(July 31, 2016 at 7:08 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: and who exactly did those guys terrorize or commit violence against? Oh yeah, no one. Throwing bugs in soup is more then any of them did. But for the record, neither of them are terrorists. I'd be extremely cautious about expanding the definition of terrorism beyond a very very strict definition. Especially considering that both presidential candidates want to shut down 'terrorist speech' and websites. Also calling it a federal building is only correct in a technical sense. It was an uninhabited station in the middle of nowhere. I'm more concerned about crickets in my soup then those guys. Which is to say, not at all.
Um...they threatened to fight to the death if the government tried to remove them. You're making it sound as if this was some kind of peaceful protest when they openly declared they were perfectly willing to use violence as a means. You're giving them a pass for not killing anyone, but the only reason they didn't was because the government didn't escalate the situation and got the best of them.
Besides, the definition of "terrorism" is as such...
Quote:ter·ror·ism
[ ter- uh-riz- uhm]
NOUN
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism
So, these people's actions fall squarely in the definition of terrorism, and by trying to minimize those actions, you're coming dangerously close to historical revisionism.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
