[PenguinCoder]

Terrorism is not defined by having machine guns, bombs or taking hostages.

Terrorism:

> the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Seems pretty damn clear cut that Jan 6th insurrectionists are Terrorists by that understanding.

[pessimizer]

What terrorism is now (and for most of the 20th century) is an unbelievably politicized term that for around a decade was synonymous with Muslim who attacks anyone or advocates attacking anyone, including the soldiers occupying their countries. The term originated as a positive thing for late 19c anarchists who simply defined it as a tactic of asymmetric warfare against an enemy that so outnumbers you that they would be impossible to militarily defeat, so you break their morale through random, extremely varied attacks against individuals and small groups over an extended period of time, prioritizing as targets those who would normally feel the safest.

Terrorism isn't about "lawfulness." They just threw that in because violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is what most countries do at all times. The definition wants to call war "lawful."

[phpisthebest]

So under that definition there was a ton of Terrorism in the summer of 2020 right?

[apostacy]

What specific acts did the Jan 6th rioters commit that would count as terrorism or insurrection? Is it insurrection to damage public property and disobey government orders? How were they planning on taking hostages without guns? Were they going to beat people with flagpoles?

[giantrobot]

> How were they planning on taking hostages without guns?

Don't be obtuse. Had members of Congress not evacuated their chambers just the fact a mob was outside the doors would be holding them hostage. Several rioters had flexi-cuffs and other bindings. It's not terribly difficult to hold someone hostage. It's downright easy for a large group of people to imprison a smaller group, especially one composed of unarmed geriatrics.

> Were they going to beat people with flagpoles?

You've got from obtuse to insipid. The answer is yes. They literally beat people with flag poles. Several were armed with guns. Many were armed with other blunt weapons, stolen police weapons, and chemical sprays.

[apostacy]

> Don't be obtuse. Had members of Congress not evacuated their chambers just the fact a mob was outside the doors would be holding them hostage. Several rioters had flexi-cuffs and other bindings. It's not terribly difficult to hold someone hostage. It's downright easy for a large group of people to imprison a smaller group, especially one composed of unarmed geriatrics.

Yes it is quite difficult for a group of unarmed and unorganized rioters to subdue a highly trained and well armed security force, much less perform a coup.

What would have been a worse case scenario here? They burst into the capital chamber, subdue dozens of armed guards in unarmed combat, and then seize control of the federal government by threatening to beat members of congress with flagpoles?

There is no evidence of this being anything other than a riot. And for the year 2020, it was a relatively tame one.

[phpisthebest]

there was ONE incident of that, where ONE person hit another person with a flag pole, ONE.

>Several were armed with guns.

"Several" meaning 3... in a crowd of thousands the majority of which likely own guns but did not bring them.

>Don't be obtuse.

Take your own advice and look at the facts not the media spin and hype

[hairofadog]

I can’t tell if you’re joking, but they did have guns, and they did beat people with flag poles.

[phpisthebest]

>>but they did have guns

Nope, most reports that protesters were "armed" are "stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs" and even that is an exaggeration by the media as the number of even those "weapons" were carried by a minority of people.

To date, I believe there are have been only 3 people confirmed to be carrying a gun that was not law enforcement, none of which have been charged with discharging or using those guns in any way.

when you say "they did have guns" most people think it was a armed resistance, it was not and to be most favorable to you it is simply an exaggeration to say it that way, but if I want to be uncharitable I would say you are engaging in disinformation

>they did beat people with flag poles.

Again here, this is an exaggeration, there was ONE incident of that, where ONE person hit another person with a flag pole, ONE.

[hairofadog]

Well, I regret being hooked by a troll – this is like a layered cake of bad-faith arguments – but for any passers-by who may not already know, they did have guns [0], and describing it as "one incident of beating another person with a flagpole" is so obviously disingenuous as to be laughable [1].

[0]: https://youtu.be/bC3_VFFJlSY?t=15954

[1]: https://youtu.be/mWzYB2RmfPU?t=633

[phpisthebest]

I am not a troll, I am not even the original commentor, I just happen to have a differing view as you, thus you have no recourse or rebuttal than to label everyone that disagrees with you a "troll" because outside of that you may be faced with someone that would challenge your world view

[a_techwriter_00]

Do you think that it does justice to the victims of Jan 6th and the victims of the siege of the Colombian Palace of Justice to say that both of those events are the same crime? They're both deserving of the same punishment?

[thephyber]

Attempted murder is the same crime whether done my a compassionate mother with a pillow smothering, or a violent psycho with a grenade. You are making a useless argument.

The fact stands that plenty of people on Jan6 threatened / executed violent action for a political means by an illegitimate authority.