Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday January 04 2016, @04:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the seeds-of-revolution dept.

NPR is reporting on this tale of direct action:

A self-styled militia in eastern Oregon grabbed national headlines Saturday when they broke into the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There the armed group remains Sunday, occupying the federal building in protest of what it sees as government overreach on rangelands throughout the western United States.

"We stand in defense," Ammon Bundy, the group's apparent leader and spokesperson, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "And when the time is right we will begin to defend the people of Harney County, [Ore.,] in using the land and the resources."

Ammon's brother, Ryan, has reportedly used harsher rhetoric, saying members of the militia are willing to kill or be killed.

Their last name may ring a bell. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are sons of rancher Cliven Bundy, who notably took part in an armed standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in Nevada in 2014.

Ammon Bundy now is part of a group of 15 to 150 people — depending on which source you believe — who are protesting the arson convictions of two Oregon ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven.

Also at Oregon Live, NYT, and the Associated Press.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @04:26PM

    by snick (1408) on Monday January 04 2016, @04:26PM (#284566)

    #YallQueda #YeeHawd #VanillaISIS #YokelHaram #CowTippingTerrorists #FailQueda #Infantada #WhiteSIS #SaturdayNightTreason

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=3, Funny=1, Disagree=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @04:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @04:55PM (#284582)

    #TeaTaliban

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:33AM (#284995)

      #Tealiban is shorter.

      #Moojahideen

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday January 04 2016, @05:15PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Monday January 04 2016, @05:15PM (#284595) Journal

    So far I've yet to see random attacks by these folks against any targets, let alone a single bullet fly. But the hashtags do show how quickly everyone is to fall in worship of the state regardless of its outdated ownership of much of the western states.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @06:02PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday January 04 2016, @06:02PM (#284623)

      Well, they've already committed multiple counts of breaking-and-entering, which should matter. Also, they're armed to the teeth and saying that they will fight to the death if the cops come and try and arrest them.

      Also, in the case of the Bundy family, back in Nevada they pointed rifles at government agents who were attempting to enforce the law. That's attempted capital murder, and a 12-year-old was killed in a city park for less.

      You don't like the laws? Fine: Lobby your congressman. Your congressman won't do what you ask? Fine: Either run against him yourself, or at the very least campaign for his opponent. You don't like the idea of having a government in the first place? Fine: Move to someplace where there isn't one, like Somalia or rural Afghanistan. But this game of "I can break the law anytime I want, and anybody who disagrees with me believes the government can do no wrong" is total hogwash.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:05PM (#284626)

        Well, they've already committed multiple counts of breaking-and-entering, which should matter. Also, they're armed to the teeth and saying that they will fight to the death if the cops come and try and arrest them.

        Still a lot more peaceful than Black Lives Matter :^)

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:24PM (#284699)

        I don't agree with these rancher clowns, but there is a reason revolutions break out. Petitioning corrupt officials, or trying to work inside of a broken system doesn't always work. I was totally against fracking anywhere, and thought that at least no one would let it happen in CA of all places, but I was wrong. Corps get to buy their way and people are left to suffer the consequences.

        This is the right-wing version of tying themselves to the trees...

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by TheGratefulNet on Monday January 04 2016, @08:47PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Monday January 04 2016, @08:47PM (#284716)

        all of your 'cures' are false ones. you can't fight congress (who, here, can compete with PAC money? not a single one of us!). you can't correct an out-of-control government once its gone too far down the rabbit hole (like ours).

        while I don't agree with bundy and his goons, I also don't agree that there are existing peaceful ways to bring our country back on track again.

        I have no solution. but I am not dumb enough to think the system can self correct once its gone as far off course as ours has.

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @10:23PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday January 04 2016, @10:23PM (#284786)

          who, here, can compete with PAC money? not a single one of us!

          Not a single person, of course, but a lot of ordinary people can - $20 * 300,000 people = the cost of an average Senate campaign. Sure, that's not as much fun as playing cowboy out west, but it's at least as likely to work as anything else that you could try. Candidates like Bernie Sanders survive because of this kind of math.

