[markjo]

Of course not. They aren't exercising violence - they are merely occupying a property. They didn't pick a target which would incite fear in the masses - on the contrary, they went for a secluded wildlife refuge. If they are terrorists, then so is Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter's more peaceful protesters¹.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter (even the more violent examples) calling for armed supporters to come and help defend the federal buildings being occupied.

[Pete Svarrior]

Now, do you think their reasons  are justified?

Frankly, I don't have a good enough understanding of the situation to make a call just yet. Last time, everyone (myself included) thought the guy was nuts, and yet he got the government to back off. Perhaps he's just unorthodox in his approach, rather than outright crazy. I wouldn't know yet.

The article says that they want to get the Hammonds released and the federal government to turn over its land to local ranchers and loggers.  I wouldn't call these guys terrorists either, but their goals are definitely political ones.

You're mixing up administration and the executive branch with politics and legislation. Poor form, to say the least.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter (even the more violent examples) calling for armed supporters to come and help defend the federal buildings being occupied.

Of course you're wrong. Does that even surprise anyone at this point? The more violent BLM protests were completely filled with calls for armed supporters, and hordes of armed supporters joining in the looting and burning. I can only assume you got your news from CNN and didn't bother to watch any of the protesters' self-run livestreams at the time. Occupy Wall Street also called for supporters to help defend the occupied ground - obviously they happened not to carry guns because they were radical-left hippies. What difference does it make if someone is "armed" if no bullets are fired (n.b. contrary to your BLM buddies)?

[markjo]

Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter (even the more violent examples) calling for armed supporters to come and help defend the federal buildings being occupied.

Of course you're wrong. Does that even surprise anyone at this point? The more violent BLM protests were completely filled with calls for armed supporters, and hordes of armed supporters joining in the looting and burning.

What federal building(s) did BLM occupy?

[Ghost Spaghetti]

What difference does it make if someone is "armed" if no bullets are fired

Because the armed character can make threats of violence that the unarmed one can't? If you occupy a building by sitting in it, that's very different from sitting in it whilst pointing a gun at the door.

[Saddam Hussein]

You're mixing up administration and the executive branch with politics and legislation. Poor form, to say the least.

You're just drawing an arbitrary distinction between them.  There's no rule saying that terrorists only care about legislation and not administrative actions.  And plenty of terrorist attacks have included demands of releasing prisoners.

[Pete Svarrior]

You're just drawing an arbitrary distinction between them.

TIL Saddam views the US Constitution as arbitrary. 10/10 would cop again

Because the armed character can make threats of violence that the unarmed one can't? If you occupy a building by sitting in it, that's very different from sitting in it whilst pointing a gun at the door.

Can you name one instance of a gun being pointed at anything in this case, or are you just talking about worthless hypotheticals?

What federal building(s) did BLM occupy?

An interesting question which reveals your (not-exactly-secret to begin with) nature. Let's put it in the bin and ask one that's actually sensible: what public property did BLM (and friends) occupy?

Mizzou.

[Saddam Hussein]

You're just drawing an arbitrary distinction between them.

TIL Saddam views the US Constitution as arbitrary. 10/10 would cop again

You are ridiculous.

[garygreen]

I wouldn't call these guys terrorists either, but their goals are definitely political ones.

You're mixing up administration and the executive branch with politics and legislation. Poor form, to say the least.

genuine question: what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?

[Pete Svarrior]

genuine question: what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?

Well, if it's pursuant of an administrative goal, and not a political one, then it falls outside of the definition of "terrorism", which makes a significant difference when you try to determine whether or not something is terrorism.

You are ridiculous.

Pot, kettle, respectable African-American of Cherokee descent.

[markjo]

What federal building(s) did BLM occupy?

An interesting question which reveals your (not-exactly-secret to begin with) nature. Let's put it in the bin and ask one that's actually sensible: what public property did BLM (and friends) occupy?

No.  Let's stick with the question that I asked, seeing as it's a federal building that's being occupied.  Just because the land is open to the public doesn't necessarily mean that the headquarters building is.

[Pete Svarrior]

No.  Let's stick with the question that I asked, seeing as it's a federal building that's being occupied.

No, picking random and irrelevant metrics does not advance your or anyone else's cause. If you don't want to talk about things that are actually pertaining to the subject, consider posting elsewhere.

[Saddam Hussein]

genuine question: what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?

Well, if it's pursuant of an administrative goal, and not a political one, then it falls outside of the definition of "terrorism", which makes a significant difference when you try to determine whether or not something is terrorism.

I've never heard of anyone excluding the administrative functions of government from the general scope of politics.  Wikipedia doesn't make that distinction, Merriam-Webster doesn't, Cambridge doesn't, etc.  Your definition of terrorism is extremely narrow too.

[Pete Svarrior]

Your definition of terrorism is extremely narrow too.

Yeah, I have no idea where I might have found it...

Egads! It's the same dictionaries you use! Who could have possibly predicted this?!

[garygreen]

what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?

if their demands pursue administrative goals and not political goals, then they aren't making political demands

i totally agree that they aren't terrorists.  that said, this reply doesn't really answer the question.  i was more trying to get at why the executive branch isn't political/politics/policy/whatever.  that's not a distinction i've ever encountered, and i think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that demanding the privatization of federal property and the release of federal prisoners is a political demand. 

i'm with saddam.  i'm moderately engaged in politics, and i've never, ever heard anyone describe the executive branch as administrative to the exclusion of being political.

