Those Terrorists in Nevada

[Loren Pechtel]

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist?

Look, it's not very difficult.

In the same sense that a man who threatens to kill his neighbor and is laying plans to kill his neighbor is not technically murderer if he hasn't actually killed his neighbor yet, Cliven Bundy isn't technically a terrorist.

But he has committed armed robbery.

 

[RavenSky]

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist?

Look, it's not very difficult.

In the same sense that a man who threatens to kill his neighbor and is laying plans to kill his neighbor is not technically murderer if he hasn't actually killed his neighbor yet, Cliven Bundy isn't technically a terrorist.

No such thing as criminal charges for "attempted murder" or "conspiracy to murder"?

Moreover, do you not think Cliven and his "army" succeeded in their attempts at intimidation?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Bundy is full nutter:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored#comments

The crowd, fresh off their victory at the Battle of Bunkerville, gives Bundy a standing ovation. But he doesn’t seem pleased. He reproaches the crowd for failing to follow the word of God – to the letter – which he says is being delivered through him. They failed, for example, to follow his instructions to tear down the toll booths at Lake Mead and disarm the Park Service.

"The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.”

Cliven continues, sermon-like: "The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.” Smattering of clapping.

He goes on to explain that, although they managed to deter the BLM, they failed to do it "within one hour," as the revelation had prophesied. So when an hour passes, he decides to get in his bulldozer and march on the BLM himself. The dozer gets stuck in the mud and he receives another revelation.

“It come to my mind real plain — the good Lord said, ‘Bundy, it’s not your job, it’s THEIR job.’ So we come back over here and heard that they had brought some cattle back. So I want you to understand,” addressing the crowd, "This is not my job, it’s YOUR job.

"This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, 'Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’” Lots of clapping for this.

 

[The Paul]

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist?

Look, it's not very difficult.

In the same sense that a man who threatens to kill his neighbor and is laying plans to kill his neighbor is not technically murderer if he hasn't actually killed his neighbor yet, Cliven Bundy isn't technically a terrorist.

But he has committed armed robbery.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist?

Look, it's not very difficult.

In the same sense that a man who threatens to kill his neighbor and is laying plans to kill his neighbor is not technically murderer if he hasn't actually killed his neighbor yet, Cliven Bundy isn't technically a terrorist.

No such thing as criminal charges for "attempted murder" or "conspiracy to murder"?

Moreover, do you not think Cliven and his "army" succeeded in their attempts at intimidation?

Yes. Cliven Bundy is a criminal and a particularly dangerous one at that. He's the figurehead of a criminal organization determined to respond to law enforcement using deadly force.

 

[doubtingt]

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

Well, one could argue that a "terrorist" is someone that seeks to create a sense of terror in a populace by specifically targeting non-combatant members of that populace. IOW, it refers to a particular method of politically or ideologically motivated violence. Conservative are the ones to blame for watering the term down and making it purely emotional rhetoric rather than factually informative, so its amusing that they object to the terms questionable use in this case (not referring to you, The Paul).

Or we could use the dictionary definition: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" in which case I ask again... If Cliven Bundy and his self-proclaimed "army" "declaring war on the United States" is not an example of "domestic terrorism" is it because he has failed to actually accomplish any terror in anyone?

"the dictionary definition"???
You mean your cherry picked dictionary definition that suits your argument.
Here is Merriam Webster: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.

and from the Concise Encyclopedia: Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

The Encyclopedia then goes on to give examples, every single one of which is about violence or threats of violence directed against civilian non-military targets (sometimes by the military against its own people). Then there is etymology and the fact that the word is rooted in the concept of "terror" clearly suggesting that any valid definition would center upon the attempt to create an emotion of terror in people to elicit a response. IF you bomb a military base of your international enemy, you are trying to kill the people with guns who can kill you, so your goal is not the creation of terror in a populace. If you kill 5000 civilians at random, you have done nothing to damage your enemies military capabilities, so the only impact you'd be hoping for would be the politically destabilizing fear that random killings create. Therefore, many acts of war would not be acts of terrorism, which is independent from the immorality of the act and the response it warrants.

 

[doubtingt]

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the bigger lesson is that "terrorism" and other acts of threatened aggression can be equally immoral and can warrant the same response. But would you then say that McVeigh was a terrorist or did he commit an "act of war" against the government? He blew up a government building, Bundy has threatened to kill government workers (lets not pretend his threat was anything less than that just because he used language he could later pretend was not a threat of violence). In both cases they were not military personnel. I don't really care whether McVeigh is labeled a terrorist, but I am wonder what definition makes him one and wouldn't make Bundy someone at least threatening terrorism.

McVeigh thought if he murdered enough civilians, it would start a revolution that would overthrow the government.

Not quite. McVeigh was seeking to and did kill government agents connected to the military, ATF, DEA, and secret service as an act of retaliation for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Technically, they "civilians" but much closer enemy combatants in what he saw as a war between the Fed government and the people than the people that Bundy has threatened to murder (and yes, all reasonable people understand that he has threatened murder).

