I'm not justifying Jan 6. I'm merely pointing out that it was an expression of frustration and that it's not anywhere close to the civil war, as some politicians have put it.

I think the same is true of other domestic terror violence we've seen. The Civil War is still the worst domestic insurrection in history. The two are not even comparable. That this comparison is even humored shows a major problem.

> The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.

I'm sorry you're being ridiculous. The US capitol has been bombed and parts destroyed by domestic terror groups in living memory. Those attacks were way worse than this.

US congressmen have been shot at by radicalized domestic terrorists as well.

Considering (1) Jan 6 resulted in minimal property destruction (certainly no structural damage) and (2) no politician killed (the only person dying directly as a result being Ashli Babbett, a rioter), it's safe to say that the bombings were worse (due to worse property destruction) and the shootings were worse (due to imminent potential of death to the victims)

Perhaps you have some learning to do.

Oh my goodness. this is simply something else. This is why the country is so divided.

Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty.

Or when protestors broke into the Supreme Court to overturn the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, no one compared it to the civil war. How hyperbolic can we get?

And yet, hyperbole like yours is not only tolerated by mainstream news sources, it is parroted by elected officials, other news outlets, and regular people. It's absolutely insane.

[1] By all measures, Raz the warlord's occupation of chaz qualifies as having been, for a few days, the sovereign government of that area. They enforced a law, punished criminals, taxed people, and provided safety, all the while preventing other forces from doing the very same. This meets any reasonable definition of sovereignty.

> This is why the country is so divided.

Bad faith false equivalencies like yours? Couldn't agree more!

Protestors disrupted Kavanaugh's hearing, they didn't try to overturn his confirmation after the fact. And even had they attempted to (not even sure what this looks like since GOP controlled the presidency and the Senate), that is far cry from attempting to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of our country with tacit and explicit support from government officials, weapons, and much malicious intent.

And comparing Jan. 6 to CHAZ is honestly a total joke not even worth acknowledging further.

I guess, I don't really get it. I'm happy to denounce Jan 6 as terrible. I just don't understand the hyperbole, and because I don't denounce it enough that's seen as many as bad faith.

On the other hand, God forbid you express concerns over the summer of violence we saw in 2020, because then you're just exagerating.

I am frankly exasperated at continuously having to keep track of not only what I ought to feel but also what level of passion I need to express my thoughts with in order to be taken in good faith.

I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war. I don't really get how you can say that, but I don't think you're being disingenuous, or even malicious, in your statement of equivalence.

Unfortunately, since I don't see it the same way and don't feel Jan 6 is as bad as you make it out to be, I am apparently not only misguided or hyperbolic (what I believe you are) but -- as you've claimed -- a government abolitionist who lacks integrity.

Let me be specific: when you drew an equivalence of severity between the events of Jan. 6 and A) the CHAZ and B) protests for Kavanaugh's confirmation, you made it very hard for me to believe that you're operating in good faith.

You don't need to be in the streets protesting for shit, I don't need you calling your reps to ask them to support an independent commission. But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison.

> I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war.

I didn't say that and I don't believe it. I reread my words, I don't feel I communicated such a sweeping conclusion / assessment.

> I am apparently... a government abolitionist who lacks integrity.

I attacked your argument, you've made it an attack on you. I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.

And when you dismiss it with accusations of bad faith and 'refute' the argument by primarily throwing derisive adjectives at it, that leads me to strongly believe you are operating in bad faith and making the accusation to pre-counter the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from the way you are conducting yourself.

You are primarily trying to refute the the argument by throwing as many derisive marks as possible at it, a joke, whack, naivety etc etc and demanding it not even be considered.

From intention there was plenty in the Chax situation that you really don't want to have your name associated with.

From results, same story.

> You are primarily trying to refute the the argument by throwing as many derisive marks as possible at it, a joke, whack, naivety etc etc and demanding it not even be considered.

