world

Police restrict access to Oregon refuge after fatal standoff

97 Comments
By KEITH RIDLER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

97 Comments
Login to comment

And here's an interview given by an eyewitness, a girl who was in the car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wA18O_6dgw

And here's the actual video from the FBI, proving the "eyewitness" was lying about him being shot while his hands were up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ

The man made not one but TWO moves towards his waist with BOTH hands before he was shot. Suicide by Law Enforcement.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Democrats, if smart, are gonna go after all pro NRA people on this.

In America, it'd actually be one of the dumbest thing to do in politics. If there are two things you shouldn't touch, it's God and Guns. If there's only one, then it's Guns.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That is a perfect description of the current US government.

I'll tell ya, if I really believed what you say you believe, I'd be grabbing a gun and doing something about it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. - comments

Simple enough. These armed men had no business threatening innocent people. These armed men decided they would impose a vigilante justice to their own liking. These armed men believed a movement existed that would support their illegal acts. They were wrong, and now they go to jail at excessive public expense.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But you said the US government. Now you're saying that you're talking about some other government. What other government has relevance to this story? You're all over the place here.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You mean the democratically elected government that was chosen by the people in an election?

No.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

You mean the democratically elected government that was chosen by the people in an election?

And who gave these yahoos in Oregon a mandate? No one. Only themselves.

Terrorists.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Flouting the law, and using fear as an attempt to further their political fantasies.

That is a perfect description of the current US government.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Bingo. That's what makes these guys terrorists. Flouting the law, and using fear as an attempt to further their political fantasies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Trouble - Like it or not, the Supreme Court gets the final say on legal matters related to interpreting the Constitution. Have they gotten things wrong? Of course they have, but that doesn't give ordinary citizens the right to take the law into their own hands so that they can "fix" it--especially those people who threaten to use violence as a part of their solution.

Case in point: I don't like the Citizens United ruling, but that doesn't mean that I should round up a few of my friends, arm myself with a rifle, occupy Koch Industries, and harass any law enforcement officers until I get my way.

If you don't like a Supreme Court decision, then call your Congressman and have them draft and pass legislation that will either amend the Constitution or overturn their decision. That is how the system works.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Supreme Court, you say?

The same one of the Dred Scott Decision?

Or the Korematsu vs. The United States (1944) one the the detention of (Japanese) Americans citizens was constitutional?

Or the Buck vs. Bell (1923) that citizens could be forcibly sterilized?

Or Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) one that most people haven't the foggiest clue what it is about?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Wakayama Mama

Since you feel that way, go grab your gun and go liberate the nearest federal land near you.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Wakayama - Yes, it IS federal land. The Supreme Court has ruled on this TWICE--in 1902 and 1935. Perhaps your "Constitutional Attorney" would like to review these rulings?

Youtube as a credible source for something like this? Really?

Before jumping to conclusions, you might want to view all of the credible sources on this matter instead of just cherry picking the ones which support your narrow viewpoint--and try something else other than Youtube--where anyone can post anything whenever they want.

Your continued defense of these domestic terrorists echoes the same arguments made by people from the John Birch Society--a lunatic fringe group born out of the McCarthy Era paranoia.

You're not convincing anyone here of your arguments--that is other than yourself.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Is it federal land?

Yes.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It's federal land. They were forcing off terrorists.

Is it federal land? This constitutional attorney says otherwise (she also addresses some points brought up by posters above):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE

Here's an interview by Robert “LaVoy” Finicum the day before he was murdered:

http://www.ini-world-report.org/2016/01/28/id-rather-die-on-my-feet-than-live-on-my-knees/

And here's an interview given by an eyewitness, a girl who was in the car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wA18O_6dgw

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Your definition of terrorism said nothing about automatic weapons. By your definition (not mine) intimidation is enough. And I said nothing about MLK.

You really aren't so good at this logic thing, are you? I'm simply stating that you CANNOT compare the Bundy Bunch to the civil rights movement. They were protesting, as is there constitutional right. The Bundy Bunch brandished weapons, illegally seized federal property, and threatened to use violence if there demands were NOT met. Did MLK do that? No, absolutely not. And no, its not "my" definition of "terrorism," that is the definition of terrorism. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you can creatively reinterpret words and their meaning.

