1 Death & 6 Arrests In Oregon Standoff

[Mycroft]

Sadly this sort of thing is just going to carry on forever. As long as firearms are in the hands of the general public, more people (innocent mainly) are going to die.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If history is any guide, the Muslims themselves would've handled it differently. First they would have declared the area as part of the Greater Caliphate. Then they would declare sharia as the only valid law. Lastly, they would have attacked all their non-Muslim neighbors.

Come to think of it, the Oregon nut-jobs were nothing like terrorist if terrorism is exemplified by acts such as ...

Taking a page from the Islamic group ISIS operating in neighboring Syria, a small group of young fundamentalist Jews influenced by radical religious leaders target Christian sites as centers of heretical idol worship and unwelcome missionary activity. In the past three years, a dozen churches and monasteries have been bombed, burned, or vandalized. Until the June firebombing, no one was charged in any of these incidents. [source]

 

[Akivah]

I honestly do not disagree with you based on what we've seen, but let me play devil's advocate a wee bit here with this.

What is the difference between a "freedom fighter" willing to die for his/her cause versus a "terrorist" doing much the same? As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored". We see references to "Muslim terrorists", but how often have you heard references to "Christian terrorists"?

As a case in point, many on the right have gotten on Obama's case for not saying the words "Muslim terrorists" or "Islamic terrorists", and yet what would they say if he ever said "Christian terrorists"?

Has Obama ever called any attackers, terrorists?

Obviously people assign different labels depending on their POV. Just look at how the Brits talk about the revolutionary war as compared to the American version. In my mind, a terrorist is one whose dominant purpose is to inflict civilian casualties with no regard to women, children, or other non combatants. A freedom fighter is one that attacks targets for some political purpose. They may inflict casualties on civilian targets, but that isn't their dominant intent. Obviously, there is a lot of grey area there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Has Obama ever called any attackers, terrorists?

Yes.

 

[metis]

Has Obama ever called any attackers, terrorists?

Obviously people assign different labels depending on their POV. Just look at how the Brits talk about the revolutionary war as compared to the American version. In my mind, a terrorist is one whose dominant purpose is to inflict civilian casualties with no regard to women, children, or other non combatants. A freedom fighter is one that attacks targets for some political purpose. They may inflict casualties on civilian targets, but that isn't their dominant intent. Obviously, there is a lot of grey area there.

I believe he has but only more recently.

The point I was making is what you said above in your 2nd sentence, but also that the words often used within the media, such as "Muslim terrorists", is almost never used in what some could call "Christian terrorists", such as with the IRA bombings years ago in the U.K. Throughout that entire struggle there, I never once recall seeing or hearing our media using terms like "Christian terrorists" or "Catholic terrorists" or "Protestant terrorists". Did you?

I agree there's a lot of "grey area" with the use of these terms, but what I am saying is that we often do see a double standard with the terminology that the media uses here and, I'm sure, elsewhere.

Shabbat shalom

 

[metis]

Has Obama ever called any attackers, terrorists?

Checked up on that, and this is from "the horse's mouth":

 

[Akivah]

but what I am saying is that we often do see a double standard with the terminology that the media uses here and, I'm sure, elsewhere.

Oh, for sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting news....
Judge declares mistrial in Bundy Ranch standoff case
From the article....
LAS VEGAS — A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, saying U.S. prosecutors willfully withheld critical and "potentially exculpatory" evidence from the defense.

Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed jurors and ended the trial against Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and militia member Ryan Payne, who are accused of leading an armed standoff with federal land agents in 2014.

Her ruling came more than a month into the trial, which has suffered multiple delays over the handling of evidence by the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office.

Navarro cited five key pieces of evidence that prosecutors failed to disclose. That evidence, Navarro said, was favorable to the defense and could have changed the outcome of the trial.

It included:

• Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;
• Records about the presence of government snipers;
• FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days leading up to standoff;
• Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;
• And internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.

 

[Revoltingest]

Damn lawyers & government....they'll cheat, frame,
& blunder their way to convict anyone they dislike.
Never get in the fed's crosshairs....literally or figuratively!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Never get in the fed's crosshairs....literally or figuratively!

Especially the American federal government. The modus operandi of many presidents has been troops and federal agents, Obama favored drones, and Trump's remains to be seen.