When I think of what’s going on in Oregon, I think of the villains in the movie ‘Die Hard.’ In that film, a bunch of guys armed to the teeth, led by Hans Gruber, hold people hostage and talk about how they’re fighting against the actions of the hostages’ corporation. They acted like terrorists, but in actuality they were thieves more interested in trying to break into the building’s safe.
Of course, the militia in the Oregon standoff are not claiming to be fighting against the “unjust actions of a corporation,” but the “unjust conviction of two ranchers.” They’re not holding anybody who works at the refuge against their will, but they are keeping women and children close by and I doubt they were really asked about how they felt about staying in a cold, powerless facility surrounded by armed men. Instead of actually being interested in stealing bearer bonds, they’re actually interested in taking control of federal lands — paid for by the nation’s taxpayers for public use — and basically stealing land and limiting its usage to ranchers, loggers and farmers.
‘Terrorist’ implies they might have an interest that is remotely related to politics. ‘Thief’ implies they just want to profit off of ill-gotten gains. They’re not deserving of something as admirable as ‘activist,’ nor ‘revolutionary,’ (despite what the local sheriff said about their supposed true intentions,) and certainly NOT ‘protester.’ What do you think?