Taking over buildings and other facilities, effectively putting them out of action and forcing the authorities to take action, is an old and time-honored act of civil disobedience. But like all civil disobedience, you must be willing to accept the legal consequences, arrest and incarceration, or it becomes simply an act of political vandalism. It doesn't matter if you're taking over a university building at Columbia, or a lunch counter in Dixie, or a park in Berkeley. The minute the protest degenerates into property damage, violence, or the threat of violence (when you bring guns, it makes it a threat of violence), it no longer remains a purely symbolic or political act, it is just a riot.
The Malheur protesters claim they are "respecting" the property, they are trespassing, but they are certainly threatening their potential evictors with violence by brandishing weapons. No doubt they have brought women and children in as innocent hostages as well, to discourage the use of force by the authorities. Those who honor property and property rights more than human rights and life are terrorists, by definition. And now we know exactly what kind of terrorists, too.
Current Events » in reply to "Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’"
Maybe the next time, Occupy Wall Street should exercise their second amendment rights.
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Terrorist attack in Oregon...
- In taking over a bird sanctuary...
- Colbert's take:
- "Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’"
- Navy SEALS know how to handle pirates
- That's just not smart.
- Bet you can't say "white right wing terrorists" three times real fast.
- Time to call in a drone strike.