          And you know what else? Dollars don't vote, and incumbents can and have been sunk by poorly-funded insurgent candidates just because the voters were upset with them.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:49PM

            by rondon (5167) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:49PM (#285110)

            Just to be clear, I read that as you suggesting that we recruit 10% of the US population to influence one senate election... does that seem realistic to you? It seems wildly unfair to me that one tenth of the US population should have to donate the equivalent of 3 (or more) day's meals in order to be represented with 1% of the senate.

            I think you have put forth more evidence that the system is broken.

            • (Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:51PM

              by rondon (5167) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:51PM (#285111)

              Crap, major math fail. My apologies. 300,000 is certainly not 10% of 300 million :(

              And it is making me wait for my mea culpa... ugh.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday January 04 2016, @09:48PM

        by edIII (791) on Monday January 04 2016, @09:48PM (#284768)

        But this game of "I can break the law anytime I want, and anybody who disagrees with me believes the government can do no wrong" is total hogwash.

        Uhhh, no it is not. Moreover, I don't think anybody disagreeing with me believes the government can do wrong. I certainly know you're not a blind cheerleader for government.

        Let's back up a minute....

        You don't like the laws? Fine

        Yeah, I'm still with you. Not a reason to violate the law.

        Lobby your congressman.

        Starting to lose me. I thought you were bringing an actual solution, but I'll still play along.

        Your congressman won't do what you ask?

        I'm supposed to be surprised right? Well, golly gee willickers, look at that.... Politician didn't represent us. Huh.

        Either run against him yourself, or at the very least campaign for his opponent.

        You are aware of the reasons business outsource specific tasks? Becoming a politician isn't my core business, and it's more than little ridiculous I need to become a politician to prevent other politicians from stealing my land or property. According to you, we all need to be politicians in the same way everybody should own guns. We would be safer and left more alone right?

        That's HOGWASH. I shouldn't have needed to drastically alter my life away from a career around computing, just so that I could keep Glass-Steagall in place, just to keep Wall Street well regulated, just so that I could prevent the near economic collapse and raping of America. It's my fault I lost multiple houses to such regulatory failure, because I forgot to become a politician, and be a King of Thieves.

        No sir, we should not all be forced to be politicians. The legislative branch simply needs more regulations, accountability, and severe punishments . We need 20 year prison sentences for certain offenses when you're an elected official. Not the apathy and apparent support they get now.

        I would start to speak of campaign finance reform, but that would be a belief the system can be salvaged. That's not a belief that I have either.

        You don't like the idea of having a government in the first place? Fine: Move to someplace where there isn't one, like Somalia or rural Afghanistan.

        Not liking what your government does, and how it *doesn't* represent you, is not equivalent to not liking government at all. I'm a huge fan of representative government that serves to create a viable foundation upon which an advanced society can thrive. It would be super nice to live in one before I died, but I've long accepted that the government I alluded to isn't here, or coming any time soon.

        But this game of "I can break the law anytime I want, and anybody who disagrees with me believes the government can do no wrong" is total hogwash.

        So is this statement. At some point, civil disobedience is greatly required in order for freedom to be maintained. Armed men taking over a federal building is a bit past civil disobedience, but then again, we did need to go to extraordinary lengths (a civil war) to decide if the law granting me ownership of a nigger was ethically appropriate and in keeping with our Constitution. Of course, at this point in our history we celebrate it as evidence of how we evolved and got "better" as a country.

        Also, in the case of the Bundy family, back in Nevada they pointed rifles at government agents who were attempting to enforce the law.

