Yeah, so we can't just assume we both are using the same definition of "terrorism" here, so I'll clarify my understanding. I would say terrorism is using violence to (re)gain freedom in a situation where other equally/more viable, non-violent options are available. Would you agree?

Note, this definition isn't relative. As you put it, the victor doesn't get to decide, it's simply a fact of whether or not the violent act was the most viable means to the end.

It's hard to say in the revolutionary war scenario if violence was the most viable option, and I'll admit I don't know enough about the politics leading up to it to determine whether the US was justified in separating. But would you agree that the people carrying out the BTP considered the act their most viable option at the time? Was it? Had they tried all viable non-violent options until that point? Was the king not unperceptive to their demands for representation in government, while continuing to tax them? Is taxation without equal representation not just robbery? Does it not imply you are less of a citizen than others with more representation for the same level of taxation?

My point was, there are times in history that it was vitally important for people to stand up and demand their freedoms by force, because if they didn't they would be slowly and quietly squashed. Was this Oregon militia situation one of those times? No, most definitely not. If they felt their freedoms were being denied, they had/have more viable non-violent options. But there may be something to learn from the situation. The US is not perfect. Perhaps this situation wasn't justified, but could it be that this just a small blip of a bubble indicating a boiling unrest building?

Eh, maybe not. Probably just a bunch of idiots who don't know how to function in society.