150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 08:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We know the answers to the other questions, so I will focus on this one. I have heard conflicting reports, but have there not been several sources with people in the group saying they will be violent if arrests are attempted? Arresting someone for doing something illegal is not attacking them. That takes them out of the realm of civil disobedience, IMO. Only in extreme cases could I see violence as being a part of civil disobedience, and defending violent felons is not one of them.

IMO it is an attempt of desensitization to classify this action as terrorism.

This is nothing more than a modernized 1960s sit in. IF they ever resort to violence then we can explore whether this is an at of terror.    

Yet, defending yourself when someone is trying to arrest you may also not be terrorism. 

Labeling these acts as terrorism tells me one of 2 things:

Those doing so do not truly understand what terrorism is.

Those doing so are trying to broaden the definition to make acts of terrorism seem more common. 

Folks can split hairs all they want; but this is not terrorism. Nor was Baltimore, Ferguson, South Carolina, ect...