As a Londoner and European, I’d love to exchange our terrorists (that literally blow up kids, shoot them point blank, and decapitate and drive over people) for US “domestic terrorists” that ... take selfies (yeah a few people died unfortunately, not too surprising for a riot with a massive security failure, but far from a literal terrorist attack).
What’s the minimum body count required for it to be a terrorist attack?
Yes, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it could have been. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that their goal was just to take selfies in the Senate chambers. The only reason we didn’t see much more violence is that congresspeople were evacuated in time.
Half the problem is people throwing around words like them and their without qualification. There were thousands of people with different views. Some were neonazis and some were terrorist. We all need to be more careful with our generalizations
About you specifically, nothing. Based on pattern recognition pertaining to news reports and analysis of various events over the last 25 or so years, many analysts who are now excusing and making distinctions between various types of people were the ones who were pointing fingers towards Islamic terrorists as the instigators. This was most evident in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing.
I don't object to calling those people terrorists. Note that I also included "shoot kids point blank" in my comment, which was a direct reference to Breivik, inb4 "only muslims can be terrorists"