I was specific about what I found to be bad faith: drawing a false equivalency between Jan. 6 - an attack on our system of governance as a whole, supported by politicians - to those other examples. Yes, I used derisive adjectives, because I find the comparison worthy of derision.

> From intention there was plenty in the Chax situation that you really don't want to have your name associated with.

You won't find me defending CHAZ, like you seem to assume I will. Their intentions were far more benign than Jan. 6, but not benign or harmless, nor should many of the individuals involved be considered blameless. But there was certainly less intent to harm in CHAZ, and absolutely less intent to challenge our system of governance.

I used testy words, but they didn't detract from the point I felt it quite clear: minimizing the significance of Jan. 6 through equivocating it with CHAZ or Kavanaugh protests is an argument made in bad faith, naivety, or ignorance.

No you don't get to brush off actual armed establishment of an autonomous zone with "benign intention". That is the equivalent of mass-hostage taking and the beginnings of a coup; exactly as "benign" in intention as the 6th.

> You won't find me defending CHAZ, like you seem to assume I will.

This is exactly what you're doing here, you saw the claim and came running. You're just having to back-peddle now that someone is calling you on what you're doing.

Also, it's funny how intention is the only thing you are grabbing hold of and bringing up. Is that because of literally everything else about the CHAZ situation and the riots and the destruction of property that surrounded it are completely indefensible and infinitely worse?

Is the only reason "Intention" even becomes something you care about because it's the one thing you could try and twist into X is worse than Y?

> No you don't get to brush off actual armed establishment of an autonomous zone with "benign intention".

Please read my comment again. I said "more benign" (than Jan. 6), but literally also said "not benign." I found CHAZ very troubling in both idea and practice. But it doesn't hold a candle to breaking into the Capitol to disrupt our system of governance, possibly murder congresspersons (and the VP), and install their preferred president. CHAZ was bad, but orders of magnitude less so.

And since that's all you thought was worth responding to, I think that's my exit in this conversation.

> And comparing Jan. 6 to CHAZ is honestly a total joke not even worth acknowledging further.

> But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison.

> I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.

You said what you said ^ and no hand waving about "oooh I didnt mean it like that" will change that.

> And since that's all you thought was worth responding to,

That's all you've given to respond to. All you've done is hysterically scream "False equivalence" and make weak claims of "Intention", which I've already pointed out are bunk when compared alongside the obvious intention of CHAZ.

> I think that's my exit in this conversation.

Yes I think that's about your only option at this point.

> Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty.

Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order.

Unlike Jan. 6, which sought to enforce the President's stated desire to overturn his electoral defeat, a desire in which the insurrectionists were joined by a substantial number of lawmakers, and sought to coerce or remove key opponents (most critically the Vice President acting as President of the Senate, under a theory that electoral votes could be arbitrarily discarded by whoever was serving in that position, which the President and his allies endorsed and advocated but the VP had publicly rejected.)

> Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order.

Okay but five people died because the American government did nothing.

Did the Chaz idiots have 147 of 435 House members vote to certify their independence from the US?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referencing exactly.

> if the attackers had succeeded in their aims to overturn a legitimate and fair election, that would've been the end of the United States as a constitutional republic.

Hyperbole to the Nth.

Do we really want to go down the path of judging and punishing people for what they'd have been able to accomplish if they hypothetically had unlimited resources they really wouldn't ever have access to?

Everyone would deserve a death sentence in all instances of just about anything.

> Everyone would deserve a death sentence in all instances of just about anything.

Now that's hyperbole to Nth degree. That's the slippery-slope fallacy all the way down to the most extreme conclusion.

Let's instead stick to what we know:

1) Many of the rioters had an intent to de facto overthrow the government. They had guns, nooses, there were chat logs, etc. This is not conjecture.

2) Many of the rioters had the resources to do what they intended: they easily outmatched the Capitol Police forces, and backup forces were slow to respond. The physical barriers rioters encountered were not sufficient to the task.

