Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:52 pm
The problem with terrorism is, nobody seems to agree on a definition, which is understandable given how vague it can be:
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
I'm not sure why you're bringing up law, as I'm not talking in legal terms, just plain English. That countless countries each have an obscure definition of terrorism in their legal texts is of little relevance in our conversation.
Back to our textbook definition, one can easily imagine how almost any behavior can qualify as terrorist depending on the point of view. Didn't the Nazis consider the French Resistance a terrorist organization, after all? Yet I doubt anyone shares this view here.
Regarding the attack on the Capitol, let's be serious for a second: we're talking about a bunch of conspiracist dimwits dressed in ludicrous costumes whose greatest achievement that day was to take selfies in the seat of American democracy. Yes, selfies. How can one reasonably envision that this was any close to a coup? Despite what the fearmongers of the left are trying to make us believe, this was nothing but dumb, cringeworthy vandalism.
And like I said, so was the case with the Minneapolis riots. Dumb vandals got violent, and that got some of them killed. That you agree with one of the motives (alleged racial injustice in the US) and not the other (supposed election fraud that cost Trump the election) is sadly no justification for such pathetic behavior.
I think you didn't follow any of what happened in detail.
There were pip bombs found, a truck with weapons confiscated. Police officer died. People from military, police officers and politicians found to have helped to try and attack the capitol.
Multiple people arrested, many credible threats already going out against 17th, 19th and 20th of January.
They managed to bring in symbols of hate and deepest enemies of USA inside of the Capitol. I linked a video which really should tell you that this was not a joke.
About 40% of American seem to be ok with what Trump did. Which was to see them as patriots not terrorists.
I really don't know from where you are coming from but you should really look into what ACTUALLY happened. I took US news and sources.
If you just looked at your home national TV, they likely missed a bunch.
Even after all that couple senators still saw those actions as ok.
A senator quoted Hitler... really dumb to do.
FBI is legitimately involved and has removed people from social media and who knows what they do atm.
President Trump CELEBRATED it. He watched on a screen all happy. Together with others. (party music going on, no joke)
Legal Eagle himself was shocked how such a small group, in comparison to historical attack attempts, can get this far in.
But this isn't all too surprising given the police there refused to accept help and days before national guards wete shifted. Reducing the amount that protected them.
The idea that it takes 100s of thousands to be concerned about is flat out wrong here.
The President endorsed an attack on the Capitol.
People who have sworn to defend the Constitution have attempted to attack the capitol.
If you mean the selfies, remind yourself that these selfies were done with the same people that were suppose to protect the policians. the same people that were suppose to held them back so to have been not close to that building. But not only did they took selfies with these terrorists, no no, they helped them get in.
I heavily encourage you to actually look in and see why this is insane.
the people who got in the hall way had machine guns. There were people filmed who planned to have the people that were suppose to vote be taking as hostages.
The "conspiracy" gets supported by more than just 20% of Americans. isn't that round about 60 million? Due to these events It got easier to see who supports actions such as attempting to raid congress.
I please you to do some research on this and why it's far beyond the mere 'well couple people tried to get in and it failed' the data gained from it makes it all the more terrifying...
as for words
this was a US event, a lot of the time people try to use Terrorism fitting to the law.
A terrorist attack doesn't need to be of large style.
as for your reference to that riot in past. I think you didn't quite read what I said.
First: BLM was a protest. classifying riotets/looters as part of them is already tricky. You need to look at who did the looting/burning/etc.
there have been stats showing people who just wanted to abuse the chaos did the riots and looting.
I only vaguely remember that one police report noted how in their city only 20% of those looting were related to the protest. Now this may vary. But largely the protests have been peaceful. Only places where it went not peaceful is where news caught on it. Hence me also going directly to US news and sources to see how much actually happened.
The "left" largely went against the lootings and riots. Stating how it isn't the right way.
more conservative news try ro twist words like from Michael Obama. Who said to think the protesters were in the right. Which was indeed picked up by more right-wing news to claim she said rioters. But I personally watched the full video of original statement and not once was the word "riot" or "rioters" mentioned.
I personally can understand people getting destructive as we are humans. Though I do see it as wrong.
The racial issues are statistically proven to exist. The causes and how strong, is up for debate. But it's the very complex topic we may not go over. that's beyond my time.
But my whole point was to tell you that based on motives and actions, they wouldn't be classified as terrorists. Motives matter.
Trying to argue "but terrorism isn't well defined" can be easily dismissed by using following reason
no one cares what the nazis say or whatever group you want to call.
You also don't use day-to-day language as that just asks for moral views and nationality anyways.
It happened in USA, USA isn't the worst country with laws and overlaps mostly with western countries on what is terrorism.
the attacks done have a lot of key characteristics that make it by definition of laws in many western countries, possibly all, given it was an attack on the constitution/government body itself, a (domestic) terrorist attack.
P.S. attempting to appeal to colloquial usage is in of itself flawed as then it's also needed to be put in context
it's odd how people who did not support any of it in USA call it terrorism and those that think it was ok, try to say it wasn't.
If you **really** want to argue on the colloquial usage, then look no further than US citizens who largely agree it was a terrorist attack. unless they supported it.
Late edit: Upon MANY more concerning things and further information of what was done inside, why security was missing
I want to share what was reported from ABC citing/quoting FBI
https://abcnews.go.com/US/armed-protest ... e_hero_hed
