The Armed Group That Took Over The Refuge in Oregon: Heroes or Terrorists?

  • Don't Tread On Me!

    It is about time somebody stepped up and refused to bow down to our overstepping government! Many people are trying to label the militia as white supremacist terrorists (which is pretty ridiculous, considering that there are people of many different ethnic groups in our nation's militias) and saying that they haven't been gunned down since they have "white privilege". Despite all the race cards the liberals are pulling on this topic, any sane person can see that these are everyday American patriots taking a stand against an evil govt. Agency that likes to take large amounts of land away from private land owners. Also, people are labeling these militia members as "domestic terrorists". However, by definition, a terrorist is somebody who uses fear tactics to influence or control others and/or their actions. Some good examples of terrorist organizations would be Al-Quaeda, Hamas, and ISIS. They kill and rape innocent people on a daily basis. The militia has done absolutely nothing even remotely close to making them a terror group. They took the building without harming anybody in the area, and they are not threatening anything. They are heroes, and Americans everywhere should stand against the govt. When they do things that are unconstitutional. I hope for a peaceful ending to this, as should every American, but only time will tell how this plays out. Definitely a story to keep an eye on.

  • Liberty or death!

    This is no longer a federal building, this is now the rise against an oppressive regime. A well armed militia has finally done it's job and rebelled against it's government. A wild life refugee probably wasn't the best choice of location, but atlas they are doing their part as American citizens.

  • They are neither.

    Just a bunch of ranchers who are trespassing on government land.
    -The people who they claim, they are trying to free have been convicted in a court of law. From what I understand, what the convicted men did was set fire to almost 140 acres of federal land without permission. Seeing that it is a wildlife refuge, burning acres of land would defeat the purpose for it being protected and the two arsonists would have known that. I am sure that setting the fires would have violated the terms of the lease they signed so no reason for it to be returned. Personally, I don't see their (the arsonists) actions as being terrorist but the government may have a different definition of it. Because they are trying to free people who have been found guilty in a court of law, they are not heroes.
    -Seeing that the ranchers are not really posing a threat to national security or the safety of our citizens, in my opinion they are not terrorists.
    -I doubt the government is keeping and protecting the land for no reason. After all, if they sell the land to citizens they can gain tax money from the property taxes. Clearly the purpose of holding the land is to protect the wildlife that live in the region.
    -In either case, just because you don't like the law does not give you permission to break the law. If it did, there would be no purpose to laws in the first place. If they thought the law was unjust, they should have sought to have it changed by legal means. Sure, they may have tried that method and failed but that would still not give them the right to break a law just because they didn't agree with it.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.