Your definition doesn't really matter... it is defined in criminal code https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...

The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Jan 6 doesn't fall under that definition. It wasn't systematic.

It absolutely was and there's extensive documentation on who paid for it and how it came about.

It was if the BLM riots of the previous summer count as well. There doesn't seem to be a difference when looking at the two of them subjectively.

It wasn't even terror.

Trump's and Giuliani's incessant campaign can be seen as domestic terror: "to intimidate and coerce a civilian population", "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". The capitol "tourist visit" were boots on the ground, and can themselves be seen as both terrorists and victims of terror. They were intimidated and coerced by trump ("your country will be taken from you unless you fight like hell", etc.) into themselves using force and violence to coerce congress into overthrowing the vote certification. Ultimately DOJ and the courts will settle this discussion.

5 people died as a result.

Would you say this is an honest statement, or an intentionally misleading one?

Follow up question - with thousands of hours of footage of the events, has anybody been charged with any murders?

Last question, why would you post an intentionally misleading statement like that, do you think it helps your argument or hurts it?

The comment you're replying to is an example of what they meant by Trump derangement syndrome. People convince themselves of things that are blatantly just not accurate because "orange man bad".

Quantity of death should have no impact on whether something is terror or not. 10 people died at Astroworld, that was obviously not a terror attack. If the Boston bombings had merely injured people instead of killed them--or even if it had miraculously failed and hurt no one--we would obviously still call that a terror attack. No one is going to be scared to visit the Capitol on January 6, 2022 or 2023, unlike how people were afraid to go to las vegas or the Boston marathon after the attacks.

Mostly rioters or suicide later.

The entire thing is a bit odd, as we’ve always had an agency that investigates domestic terrorists. It’s called the FBI.

The FBI is part of the DoJ, and typically has task forces comprised of personnel from both organizations. So, this is tantamount to saying "We take domestic terrorism seriously enough to assign dedicated resources to it."

> "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Interesting side effect of this definition is that because the main effect of terrorism is not material or human casualties, but terror, it's usually less damaging way of waging a war than conventional warfare. There are typically more civilian casualties in conventional warfare where civilians are just collateral than terrorist campaigns that target civilians.

Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF

> The costs of terrorism very often come mostly from the fear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) it characteristically inspires (qualities stoked by the terrorism indus- try), not from its direct effects which are usually comparatively limited. Therefore, policies designed to deal with terrorism should focus more on reducing fear and anxiety as inexpensively as possible than on objectively reducing the rather limited dangers terrorism is likely actually to pose. Doing nothing (or at least refraining from overreacting) after a terrorist attack is not necessarily unacceptable, and, despite U. S. overreaction, the campaign against terror is generally going rather well because, no matter how much they might disagree on other issues (most notably on war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states to cooperate to deal with a common problem

‘terrorism industry, an entity that includes not only various risk entrepreneurs and bureaucrats, but also most of the media and nearly all politicians.