Home | About | Donate

Why Aren’t We Calling the Oregon Occupiers ‘Terrorists?’


#1

Why Aren’t We Calling the Oregon Occupiers ‘Terrorists?’

Janell Ross

As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And the


#3

I just call them Alex Jones erotica.


#5

Most of the commentators on these threads are politically street smart, so they know the answer to the above question. Enough said!


#6

Admittedly I have not followed this story too closely, but I wouldn't call them terrorists because they don't appear to have committed an act of terrorism, thus far. I'd call them a right-wing militia movement, or a bunch of gun nuts. But must we feed the bogus mainstream discourse about "terrorism" to condemn what they are doing?

I thought terrorism had to do with killing people, usually indiscriminately, as a political act, a way of spreading terror. They haven't done that--at least so far, not in the story reported.

I get that they are treated with rhetorical kid gloves by the hypocritical corporate media and that if they were black or Muslim they would not be accorded such characterizations. And that is a worthwhile discussion to have. I'm just entirely sick of the word "terrorism" and the kind of mass manipulation that has been done with it. I hate to see progressives calling for use of this term.


#7

"Why aren't we calling the Oregon occupiers "terrorists?" For the simple reason that they are not terrorists! Open your eyes Ms Ross: can't you see that the Oregon occupiers are freedom fighters in the same vein as the Nicaraguan Contras, the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers, as Ronald Reagan called them?


#8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#9

Please don't let the Hammonds off the hook, here. They were in contact, ( Sr. Hammond ) with The Bundy Bunch in early December ( if you don't like to smell of garbage quit rolling in it ). And, that bunch has been seen around Burns, Oregon for awhile ( since mid-December ). That aside, they're not called terrorists because these types of Americans have been used for props, and worse, by the gov't and private entities for at least a 150 years. The FBI under Hoover, was especially kind to right wing groups legal or private, in the mid 20th Century. And, who can forget Nixon and his public/private right wing agitators/agents. It is always about the money ( taxes, property ) and the Hammonds and Bundys are " the salt of the earth " who " use any means necessary " to carry out God's Dominionist policies. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, yet again.


#10

Terrorists create terror, that is why they are called terrorists. This group of right wingers are not creating terror, they are not fomenting violence, they are in fact demonstrating against government overreach. It doesn't matter whether or not they are white, black, Christian of Muslim, they are still not creating terror. If you don't know what terror is why don't you google American drones in the Middle East, now that's terror!


#11

Really, they aren't creating terror?


#12

White Christian Fundamental Extremist Militias are Domestic Terrorists, they are the "American Taliban" which many have been referring too them as so accurately for decades. They come out from under their rocks whenever a Democrat is elected into the White House. I was called a "Domestic Terrorist" many times by those who most likely support these people in Oregon now, when I didn't support GWB.


#13

Terrorism has a political goal. It may or may not involve killing innocents. Timothy McVeigh killed innocents when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because he hated the government.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of economic terrorism as was our sanctions on Iran.

ISIS kills innocents, but this is not an act of terrorism because there is no political end. Muslims who think it is the will of Allah that they kill infidels are holy warriors, not terrorists.


#14

No, the drone strikes are not done to create terror. They are done to assassinate specific Iindividuals because they are threats to the US.

All terrorism has a political goal. Since the right wingers in Oregon hate the government, they are as much terrorists as Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because he hated the government.

What right wingers do not understand is that simply hating the government does not give one the right to break the law. The pro-slave states hated the government and seceded from the Union and then fired on Fort Sumpter. President Lincoln used the army to defeat the rebels because you do not have the right to oppose the government simply because you do not like what it does. The First Amendment only gives the people the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.


#15

I'm not certain that any real progressives are calling these activists anything but that, activists. That law enforcement is standing back at this time is a good thing since escalation is not necessary until the spring migrations begin and only then because the 'occupation" will interfere with human activity and not the migrations.


#16

"Since the right wingers in Oregon hate the government, they are as much terrorists as Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because he hated the government."

Strong feelings like hate rank with the destruction of an occupied federal building? You are a nut case. And your brief synopsis of the Civil War is pathetic.What are you actually, some kind of new fascist progressive? We probably can thank Obama for that.


#17

Drone strikes may or may not be done to create terror but they most definitely do create terror! Many people in the Middle East freeze with terror when they see or hear a drone approaching. They don't know if the next moment will be the last of their lives and in many cases it was that.


#19

How is it crazy to defend your home from the BLM? Do you even know their history or what they've done to Native Americans? Would you call Native Americans working to save their land "crazies"?

Sly way to suggest that the heavily militarized police who are killing more people in the US than criminals, should murder these people like they are doing to unarmed blacks.

Very odd that people here are so media entrained that they focused on Oregon and armed militia trying to stop 2 men from going back to prison (if Native Americans or Blacks were doing that, it would be noble), and not on the police who have killed the thousands of people, a larger proportion of them unarmed.


