If armed American jihadists seized federal property and demanded that their breathen be realized from prison, and if the militants stated that they would force to “defend” themselves if law enforcement attempted to apprehend them, would we not call the event an incidence of domestic terrorism? We have armed individuals challenging the lawful authority of the land that are explicitly and implicitly threatening violence to achieve a political end. Check, check, check.
Terrorism aside, there is a big difference between these guys and a “jihadist”. Look up the definition if you don’t agree.
1 Like
This definition is so broad it’s practically useless.
In your case with the jihadists, they are not doing acts of terror in the scenario you described ergo they are not terrorist in that instance. Being a Jihadist or a reactionary shitkicker in Oregon, does not automatically make one a terrorist. Anders Berhing Breivik was a terrorist since he targeted civillians. If he only occupied Public property he would not be fit to be defined as an terrorist.
1 Like
That’s the new liberal modus operandi- expand an established framework ala the ACA so that everybody is subject to it but very few actually benefit.
Ya, absolutely. Speaking of the ACA, a buddy of mine (another Veteran), told me he’s gonna be fined $600 this year for not having insurance. Unreal.
Why hasn’t your friend signed up with the VA?
He’s trying to, but hasn’t heard back from them yet.
I hear it can be a PITA now days. Piece of cake for me in 2002.
Best of luck to your friend.
1 Like
No, they are not terrorists. You know it (or you should, if you are half the IR and FP researcher you claim to be) and so do I. I already replied to your assertion above. They are NOT targeting civilians for killing or terror. They are NOT even doing this in a public and high exposure area–they picked this almost precisely BECAUSE it was empty and distant from population centers. They haven’t even threatened pre-emptive violence towards anybody. Given that they are committing criminal conduct their protests for self-defense may be spurious indeed, but they have made NO move to target civilians, be they cops, feds, or regular joes. Neither have they planned to carry out any attacks…anywhere.
They are fringe and they are criminals. They are not terrorists.
1 Like
As somebody who lives in Utah, this post by System is about as spot on as you get.
This sounds about as credible as the militants’ accusation that Filicum was executed after he had surrendered.