Terrorism has become such a "buzz-word" that the "classical" definition which you provide has been lost.  If we apply that definition, the Malheur occupation certainly qualifies.  The seizure was designed to achieve a specific goal...the release of the Hammonds....and, with the armed force of occupiers threatening violence if anyone tried to remove them, was an effort to intimidate and coerce.  I invite "Who" or anyone else to present a logical arguement that the actions didn't meet this definition.

It may well be that the Bundy crew felt they were justified in their actions.  Every  terrorist group (international or domestic) has felt, and feels, justified in its actions....that's the key foundation for terrorist action.  A deeply held belief does not constitute legal justification for violating the law.  

IMO, memories of Ruby Ridge and Wago still haunt the FBI and DOJ and paralized authorities as they attempted to deal with this armed occupation. (cont.)