4 ms·

...there were people with zip ties in the senate chamber. What do you think they brought them for?

by glial 6y ago

Mizza 6y ago
Zip ties?! The horror! There was also a guy dressed up as a buffalo and, mostly, a bunch of fat old people who get all of their news from Facebook. It's weird, and it's stupid. It's not terrorism.
- sanp 6y ago
  Ok. What is your idea of terrorism?
  - Mizza 6y ago
    The planned and deliberate indiscriminate killing of civilians. Not possession of zip ties. It was a political demonstration that erupted into spontaneous violence, which we've already been seeing for months. I don't want it to be justification for further authoritarianism. But apparently everybody else does now.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      They used terror to get what they wanted. That’s the dictionary definition of terrorism. Just because they were bad at executing their plan doesn’t mean they weren’t terrorists attempting a coup.
      - FFRefresh 6y ago
        Here is the dictionary definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." How many civilians were targeted with violence/intimidation in the pursuit of political aims? How do other politically motivated protests/riots align with this definition? Are there other protest movements where civilians have been exposed to violence? Stepping away from actual physical violence that has happened, how many examples of aggressive/violent speech amongst a protest group are required for us to label the entire cadre of people protesting as 'terrorists'?
    - Melting_Harps 6y ago
      > It was a political demonstration that erupted into spontaneous violence, which we've already been seeing for months. I don't want it to be justification for further authoritarianism. It already happened, it just doesn't seem to be punished if its done or incited with State approval (Trump's inflammatory rhetoric and constant lies about a stolen election). What you're describing already happened, long ago actually; its the selective application of this authoritarianism that you should be worried about now. Don't be surprised to see more heavy handedness like we saw last year when any form of dissent takes place in DC now with this as a justification, the thought of 'free speech zones' once seemed like conspiratorial hyperbole, but after this I'm not sure its not a given under the premise of curtailing 'domestic terrorism.' Take the case of this 28 year old disgruntled 'black panther sympathizer' Colorado citizen who colluded with what was later revealed to be an undercover police to shoot the Attorney General [0]. They're making it seem like its this massive success and they foiled an assassination and made him forfeit his firearms to the State for merely stating what he would do if he had the chance, by contrast you had those 'protestors' armed with actual firearms and IEDs show up to one of the most surveiled places on Earth, and with the help of LEO to enter to overthrow Biden's confirmation and in the case of the Q-anon ex Navy vet/woman who was shot by secret service trying to enter the building letting 'liberty ring and bring light to darkness.' That is the most blatant conspiracy to increase the budget and incentives for the Police State since 9/11 in my view, and it was all recorded and they were simply let off with no repercussions thus far and you have this feeling if impending doom for something that already happened? I really hate dwelling on race based things and white privilege as its over used in most respects, but it is without a doubt apparent for all to see that non-whites are on the lowest of the 3/4 tiers of the US legal system that systematically seeks to put them in the for profit prison system. Especially when in comes to question the crimes and wrongful deaths of the Police State. 0: https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/denver-police-guns-weiser-red-flag/ https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/denver-police-guns-weiser... EDIT: 15 have were arrested 'so far' and are awaiting sentencing for the event that happened this week.
    - dls2016 6y ago
      So we’re equivocating looting with disrupting the counting of electoral votes?
    - halfnormalform 6y ago
      They were wrist restraints. Used for restraining prisoners or having kinky sex, which is also not appropriate in congress. They were not mere zip ties like they were going to tidy up the cables behind peoples desks. Why are you being misleading?
- dragontamer 6y ago
  You know that Capitol Police found and detonated two pipe bombs, right? A number of them also brought guns, many were wearing body armor.
  - Mizza 6y ago
    I actually didn't know that. It's a bit hard to find information about though, just that somebody is wanted for something that happened near to, but not inside the capitol building. Setting up multiple pipe bombs to hurt people is definitely terrorism.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    The pipe bombs were at the RNC and DNC headquarters, not the Capitol building. There is no evidence that they were placed there in connection with the rather disorganized mob that broke into the Capitol building.
    - pc86 6y ago
      You think it's more likely that there were two terrorist attacks on the same day?
- glial 6y ago
  You didn’t answer - what do you think they brought them for?
- smichel17 6y ago
  > It's not terrorism. I think you undermine your own argument here. The problem is that "terrorism" does not have an agreed-upon definition. As far as I can tell, the smallest common subset of definitions -- ie, what everyone will agree on -- is "violent crime that should carry particularly harsh punishments." If you use the word before agreeing on its meaning, that's the definition you fall back to. Historically, western liberal democracy believes in the rule of law -- that the punishment should fit the crime, rather than our opinion of the criminal. Obviously this is violent crime. Without choosing a more specific definition, the only thing left to argue about is whether it deserves extraordinary punishment, given the same set of facts. Treating that as a valid argument to have is rejecting the rule of law. The alternative is to decide on a definition. What makes terrorism different from breaking and entering? Assault? Murder? Mass murder? Rebel? Revolutionary? Etc. If the answer is "nothing", then use the other word instead. Keep loaded terms like "terrorism" out of the debate unless they're needed.

