Posted on 01/04/2016 8:47:10 AM PST by Gandalf the Mauve
As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And the Associated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them."
Not one seemed to lean toward terms such as "insurrection," "revolt," anti-government "insurgents" or, as some on social media were calling them, "terrorists." When a group of unknown size and unknown firepower has taken over any federal building with plans and possibly some equipment to aid a years-long occupation--and when its representative tells reporters that they would prefer to avoid violence but are prepared to die--the kind of almost-uniform delicacy and the limits on the language used to describe the people involved becomes noteworthy itself.
It is hard to imagine that none of the words mentioned above--particularly "insurrection" or "revolt"--would be avoided if, for instance, a group of armed black Americans took possession of a federal or state courthouse to protest the police. Black Americans outraged about the death of a 12-year-old boy at the hands of police or concerned about the absence of a conviction in the George Zimmerman case have been frequently and inaccurately lumped in with criminals and looters...
If a group of armed Muslims took possession of a federal building or even its lobby to protest calls to surveil the entire group, it's even more doubtful they could avoid harsher, more-alarming labels....
Why, have they broken into a mall or a bar and knifed a bunch of kids or shot a roomful of people?
Baloney.
Groups of protesters have been taking over buildings in the USA for decades. We rarely just start shooting. Some have been armed.
Black Panthers, Weather Underground, BLM, etc. The only time we shoot is if the President needs something to take over the front page; i.e. Waco.
Is this a trick question?
Because they’re not terrorists, if anything, they’re squatters.
Do they have room to destroy?
Maybe because the seizure of the particular buildings involved no terror—and would have remained unknown until spring if those involved hadn’t bothered to announce it?
Mummmm. Maybe they could get Reno and Klinton to give them some tips via their Waco experience and find out how to burn them out. They can always just build another gov bldg at tax payer expense.
Trespassing, if it’s even possible to trespass in a public building, isn’t terrorism.
The libs all over Facebook are saying the same thing.
I saw one picture posted over there the text was asking why the National Guard was called out for Ferguson, but not for Oregon (because the Oregon resistors are white).
zero will use Oregon to his advantage to continue to stir up racial strife, even if none exists.
Here is the rweal story of what’s going on there. The injustice done to that good family, the Hammonds, by entrenched enviro fascists in the Oregon federal green agencies, is despicable.
The area in question seems to be a whole lot of nothing. I suppose they could have destroyed the unoccupied Federally-owned building, but they’re much more sensibly using it to stay out of the cold.
I thought they WERE calling them terrorists. Which is ironic because they call terror “work place violence.” They just don’t know terrorism when they see it.
If they just called themselves ‘Occupy-Oregon’ the narrative would change.
Everything is racist.
Everything is sexist.
Everything is rape.
Everything is terrorism.
Is that simple enough for the 2-digit IQ population?
What was the official name of that “Occupy” group last year that had tent camps in big cities? “Occupy Wall Street?”
I don’t recall them being called terrorists. They actually interfered with, and at times un-involved citizens going about their daily routines.
Oldplayer
2nd: if they were black, or muslim, or OWS the times and the post would be falling all over themselves w/ sympathetic portrayals of the marginalized.
so long as they are not black, they will be called anything the racist presstitute can come up with
I dunno, Jarrel.
How about these guys?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.