3) What they they lacked was the knowledge of where to go to accomplish their aims. They were too slow to the chambers, and couldn't locate their targets. When they got close, those at the front lacked conviction after seeing their friend justifiably shot.

I'm think it's quite appropriate to consider January 6th a "near miss" for our country as we know it, but given comments like yours and the revisionism happening before our eyes it doesn't quite seem we're out of danger. It is very appropriate to me to punish people for their actions, and sometimes for their intended actions. "Attempted Murder" is a crime for a reason, just because they failed to complete their task doesn't de facto exonerate them of wrong doing!

You're already lying about the rioters being armed with guns in point 1. If you're willing to lie here then what value is there in any of the rest of your claims?

The Oath Keepers brought arms to DC for this rally they had a major hand in planning. That the FBI only seized one handgun from the riot doesn't by any means indicate or imply there were not other armed rioters, especially given evidence from chat logs and social media that these militia groups did travel with their weapons. And many of the rioters had non-firearm weapons as well (e.g., tasers, bats, crowbars, stunguns, knives, chemical sprays, etc.)

The reality is we'll never know the extent of how armed (guns or otherwise) the rioters were, because almost everyone was allowed to leave unimpeded.

You've already attempted to misslead on this; cite your sources.

And "we'll never know" isn't good enough. Again especially from someone caught lying.

I'll Google for you, but that's it for me in this conversation.

* Decent but not exhaustive summary of the myth you're parroting: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-ar... * Another one from NPR that gets into more specifics: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters... * Admission of rioter that he had firearms, agrees to cooperate further: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-oath-kee... * Discusses Oath Keepers' chats and them clearly communicating intent, including their "quick reaction force" with an "arsenal" ready if needed: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/06/january-6-consp... * Description weapons, focusing on two individuals in particular: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-weapons-deadly-dan... * Database from NPR on those charged (CTRL+F "weapon"): https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-t...

Also watch basically any video reconstruction to see any number of people treating any number of objects like clubs. But I'm not going to rewatch the videos to find the timestamps. And now that I've jumped through your hope, I'll reinforce a key point: the vast, vast majority of rioters (both that entered and just lingered outside the capitol) were not searched.

From you

> They had guns, nooses, there were chat logs, etc. This is not conjecture.

Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You said armed with guns. Don't try and move this over suddenly to "Clubs" because your bs has been called.

The original claim was that these particular rioters could have actually destroyed the Republic in that moment.

I don't disagree that some of them were posing a threat of bodily harm to the people inside the Capitol, but that's a much different claim.

> "Attempted Murder" is a crime for a reason

And it is a lesser crime than murder.

> And it is a lesser crime than murder.

As it should be. I never intended to imply otherwise.

> The original claim was that these particular capitol rioters could have actually destroyed the republic in that moment.

I think there is a reasonable chance that they could have, had the been able to murder the "enemies" on that day. What does that mean or look like? I don't know. But what happens when the only decision-makers left for our Republic are those that tacitly and explicitly supported this action, if not immediately then more and more in hindsight.

> I think there is a reasonable chance that they could have, had the been able to murder the "enemies" on that day.

If every member of Congress died, would the Republic cease to exist? Probably not. There's a contingency plan for that.

> What does that mean or look like? I don't know.

The claim can't be made if this can't be answered.

> If every member of Congress died, would the Republic cease to exist? Probably not. There's a contingency plan for that.

Those plans assume good faith leadership. This insurrection was encouraged by the lame duck president and supported by members of Congress that now refuse to investigate it. And it wouldn't have been every member of Congress dead, would it? Those supporting the Big Lie would have been around to govern. Not exactly comforting to me, and I think well within the realm of believabilty for at least the possibility of a permanent change to our Republic as we know it.

> The claim can't be made if this can't be answered.

On the contrary: the fact that the question can't be answered confidently supports my point rather than refuting it. We don't know what would have happened. It's conceivable or systems would have endured, contingencies enacted, order restored. But there's good reasons to think that may not have happened as well.