(and he tried to put his plan into action) I think you'd be hard pressed to find something that matches "terrorism" better.

Almost all other acts labeled terrorism far better fit the meaning of the term, from 9/11 and the Boston marathon, to almost every terrorist act in Europe over the past 50 years. Those acts were against non-government targets not people that the perps saw as the foot soldiers of the enemy (which is how McVeigh saw the Fed agents he was killing). Those other acts were against truely civilian targets to send to message that all random people in those nations were potential targets, thus create widespread panicking fear. McVeigh wasn't really trying for fear. He was trying to show that the Fed government could be brought down and to inspire rebellion against it. That is what Bundy is hoping for and what he is threatening. The major difference lies only in that Bundy is only threatening at this time to murder government officials and trying to inspire a revolt against the US government, whereas McVeigh followed through with the killings. But Bundy hasn't killed yet mostly because the government isn't engaging him. Given his demonstrated psychosis and religious nuttery, there is every reason to think his threats of murder of legit and treat his followers as violent enemies of the state. If McVeigh is a terrorist, the Bundy is an aspiring one and threatening terrorism, but I am fine with just calling them both criminal enemies of the State and violent threats to public safety, and taking them down by whatever force is necessary.

 

[RavenSky]

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

Well, one could argue that a "terrorist" is someone that seeks to create a sense of terror in a populace by specifically targeting non-combatant members of that populace. IOW, it refers to a particular method of politically or ideologically motivated violence. Conservative are the ones to blame for watering the term down and making it purely emotional rhetoric rather than factually informative, so its amusing that they object to the terms questionable use in this case (not referring to you, The Paul).

Or we could use the dictionary definition: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" in which case I ask again... If Cliven Bundy and his self-proclaimed "army" "declaring war on the United States" is not an example of "domestic terrorism" is it because he has failed to actually accomplish any terror in anyone?

"the dictionary definition"???
You mean your cherry picked dictionary definition that suits your argument..

YOU added emphasis to "the" - not me. It was the very first definition that came up when I googled, so no, it was NOT "cherry-picked". I don't appreciate what it appears you are trying to imply.

I gave A definition (happy now? ) that was ignored. I am still trying to get at what (in this board's opinion) makes Cliven Bundy and his self-proclaimed army not "domestic terrorists". You seem to be saying it is because they didn't ultimately engage in actual acts of violence - that intimidation and/or threats is not enough. Would that be a correct interpretation?

ETA: or... from your next post, is it because (in your opinion) "terrorism" only applies if the violence or threat of violence is against civilians rather than military or government officials.

If the latter, I don't see that in either of the definitions you provided.

 

[RavenSky]

Almost all other acts labeled terrorism far better fit the meaning of the term, from 9/11...

9/11 World Trade Center but not 9/11 Pentagon?

 

[The Paul]

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the bigger lesson is that "terrorism" and other acts of threatened aggression can be equally immoral and can warrant the same response. But would you then say that McVeigh was a terrorist or did he commit an "act of war" against the government? He blew up a government building, Bundy has threatened to kill government workers (lets not pretend his threat was anything less than that just because he used language he could later pretend was not a threat of violence). In both cases they were not military personnel. I don't really care whether McVeigh is labeled a terrorist, but I am wonder what definition makes him one and wouldn't make Bundy someone at least threatening terrorism.

McVeigh thought if he murdered enough civilians, it would start a revolution that would overthrow the government.

Not quite. McVeigh was seeking to and did kill government agents connected to the military, ATF, DEA, and secret service as an act of retaliation for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Technically, they "civilians" but much closer enemy combatants in what he saw as a war between the Fed government and the people than the people that Bundy has threatened to murder (and yes, all reasonable people understand that he has threatened murder).

(and he tried to put his plan into action) I think you'd be hard pressed to find something that matches "terrorism" better.

Almost all other acts labeled terrorism far better fit the meaning of the term, from 9/11 and the Boston marathon, to almost every terrorist act in Europe over the past 50 years. Those acts were against non-government targets not people that the perps saw as the foot soldiers of the enemy (which is how McVeigh saw the Fed agents he was killing). Those other acts were against truely civilian targets to send to message that all random people in those nations were potential targets, thus create widespread panicking fear. McVeigh wasn't really trying for fear. He was trying to show that the Fed government could be brought down and to inspire rebellion against it. That is what Bundy is hoping for and what he is threatening. The major difference lies only in that Bundy is only threatening at this time to murder government officials and trying to inspire a revolt against the US government, whereas McVeigh followed through with the killings. But Bundy hasn't killed yet mostly because the government isn't engaging him. Given his demonstrated psychosis and religious nuttery, there is every reason to think his threats of murder of legit and treat his followers as violent enemies of the state. If McVeigh is a terrorist, the Bundy is an aspiring one and threatening terrorism, but I am fine with just calling them both criminal enemies of the State and violent threats to public safety, and taking them down by whatever force is necessary.

