I think you're underestimating the intent of people who showed up with pipe bombs and flex cuffs and gallows.

Sure, there were a lot of play acting idiots hanging on and joining in, like that girl who seemed somehow incensed that she got pepper sprayed when "all she'd done" was "shown up for the revolution and trespassed on The Capitol", but not all of them were just clueless morons.

Some of them had plans and intent that would 100% be called "terrorism" if they were of middle eastern descent, and should 100% be called terrorism even though they're home-grown American citizens.

So what was the goal of storming the Capitol? You keep saying it wasn't terrorism, so what was the purpose?

It seems pretty obvious to me the purpose was to intimidate elected officials in some misguided attempt to prevent them from completing their constitutional duties. That is literally terrorism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

>Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

> If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism.

> The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.

> The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.

Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn't similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind.

I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.

I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year.

Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too

> I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year.

> Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too

I'm straining my neck to understand how you equated the litany of protesters who broke into the Capitol building (excluding the terrorists who came equipped with pipe bombs, tactical gear for hostage-taking, and who planned the insurrection for months) with innocent bystanders on doomed flights on 9/11.

> tactical gear for hostage-taking

You're talking about people who wear tactical gear to go to the corner store. Who carry guns and flex-cuffs because they are desperate to be some kind of "big man".

Probably a handful of them intended to actually "do" something.

But mostly they just milled about looking like penguins escaping the zoo.

Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.

The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.

It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?

> Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.

Didn't say that.

> The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.

You didn't understand me.

> It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?

Please re-read.

Well, for one, almost 3000 people died in the September 11th attacks. Kind of an important point.

I don't really see how the number of people killed makes a difference in whether an attack is terrorism. An attack can result in zero casualties and still be terror (depending on some definitions. Others require at least one death)