        Enforcing corrupt laws isn't a protection against accountability. The Bundy family was correct in pointing guns at government agents. That argument goes back all the way to the 1800s, and evidence of political thievery of land. In my own family history, I'm sure we've actually killed bankers at some point coming for us. When people are coming for you and your land, there really is only one response: Rifles and bullets. I've got multiple experiences with that in my family history too, including the Oklahoma Sooners. We shot an entire family of brothers dead because they came to our farm a month after the race to run us off with rifles. Shooed their horses off after burying them in three graves on the property. Even shot them in the backs after we graciously kowtow'd and said we would leave so they dropped their guard :) My family takes the whole "live free or die" motto very seriously.

        The land, and cattle, belong to the Bundy family, and this has been true for generations of their family. I've not heard the arguments about Oregon, but if it is anything like Nevada, the federal government is quite firmly in the wrong. I don't believe these are valid issues of emminent domain either, and I've not heard any arguments for public safety and well being mandating that land or animals be taken away from farmers and ranchers.

        I'm trying to find out more about the specific arguments against federal government here before I simply conclude these men are terrorists. I'm not doing that until I hear the arguments. For that matter, you will find out how good the arguments are if hundreds of thousands of riled up men start pouring into Oregon like they did with Nevada. In that case Nevada acted correctly, by backing down to the Bundys and giving them back their cattle. If these men are truly stupid and without any valid arguments, then we will see far less support appear for them. Meanwhile, I'm still looking to see exactly what is going on, and why they feel this is the only way for government to listen to them.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:21AM (#284891)

          For that matter, you will find out how good the arguments are if hundreds of thousands of riled up men start pouring into Oregon like they did with Nevada. In that case Nevada acted correctly, by backing down to the Bundys and giving them back their cattle.

          Might makes right? Screw rule of law?

          Wow.

          Just. Plain. Wow.

          You have convinced me: the entire lot of you are as batshit insane as rabid dogs. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday January 05 2016, @02:15AM

            by edIII (791) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @02:15AM (#284908)

            Might makes right? Screw rule of law?
            Wow.
            Just. Plain. Wow.
            You have convinced me: the entire lot of you are as batshit insane as rabid dogs. Thanks for clearing that up.

            The rule of law only exists when all men are ruled by it equally, and the laws themselves are fairly and equitably drafted. When the law itself fails, then the law itself is subject to massive regulatory and political capture, then the rule of law you so highly cherish doesn't exist. The federal government has lost all moral authority in their claims that their laws are just, impartial, and for the sole benefit of the citizenry. In almost every meaningful way, the federal government only exists as an arm of special monied interests, and shareholder concerns.

            In the case of the Bundys, they actually owned the rights to the land decades ahead of the "laws" that took it away. "Might makes right" is actually a term that defines the actions of the federal government WRT Clive Bundy and his family ranch owned and operated for many generations since the Wild West came into existence. It was the federal government, specifically the environmental organizations, that unilaterally rezoned the Bundy's property as new federal land. I've yet to hear an argument that justifies such seizures by eminent domain, and I can't blame a ranch family for one second fighting the stealing of their long held ancestral lands by government. You know, there are no federal buildings, no research buildings, no highways, nothing justifying the land seized by the federal government in that case. Just a weak argument that the government owns it, which is quite weak indeed.

            The Bundys only had to bring out guns, after decades of bureaucratic maneuvering caused federal government to steal and hold their cattle for destruction (they were preparing to kill thousands of cattle to send a message). While the government may want to spin it as the Bundys refusing to accept government mandates, but that would be transparent corruption and bullshit. The truth is that the federal government finally ceased their arguments (incorrect arguments) and decided to start seizing property (the cattle on federal land in name only) to strong arm the Bundys into giving up land. Due process wasn't going the federal government's way, so then they needed to bypass due process entirely.

            That's not proper government, and *THAT* is Might Makes Right. The Bundys had every reason, and legal right, to continue their battle with the federal government for as many decades as it took. Quite frankly, anytime the government is seizing land, that should be up for a vote and a heck of a lot more transparent.

            You forget. The Bundys were pushed to physically protect their cattle with armed guards after arguing about the government seizing land originally held by their great-great-great-great grandfathers. Screw the law? Hardly. The Bundys are practically a model of restraint given their specific circumstances.