Honestly, I'm at the point where I hope you get your way. It'll hopefully lead to a proper secession of states so that the increasingly obvious fact that the country has split into two irreconcilable societies can be made a reality and we can all live in peace. Let's hope that the separation happens peacefully.

> Honestly, I'm at the point where I hope you get your way

What is "my way"? That I want people who clearly intended harm to be subject to the consequences of that action (within our justice system and with the burden on the state to prove their guilt)? Is that so radical to you? I'm not asking anyone be hanged ffs. Nor am I advocating for any sort of detention for every person at the capitol that day. But this isn't something we should just try to forget, downplay, minimize, revise.

"I shouldn't be be held accountable for this bad thing I didn't even succeed at doing" is certainly an argument many current inmates have made.

The rioters had no coherent "aim", they basically treated like a tourist trap, and were practically let in by the police.

I would encourage you to watch these two videos and then re-assess whether they were "practically let in":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZvp-Dv0gg (crush inside the building)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEGthdTzedk (mob trying to break in, and beating officers with flagpole and other objects)

No coherent aim, people just coincidentally had human restraint-grade zip ties with them at a peaceful protest?

Nope, don't try to whitewash this. Thirty seconds of google searches easily puts these efforts to lie.

> In the weeks before supporters of then-President Donald Trump assaulted the U.S. Capitol, TheDonald.win forum commenters debated how best to build a gallows for hanging — or simply terrifying — members of Congress deemed disloyal. What kind of lumber? What kind of rope? And how many nooses?

> “The website, TheDonald, played a far more central role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection than was previously known,” he said. “There are thousands of posts — with tens of thousands of comments — detailing plans to travel to Washington and engage in violence against the U.S. Capitol. The ultimate end goal of this violence was, on behalf of Trump, disrupt the Congress and overturn the presidential election.”

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/15/thedona...

> TheDonald.win forum commenters debated how best to build a gallows for hanging — or simply terrifying — members of Congress deemed disloyal. What kind of lumber? What kind of rope? And how many nooses?

And wallstreetbets debates how to please your wife's boyfriend. That is to say both /r/thedonald and /r/wallstreetbets (who has also harmed people via their encouragement of gambling the markets) have similar cultures of irreverence, hyperbole, trolling, and joking with the intent of setting people off. They find it funny when taken out of context and used to terrify people. For example, it's the same thing behind how 4chan jokingly made the OK sign into a white supremacist hand sign, thus causing a moral panic.

I'm not saying one way or the other as to whether the comments here are right. But you're dealing with a forum that trolls people by posting cartoon frogs, mocking the OK sign, and calling each other centipedes.

> For example, it's the same thing behind how 4chan jokingly made the OK sign into a white supremacist hand sign, thus causing a moral panic.

A lot of the 4chan dynamic involves people starting with something edgy as a dumb joke, and then the site's large subset of actual idiot racists taking it seriously. The OK sign was a great example of that - some people started it as a dumb joke and then actual racists enthusiastically embraced it. Hell, 4chan's racism in general started as a dumb joke and ended up with 51 people being murdered in Christchurch.

So I wouldn't use the fact that some subset of people have an edgy sense of humor as a license to hand-wave away other violent idiots who were serious as a heart attack with their planning.

>human restraint-grade zip ties

Which were found on a table, not brought in to the "insurrection". Anyway, the entire narrative of the "insurrection" is a useful tool for the larger state security apparatus to justify ever increasing and intrusive technological surveillance - this time on US Citizens ("domestic war on terror" anyone? [0]). Which explains why the lie about the death of the Capital Police officer[1] was so useful that it wasn't corrected, even though it was verifiably false the entire time. I'm not aware of a single person who's been charged with "insurrection" in this alleged "insurrection" that took place. Happy to be proven wrong here. Lots of trespassing, assaulting a peace officer, and felony rioting though. The point I'm trying to make is that the technology a lot of us work on allows violent lies to spread with unprecedented ease, but there isn't a real way for them to be walked back after they're out in the open.