You really have no right to complain about violence.

Where did I complain? Again, I never said shoot them. Certainly they can be shot. After all they are terrorists, so I see no reason thry shouldn't be treated like other terrorists, but not necessarily.

Is it OK? This is not a white vs black thing. This is about a dictatorship trying to force people off their land so that they can hand it over to their friends (donors).

Not their land. Federal land. Hell, the terrorists aren't don't even own land their. They're from Nevada-at least Alvin Bundy.

But even if they were, that does not give you the right to occupy property by force. You feel the rules are unfair? Sue. Run for political office. Run out the incumbents, but you have no right hold government property at the barrel of a gun.

So, take a good long look at the video. The (now deceased) terrorist bolted at a police barricade, put up his hands, and then reached for his wasteband. Good bye.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Certainly does look like he was reaching for something in his pocket from that video. At the very least, he had lowered his hands.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Finicum tried to run a police roadblock and, while initially raising his hands, lowered them to waist level. He was found to have a loaded pistol in his pocket. This was all captured on camera. His death was regrettable but entirely his fault.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It's federal land. They were forcing off terrorists.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Apparently it's ok for the police to kill someone who has their hands up when killed. But now that it's happened to a white person

Is it OK? This is not a white vs black thing. This is about a dictatorship trying to force people off their land so that they can hand it over to their friends (donors).

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

It appears that a number of witnesses have come out saying the Robert “LaVoy” Finicum had his hands up when he was murdered.

That didn't work for Michael Brown in Ferguson. Apparently it's ok for the police to kill someone who has their hands up when killed. But now that it's happened to a white person, are we going to see #whitelivesmatter?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It appears that a number of witnesses have come out saying the Robert “LaVoy” Finicum had his hands up when he was murdered. I bet all the dash cams and body cams were malfunctioning at the time.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Well, its been over a day, and only one unequivocal condemnation from our resident right wing gun nuts.

So, now we know. All the others are "militia" sympathizers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Civil Rights marchers stormed government buildings with semi-automatic weapons? Interesting considering non-violence was at the heart of MLK's movement.

Your definition of terrorism said nothing about automatic weapons. By your definition (not mine) intimidation is enough. And I said nothing about MLK.

I never said shoot them.

And yet, just a few comments late you said to Wakyama Mama:

they need to be dealt with. Shot, imprisoned, marooned on a desert island

You really have no right to complain about violence.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The militia members and their supporters ARE domestic terrorists. On January 7, 2016, The Guardian and several other reputable news sources reported that Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, said that his wife had to leave town because she feared for her own personal safety after she had her tires slashed, and she was confronted by several militia members. They followed her home and parked across the street from her house. To make matters even worse, these people then decided to threaten Mr. Ward's elderly parents:

"Harney County sheriff David Ward told local residents on Wednesday that his wife had left town for her safety after strangers followed her home one night and someone slit her car tire. He said he had received anonymous letters with numerous misspellings that included death threats.

Worse still, the sheriff said, strangers had come to town to harass his elderly parents."

Now, if these incidents aren't examples of domestic terrorism, then I don't know what is. The militia members also harassed and tried to intimidate other federal workers and other government employees who lived in the town.

Part of terrorism is using intimidating and threats of violence against those people who do not support the political or religious views of those who are taking a physical confrontational stand to support their ideology. Therefore, I'd say that based upon these incidents alone, the militia members and their supporters should be tried and convicted of terrorism. They are insurgents and traitors and should be treated as such.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I'm sure they fit some academIc definition but lumping them in with people who blow up children on purpose doesnt pass the sniff test.

That's an Only True Scotsman fallacy. Yeah, I just made that up. It means:

a word does not meat the real definition of a thing because the most extreme example of that thing is really what that thing really means.

ex. terrorists kill babies; therefore, unless you kill babies, or something equally atrocious, you ain't a terrorist.

I guess murdering a bunch of Olympics athletes is pretty close to killing babies, so, check, the PLO in Munich in '72, yeah, that's terrorism. But all those PLO plane hijackings from that time. No wheres nears murder. So, by your smell test, that wasn't.

But it was. Because seriously threatening the freedom of travel really puts a stop to a free and open society. Which the terrorists want to do.