            I'm not a rabid dog. I'm a citizen that realizes when his government fails him, it needs to be reminded of who it truly serves. All of your vapid protestations and appeals to emotion overlook the instances in my country (possibly ours) where the citizenry needed to fight (up to and including civil war) to ensure America's freedoms remain untainted.

            I would agree with you, only if the government was impeccable and beyond reproach (at least in the majority). However, starting with the Patriot Act, its become ever more apparent that a civil war is entirely necessary for us to get back on track, and yes, that will involve guns being pointed against various agents-of-the-state.

            Ironically, it is I fighting against Might Makes Right. We agree on that, and both wish for rule of law. The major salient difference between us? You think rule of law still exists, while I'm trying to bring it back......

            As for Oregon? It will depend on the arguments. Given the amazing situation in which the federal government has horrendously abused the Bundy family for around a 100 years, I refuse to see these "terrorists" as the rabid dogs you claim we are, until I hear exactly what the argument is about. I don't rule out the federal government being wrong here too, or the need for a massive standoff just to get proper due process back in government.

            Government is not automatically correct, and I now give the benefit of the doubt to the domestic "terrorists". Especially, since increasingly more and more, being an activist and against government corruption and overreach gets you categorized that way.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:16AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:16AM (#284930)

              *Sigh* I'm not even sure this is worth the effort, but here goes...

              The rule of law only exists when all men are ruled by it equally, and the laws themselves are fairly and equitably drafted.

              And where the hell is your evidence that the Bundys et al are not being treated just the same as everyone else under the law? They already had their day in court. The lost their case and BLM showed up to confiscate their cattle for not paying their taxes. Don't like the court's ruling? Don't think they rendered the correct verdict? I got news for you: just because you and Cliven Bundy et al don't like the verdict does not mean that they were not treated just like everyone else under the law. And you and Cliven Bundy do have remedies for laws which you feel are not "equitably drafted". You are still allowed to petition your government for redress of grievances, just like everyone else. This is what equality under the law actually means. It doesn't mean that you get to take whatever you want whenever you feel that the government didn't rule in your favor.

              When the law itself fails, then the law itself is subject to massive regulatory and political capture, then the rule of law you so highly cherish doesn't exist.

              I realize that "regulatory capture" is now the favorite catch phrase of libertarians and conservative republicans but this is utter bullshit. Here, we live in a representative democracy, flawed though it may be. You seem to actually be advocating for anarchy. The government has always had authority to regulate public lands. If you don't like this, go find a deserted island to live on.

              Ironically, it is I fighting against Might Makes Right. We agree on that, and both wish for rule of law. The major salient difference between us? You think rule of law still exists, while I'm trying to bring it back......

              Oh, Puleeze! Stop draping yourself in the flag! You ain't the hero you apparently suppose yourself to be. You are actually advocating for anarchy. If you were actually the champion of rule of law, you would be fighting this in the legislatures and the courts, not advocating for armed insurrection.

              Government is not automatically correct, and I now give the benefit of the doubt to the domestic "terrorists". Especially, since increasingly more and more, being an activist and against government corruption and overreach gets you categorized that way.

              While I agree that government is not automatically correct, I think your conflation in this case of activist with terrorist is highly overwrought. While I disagree with the terrorism label, the reason why some are characterizing them that way is not because they are engaging in civil disobedience. It's that part about threats of violence that has linked them in the minds of some to terrorists. The fact that you view them as misunderstood heroes speaks volumes about your (poor) judgement.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:11AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:11AM (#287132)

                Go do a wikipedia search for unpopulated islands and laugh in amazement.

                Every deserted island in the world is claimed by the British, French, US, or others. The US specifically claimed them under the 1800s era Guano Act, which was used to secure the guano covered ones for saltpeter reserves. Any islands that might have been missed have since been claimed under Nature Conservation/Preservation acts, even if they are grossly outside of national boundaries.

