Call it what it is
On CNN at least one person gets it about Bundy’s army, saying they’re domestic terrorists, duh.
(On the other hand CNN has a breaking news headline at the top of the page saying Ammon Bundy “holds briefing” – as if he were an official. He’s not holding a “briefing,” he’s a violent criminal saying things on camera.)
Let’s begin with what to call the Oregon anti-government protesters who have taken over a federal building. The men, heavily armed, urging others to come support their cause, and claiming somehow that, while peaceful, they will “defend” themselves whatever it takes, are — by any definition — domestic terrorists.
It does not matter that they insist they are peaceful or some sort of lawful militia; I can claim I’m 26 years old and a size 2 and that still doesn’t make it true. This group of men is wielding terror, and the threat of violence, as if it were their constitutional right.
Damn right. They’re using guns to break the law, to grab and hold public property, to draw attention to themselves, to resist arrest.
They are dangerous, they are unforgiving, they are flouting federal law, they have a political purpose and they clearly are willing to use violence to get their way. Simply because they are not Muslim jihadists does not mean they are authorized to threaten or use violence to support their political cause.
Could the news media possibly take that in and then retain it?
And religious.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/explainer-the-bundy-militias-particular-brand-of-mormonism/
See also The Phrase You’re Looking For Is ‘Seditious Conspiracist’
If he was brown, he’d be “making his demands”.
I don’t think it makes sense to call them terrorists, they haven’t killed anyone. They are criminals, but it is a protest occupation not a terrorist act. The only difference from Occupy Wall Street is the presence of guns and the absence of drums, which makes it a bit of a toss up for me.
@4: You don’t have to kill anyone to be a terrorist, you just have to terrorise people. The presence of guns (which are lethal) rather than drums (which are not) makes all the difference. They’re trying to make people fear them and do what they want. We have a word for that.
I think if ‘terrorism’ is going to mean anything it has to have a more substantial meaning. Just frightening people can’t be enough. After all, many found the Occupy lot quite intimidating and they did try to intimidate on occasion. Deliberate violent targeting of civilians for political purposes is about right to me as a definition. This lot aren’t terrorists they are just cranks. Is anyone terrified by them?
I’m going to walk into a bank brandishing a gun and start taking money, while telling everyone that if they try to stop me I will use my gun on them, but not to worry because I am peaceful and don’t WANT to hurt anyone.
I hope you’ll think carefully before you make such a dramatic career change Emily, but even if you DO hurt someone, it won’t make you a terrorist, just a common or garden bank robber, I’m afraid.
Like Pinkeen I wouldn’t class this as terrorism.
It’s certainly possible to go there, since terrorism has always been a ill-defined idea and has become even more flexible recently. For me, though, there has to be more of a threat to people who aren’t directly involved. If they were threatening to shoot at people driving past that would probably do it but the threat here looks to be just aimed at people coming to confront them.
That’s not to say I have any sympathy with the gun wielding nutters – just that they should be dealt with on those terms. There must be a bunch of laws that they can be charged with starting with Trespass and working up from there depending on what they actually do/have done.
You know, Pinkeen and James Howde, I think there is a problem here. The news and the government officials routinely refer to Greenpeace and Earth First! as terrorists, even though they haven’t killed anyone. In years of protest, they haven’t killed anyone (though there was an Earth First! death, it was not Earth First! who killed them, but a logger who felled a tree on one of them – apparently totally by accident, so it wasn’t an act of terrorism). Apparently in the eyes of most people, killing (or even threatening death or carrying guns) is not required to be considered a terrorist.
The definition: noun – a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
Definition of terrorist – noun – (1) the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. (2) the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. (3) a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
This does not include killing or death. Yes, they are a bit circular at times, but while violence is mentioned, killing is not. Threats is mentioned. I think we can call this terrorism.
I don’t know about this but I’ll take your word for it that it happens in the US. The problem though is too much loose talk of terrorism, rather than too little. Greenpeace aren’t terrorists and nor are armed Oregon occupiers. If the term is to have any meaning that is. I don’t know where you got your definition of terrorism but I think it is pretty terrible. It would make any mugger or robber a terrorist, for example. The word has no use if it can be used that broadly.
Granted, “terrorist” may be overkill. I’m reacting to the ludicrous level of euphemism and tact, and I may be overdoing it by calling them terrorists. On the other hand, doing all this while armed is a whole other category; it is not mere “protest.”
Plus you seem to be overlooking the central point here, which is that the police come down like a ton of bricks on unarmed black people doing nothing in particular, while these heavily armed white hoodlums are allowed to grab a federal facility at gunpoint while the newspapers call them “peaceful.”
I get it, viz the unequal treatment meted out to different social groups, I just think the pressure should be in the other direction, pushing for a more reasonable responseeleswhere rather than a more severe one in this.
But you’re doing it by minimizing the effect of carrying guns. Don’t do that. A gun is a threat. There’s a huge and important difference between protest and an armed takeover.
And…the extent to which they might be justifiably described as Mormon terrorists is still unexplored. Defiance toward federal law, apocalyptic confrontations, self-declared patriarchs who answer to no law but their own impulse… These are as Mormon as magic underwear.
I think the threat of violence is as much ‘terrorism’ as the actual infliction. The term may sound a bit over the top, but trying to split hairs to avoid it is like pretending that ISIS are Real Muslims right up until the first beheading. The intention and mindset are shockingly violent for both groups. Bundy’s mob absolutely chortle over their readiness to murder multiple law enforcement officers.