>Nope, don't try to whitewash this.

There's also some historical context that everyone seems to be forgetting. Puerto Rican nationalists shooting congressmen from the House balcony in the 50s (Carter pardoned them), the Kennedys, all the Weather Underground bombings in DC in the 70s, more actual assassination attempts in the 80s, various far-right and far-left terrorism here and there. This is to say that events like this are not exactly unique, and it's been really weird for me since I spent most of my early 20s studying this kind of thing (history, terrorism both here and abroad) when I was in the Army. It's like I'm watching everyone collectively want to LARP that this is the "worst thing ever" so that they can be a part of history. "Insurrection", for me at least, carries a very specific definition, and what happened on 6JAN2020, while awful, certainly doesn't fit into that category. Felony riot, absolutely. It surely isn't the worst thing ever, yes you are a part of history (however you want to define that), and the Republic is carrying on just fine.

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Nation...

[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...

> There's also some historical context that everyone seems to be forgetting.

Agreed.

The difference between January 6 and previous incidents is there's a very well-reasoned argument to be made by people who are experts in this area that the events of January 6 were the culmination of a self-coup attempt we typically only see in developing nations[1]. Fortunately the execution was inept and the institutions were able to withstand the assaults against them, but there were serious efforts to accomplish it nonetheless. The actual assault on Congress was just one facet of the attempt.

I've watched the footage of the rallies in the days before January 6. The people who assaulted the capitol were fed a firehose of lies for days and weeks (and actually going back to 2016) about the election which dovetails nicely with your point:

> The point I'm trying to make is that the technology a lot of us work on allows violent lies to spread with unprecedented ease, but there isn't a real way for them to be walked back after they're out in the open.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/capitol-ri...

>here's a very well-reasoned argument to be made by people who are experts in this area

Honestly, this is an amazing essay thanks for sharing. From an anthropological perspective this is exactly what I'm talking about, people wanting to feel like they're at some apex of history. Her arguments amount to "this was a coup attempt because I've redefined what a coup attempt means to fit this specific instance". The entire piece is an exercise in redefining what have long been well understood to be the hallmarks of a Coup actually are. Exaggerated language is throughout the essay, but there's a couple sentences that stand out to me:

>>During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Trump drew Joint Chiefs Chair General Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper out of a White House meeting to follow him for a provocative photo-op in front of a historic church. Paramilitary forces under the president’s command cleared a passage for his group across Lafayette Square.

Summarily debunked[1], but it's one of those enduring memes from this that strikes onlookers as so foul that that any attempt to correct the record is met with discordance and invective. "Paramilitary" forces? The Park Police are now a ... paramilitary force? Let me get my cousin in Montana on the phone, I'm sure he'd love to know this.

>>As in the case of other coup attempts, the president’s actions have put us on the brink of civil war.

Yes, a very "expert" opinion here. "On the brink of civil war", we are.

We're in a situation where we're watching the same film, and seeing two different movies. I don't have anything to blame here but the technology we all help build which allows the narrative to be manipulated like this in real time, with no meaningful way to update.

[1]https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trum...

> Her arguments amount to "this was a coup attempt because I've redefined what a coup attempt means to fit this specific instance".

No, its a classic autocoup (self-coup) attempt. Executive leader directs loyalists against another government power center for the purpose of either extending term beyond what has been secured through the regular process or seizing additional unauthorized powers in the existing term. It wasn't even covert, they were literally overtly directed to go to Congress for that end.

Now, was it a poorly planned, uncoordinated, sloppily executed, and ultimately failure of an autocoup attempt? Sure, but that doesn't make it not a coup attempt.

Everyone can keep saying this, but if the "autocoup" is so plainly obvious then why hasn't a single person been charged with a relevant crime?

> Everyone can keep saying this, but if the "autocoup" is so plainly obvious then why hasn't a single person been charged with a relevant crime?