[Pete Svarrior]

How is it political? It's not a change in government/law-making/the way a country is governed. It's merely a change in how said governance is implemented and overseen.

[garygreen]

i think i see see what you're getting at.  you're saying (i think) that which particular bits of land are public/private is a different matter than the overall policy that says some land is private and some belongs to the fed.  the ranchers aren't demanding a change in the overall policy, just disputing whether or not this bit or that bit falls into which category.  likewise, you see the ranchers disputing not the legitimacy of the legal code overall or in part, but its application, fair or unfair, to this particular defendant.

i don't think that distinction is unreasonable on its face*, but in this context i think it's a distinction without a difference.  i agree that those two things can be separated into different discussions, but both of them are discussions about politics.  your own definition doesn't make a distinction between policy and implementation of policy.  d1 is "the ​activities of the ​government, ​members of law-making ​organizations, or ​people who ​try to ​influence the way a ​country is ​governed."  the activities of the executive branch and its members falls squarely in that category.

i also think that it's, on its face, a demand about the way the country governs that land.  governance is precisely what's at stake.

*although it still doesn't have anything to do with which branch is being lobbied

[Pete Svarrior]

You understood me correctly and I see the point behind your objection (although I'm not immediately convinced - I do think that the distinction is there and that it makes a difference). Agree to disagree.

[Fat Earl]

Hi guys,

On one hand this is a forum where I expect to find some brilliant people and some quite ignorant people. To accept the possibility that earth is flat requires some ability to think critically, so I expect to find some brilliant minds here.

Naturally, since the internet is what it is, you would likely also have some really stupid and brainwashed idiots here, trying to defend a paradigm that has been spoon fed to them since birth. Plus of course the lowlife trolls crawling around the net like Gollums.

On the other hand, I don't see much reference to or insight in the constitution, the history and the present state of affairs in the US in this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bundy is an agent provocateur, working for some federal institution, that's one thing.

Apart from that there are the real issues of having a legislative, judicial and executive federal power structure that at present day more than anything else operates like an organised crime racket raping the US and its people (and the rest of the world for that matter).

I watched a live feed from Burns, Oregon and judging from the information communicated, the federal government is fucking up the people in that community. Not only the Hammonds that this happens to centre around.

From what I understand there is no federal "land", the land of Oregon belongs to the State of Oregon, not the federal government. Just as for any other state.

So apart from Bundy being whatever he is, I think the real issues with a federal power gone awry in relation to the constitution also should be acknowledged as part of the equation.

[Saddam Hussein]

How is it political? It's not a change in government/law-making/the way a country is governed. It's merely a change in how said governance is implemented and overseen.

The implementation and oversight of governance are in and of themselves a part of governance.  Societal institutions like government or law don't exist in the abstract.  Part of what makes them real - as in, more than just an idea in some random person's head - is the fact that they are imposed on the population, that they are implemented, enforced, maintained, etc.  All these things put together are what makes up the process of governance.  Applying your pedantic "that's not governance, it's just providing a supporting function to governance" reasoning to its logical conclusion would end with us deciding that nobody at all does any governing.  Legislators don't govern, they just write and vote on laws, they don't actually enforce them.  Governors don't govern (go figure), they just enforce the laws, they don't make any decisions regarding them.  No one person truly "governs," therefore no governing is done at all.

And while I probably made a mistake for linking to dictionaries instead of encyclopedias in the first place, confining terrorism to just lobbying for political change is still a very superficial definition.  There are plenty of terrorists out there with motives that can't necessarily be summed up as demanding a government enact a specific change.  What about ideological terrorism, like environmental activists who burn down factories, or religious terrorism, like radical Muslims who blow themselves up because "ALLAH ACKBAR INFIDELS MUST DIE!"?

[Pete Svarrior]

The implementation and oversight of governance are in and of themselves a part of governance.

No, and you've already done a good job at explaining why not.

Societal institutions like government or law don't exist in the abstract.  Part of what makes them real - as in, more than just an idea in some random person's head - is the fact that they are imposed on the population, that they are implemented, enforced, maintained, etc.

Precisely - and this oversight and enforcement is only possible thanks to them being separate. What you propose - an artificial merger of all aspects of a nation - would fundamentally dismantle everything Western liberal democracies rely on.

Applying your pedantic "that's not governance, it's just providing a supporting function to governance" reasoning

Look, I don't mind you being wrong about civics and society, but being wrong about what I did or didn't say is inexcusable. You can just scroll up and read my post.

And while I probably made a mistake for linking to dictionaries instead of encyclopedias in the first place

You made the mistake of referencing reliable sources without checking whether or not they support your thesis. Your Wikipedia article lists multiple legal definitions used within the US, and they conveniently happen to mirror those dictionary definitions. Of course, you only read the first sentence of that article, and assumed it would be good enough.

What about ideological terrorism, like environmental activists who burn down factories

Environmental terrorirsts want legal changes to restrict industrial actions.

or religious terrorism, like radical Muslims who blow themselves up because "ALLAH ACKBAR INFIDELS MUST DIE!"?

Mujihadeen want to establish Sharia law throughout the world (or the region thereof they decide to be active in).