

Has tis been posted before?
Affidavit of Karen Armstrong

This produced the arrest warrants for Bundy et al. They left quite an electronic trail.

1 Like

Are you disappointed? You sound disappointed.


I’ll try to be here to disappoint you if you need me.


You have a naive and uninformed understanding of how we came to have the (scant) freedom and prosperity we have today. All important social movements in the history of the US - anti-slavery, labor, women’s rights, civil rights, indigenous liberation, etc - were only able to advance because when necessary they resorted to armed conflict with the powerful.

“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
― Frederick Douglass

I’d love to hear some more criticism of the Bundy Militia based on their actual demands (dumb) and political stances (insane), rather than this lazy fallback of just calling them terrorists and farting out platitudes about civility like it’s the highest virtue in society.

This will not be a constructive discussion. Why would I ever want to discuss anything with someone willing to physically coerce others if they can’t persuade them? Good luck, try to stay out of prison.