Talk politics.

Naw, they're white. White people aren't terrorist. Just packs of lone wolves, peaceful protestors, and gentle loners with mental problems.

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

So tell us, why do you hate the Founding Fathers? ;)

From:

oportet.livejournal.com

I don't understand the lack of coverage - this is a page two story, a brief summary runs across the ticker on most channels (left and right) - seems like it should be a bigger deal.

And I can't say it's all because they're white, with "white" names....I'm white, with a "white" name - if I held up a rest area or a federal building, I'm pretty sure it'd be over in the time it took to read this sentence (although I'm not willing to prove it)...

From:

Watch out! And prepare to be proven almost-wrong with a huge link dump featuring a couple dozen results from a 5-second "bundy+standoff" Google search, which will definitely prove... well, something.

From:

garote

You think a holdup at a rest area should garner national news coverage? Perhaps in a less violent nation, it should. But about half a dozen people get killed in my home city every month by gun crime, and many of those deaths don't even make the local papers.

Meanwhile, nationwide television went nuts for days and days over "pizza rat"!!

I think "lack of coverage" as an indictment is an idea we're going to have to retire at some point.

Edited Date: 4/1/16 20:31 (UTC)

From:

oportet.livejournal.com

Should?....I don't know - I just figured news covered what gets and keeps viewers, more viewers gets higher ratings, higher ratings gets more money from advertisers - like any other TV show.

This story is interesting - and seems like it would appeal to people at every corner of the politcal spectrum.

I'd stay with it.

I'd stay with it with the same slightly annoying persistence cnn/foxnews/msnbc/headlinenews/yahoo/ap/reuters stays on top of a plane crash, a protest, or an active shooter. I'd have helicopter shots, artists rendering, grainy cell phone footage. I'd get opinions from retired police, retired politicians, miss cleo, whatever it takes. If we're capitalist, we should capitalize. Am I missing something, or am I just wrong about how much people would or should give a shit here?

From:

garote

Oh I see, you're wondering why this isn't being leveraged more as a spectacle to move ad dollars? Well, give it another day or two. A twitter explosion is only the first step, and that's well underway - and will also guarantee at least a minimum length for the "long tail" of coverage online.

A few years ago I went on a bike ride through eastern Oregon, through that very area, chatting with people as I went. It's pretty desolate and uninteresting - not even a bulwark of Republican craziness but something more tempered and mundane, scattered with conservationist types as well as cowpunchers just trying to make a living, and generally minding the law. Nasty meth problem emerging in recent times though...

My point is, it probably won't be a particularly deep vein to mine for media spectacle. The "terrorist occupation", as snarky online commenters will insist on calling it, will probably turn out more like a block party that gets shut down by the cops in semi-orderly fashion, after lots of barbecue and beer and semi-coherent speechifying.

From:

I was wondering the same thing. It's gotten more coverage as its gone on but not to the degree #YallQaeda posters would like.

From:

Because if two Muslims from Indonesia commit a massacre, that's a news story. If 150 white men with connection to Right-Wing anti-American terrorist organizations launch an incompetent takeover of Federal landing wanting to be martyrs (and my view on that is the same as with Kamikazes and suicide bombers, if they actually want it, give it to them and then control the view of what happens after the fact), well, that might imply that the same people who think Obama's the Antichrist and/or an avatar of Nyarlathotep suddenly remember terrorism is bad. And they won't.

From:

htpcl.livejournal.com

But, but, terrorism is patriotic! It starts with tossing tea into the sea, and... you never know where it can bring you. Total freedom maybe?

From:

But, but, terrorism is patriotic!

It can be. No, I'm serious. My dad was part of the ANC subversive activities in the 80s. The whole effort eventually contributed to the toppling of an unjustifiable regime.

Your own revolutionaries in the 19th century pretty much did the same, and they earned the freedom of your people.

The very first act that led to the establishment of the United States could be interpreted as terrorism, if seen from the "right" angle.

From:

It was terrorism from the British point of view.

From:

It is terrorism from my point of view too, and I have no problem with that.

From:

It was terrorism from the British point of view.

From:

It didn't for slaves or the Iroquois. ;)

From:

Can we bar all Christians from entering the US now?

From:

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Some libertarian fanboys must be secretly jizzing in their pants right now.

From:

Something did not add up about this story and yes, the way internet liberals have reported on it is a bit bullshit. Reddit took both sides.

This place is in the middle of nowhere. Nobody was hurt or threatened - there was nobody there. Its mainly synbolic.These people so far are not the equivalent of Daesh or Al Qaeda etc and saying so is dishonest. Terrorist in general, theyre intimidating, so maybe. Andi hope the Feds get them.

When the original black panthers paraded around with shotguns and rifles, was that terrorism? And they are the heroes of many leftists.

That said, there is a grain of truth in this, the term "terrorist" is often ideologically motivated.

From:

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun

the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I dunno, sounds pretty straightforward to me.

From:

It's not the act itself that's the question, it's the motivations and the goals. Is it the liberation of a people from an oppressor (for example: your country)? Or is it the establishment of an oppressive system (example: Daesh)? That's the real question here.

I don't know what these guys were aiming to achieve. They seem pretty out-there.

From:

Oh, the question that's being discussed right here on this very particular occasion is, does the term terrorism apply here or not. That's what's being discussed.

As for the rest of what you said, I get that.

From:

That is the truth. Terrorism itself is a tactic.

These guys wanted freedom for the two ranchers who set fire to federal BLM land. Those guys turned themselves in. They also want to take over this land, starting with the wildlife refuge, something they will fail at as well.

They are out there.

From:

Nobody has been hurt but i already mentioned intimidation.

From:

You certainly did.

From:

garote

Did the original black panthers use those shotguns and rifles to occupy land/buildings they did not own, and keep other people out by force until their demands were met?

From:

You're moving goalposts. They may be considered terrorists by many people - the point is, charges of terrorism are often ideologically motivated.

From:

garote

Well, you're the one who brought up the Black Panthers. I don't consider them terrorists - but that's because my definition is based as much on methods than motives. And it's a bit of a "sniff test" - intentionally vague. If they attempted to blow up or forcefully occupy a building, indiscriminately main a crowd of people, etc... Totally terrorists.

From:

You're going by your own definition and that's fine but that's where your placing the goalposts.

From:

garote

Yup. I've placed them in a way so as to consider tactics, not just ideology. You've said that your point is, charges of terrorism are ideologically motivated - but from my point of view, it's based on an evaluation of tactics, rather than of ideology.

So we would seem to me making opposite claims. Except you've stated elsewhere: "Terrorism itself is a tactic."

If you disagree with where I've placed the posts ... why? Because the dictionary says so?

From:

To clarify, the charges - calling people terrorists - is motivated by the personal politics of those making the charges. The old "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" thing.

You may not be one of those people and thats fine.

I'm just trying to see what you think.

My main problem was that the reportage on liberal clickbait sites didn't add up so i did more reading. But i think we're past that.

From:

The Three Percenters and Oathkeepers are only not the equivalent because they don't have the balls to shoot at people who shoot back. Say what you will about Daesh but its fighters actually fight. These people think they want to be martyrs, and hate the government....but want the Postal Service to send them snack. Fuck that shit, send in armed tanks and make explicitly clear they're free to fire if fired upon. These cowardly fuckers would run like Hell if they actually had to live up to their words. After all, they chose an empty facility for a reason.

From: