They aren’t organized by the Sate. They have no official authority. So they aren’t really a Militia.
They are a literal gang.
Stop calling them Militia.
It’s a term used to describe a military force comprised of civilians. There’s even a modern connotation of being against the state.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
Gangs aren’t purely for military purposes, so if the purpose of this gang is an armed attack against a govenrment agency, then it’s not unreasonable to call them a militia.
Boiled down, “militia” doesn’t mean much more than “group of non-soldiers organised in a soldier sort of way with the intention of doing soldier sort of things”.
They aren’t organized by the Sate. They have no official authority. So they aren’t really a Militia.
They are a literal gang.
Stop calling them Militia.
Militia isn’t defined by being part of the State.
It’s a term used to describe a military force comprised of civilians. There’s even a modern connotation of being against the state.
Gangs aren’t purely for military purposes, so if the purpose of this gang is an armed attack against a govenrment agency, then it’s not unreasonable to call them a militia.
So a militia, comprised of terrorists… seems fair.
I don’t understand. Do you find that confusing?
Boiled down, “militia” doesn’t mean much more than “group of non-soldiers organised in a soldier sort of way with the intention of doing soldier sort of things”.
Call them terrorists. That’s what they are.
paramilitars