Oh, my. Social media and lefty commentators have exploded in anger over what they term a double standard when it comes to the use of the word “terrorist.”
Apparently, the group occupying a building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge should be designated as “terrorists” because, well, guns.
The headline at ThinkProgress (“When you Think Progress, think stupidity”™) reflects the hysteria on the left about the militiamen:
“Armed Militia Seized A Federal Building. The Media Called Them ‘Peaceful.’”
After an armed militia seized a federal building in Oregon — and proclaimed they’re willing to kill and be killed if necessary — the initial headlines about the incident suggested they’re simply peaceful protesters exercising their right to assemble.
This weekend, radical militia members descended on an Oregon town to protest the conviction of two local ranchers facing multiple years in prison for setting fire to federal land. The right-wing protesters say that the federal government shouldn’t have so much jurisdiction over land use.
In order to provoke a standoff with federal officials over this point, at least a dozen “heavily armed men” broke into the empty headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon on Saturday evening and refused to leave. Ammon Bundy, a spokesman for the group, told reporters that the militia “would not rule out violence” if officials attempt to remove them from the refuge building.
Shortly after news broke of the occupation, the Associated Press sparked criticism for writing a mild headline that framed the incident as a “peaceful” gathering of protesters performing an “action” of civil disobedience.
Rather than elaborate on what’s wrong, inaccurate, or just plain idiotic about that, let’s highlight what the nutcase got right.
- Correctly identified the state where the occupation is happening: Oregon
- Spelled Bundy’s name correctly
Otherwise, it’s a load of hornswaggle. The protesters are not “willing to kill and be killed.” Mr. Bundy said they would not fire first and only fire if fired upon. That’s a helluva lot different than the spin given by TP.
The AP was bullied into changing that headline. No shots were fired during the building’s takeover. No shots have been fired at all. What else would any honest, rational observer call the action but “peaceful”? And how best to describe the event other than an act of civil disobedience?
Earth to lefties: Someone holding a gun is not acting violently. And only a loon would equate them with terrorists.
And don’t you love this? “…a group of armed men pledging to use violence to defend their anti-government views could more accurately be described as domestic terrorist actors.”
They pledged to use violence to defend their lives, not their “anti-government views.” And the only people describing them as “domestic terrorist actors” are hysterical, far-left ideologues who are desperate to peg their political enemies as “terrorists.”
Here are a few choice tweets about the incident:
So when do we start banning white #OregonUnderAttack Christian terrorist sympathizers and their families from entering this Country?
— Political Nerd (@Sttbs73) January 3, 2016
— CDKing (@thedaleking) January 3, 2016
#OregonUnderAttack What is “white-speak” for terrorist? ….oh, “Patriot”.
— DuneMyThing™ (@Kris_Sacrebleu) January 3, 2016
— Mohd. Imran (乇мմ™) (@TheSoulfulEMU) January 3, 2016
As for that last one — the “actual, factual” definition of terrorists being “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence” — the protesters have not fired a shot, hit anyone, or even spit at reporters. Everyone has been polite and well mannered. How stupid does that guy feel for including a rebuttal to his argument right in his tweet?
I don’t know if there’s justification for the occupation of the federal building. Obviously, many do. But what I’m 100% sure of is that people standing around, exercising their right to protest who happen to be armed simply do not equal the commission of a terrorist act or the actors being terrorists.