Dozens of people have been charged, and a founding lifetime member of the Oath Keepers has plead guilty, to relevant crimes, to wit, unlawfully entering the Capitol with the intent to influece, obstruct, and/or interfere with the electoral vote count, and/or conspiring to do so.

Its not like “attempt or conspiracy to effect an autocoup” is a separate offense under the US Code.

Is there a particular charge that has been levied against someone that is relevant to the "autocoup" that you think happened? I mean, beyond trespassing of course.

The idea that "trespassing" into the Capital is something you can charge against the citizens of a democratic country, and not an Imperial Empire, is probably a separate question.

She's not inventing a new term, self-coups are well known things that I guess you weren't aware of[1]. You keep citing Glenn Greenwald as if he still has some credibility left with people outside of Tucker Carlson's core viewers. His tortured analysis of the IG report has some major (and given Greenwald's courting of right-wing news consumers for the past few years, likely intentional) holes[2].

> The new IG report is being used by some Trump supporters and anti-anti-Trumpers to revisit coverage of that sort and argue that it unfairly assigned blame to Trump. While some mainstream outlets have misleadingly suggested the new IG report proves Trump didn’t order protesters to be cleared out, Trump supporters have gone even further and have used it to try to discredit the media in general.

> ...However, the operation to clear Lafayette Square involved numerous other law enforcement agencies, including Washington, DC’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the Secret Service, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). And the report makes clear that the various agencies involved in the chaos that unfolded outside the White House that day were not always in radio communication with one another — and overall were certainly not on the same page.

> Notably, as lawyer Luppe Luppen highlighted on Twitter, the IG report indicates that Secret Service officers on the scene — who were aware of USPP’s operational plan — escalated the situation by using pepper spray against protesters, and by doing so before USPP officers had a chance to give demonstrators any warnings to disperse. The report says a Secret Service official later apologized to USPP officials for the incident, but didn’t explain why it happened.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

[2] https://www.vox.com/2021/6/11/22527796/ig-report-trump-bible...

>self-coups are well known things that I guess you weren't aware

Nah, I'm aware of them, believe me. This just wasn't that. I think we're going to talk past each other at this point.

Yes, but what you've seen is a sampling of the hours and hours of video from that day that has not been released. So you don't really know what's on the rest of that video and why it has not been released. What we do know that some of the main participants and organizers have not been charged, while some of the 500 others that had very minor roles are facing harsh charges, and were denied bail.

It makes sense not to charge the main characters, only if some of those people most combative and leading the charge, were in fact FBI informants, as has been alleged on the house floor. Subversion of a political movement, to discredit the movement by the government is a common tactic. Just hasn't been seen in the US before, other than maybe during the civil right movement.

Louie Gohmert making the allegation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHL2GEO9hw

Agent provocateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

> Louie Gohmert making the allegation

Weird how this person making these allegations would vote against the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the very claims he's making.

Not weird at all though if he were making the allegations in bad faith.

That's possible, he is a politician after all. However, here's a civil rights lawyer's take on it and seems to echo this: https://youtu.be/1Ozbqjv0xw4?t=937

Is it not because they are still building the cases? Also that guy tried to overturn the election in late December so could he as well not be a agent provocateur? Trying to rile up members of the republican party against the newly elected president.

What's this? The White House was attacked & Secret Service Agents were injured? INSURRECTION!!!! Where's the 6 months of news coverage? https://twitter.com/zhamiltoe/status/1267357454112657408

Oh my, the Capital building was bombed in 1980? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female...

What should we do about this terrorist? Put her on the Board of Directory of Thousand Currents, sponsor of the Black Lives Matter movement, of course. Oh hold on, Snopes protests..."In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." But everybody who protested in Jan. 6th is a "terrorist" correct?

How about Bill Ayers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers, with his Bombing...ahem..."activism" as Wikipedia calls it? In 1971 Bill Ayers bombs the US Capitol building. What happens to him? Why he is deeply associated with community leader cum President Barack Obama for decades. Let's make him an esteemed Professor at the University of Chicago for his crimes...