Which is why serious cyberattacks against our digital infrastructure (the WWW) by subnational groups is now, you guessed it, an crime in the US and many other states. As a serious cyber attack by a nation state could readily be considered an act of war.

Look. I hear yah. Terrorism is not precisely defined in international law. That's a fact. And various national laws have been evolving in the face of evolving technology (see cyber attacks on our infrastructure). At its most basic, terrorism is

1) the use of violence or the credible threat of violence,* 2) against non-military targets, 3) in the pursuit of a political or social objective.

But the truth is there is fourth element:

4) By people we do not like.

*When by a subnational group, its terrorism When by a nation state or its operatives, state terrorism.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Stupid unorganized dim witted nitwits. What did they think was going to happen. Peaceful assembly to protest is allowed, even guaranteed, but armed rebellion in not allowed in any country and cannot be allowed by any government. If the were not white, and if the Bundy brothers did not have a rich conservative daddy, they would have been closed down in the first few days. So another example of White skin privilege. Had they been Black, Latino, Native Americans, or Muslim, they would have been closed in on right at the beginning. Open carry only applies to White people in American and always has. So much for th great pretense of equal justices under the law.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Wakayama - Trumped up charges? Check out this little tidbit that the Youtube video conveniently left out regarding just how "innocent" these ranchers were:

"The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire."

My source: http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So, its okay? Can I take a bunch of guns down to Nagatacho and take over the Diet? Is THAT okay? Got it.

If you're a rancher and the government arrests and fines other ranchers on trumped up charges because they want to grab their lands, then yes, you might want to consider occupying a federal building, especially a particular building that should not even be there.... Oh just watch the video!

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

In any case, one has to be extremely stupid and or mentally unbalanced to mess around with the FBI and state troopers. These obviously dumb extremists are truly getting what they deserve. Law enforcement is doing the right thing now, and what should have been done from the very beginning, before even more loonies joined their cause and upset people's lives in the area.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No, the building was closed. There was nobody there to kick out.

So, its okay? Can I take a bunch of guns down to Nagatacho and take over the Diet? Is THAT okay? Got it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They "stormed" a government building that was closed by using .... keys! No damage, no looting.

I don't know what news coverage you've been watching, but I've seen few photos in which a handgun or semiautomatic rifle were not prominently displayed. The angle they're trying to play this - that they were exercising both their first and second amendment rights simultaneously - is not only too precious, it is dangerous. All those cowboy fantasists are simply lucky they weren't gunned down. Or do you want to set a precedent?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"Why arrest us?! We only armed ourselves and took over a federal building - kicking all the employees out.

No, the building was closed. There was nobody there to kick out.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yes, apple and oranges. They "stormed" a government building that was closed by using .... keys! No damage, no looting.

Still terrorists, Ms. Wakayama, but nice try. Who cares how they "accessed" the building. They came armed with military grade weapons and threatened to use them. Terrorists. So, let me reiterate: they need to be dealt with. Shot, imprisoned, marooned on a desert island, let adrift in the ocean, be creative I do not care, but these nutty, right wing nutters must be dealt with.

Indeed, the Hammonds went back because they were threatened to be sent to a worse prison, where the oldest (73?) might not have survived.

Again, so what? They were tried. They lost. Now they have to go to prison. Are you suggesting that if anyone is unhappy with their sentencing, that they have the right to threaten violence to get their way?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thornton called the arrests “a dirty trick” by law enforcement.

LOL. How UNDERHANDED!

"Why arrest us?! We only armed ourselves and took over a federal building - kicking all the employees out. Y'all guv'mint folks used a low-down dirty trick! Y'all are racist against me because my family "tree" is actually a circle!"

Why aren't the white political leaders denouncing these thugs?

I guess you didn't bother reading the article, huh?

“I am pleased that the FBI has listened to the concerns of the local community and responded to the illegal activity occurring in Harney County by outside extremists,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley said in a statement.

U.S. Senator Merkley (OR) (Dem.) is "white" and is a "political leader". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Merkley

Democrats, if smart, are gonna go after all pro NRA people on this.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the NRA has weighed-in on this takeover. It doesn't benefit them to support criminal activity. Their go-to mantra has always been about the legal use of firearms by law-abiding citizens. For them to support the occupiers would seriously weaken their stance.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Apples to oranges. In a civilized, developed society, storming government buildings with military grade weapons isn't really an option.

Yes, apple and oranges. They "stormed" a government building that was closed by using .... keys! No damage, no looting.

And lastly, keep in mind that this has,nothing to do with the Bundies. The people who were rearrested quietly went back to prison.

Indeed, the Hammonds went back because they were threatened to be sent to a worse prison, where the oldest (73?) might not have survived. The initial arrest was completely unreasonable. They served their time, and soon after released they had to return because they were considered terrorists, even more unreasonable. It's unfortunate that the corporate media ignores many important details. Many details are explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Well, by that definition, the entire Occupy movement was terrorist. As were any rioters in Missouri last year. As were many civil rights marchers in the 60s. I guess they all "deserve to die" too.

Really? Civil Rights marchers stormed government buildings with semi-automatic weapons? Interesting considering non-violence was at the heart of MLK's movement.

By the same definition, the government can do anything they want, and it's not terrorism. Because it's "official" then.

Apples to oranges. In a civilized, developed society, storming government buildings with military grade weapons isn't really an option. Lose your court case? Its okay, just get a lot of nutty, gun toting schills to march along with you and force your way. Its great really, why even have courts? Let the strong (or gun lovers) force their will on the other sane, level-headed individuals.

Meanwhile rational people still understand that the root of terrorism is "terror." And there was none in this case. But, what the heck. Let's shoot them anyway, right? They're only republicans. Not really human.

I never said shoot them. Arrest them, send them afloat on a small boat off the Aleutians. Pick your poison, I don't really care, but as an American I've had enough with the terrorists: black, white, arab or whatever, they need to get gone. Quick.

If you feel that you have been cheated, go to court. Sue. Feeling jaded is no justification for gathering a bunch of rednecks with guns together and threatening to use. If THAT is what you resort to, you are just wrong.

And lastly, keep in mind that this has,nothing to do with the Bundies. The people who were rearrested quietly went back to prison. The way it should be.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

By the way, trouble, you mention that "explicit constitutional restriction that the federal government can own no other land other than Washington DC and land for ports or military bases." If it were explicit, you should be able to cite a source or two. Would you care to do so?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"the federal government can own no other land other than Washington DC and land for ports or military bases, AND those can only be owned with the approval of the state they are in." The bundies had this view and acted on it. They ended up arrested or worse. It's like some people think "shall not be infringed" literally means citizens can own whatever weapons the military has if they can afford it. It seems people who get hung up on stuff like this don't have many prospects in life.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wonder if those criticizing the police for being too aggressive in Ferguson and NY will now switch places with those supporting the police reining in thugs who don't respect authority

What does one have to do with the other?

Authority vs. anti-authority

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@trouble, that rigidly absolutist reading is not anything like the reality on the ground. What future use of public lands are you advocating? Which one do you predict will still be there in 25 years, Yellowstone NP or the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You should have taken the minimal effort to inform yourself about the explicit constitutional restriction that the federal government can own no other land other than Washington DC and land for ports or military bases, AND those can only be owned with the approval of the state they are in.

Hmm. Have you informed the Supreme Court of your interpretation of the Constitution? There is a large body of Court rulings that directly contradict your claim. This leaves two possibilities: That the Supreme Court, which, under the Constitution, is charged with interpreting the meaning of the text and consequential constitutionality has made a series of flawed decisions dating back scores of decades, or that you have no idea what you're talking about. Think about it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Terrorists or no terrorists. Appropriate or inappropriate. Still locked up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And yet, there is lots of government land. So it would seem it's not as cut and dry as you would like.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I am correct. There is no "interpretation" issue. You should have taken the minimal effort to inform yourself about the explicit constitutional restriction that the federal government can own no other land other than Washington DC and land for ports or military bases, AND those can only be owned with the approval of the state they are in.

Those are facts. You cannot disagree with facts.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Hammonds and Bundies are clearly not terrorists.

Other than that, you know, they are terrorists.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

This video provides a good background of this crisis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU

Please watch! The government is clearly acting inappropriately. The Hammonds and Bundies are clearly not terrorists.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Terrorism is defined as the "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

Well, by that definition, the entire Occupy movement was terrorist. As were any rioters in Missouri last year. As were many civil rights marchers in the 60s. I guess they all "deserve to die" too.