...there were people with zip ties in the senate chamber. What do you think they brought them for?

by glial 6y ago

...there were people with zip ties in the senate chamber. What do you think they brought them for?

Zip ties?! The horror! There was also a guy dressed up as a buffalo and, mostly, a bunch of fat old people who get all of their news from Facebook. It's weird, and it's stupid. It's not terrorism.

sanp 6y ago
Ok. What is your idea of terrorism?
- Mizza 6y ago
  The planned and deliberate indiscriminate killing of civilians. Not possession of zip ties. It was a political demonstration that erupted into spontaneous violence, which we've already been seeing for months. I don't want it to be justification for further authoritarianism. But apparently everybody else does now.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    They used terror to get what they wanted. That’s the dictionary definition of terrorism. Just because they were bad at executing their plan doesn’t mean they weren’t terrorists attempting a coup.
    - FFRefresh 6y ago
      Here is the dictionary definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." How many civilians were targeted with violence/intimidation in the pursuit of political aims? How do other politically motivated protests/riots align with this definition? Are there other protest movements where civilians have been exposed to violence? Stepping away from actual physical violence that has happened, how many examples of aggressive/violent speech amongst a protest group are required for us to label the entire cadre of people protesting as 'terrorists'?
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > It was a political demonstration that erupted into spontaneous violence, which we've already been seeing for months. I don't want it to be justification for further authoritarianism. It already happened, it just doesn't seem to be punished if its done or incited with State approval (Trump's inflammatory rhetoric and constant lies about a stolen election). What you're describing already happened, long ago actually; its the selective application of this authoritarianism that you should be worried about now. Don't be surprised to see more heavy handedness like we saw last year when any form of dissent takes place in DC now with this as a justification, the thought of 'free speech zones' once seemed like conspiratorial hyperbole, but after this I'm not sure its not a given under the premise of curtailing 'domestic terrorism.' Take the case of this 28 year old disgruntled 'black panther sympathizer' Colorado citizen who colluded with what was later revealed to be an undercover police to shoot the Attorney General [0]. They're making it seem like its this massive success and they foiled an assassination and made him forfeit his firearms to the State for merely stating what he would do if he had the chance, by contrast you had those 'protestors' armed with actual firearms and IEDs show up to one of the most surveiled places on Earth, and with the help of LEO to enter to overthrow Biden's confirmation and in the case of the Q-anon ex Navy vet/woman who was shot by secret service trying to enter the building letting 'liberty ring and bring light to darkness.' That is the most blatant conspiracy to increase the budget and incentives for the Police State since 9/11 in my view, and it was all recorded and they were simply let off with no repercussions thus far and you have this feeling if impending doom for something that already happened? I really hate dwelling on race based things and white privilege as its over used in most respects, but it is without a doubt apparent for all to see that non-whites are on the lowest of the 3/4 tiers of the US legal system that systematically seeks to put them in the for profit prison system. Especially when in comes to question the crimes and wrongful deaths of the Police State. 0: https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/denver-police-guns-weiser-red-flag/ https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/denver-police-guns-weiser... EDIT: 15 have were arrested 'so far' and are awaiting sentencing for the event that happened this week.
  - dls2016 6y ago
    So we’re equivocating looting with disrupting the counting of electoral votes?
  - halfnormalform 6y ago
    They were wrist restraints. Used for restraining prisoners or having kinky sex, which is also not appropriate in congress. They were not mere zip ties like they were going to tidy up the cables behind peoples desks. Why are you being misleading?
dragontamer 6y ago
You know that Capitol Police found and detonated two pipe bombs, right? A number of them also brought guns, many were wearing body armor.
- Mizza 6y ago
  I actually didn't know that. It's a bit hard to find information about though, just that somebody is wanted for something that happened near to, but not inside the capitol building. Setting up multiple pipe bombs to hurt people is definitely terrorism.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  The pipe bombs were at the RNC and DNC headquarters, not the Capitol building. There is no evidence that they were placed there in connection with the rather disorganized mob that broke into the Capitol building.
  - pc86 6y ago
    You think it's more likely that there were two terrorist attacks on the same day?
glial 6y ago
You didn’t answer - what do you think they brought them for?
smichel17 6y ago
> It's not terrorism. I think you undermine your own argument here. The problem is that "terrorism" does not have an agreed-upon definition. As far as I can tell, the smallest common subset of definitions -- ie, what everyone will agree on -- is "violent crime that should carry particularly harsh punishments." If you use the word before agreeing on its meaning, that's the definition you fall back to. Historically, western liberal democracy believes in the rule of law -- that the punishment should fit the crime, rather than our opinion of the criminal. Obviously this is violent crime. Without choosing a more specific definition, the only thing left to argue about is whether it deserves extraordinary punishment, given the same set of facts. Treating that as a valid argument to have is rejecting the rule of law. The alternative is to decide on a definition. What makes terrorism different from breaking and entering? Assault? Murder? Mass murder? Rebel? Revolutionary? Etc. If the answer is "nothing", then use the other word instead. Keep loaded terms like "terrorism" out of the debate unless they're needed.