#20

When I lived in New Mexico in the late 1970's, the ranchers had the attitude that their right to graze stock on federal land was a right from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that ceded that part of Mexico to the USA at the end of America's war of conquest, the Mexican War. The ranchers, many of whom were from old Spanish/Mexican families, felt it was part of "The Commons". It's another perspective on this problem, regardless of what you think of the behavior of these particular ranchers. As I understand it, they initially refused to pay a fee to use this commons.


#21

What you wrote is like something from a script. You don't seem to have left off even one crazy catch phrase.

This is almost funny it is such nonsense: "White Christian Fundamental Extremist Militias are Domestic Terrorists, they are the "American Taliban." All the mind control phrases. Even people coming out from under a rock.

Militias are legal. Maybe that's nitpicking since it slows us down from throwing around labels to simple facts that make things less intense, even normal. The militia protecting the Bundies included blacks. There goes racist. Showing up to try to stop an injustice is a good thing. There does extremism.

What's left that makes them extremists or terrorists? Not signaling for a right hand turn?

Being white is kind what most of us are. But it's out of fashion right now, at least in men.

Same with being Christians. Know any? Most are really nice. There are exceptions but then, that's true of every group. GHWBush is a Christian. Now there's a really, really sick guy and responsible for many deaths but you're concerned about Fundamentalists Christians who haven't done anything to anyone and aren't any more threatening than orthodox Jews or orthodox Hindus? Where are your priorities?

We are supposed to get all scared by your long string of labels so we lose focus on the wars and genocide our government is involved in? Oh, look the American Taliban have come out from under a rock! Scary!! Meanwhile, Monsanto is taking over land in the Ukraine or there's more destruction of lives in Gaza and we've got the fact that the US set up ISIS. Ignore all that. Let's get all strung out about some legal militia trying to help a couple people save their land from the infamously horrible BLM?

If anyone hurts others, they're criminals. But not liking someone's strongly held beliefs just makes them passionate. Or committed. Or even responsible if they are doing things like opposing nuclear weapons.

White Christian fundamentalists tend to be nice people. You seem kind of hateful but maybe you aren't in person. In any case,, you don't seem like someone who'd be an easy neighbor to get along with and certainly not a pleasant person to have discussions with, whereas Fundamentalists tend to be quite interesting to talk to and find out where we disagree, where we agree.

As to "extremist" or "terrorist," those are just noxious labels. Useful for making anyone look threatening for doing nothing. According to the government, environmentalists are extremists, animal rights people are, people who think mercury in vaccines is a threat to their children, are. And any of them can be called a terrorist. Why people in Oregon are being called extremists or terrorists is simply their opposition to corporate or government activities. I don't feel any terror. Do you? Mandatory vaccines coming from the CDC that not only created Ebola but patented it, not that's scary..


#22

Hating the government makes someone a terrorist? And it makes them as much terrorists as Timothy McVeigh?

Progressives hated the government under Bush, some even hate it now under Obama. So that makes them are as much terrorists as Timothy McVeigh, too? And if they are just like McVeigh, they must be just like the people in Oregon. So they must also be in the militia. And militia is like the military so they must also be in the military.

This pairing of things out of superficial similarities is fun. You can link anything to anything, like 6 degrees of separation but more like 6 degrees of illogic, a famous parlor game very much like Telephone where things get stranger and stranger the longer you play.

Since the people in Oregon hate the government and Gandhi wanted to get rid of the British government in India, the people in Oregon must be as much terrorists as Gandhi who did nonviolent protests because he wanted to get rid of the government. The people in Oregon, being like Gandh in opposing the government, must also be as gentle as he was. Or Gandhi, being like them, must be like Timothy McVeigh, too.

Rabbits like carrots and carrots are orange and oranges grow on trees so carrots grow on trees.


#23

What are u talking about? Your going on and on about nothing. I gave my opinion, which I've come to, as a conclusion to my personal experience. If you think fundamentalist Christians are nice people, than I feel sorry for you, you are unable to see reality. When I speak of Christians, I speak negatively only about Conservative Christians. I don't care what religion anyone is, but once it crosses the line when the person wants everyone else to be forced to do what they want, that's a theocracy, that's fundamentalist, something the Founding Fathers of this country did not support. It's really simple to understand. All the other things you went on and on about are useless to me, your full of assumptions, I am not. Conservative Christians are evil, will always be evil and will always be bad for America! I'd eliminate them all myself if I could. They don't deserve the freedoms they enjoy, because they don't want anyone else to have as much freedom as themselves! So let's end this little chat. You know nothing about me, and like usual, when a non-conservative, like myself, gives an opinion, a conservative, like yourself, starts with the personal insults. If you don't like my opinion, that's your right, but don't try to tell me that my personal experience does not give me a right to have an opinion! So good bye, I don't want to waste anymore time chatting with u!