By the same definition, the government can do anything they want, and it's not terrorism. Because it's "official" then.

Meanwhile rational people still understand that the root of terrorism is "terror." And there was none in this case. But, what the heck. Let's shoot them anyway, right? They're only republicans. Not really human.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Wonder if those criticizing the police for being too aggressive in Ferguson and NY will now switch places with those supporting the police reining in thugs who don't respect authority

What does one have to do with the other? The incidents I assume you are talking about from Ferguson and NY were the police killing unarmed black men. This issue is about a bunch of white armed terrorists. Not really any equivalency there.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Wonder if those criticizing the police for being too aggressive in Ferguson and NY will now switch places with those supporting the police reining in thugs who don't respect authority

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They are most definitely terrorists, they just aren't as extreme as some other terrorists. But that doesn't take away from the fact that their actions are terrorism.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Ther federal government has no constitional authority to own any land except for Washington DC and areas around military locations and ports.

Article Four, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

So other than the Constitution implicitly acknowledging the ability of the the Federal Government (the legal entity of the United States) to own property, and other than the same document explicitly empowering Congress to create rules and regulations regarding such property, and other than that the framers of the Constitution saw fit to explicitly state that no other parts of the Constitution could be misinterpreted so as to contravene this, perhaps yo have a point.

I do love those mini-Constitutions these yahoos carry around in their flannel shirt pockets. I assume that they do not contain the full text - much less the body of interpretation the Supreme Court has added over the last couple hundred of years.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They aren't terrorists, not to me at least. I'm sure they fit some academIc definition but lumping them in with people who blow up children on purpose doesnt pass the sniff test. They're pretty much heavily armed nutjobs living in right-wing paranoia.

Pretty much have to agree with you there.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

They aren't terrorists, not to me at least. I'm sure they fit some academIc definition but lumping them in with people who blow up children on purpose doesnt pass the sniff test. They're pretty much heavily armed nutjobs living in right-wing paranoia.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Strangerland, definitely not cut and dried. A constitution is open to reinterpretation over time. Japan's constituion bars building up a military force, but over the years has built up a decent sized armed forces that has been sent on overseas missions. Likewise, the shifting imperative in America over the last century towards preserving natural areas in national parks, forests, and lakeshores has marginalized people who believe that those kinds of places are illegal. That would be the ranching, mining, and logging industry contingent. It's clear that "trouble" above is not considering the long term changing priorities that would be needed to explain this issue, instead just singling out a few ideas without seeing how the constitution has been interpreted in reality.

Closing down Yosemite, Grand Canyon, etc. was tried in recent years with the government budget stalemate, and low and behold the affected businesses howled so much that Republican state governors out west had to start using precious state funds to reopen the federal national parks. Undoing the current federal management regime was shown to be almost impossible with the conflict created between various stakeholders.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ther federal government has no constitional authority to own any land except for Washington DC and areas around military locations and ports.

It is forbidden to own any land other than that.

So, these people are in the right, the government is acting illegally. The growth of the federal government land grab is unconstitutional and the people sworn to uphold the constitution are knowingly violating that oath.

Yeah, I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. But even if it is, the way to protest is not through terrorist activities. Even if your premise above is right, these terrorists put themselves in the wrong, through their terrorist activities. And they got one of themselves killed in the process.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Death Wish granted. Well these soon-to-be-convicted felons will have another night mare coming their way. Once they get released from federal prison, they will lose their legal gun owning privileges. I bet that's a living hell for some people.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It seems that no one here understands the issue.

Ther federal government has no constitional authority to own any land except for Washington DC and areas around military locations and ports.

It is forbidden to own any land other than that.

So, these people are in the right, the government is acting illegally. The growth of the federal government land grab is unconstitutional and the people sworn to uphold the constitution are knowingly violating that oath.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Poor Y'allqaida.

The real reason they left for town was that they had run out of vanilla coffee and were down to their last few grams of meth. And I bet Ammon was secretly missing his mommy.

Send 'em to Gitmo with all the other enemy combatants.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Suzu1, I agree that "the area"--the rural areas out west--can be hard to decipher politically.