                The Islands surrounding Pitcairn are another example. Only one out of 4-5 is populated (Pitcairn), but the Crown claims all of them, including EEZs (which only 2 of them COULD qualify for, and only Pitcairn actually does, since it is populated.)

                As another example: Go read about Minerva. That is what happens if somebody tries to colonize a deserted island. The politicos do not want anyone new coming to the game.

                For further reading, see UNICLOS. The index should make the relevant articles easy to find.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:33AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:33AM (#284936)

              So just when are the Bundys going to give the land back to the Native Americans?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:42AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:42AM (#285068)

                They're dead. Might makes right,

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:59AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:59AM (#285028)

              EdIII? Meds, bro! Meds! Get back on 'em! These guys are pirates, wanting to use public land as their own fiefdom. I say "fie" and "charge them double!" Anyone who cannot make money ranching under these terms must either be an incompetent business person, or a fundie Mormon with no future. So which are you, edIII? We already know that you are almost singlehandedly responsible for race-based slavery in the Americas. What other sins is your White ass responsible for? Huh?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:38AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:38AM (#285067)

            Wow, just wow. It's 2016. I can't even.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:34AM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:34AM (#284937)

          No sir, we should not all be forced to be politicians. The legislative branch simply needs more regulations, accountability, and severe punishments . We need 20 year prison sentences for certain offenses when you're an elected official. Not the apathy and apparent support they get now.
          I would start to speak of campaign finance reform, but that would be a belief the system can be salvaged. That's not a belief that I have either.

          What we need is for people to do their duty as citizens, become informed and vote. That is what the system requires to function. We won't fix things in one election, it took far longer than that to create this mess, but we can start. It is the apathy of the American public that is at fault. If everyone eligible to vote took an interest and voted, hopefully voting out the corrupt, the inept, the liars and the thieves (in short, our current Congress), but even if nearly everyone was re-elected 100% participation would frighten the politicians more than anything else. But no, voter participation is pathetically low and despite a roughly 10% approval rating, 90% of Congress is re-elected, over and over, despite failing over and over to govern as they should. Of course, it all comes back to being informed. If one gets their knowledge of current issues from Facebook shares, or Fox News, or MSNBC, or pretty much any single source, one is not informed, which, ultimately, is why the current situation exists.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:36AM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:36AM (#285052) Journal

          In my own family history, I'm sure we've actually killed bankers at some point coming for us. When people are coming for you and your land, there really is only one response: Rifles and bullets.

          Okay, so, if I'm reading this right, your ancestors defaulted on their mortage, then murdered their creditors when they came to lawfully take possession of the agreed-upon security for the debt. And you think this is not only okay to do, in general, but also the only option.

          That is LSD trip-level battiness.

      • (Score: 2) by dmc on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:22AM

        by dmc (188) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:22AM (#285007)

        Also, in the case of the Bundy family, back in Nevada they pointed rifles at government agents who were attempting to enforce the law. That's attempted capital murder

        Dumb question but- don't you have to like, attempt murder in order to be guilty of attempted murder?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:30AM (#285048)

          Dumb question but- don't you have to like, attempt murder in order to be guilty of attempted murder?

          If you were to draw a bead on me with a loaded, or hell, even an unloaded weapon, it would be attempted murder and your unfortunate demise would be in self-defense. And I would cut the Feds more slack, since they represent all of us and if you draw down on them, you draw down on me. The restraint of the Feds with these yahoos constantly amazes me. But yes, they are guilty, guilty as sin, and twice as dirty. Hornswagglers! Dry-gulchers! Horse-thieves and grazing-fee welchers! Ranching Welfare Cheats! Scum of the West! Maybe it will require some vigilantes to put an end to this stupidity? Careful where you go, "militia" dudes!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @08:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @08:00PM (#296084)

