150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-06-2016, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: But all he did was say that they would do something...he didn't do it.  He merely threatened the act if the US didn't change its policy.

He never killed anyone.

Now back to the the question...does that make him a terrorist in your definition?  

He might not have ever killed someone directly, but he certainly took credit for organizing and killing thousands of people in various countries. So far, how many people has Bundy said he was responsible for killing? 0

As far as the takeover, so far it is not an act of terrorism. No violence has been committed. They are simply drawing attention to the way the government has dealt with the Hammonds. So far it is a peaceful protest, and they warned the government that it will only become violent if the government makes it a violent situation. No one fears the Bundy's and their militia, what we fear is that the Government will instigate a confrontation and that it will turn into a bloodbath.

I am not very clear as to why the Hammonds were arrested (for starting a fire) in the first place (the Harney County DA reviewed it, and decided that prosecution was unwarranted, and dropped all charges). 5 years later the US Attorney's Office charged them with being Terrorists... that just reeks of pettiness. The Hammonds are not terrorists and should not have been tried under the Terrorist laws.