Interesting points and good to hear them. But I have to say it seems to me a bit like whataboutism - let the poor guys go, they aren't so bad and we should all

Interesting points and good to hear them. But I have to say it seems to me a bit like whataboutism - let the poor guys go, they aren't so bad and we should all now strive for peace. In Europe if you riot at a football (soccer) game you'll get charges, on a no fly list, on a watchlist, possibly banned from certain cities during contentious games for the coming decade. I don't know how the US handles similar cases, but would you not want a response to those guys? I can storm the house of government and then travel home because it might radicalise my social circle if I face consequences? Sorry but that's just absurd and if you think this logic through I can't see how anyone can come to this conclusion: radicals of any colour should not face consequences for being part of violent acts because it might radicalise them further. What seems quite obvious from an outside perspective is that these folks just aren't used to seeing consequences. They cheer on when 'the other side' faces them, say protestors at a BLM protest get brutalised by police, even if the individual ones that get beaten/arrested/... did nothing wrong. But they have never experienced what it's like if the state objects to what they are doing. Now they see some rather measured responses and immediately cry foul. And I'd stress measured response as - again looking from the outside with no stake in this fight - the images are so strikingly different. For instance I haven't seen any images of police violence from the capitol attack - total difference to BLM protests where the most vivid images were usually an army of policemen in riot gear and batons advancing towards the protestors. At the capitol it seems the only time police was violent was to prevent entry to the building, which the protestors were trying/ultimately succeeded to enter.