Now January 6. Perhaps your eyes & ears can tell me who died during the protest? Oh yeah, Ashli Babbitt who was shot by a police office despite not attacking anybody or presenting any imminent danger. Did she really deserve to be shot? Is this "justice", where the punishment depends on politics?

Sure, how justice is served does depend on politics, but should it be this way?

>The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.

The one person who died violently in the "sack" was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot.

>Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened, it was on national television. We have perfectly good eyes and ears.

Let me guess: You "saw" a police officer being hit by a fire extinguisher, right?

Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).)

The one difference between what happened at the Capitol that day and the attempted assault on the White House during the George Floyd riots (serious enough for the Secret Service to take Trump to a secure bunker) was that the former was allowed to enter its target.

Why are you being downvoted. You are correct.

The New York Times retracted its story on officer sicknick. They agreed with the autopsy. He died of natural causes.

The capitol is broken into quite often, for example, during Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Because the poster is doing a textbook strawman argument, probably.

Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.

Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made]

This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.

> as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen

For the past year, I've been hearing about how police often times help right-wing protestors. Now I'm being told they never do and such a suggestion is offensive. Which is it?

Anyway, if this is about sacking the Capitol, then why bring up the Civil War. In that case, Jan 6 would be the worst thing since the War of 1812, not the Civil War. Since apparently simply protesting in unauthorized areas of capitol buildings (like has happened countless times before Jan 6 since 2016 and before[1]) is basically equivalent to sacking DC. This is why I think there's hyperbole.

[1] and there have been several bombings as well, orchestrated by people who are now well-accepted as political pundits in the mainstream, such as Bill Ayers and Susan Rosenberg. In fact, the current DA of San Francisco is the adopted son of Bill Ayers and the bio son of a convicted terrorist and doesn't believe his bio dad did anything wrong. We accept such terrorism as completely mainstream. Any attempt to question is met with accusations of racism or hyperbole. This is ridiculous. It seems as if only one capitol riot is ever seen as meriting such strong condemnation, despite the constant barrage of attacks on the capitol for many years that have occured with impunity [2] [3].

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-... -- unlawfully entered the capitol rotunda. Entered the office of a senator without permission.

[3] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-part... -- definitely people storming the area around the capitol in an attempt to apparently overthrow an election. They just weren't very good at it I guess

>Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.

I was unaware that the Capitol had been torched after being emptied of its treasures and nubile women, as opposed to being invaded by morons who were more focused on taking selfies than sacking.

>Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made]

You and I both know that the media has done a very good job of convincing the public that multiple police officers were killed during the "sack", when (as I said) the only person who died violently was an unarmed rioter.

>This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.

What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area? Remember, said rioter who died was killed after force was finally used (better late than never). If the Capitol Police had chosen/been allowed to do so, no rioter would have ever entered the building.

Let me repeat: The only difference between what happened at the Capitol and what almost happened at the White House the preceding June is that the rioters did not get inside in the latter case.

> What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area?

I've seen no evidence for that 'all but a handful unarmed' claim. I have seen interviews with Capitol Police saying they were afraid to use their firearms because they believed they were massively outgunned and would be killed if a serious gunfight broke out.

Even allowing for that hypothetical though, the allegedly unarmed mob a massive tactical advantage[1]:

> “We weren’t battling 50 or 60 rioters in this tunnel,” he said in the first public account from D.C. police officers who fought to protect the Capitol during last week’s siege. “We were battling 15,000 people. It looked like a medieval battle scene.”

> Rioters swarmed, battering the officers with metal pipes peeled from scaffolding and a pole with an American flag attached, police said. Both were struck with stun guns. Fanone suffered a mild heart attack and drifted in and out of consciousness.

> All the while, the mob was chanting “U.S.A.” over and over and over again.

> “We got one! We got one!” Fanone said he heard rioters shout. “Kill him with his own gun!”

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police...

Nor fly a traitorous flag in its halls.