        That's attempted capital murder,

        no it's not, you dumbass

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Monday January 04 2016, @06:35PM

      by tathra (3367) on Monday January 04 2016, @06:35PM (#284640)

      since when is calling terrorists terrorists worshiping the state? they're using violence and threats of violence to facilitate political aims, no matter how you look at it, that's terrorism. these guys are terrorists, plain and simple.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:38PM (#284709)

        We are moving into a scared new world where the people are so scared of violence that they give up their freedoms. Terrorist is the new bogeyman and is being slowly but surely painted to cover anything that resembles dissent. How easy it will be, have the talking heads call anyone the T word and bam they are guilty in the eyes of the population. Throw em in prison! Let god sort em out! Seems like these guys should go to prison, but we are using buzzwords instead of proper vocabulary like criminal, justice, trial, violators, felony. None of that grabs people like 'terrist.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @09:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @09:35PM (#284753)

          "are moving"? Been that way since I've been alive, and I wasn't born yesterday.

        • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:20AM

          by tathra (3367) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:20AM (#284991)

          Seems like these guys should go to prison, but we are using buzzwords instead of proper vocabulary like criminal, justice, trial, violators, felony. None of that grabs people like 'terrist.

          but terrorist is the proper word to use here. see the definition [reference.com] of the word "terrorism":

          the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

          which is exactly what these people doing, using violence and threats of violence to intimidate and coerce, especially for political purposes. the only apt word to succinctly and perfectly describe what these people are is "terrorist".

          • (Score: 2) by dmc on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:29AM

            by dmc (188) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:29AM (#285008)

            the real answer of course is "star trek deep space nine". One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as they say. The government propagandizes to get people to forget that when it wants, and propagandizes the other way when the tactical winds change.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Monday January 04 2016, @08:50PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Monday January 04 2016, @08:50PM (#284717)

        and the government that continually tries to SCARE US INTO DOING WHAT THEY WANT - how is that NOT terrorism?

        many people don't see the government as faultless and the label 'terrorist' equally applies to those in positions of official power just as much as those who grab it or try to grab it.

        if you are trying to get your way to scaring people, that meets the def. would you really say that our (US) gov is not using fear in a constant manner to further ITS goals?

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:50PM (#284643)

      > So far I've yet to see random attacks by these folks against any targets

      Vegas Cop Killers associated with Cliven Bundy. [nydailynews.com] If guilt by association works for muslims it certainly works for these guys.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:42PM (#284713)

        Guilt by association works for no group.

        Muslims are condemned by their own "holy" books, which literally call for a world war until all religion is Allah's. All that contradictory garbage about "no, no, Islam is a religion of peace!" is due to either ignorance of the source material, or "holy lying" called taqiyya.

        What is the source material for "Constitutionalists"?

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:17PM (#284782)

          > Guilt by association works for no group.
          >
          > Muslims are condemned by their own "holy" books, which literally call for a world war until all religion is Allah's.

          Lol you are such a fucksqueak.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:52PM (#284809)

            ... and you apparently have no response other than to ignore the message and attack the messenger.

            I guess that means my point stands uncontested. Judge a person by their actions and their words.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:39PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:39PM (#284840)

              I guess that means my point stands uncontested.

              Except you missed the part about you being a "fucksqueak". So the f***squeak's point stands uncontested, in the opinion of the very same f**squeak. Yeah, that's enough to convince me! (Oh, same AC as the other ACs here!)

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday January 04 2016, @06:13PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 04 2016, @06:13PM (#284628) Journal
    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:27PM (#284663)

      Daily reminder that in 8 out of the 10 most liberal-identifying states [gallup.com] cousin marriage is completely legal, [wikipedia.org] while this is true only for 3 out of the 10 most conservative-identifying states.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:21PM (#284785)

        > Daily reminder that in 8 out of the 10 most liberal-identifying states cousin marriage is completely legal,

        Wow. Daily? Sounds like cousin-marriage is something of an obsession for you...

