The difference between a militiaman and a terrorist

[passiveporcupine]

18. Protesters or terrorists?

"We are mainly referring to them as 'protesters' or 'armed men who are occupying the refuge headquarters,'?" said Kim Murphy, the assistant managing editor for foreign and national news at the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.oregonlive.com/editors/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_militia_or_militants_me.html#incart_big-photo

As far as I'm concerned, you don't need weapons to have a peaceful protest. If you think you need weapons to defend yourself, and say you are willing to die for your cause, and kill anyone who shoots at you for your illegal actions, then you are not a peaceful protester. You are a terrorist.

I think it's pretty simple.

This isn't the Arab spring, where the country is in revolt because of an oppressive dictatorship. This is a democracy, and we solve our problems by voting, and peaceful protest, not by waving guns around and threatening people...and yes, aiming rifles at federal agents is threatening people. Threatening to shoot at Federal agents for trying to remove you from a government compound you have illegally occupied, is terrorism.

Yes, I know they are trying to walk back the terrorist language, now that they have gone and gotten themselves in a jam where they know jail time is waiting for them. But it's too late. They are sending out video solicitations for more people to come to the refuge, to join them, or just observe, to prevent violence from happening.

video here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/in_video_militants_occupying_r.html#incart_big-photo

I think they are getting a little bit nervous!