Alright, I'm gonna have to admit I'm not an expert on McVeigh, but I was under the impression he thought the killings he performed would destabilize the government to the point that it would be overthrown (not just his direct killings on their own, he thought he was going to start a wave of bloodshed.) At any rate, he seemed to think if he engaged in enough violence he could destroy the government, and he wasn't terribly concerned with who he was killing, anyone remotely connected to some oppressive othery boogey-man would do. If enough people related to "the government" got killed the government would become terrified and capitulate with... something. I don't think he probably had a real firm grasp on reality. Anyway, that's pretty damn terroristy. They weren't really "enemy combatants" for being part of the government any more than any given American citizen is an "enemy combatant" for middle-Eastern terrorist by mere virtue of being an American citizen.

As opposed to Bundy, who's hasn't really declared or shown tendencies to violence unless someone is interfering with his committing a crime. So he's like a guy robbing a bank or convenience store or whatever. People in general aren't in danger, just anyone who interferes with the getaway or loads cash into a bag too slowly for his tastes, or has the misfortune of happening to be in the doorway while he's on his way out.

And I do figure that's probably about the shape of his mindset. The hoodlum who would shoot the convenience store clerk for emptying the till too slowly and Bundy are roughly equally stable people. Bundy's just got far more capacity to carry out violence, through his legion of fuckwits, than the guy robbing a convenience store.

Bundy and his followers are violent enemies of the state, but not every violent enemy of the state is a terrorist.

That being said, given his rhetoric about being the chosen one or whatever the fuck, he'll probably descend into terrorism shortly.

 

[RavenSky]

Alright, I'm gonna have to admit I'm not an expert on McVeigh, but I was under the impression he thought the killings he performed would destabilize the government to the point that it would be overthrown (not just his direct killings on their own, he thought he was going to start a wave of bloodshed.) At any rate, he seemed to think if he engaged in enough violence he could destroy the government, and he wasn't terribly concerned with who he was killing, anyone remotely connected to some oppressive othery boogey-man would do. If enough people related to "the government" got killed the government would become terrified and capitulate with... something. I don't think he probably had a real firm grasp on reality. Anyway, that's pretty damn terroristy. They weren't really "enemy combatants" for being part of the government any more than any given American citizen is an "enemy combatant" for middle-Eastern terrorist by mere virtue of being an American citizen.

As opposed to Bundy, who's hasn't really declared or shown tendencies to violence unless someone is interfering with his committing a crime. So he's like a guy robbing a bank or convenience store or whatever. People in general aren't in danger, just anyone who interferes with the getaway or loads cash into a bag too slowly for his tastes, or has the misfortune of happening to be in the doorway while he's on his way out.

And I do figure that's probably about the shape of his mindset. The hoodlum who would shoot the convenience store clerk for emptying the till too slowly and Bundy are roughly equally stable people. Bundy's just got far more capacity to carry out violence, through his legion of fuckwits, than the guy robbing a convenience store.

Bundy and his followers are violent enemies of the state, but not every violent enemy of the state is a terrorist.

this line of reasoning makes sense to me, thank you.

That being said, given his rhetoric about being the chosen one or whatever the fuck, he'll probably descend into terrorism shortly.

Naw... God told him, when his bulldozer got stuck in the mud, to tell other people people to tear down to toll booths and attack the federal government.

 

[ksen]

All is not well in Bundytopia.

 

[ksen]

lol

"They're not allowed back on this ranch," Cooper said of Stewart's group, angrily raising his arms. "They're to stay the hell out of here under fear of fist fire."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Stunned, absolutely stunned. Also weary of Poe again.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So this just proves that government is the problem and by removing government, all things will be nice and smiley like they are in Bundytopia.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All is not well in Bundytopia.

due to "a bunch of hotheads" whom he thought weren't stable enough to carry out the armed struggle against the United States government in the Nevada desert. [/quote] That's a lol.

If you look at the history of armed struggle against the USG, say Randy Weaver' s stand, which availed him more? A shotgun? Camoflague pants? Or a lawyer?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It really must be difficult to be a writer for parody sites like the Onion these days when real life keeps trumping you with inane bullshit.

 

[ksen]

So this just proves that government is the problem and by removing government, all things will be nice and smiley like they are in Bundytopia.

Don't forget that an armed society is a polite society.

the irony and the insanity spiked last weekend when leaders of the most prominent militia group, the Oath Keepers, began complaining of armed madmen "in the camp running amok."

:Ohdear:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Freedom Soup

Half gross each of 3 militia groups
100 guns
15000 bullets
1 rounded cup of paranoia

Mix thoroughly until there is nothing left.

 

[Rhea]

That shit's funny!

 

[Keith&Co.]

It really must be difficult to be a writer for parody sites like the Onion these days when real life keeps trumping you with inane bullshit.

Way back when, either Saturday Night Live, or Second City Television decided to write a skit spoofing the Dukes of Hazard.

They couldn't manage it. There was no way they could make a comic lampoon of a show that was essentially a lampoon of itself.

Maybe... Maybe the geniuses behind the movement have decided to pre-lampoon their positions and behaviors JUST SO they don't end up in the Onion or in political cartoons. SO they can't be POEed.

Like, a preemptive move to look so silly they simply MUST be taken seriously....