        Meanwhile its only illegal in the conservative states because that's where it has been a problem. The liberal states don't have laws forbidding it because they don't need them. Kind of like how we don't have laws forbidding people from marrying their cars.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:03PM (#285074)

          Wow. Daily? Sounds like cousin-marriage is something of an obsession for you...

          Sounds like you don't know dank maymays when you see them.

          The liberal states don't have laws forbidding it because they don't need them.

          It seems that the liberal states have had huge parent-children, inter-sibling, uncle/aunt-niece/nephew marriage problems, since they all have laws prohibiting it (example: CA 2200 [ca.gov]).

          Perhaps they were just big fans of the legend of Oedipus.

  • (Score: 2) by snufu on Monday January 04 2016, @06:51PM

    by snufu (5855) on Monday January 04 2016, @06:51PM (#284645)

    #ImbecileStateInOregon
    #Inbredels
    #PropaneCaliphate
    #Fatwaddle
    #ChawAkbar

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:32PM (#284666)

    It does sum it up nicely: you have no problems stereotyping an entire group of people.

    Wasn't there a name for people who do that?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:23AM (#284865)

      It does sum it up nicely: you have no problems stereotyping an entire group of people.

      Wasn't there a name for people who do that?

      Sane?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:34PM (#284668)

    Wow. Besides being a fantastically pathetic means of snarkily commenting on a current event of some importance, several of those come down to "like Muslims except white". #MondayMorningRacism.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:38PM (#284670)

      Snark is all they have. They can't actually form a coherent opinion so they just snark at everything.

      Wow, just wow. It's 2016.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:16PM (#284696)

      Wow. Besides being a fantastically pathetic means of snarkily commenting on a current event of some importance, several of those come down to "like Muslims except white". #MondayMorningRacism.

      LoL. Sounds like you've got sympathy for the yokel haram. The "like muslims but white" is not racist [loonwatch.com] it is commentary on how these guys get people like you to be sympathetic but if they were muslim its all dirka-dirka, allu akhbar and the only good muslim is a former muslim.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:29AM (#284893)

        ...but if they were muslim its all dirka-dirka, allu akhbar and the only good muslim is a former muslim.

        I've noticed a trend of throwing in these nonsense words which adds nothing to the discussion. Please stop. It just makes you look (even more) stupid. Just sayin'.

    • (Score: 2) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @09:11PM

      by snick (1408) on Monday January 04 2016, @09:11PM (#284735)

      Not very bright, are you?

      These tags aren't calling them terrorists. They are calling them clowns. The difference between this crowd and actual terrorists is that if shit ever got real, this bunch would piss themselves*.

      But, nice move equating terrorist organization names with "Muslims." #MondayMorningRacism #SelfAwarenessDeficitDisorder.

      * case in point: While declaring that they are ready to die for the cause, they were confronted by a 78 year old woman (the sheriff's mother) at a yard sale. Evidently she talked mean to them. So, they went to the sheriff's office and complained that the 78 year old had threatened them. Typical bullies.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:24PM (#284787)

        oh come on! you gotta give us a link for that because it sure doesn't show up in a cursor gooogle search.

        • (Score: 2) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @11:09PM

          by snick (1408) on Monday January 04 2016, @11:09PM (#284820)

          Google: militia sheriff mother
          It is the top result: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html [oregonlive.com]

          The sheriff said three militiamen and one woman, one with a gun strapped to his hip, engaged his 74-year-old mother and 78-year-old father at a yard sale being held at the American Legion. When the men criticized the sheriff, his mother bristled, and said she didn't need their protection from the government.

          Later, the men showed up at the sheriff's office to complain about the exchange involving his mother.

          She had, they said, threatened them.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:17AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:17AM (#284859)

          you gotta give us a link for that because it sure doesn't show up in a cursor gooogle search.

          Found your problem! See, if you are looking for your cursor on Google, well, probably not gonna find it. If you are typing in gooogle, you probably will not find your cursor either. Or maybe, since you cannot find your cursor, you cannot see what you are typing? Are you on a tablet? Are you running Windows 7?