For example, some of the Jeffs clan from the FLDS enclaves on the AZ-UT border are on trial now in Phoenix. Finicum was from near there. I would be willing to bet that any place that bans all media and internet in their homes, as the FLDS do, is not engaged poltically beyond local town business, if even that. But place that kind of marginalized, victimized mindset out on the internet, and suddenly they can recruit enough like minded people from across the country to stage an armed rebellion, like the 1000 militiamen who showed up to defend Bundy's cattle in 2014. Talk about operating in a bubble.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

wiktionary:

terrorism ‎

Uno. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

Dos. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

Tres. A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region.

civil society

All of the institutions, voluntary organizations and corporate bodies that are less than the state but greater than the family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Bass, your sample size of all the people living in California is not germane to the Malheur occupation in Oregon, which involved maybe 50-100 hardcore militiamen at various stages. If their political affiliation is hard to ascertain, it is because they stopped voting after previous criminal convictions, and/or don't want to recognize the federal government by participating in elections. So you could argue that they are apolitical anarchists. Still doesn't negate the fact that the politicians who went out there for handshake photo ops will have some 'splaining to do in the months ahead. I can hear it now: "Mal-who? Never been there in my life, honest!"

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"So how are they terrorists? Did they have hostages? Beheaded someone? Blew something up?" They will be charged accordingly. Just wait for the courts. One of them at least is charged with stealing a government vehicle, for example. They didn't fly airplanes into buildings but from their actions their lack of prospects in life definitely and laughingly became more lacking. They will go from illegally occupying one government building to legally occupying another (a cell).

Has anyone noticed these are all white guys? Just noticed a little bit? This is a sign of the bitter white man losing power and status by becoming more equal (or less than so) of people of other races. They are bitter about stuff like a non 100% white person entering the WH. They don't like it that they are no longer in power. The only thing that is holding their self esteem from going rock bottom is their gun possessions. That's all they have. And with them thinking that Obama wants to take all their guns away that is 100% confirmation they are Republicans voting Republican.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If they were black men they would have all been dead ages ago even if unarmed.

This is one of the more ridiculous, knee jerk, and all too predictable, opinions spouted by uninformed observers throughout this incident. It flies in the face of reality on the ground. The Malheur Refuge is literally in the middle of nowhere. The FBI would never move quickly with force against anyone taking it in the middle of winter absent any immediate public safety concerns like active shooting. And, of course, it should be pointed out that there were at least two black activists at the Refuge supporting Bundy.

I don't agree with anything the Bundys spouted but I can't stand to see such uninformed opinions by folks that don't really understand the area and what was going on.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

All these Bundies are Republicans. Just a fact.

I'll wear that shoe ALL DAY. Don't mess with republicans . . . like Bush once said: "Don't mess with Texas."

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

do you really think these guys aren't Republicans?

No, that's not what I am saying. I don't know whether they are Republican or not, now if you say conservative, I would say, Yes.

No matter what Bass wants to believe, it was 100% Republican politicians traveling from various states to Malheur.

It's not what "I" want to believe, I am just saying labeling them by political affiliation....you need to be careful, that's all I'm saying. But you would have to be a fool to think that guns are a Republican issue all around, because as a Californian living in the bluest state in the union, I can guarantee the majority of people living there that own guns are not conservative.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

So how are they terrorists? Did they have hostages? Beheaded someone? Blew something up?

Terrorism is defined as the "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

Have the Bundies threatened to use violence? Yes. Do they have a political agenda? Yup.

Please eliminate the terrorists as quickly as reasonably possible.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Did Hillary or another Dems visit the Bundies?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

pay his taxes and penalties.

Not taxes - fees. He willingly contracted with the government for forage and then stiffed on the bills.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No matter what Bass wants to believe, it was 100% Republican politicians traveling from various states to Malheur.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

“This is where I’m going to breathe my last breath, whether I’m 90, 95 or 55,” Finicum told The Associated Press on Jan 5. “I’m going to not spend my days in a cell.”

Got your wish, moron. Hope you're happy, as is your family, and they all know you died a coward and a terrorist to boot. I hope the rest of them get SERIOUS prison time -- not only for 'impeding law enforcement', but for heaps of other counts. If they were black men they would have all been dead ages ago even if unarmed.

