Were Ammon Bundy's Group Terrorists?

ttwtt78640 said:

What violence was actually used? Any large group or "show of force" could be considered intimidating. Was the colonial rebellion to gain freedom from British rule terrorism too?

Click to expand...

Redress said:

First things first: using your definition, they may fit the label. However, I do not think I would call them terrorists myself, as they are not really trying to use fear to further their ends, and I think that should be part of what qualifies some one as a terrorist.

More importantly though: what difference does it really make what label fits. Is their crime somehow worse if it fits a particular label? I think we would be much better off if we spent less time worrying about what it is called, and more time on, well, just about anything else.

Click to expand...

joG said:

Terror? Where do you see terror? Who is terrified?

Click to expand...

When the group arms itself with assault rifles, takes federal property and declares to the local news that they're "Ready to kill and be killed" to get what they want. That fits every single definition of terrorism there is. They're using the threat of violence to achieve a desired political outcome. Don't for one second pretend they wouldn't have been breached and slaughtered (rightfully) on day 1 had they been any other skin color or religion.

RabidAlpaca said:

When the group arms itself with assault rifles, takes federal property and declares to the local news that they're "Ready to kill and be killed" to get what they want. That fits every single definition of terrorism there is. They're using the threat of violence to achieve a desired political outcome. Don't for one second pretend they wouldn't have been breached and slaughtered (rightfully) on day 1 had they been any other skin color or religion.

Click to expand...

It does not spread terror. It might be robbery or murder or some such thing. Terror it is not.

PoS said:

Here is the definition of terrorism:

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So based on that description, was the group headed by Ammon Bundy a terrorist group?

In my opinion they are since they used the threat of force and intimidation to achieve a political goal.

Click to expand...

If they were/are terrorists, then so was George Washington, et al, because that's exactly what the American Revolutionaries did. Sorry, but if we're going to use an overly simplistic and sterile dictionary definition, then we have to be intellectually consistent and honest.

I think of terrorism as: The use of violence and intimidation, to cause widespread panic and fear, in the pursuit of political aims.

Hence, did anybody (average citizen, outside that particular Ranger station) feel threatened? No, they did not. Was anybody (average citizen, outside that particular Ranger station) ever in any danger, or would they have any rational expectation of danger coming to them? Again, no.

This was not terrorism, this was civil disobedience.

Redress said:

First things first: using your definition, they may fit the label. However, I do not think I would call them terrorists myself, as they are not really trying to use fear to further their ends, and I think that should be part of what qualifies some one as a terrorist.

More importantly though: what difference does it really make what label fits. Is their crime somehow worse if it fits a particular label? I think we would be much better off if we spent less time worrying about what it is called, and more time on, well, just about anything else.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but in a court it would make a difference.

roguenuke said:

This isn't really true. The workers at the refuge were not only frightened by them (hence not going to work to challenge them when they did have things to do there) but also said the group had personal information about them forcing some of them to leave town.

Click to expand...

Following the path of that logic then, any group that uses intimidation and threats for political aim would be a terrorist group. This would apply to black lives matter or the occupy wall street group(s), even some of the tea party groups.
I think the description and terms of terrorism and terrorist has been painted with a very broad brush as of late.

radcen said:

I agree with you, but in a court it would make a difference.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are legal differences(and I am not sure I am in favor of that), but outside of the courtroom, it really makes no difference. I think we tend to get caught up in what to call things, which distracts from what is actually done.

PoS said:

Here is the definition of terrorism:

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So based on that description, was the group headed by Ammon Bundy a terrorist group?

In my opinion they are since they used the threat of force and intimidation to achieve a political goal.

Click to expand...

Did I miss their use of violence? Link?

PoS said:

Here is the definition of terrorism:

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So based on that description, was the group headed by Ammon Bundy a terrorist group?

In my opinion they are since they used the threat of force and intimidation to achieve a political goal.

Click to expand...

I kind of missed the killing part.

As usual Americans take the meaning out of a word by over using. In an attempt to further disgrace these idiots just label them "terrorists" and they will be hated.

And that's what wrong with America. Way to much hate, cultured and grown.....against each other.

For some reason you can't just disagree, you have to hate

tres borrachos said:

Did I miss their use of violence? Link?

Click to expand...

Did they even fire their weapons?

Did they even threaten to kill; anyone?

Just have to get that hate button pushed as soon as possible, so the right can be hated just a little bit more

Not really. Were they acting specifically to cause terror as a goal in their aims? If not, I don't think they were terrorists. Idiots yes. Terrorists no.

mak2 said:

I have yet to see a single conservative on any site I am on demand Obama call it terrorism. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Probably because they are protestors, not terrorists.


Who did they terrorize?