Dad needs to be thrown in jail still, too, or pay his taxes and penalties.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Bass - do you really think these guys aren't Republicans?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Can you imagine the Bundies voting for Obama? No way! Just a fact. They are all Republicans.

Did you ask them? No, you didn't. You have a lot of liberals, say what you want, don't take us for fools. No one is buying that.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

These extreme sovereign citizen types are probably closer to anarchists than anything. Nishikat's point is valid as far as the stream of GOP politicians traveling to meet with the occupiers, and giving impassioned speeches about them. Do you think those politicians will continue to buddy up when the occupiers are in prison? I strongly doubt it--no more political gain to wring out of these saps.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is a government land grab. They want the ranchers off this land, so that they can hand it over to their friends for exploitation.

There are so many important details that are not reported in the corporate media, ignore them at your own risk.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Can you imagine the Bundies voting for Obama? No way! Just a fact. They are all Republicans.

"Malheur occupiers were all liberals. " Who all want to vote for Trump. At least they will get more public health insurance under Trump. Actually these bundies are often on Public support which makes them "freeloaders" but they want to vote for Trump because they are tired of all these American "freeloaders". Wow, these Bundies are going around in circles.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

All these Bundies are Republicans. Just a fact.

What the Bundie Dems that love their guns?

It's amazing how many people won't even call them terrorists, as they are white.

So how are they terrorists? Did they have hostages? Beheaded someone? Blew something up?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Nishikat, you may want to check with Wc626 on that. Just three weeks ago, he claimed the Malheur occupiers were all liberals. Trying to explain how that applies to LaVoy Finicum, a rancher from near FLDS land Colorado City whose income was from Catholic Charities (and not the government), is such a stretch that nobody on this board wants to do it.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

How the government treats these terrorists will be interesting to see.

It's amazing how many people won't even call them terrorists, as they are white.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

All these Bundies are Republicans. Just a fact.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

How the government treats these terrorists will be interesting to see. At the very least, they should be subject to a life-long prohibition on gun ownership. For many of them, that would be worse than jail.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Plenty of democrats love their guns too.

"Hallelujaj" united we stand.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yeah will be interesting to see how the NRA which is chock FULL of these kind of idiots says!!

What a bunch of crazy losers these people are, hope they are tried & if found guilty locked up

CLEARLY NONE of these people should be anywhere near any fire arms they are beyond unstable.

And like I said the US has TONS of people like these fools & they are armed.

NRA what are YOU going to do!?!?!?! Not going to hold my breath!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Home-grown terrorists. Tens of thousands, possibly millions of them out Their color is the only thing that stopped the government from going in guns blazing on the first day.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Democrats, if smart, are gonna go after all pro NRA people on this.

They can try.

Plenty of democrats love their guns too.

That's right.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Plenty of democrats love their guns too.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The US needs to send its military forces currently in foreign countries back home to secure its borders and provide protection from these heavily armed domestic terrorists who have shown they are willing to attack their own government in the name of their radical ideology.

Yeah. Send the military to guard the US-Mex border- where the real threats and narcotics enter the country. This is 1 isolated incident in rural Oregon. There haven't been any suicide bombers, women/children abducted or heads chopped-off.

Bearded white men shouting 'come and take it' pose grave threats to the US.

Yeah. Bearded white men in their own country. This is more acceptable, rather than bearded ME men coming into the US and "posing" an even greater threat to the US. Nice try pal-

I call on all those American posters here who are known for supporting their right to bear arms to immediately denounce this action

Yeah. Its a constitutional right, the right to bear arms. I don't agree with their actions. They're the ones who must ultimately win, lose, suffer for that cause. The BLM / Department of Interior will have to reevaluate how land is fairly dispersed. Until then, let the chickens roost.

The US needs to send its military forces currently in foreign countries back home to secure its borders and provide protection from these heavily armed domestic terrorists who have shown they are willing to attack their own government in the name of their radical ideology.

Yeah. Send the military to guard the US-Mex border- where the real threats and narcotics enter the country. This is 1 isolated incident in rural Oregon. There haven't been any suicide bombers, women/children abducted or heads chopped-off.

Bearded white men shouting 'come and take it' pose grave threats to the US.

Yeah. Bearded white men in their own country. This is more acceptable, rather than bearded ME men coming into the US and "posing" an even greater threat to the US. Nice try pal-

I call on all those American posters here who are known for supporting their right to bear arms to immediately denounce this action

Yeah. Its a constitutional right, the right to bear arms. I don't agree with their actions. They're the ones who must ultimately win, lose, suffer for that cause. The BLM / Department of Interior will have to reevaluate how land is fairly dispersed. Until then, let the chickens roost.

The US needs to send its military forces currently in foreign countries back home to secure its borders and provide protection from these heavily armed domestic terrorists who have shown they are willing to attack their own government in the name of their radical ideology.

This is an isolated incident in rural Oregon. Send the military to secure the US-Mex border- where the real thugs and their narcotics enter the country.

I call on all those American posters here who are known for supporting their right to bear arms to immediately denounce this action

I support bearing arms big time! But, I don't support their actions. They're the one who must win, lose, and suffer their cause.

Bearded white men shouting 'come and take it' pose grave threats to the US.

Nice try pal. Its the bearded ME men who come into the US with a plot to commit terror who are the "real" threat.

It is more acceptable when white men -in their own country- are standing up, rather than armed foreigners. The BLM / Department of Interior should reevaluate how land is dispursed. Both parties need to find a solution or it could be an ole' western style shootout.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Democrats, if smart, are gonna go after all pro NRA people on this.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I call on all those American posters here who are known for supporting their right to bear arms to immediately denounce this action by Bundy and his creepy followers.

Why wouldn't anyone? I denounce it in all its purest forms.

If not, you are presumed to support them.

That's your personal opinion, you don't speak for any of us.

And are exposed as the anti-American vermin that you are.

Hmmmm......

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Clinton, if smart, is gonna go after Sanders on this.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

He was a terrorist. Terrorists deserve to die.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

“The entire leadership is gone,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “I wouldn’t blame any of them for leaving.”

Yeah, well, guess what. These 'armed' 'extremists' who view the rule of law as a 'dirty trick' and are using violence or the threat of violence to further a political objective and who have been terrorizing a small, rural community that doesn't want them there but who are in no way terrorists, are leaderless now.

Leaderless, amped up on who-knows what, fully armed.

And live camming.

...one man positioned near the live stream camera could be heard calling his mother, telling her that he loves her and that he believes this is the second American revolution. He noted his wife is there, fighting along with him. He called her a “great American woman.” He stopped numerous times to look into the camera and address the people watching the live stream, calling for others to “Get there and get some!” and saying those law enforcement who try to stop them aren’t abiding by their oath and are the enemy. He later used even stronger words: don’t be afraid of those roadblocks, drive up there and shoot them. They are dishonorable.”

https://youtu.be/Uz7lO5dpUjs

That fat turd is calling for an armed rebellion and the murder of the police. Disgusting.

So, you NRA gun nuts. I think you guys support these scumbags. Call them out. I dare ya. I double dare ya.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The traitor that died did NOT die for "freedom" ....he died in armed insurrection against the country that had sheltered him his whole life...he was a traitor.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Why aren't the white political leaders denouncing these thugs?

A very good question. I'm white. Kinda. I denounce these fools.

And I'll go one step further:

I call on all those American posters here who are known for supporting their right to bear arms to immediately denounce this action by Bundy and his creepy followers.

If not, you are presumed to support them. And are exposed as the anti-American vermin that you are.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Bearded white men shouting 'come and take it' pose grave threats to the US. The US needs to send its military forces currently in foreign countries back home to secure its borders and provide protection from these heavily armed domestic terrorists who have shown they are willing to attack their own government in the name of their radical ideology. Why aren't churches throughout the country preaching against this? Why aren't other Christians out marching 'not in my name'? Why aren't the white political leaders denouncing these thugs?

6 ( +12 / -6 )

BURNS, Oregon — Authorities in the U.S. were restricting access on Wednesday to an Oregon refuge being occupied by an armed group after one of the occupiers was killed during a traffic stop and eight more, including the group’s leader Ammon Bundy, were arrested.

These losers are the real threat to America.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites