11 ms·

The rush to call the storming of the capitol terrorism is really misplaced. By adopting words like "terrorism" you're paving the way for an overreaching respon

The rush to call the storming of the capitol terrorism is really misplaced. By adopting words like "terrorism" you're paving the way for an overreaching response from lawmakers and law enforcement -- something that will likely end up being used against a cause you might support, like BLM. Firstly, nobody was terrorized. No, this wasn't "our 9/11." I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all. I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds and they should be prosecuted; the violence and property damage is inexcusable. But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours. What we need right now is de-escalation.

vkou 6y ago
The violence and property damage wasn't the problem. Democracies can survive some broken windows, stolen laptops, and yes, even people getting hurt and killed at a protest. This sort of thing has happened for decades and centuries. What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
- nostromo 6y ago
  > What they can't survive is... And yet, here we are, democracy intact.
  - lambda_obrien 6y ago
    Are we? Because to me there are huge cracks opening up. Death toll isn't the important part about terrorist attacks, it's the responses that count, and the response to this seems about the same or more extreme as 9/11 to me, and I lived through that on a military base. I don't remember 25k troops being deployed into DC for 9/11.
    - cmurf 6y ago
      And that was a foreign attack. 25000 national guard are in D.C. due to a domestic enemy, white nationalist American terrorists, making credible threats. It's self-evidently anti-Democratic. The last time this nation got into a dispute over an election where the minority decided to just set it aside and not submit to the result, resulted in the bloodiest revolution to date.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Democracy only works because we all believe that it works. When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power. I think it's far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight - not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.
  - failrate 6y ago
    These actors haven't finished. The pattern so far is that the current admin has tried every single dirty trick they could muster to avoid leaving power. Even if something happens to Trump today, these folks will recrystallize around a new cult leader.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > > What they can't survive is... > And yet, here we are, democracy intact. You keep cutting off quotes without including the relevant details. You need to stop doing that. The original quote: > What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented. The last part of that sentence you cropped (emphasized by me) didn't come to pass because it was interrupted by Capitol contingency plans and Shelter In Place protocols, among other things. It very well could've been successful; we're lucky to not know that outcome.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    There was an excellent article by someone from a place where a failed coup led to a real one a couple of years hence. Democracy is not 'intact', it is now damaged, and whether or not manage to repair it remains to be seen. The most dangerous thing you can do now is to think this is behind you and from here on in everything is normal. It isn't and it probably won't be for some time. If you manage the next two transfers of power at the end of election cycles without further mishap I'd say that you can say democracy is intact. Until then all bets are off. Edit: I wished I could locate the article, so far no luck. edit2: finally found it in my history, this article was from 11 November 2020, and very prescient: https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-having-one-now-437934b1dac3 https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-...
    - koolba 6y ago
      The only worse than the the content of that link was the writing style.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Thank you for your contribution. Note the error in the one line comment you made.
        koolba 6y ago
        Ha! Well I'll take unintentional typos over the drivel in that article any day of the week.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        So far he's made the right call though. Note when it was written, and what has happened since.
        koolba 6y ago
        Predicting that somebody stupid would do something stupid after the last election does not make one Nostradamus. He also claims that Trump is refusing to leave and is leveraging the military to facilitate that. That's bunk.
  - NovaS1X 6y ago
    Right, just like Germany survived the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 just fine, democracy intact. People are fools to think this is all just suddenly over now that Trump is gone and big-tech de-platformed one tiny social media platform.
    - LarvaFX 6y ago
      Steve Banon has been pardoned. Stay tuned…
      - NovaS1X 6y ago
        And now Trump is considering starting a "Patriot Party" due to his lack of support in the GOP for overturning the election. Spitting image of the failed Putsch when Hitler realized, in Jail, that a coup d'état wasn't going to work and they needed to attack at a different angle, a democratic angle, and be seen as a legitimate political party. It's happening just like it was always going to, like clockwork. Americans aren't out of this yet.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
eganist 6y ago
> Firstly, nobody was terrorized. I can count six DC-area thousand+ employee firms that provided grief counseling in response. And as a reminder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - even if a subset of people implemented violence with political ends in mind (breaking in, beating innocent people, attempting to take hostages, all in the name of overturning a legitimate election), at the very least, that subset meets the precise definition of "terrorists." > No, this wasn't "our 9/11." The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814. > I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds, and the violence and property damage is inexcusable. Yes, using the rest of the people in the crowd as human shields, but nonetheless: > But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours. This isn't a valid defense to any crime literally ever.
- nostromo 6y ago
  If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism. The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11. The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism. > The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11. > The storming of the capitol was not at all similar. Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn't similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind. I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.
    - rhexs 6y ago
0xEFF 6y ago
The people huddled in offices with an angry mob banging on the door were terrorized.
- bigiain 6y ago
  And so were a nation that believes in democracy and democratic elections.
  - LarvaFX 6y ago
    True. Here in Germany, we were very frightened by the attempts of the president to attack the election. It looked like a banana republic to be honest.
    - BetterDays 6y ago
      >True. Here in Germany, we were very frightened by the attempts of the president to attack the election. It looked like a banana republic to be honest. Also German here. I watched the deepstate cabal steal an election through fraudulent mail-in voting. Bland career politician Joe Biden received more votes than Barack Obama, who was hailed like the second coming of Jesus. Must be disgruntled Donald Trump voters? No at all. Trump received even more votes than in 2016. This election was shady with Biden losing most of the swing states and almost all of the traditional bellwethers.
King-Aaron 6y ago
I'm deeply saddened to see so many people on Hacker News trying so hard to downplay this.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Saying something wasn't terrorism doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful or stupid or terrible. It just means it wasn't terrorism.
  - King-Aaron 6y ago
    The definition - 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims' - seems to fit the event we're discussing.
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor's apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists. The media is not even handed here.
      - King-Aaron 6y ago
        Yes, there is credence to the old saying: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
        sojournerc 6y ago
        This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol. I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere. I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.
krapp 6y ago
>doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all. Unlike the Senate bombing, the Capitol attack was the coda on four years of the American right wing and Republican Party sliding into fanatical racism-fueled conspiracy theory on behalf of, and encouraged by, the most hated President in American history losing his damn mind about not winning a second term. I mean, Trump was already going down in history based on his personality, Twitter trolling and all around incompetence even before he purposely undermined and politicized America's COVID response, creating the atmosphere of fear and paranoia that led to armed marches in the streets. And then came the "stop the steal" movement, which had already committed violence prior to an armed insurrection against the government itself. People will definitely still be talking about this in a few years. People will be writing theses on this. You could argue this isn't "our" 9/11, but only for the relative lack of violence. In terms of the repercussions on America's cultural, social and political landscape, it is, and it isn't leaving the cultural consciousness for a long time.
hooande 6y ago
Millions of Americans watched the Capitol insurrection play out live on tv. That has an impact on the national psyche that's very similar to a terrorist attack. People aren't going to forget about it because we all witnessed it together. It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not
- abduhl 6y ago
  You honestly think that THE defining event of Trump's presidency is going to be the Capitol riot? You don't think it's the bungled response to coronavirus that landed us all locked up in our houses for over a year, the assassination of an Iranian leader on another sovereign's soil, the trade war with China, the tax reform bill he pushed through, the Mueller probe, the BLM protests, the "stolen" SCOTUS seats, or any number of other things he did? You think the defining moment of his presidency is something that he only tangentially had a hand in that resulted in a couple arrests and a stolen podium? That's a hot take.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Those are slow burns. The attack on the capital was a severe jolt to our national psyche. You may not want them to be different, but they are.
    - abduhl 6y ago
      I disagree. The things that happened at the Capitol stick out in your mind because they are the most recent thing that happened. Every moment I posted was hailed as "the most important thing to happen in our lifetime" when it occurred. This is one of the big problems with our society now: sensationalism rules and our collective memories are short. It's just hard for me to believe that in fifty years I'll be saying "oh boy you remember those dudes that broke into the Capitol?" as I stand in line for my bi-monthly mRNA booster shot that the newly appointed 99th Supreme Court Justice (after the Court has been packed, of course) has ruled is mandatory for all citizens.
mattnewton 6y ago
> Firstly, nobody was terrorized. This doesn’t seem to be true. Several elected officials have expressed fear they or their family would be harmed by members of the far right, most notably Rep. Pete Meijer (R-MI), who was one of the few house republicans to certify the results of the election: “I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families,” He also said “That was what weighed on the colleague in mind’s conscience, and the last thing that that individual said to me, concern about the safety of that individual’s family, if that individual voted to certify the election... That is where the rhetoric has brought us. That is the degree of fear that’s been created.” In Facebook comments, one rioter wrote: “Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in.” “We get our President or we die,” they added. “NOTHING else will achieve this goal.” https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-says-gop-lawmaker-on-going-against-trump.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-s... https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-intimidate-legislators https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-int... Sure seems like terrorism to me. Now, do I think we need increased surveillance? Absolutely not, it was largely planned in public on Facebook. We just need an FBI that takes this movement’s threats more seriously. Exposing that some far right elements act like terrorists is one way of calling attention to the seriousness of the problem. Edit: I also think the appeal that they might somehow treat BLM protestors even worse is not worth considering much. I don’t identify with any “side” that uses the threat of physical violence against elected officials to change their vote, even if they were to do it for a “good cause”. I don’t want that to be an available tool for BLM or anyone either.
a_new_start1 6y ago
There is something deeply wrong with you. If I ever find out who you are...
elihu 6y ago
The capitol was ransacked by a non-homogeneous group as far as I can tell. Some people were probably there just to wave some flags and take some selfies, as you suggest. Others were erecting gallows, setting bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters, breaking windows, carrying zip-tie handcuffs into the building, actively searching the building for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, fighting with the police, and so on. (This is just the stuff we know about.) I think it would be a stretch to call all the rioters terrorists, but I think a lot of them would fit any reasonable definition and they were well-organized, intentional, and numerous. Even if a terrorist attack is unsuccessful or does not kill or injure a large number of people that doesn't make it not terrorism. And I think there was a real risk that members of Congress could have been kidnapped, injured, or killed if things had gone a little bit differently.
filoeleven 6y ago
There is already a huge gulf between how BLM protests were treated and how the capitol protest was. There’s a photo from a BLM protest in DC where the Lincoln Memorial steps (not the capitol building, which is widely-stated misinformation) had lines of National Guard troops stationed on it. Compare that with the tiny Capitol Police force guarding the Capitol building while one of the most important state functions was in progress, with much of the executive branch succession and the legislative branch in attendance. National Guard troops were denied both in advance and for a while during the ensuing riot, citing concerns about “the optics.” Any meaningful discussion of protest response and overreach, potential or actual, has to account for that disparity. As you said, some rioters were “planning terrible deeds,” which increasingly clearly means “kidnapping or executing congresspeople and the VP for not keeping DJT in power.” This raises the issue to the level of sedition (organized incitement to rebellion) and insurrection (actual acts of violence against the state or its officers). Maybe “terrorism” doesn’t broadly apply here, and it’s better to refer to the capitol invaders as “insurrectionists.” Trump, the other government supporters of the protest, and any private backers should be labeled as “seditionists.” I am less likely to push for a “terrorism” label if I can be confident that the other two labels will be applied and prosecuted as such.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  Alternative take: Maybe DC Police and others learned some restraint in the ~6 months in between and tried to avoid escalating the situation in the earliest moments. Even if it was misplaced, isn't that a better opening mindset?
  - filoeleven 6y ago
    That’s a fair take concerning the Capitol police (who are a separate force from DC police, just FYI). But even the calls to have the National Guard on standby, given new intel 1 or 2 days before the event that it was going to be bigger than expected, were denied before the event. Then when things began to escalate, calls for National Guard assistance were denied by the Pentagon for at least a full hour. In a rapidly-evolving situation, especially when the Capitol building has been breached and it takes time to summon the troops since they weren’t on standby, that is an eternity.
triceratops 6y ago
> I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all. We still talk about the Clinton impeachment today, and the acts that precipitated it. Students of history still study the Andrew Johnson impeachment. You're being naive if you think an unprecedented, record, second impeachment of a president will be forgotten that quickly.
tigershark 6y ago
They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints. Their intent was to kidnap and kill the politicians and they almost succeeded if it wasn’t for the hero that killed the terrorist that was breaching the only door left between them and the politicians. You are disingenuous if for you this wasn’t a terrorist attack just because they didn’t succeed and only managed to kill some cops instead of some politicians.
- masonic 6y ago
  They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints. How many functional "bombs" were deployed? How many people were shot (by trespassers)? How many abductions occurred?
  - mushbino 6y ago
    Luckily they never got to their intended targets.
  - CRConrad 6y ago
    So a bungled incompetent terrorist attack isn't a terrorist attack?

vkou 6y ago

The violence and property damage wasn't the problem. Democracies can survive some broken windows, stolen laptops, and yes, even people getting hurt and killed at a protest. This sort of thing has happened for decades and centuries. What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.

nostromo 6y ago
> What they can't survive is... And yet, here we are, democracy intact.
- lambda_obrien 6y ago
  Are we? Because to me there are huge cracks opening up. Death toll isn't the important part about terrorist attacks, it's the responses that count, and the response to this seems about the same or more extreme as 9/11 to me, and I lived through that on a military base. I don't remember 25k troops being deployed into DC for 9/11.
  - cmurf 6y ago
    And that was a foreign attack. 25000 national guard are in D.C. due to a domestic enemy, white nationalist American terrorists, making credible threats. It's self-evidently anti-Democratic. The last time this nation got into a dispute over an election where the minority decided to just set it aside and not submit to the result, resulted in the bloodiest revolution to date.
- vkou 6y ago
  Democracy only works because we all believe that it works. When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power. I think it's far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight - not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.
- failrate 6y ago
  These actors haven't finished. The pattern so far is that the current admin has tried every single dirty trick they could muster to avoid leaving power. Even if something happens to Trump today, these folks will recrystallize around a new cult leader.
- eganist 6y ago
  > > What they can't survive is... > And yet, here we are, democracy intact. You keep cutting off quotes without including the relevant details. You need to stop doing that. The original quote: > What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented. The last part of that sentence you cropped (emphasized by me) didn't come to pass because it was interrupted by Capitol contingency plans and Shelter In Place protocols, among other things. It very well could've been successful; we're lucky to not know that outcome.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  There was an excellent article by someone from a place where a failed coup led to a real one a couple of years hence. Democracy is not 'intact', it is now damaged, and whether or not manage to repair it remains to be seen. The most dangerous thing you can do now is to think this is behind you and from here on in everything is normal. It isn't and it probably won't be for some time. If you manage the next two transfers of power at the end of election cycles without further mishap I'd say that you can say democracy is intact. Until then all bets are off. Edit: I wished I could locate the article, so far no luck. edit2: finally found it in my history, this article was from 11 November 2020, and very prescient: https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-having-one-now-437934b1dac3 https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-...
  - koolba 6y ago
    The only worse than the the content of that link was the writing style.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Thank you for your contribution. Note the error in the one line comment you made.
      - koolba 6y ago
        Ha! Well I'll take unintentional typos over the drivel in that article any day of the week.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        So far he's made the right call though. Note when it was written, and what has happened since.
        koolba 6y ago
        Predicting that somebody stupid would do something stupid after the last election does not make one Nostradamus. He also claims that Trump is refusing to leave and is leveraging the military to facilitate that. That's bunk.
- NovaS1X 6y ago
  Right, just like Germany survived the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 just fine, democracy intact. People are fools to think this is all just suddenly over now that Trump is gone and big-tech de-platformed one tiny social media platform.
  - LarvaFX 6y ago
    Steve Banon has been pardoned. Stay tuned…
    - NovaS1X 6y ago
      And now Trump is considering starting a "Patriot Party" due to his lack of support in the GOP for overturning the election. Spitting image of the failed Putsch when Hitler realized, in Jail, that a coup d'état wasn't going to work and they needed to attack at a different angle, a democratic angle, and be seen as a legitimate political party. It's happening just like it was always going to, like clockwork. Americans aren't out of this yet.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

eganist 6y ago

> Firstly, nobody was terrorized. I can count six DC-area thousand+ employee firms that provided grief counseling in response. And as a reminder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - even if a subset of people implemented violence with political ends in mind (breaking in, beating innocent people, attempting to take hostages, all in the name of overturning a legitimate election), at the very least, that subset meets the precise definition of "terrorists." > No, this wasn't "our 9/11." The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814. > I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds, and the violence and property damage is inexcusable. Yes, using the rest of the people in the crowd as human shields, but nonetheless: > But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours. This isn't a valid defense to any crime literally ever.

nostromo 6y ago
If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism. The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11. The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
- eganist 6y ago
  > If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism. > The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11. > The storming of the capitol was not at all similar. Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn't similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind. I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.
  - rhexs 6y ago

0xEFF 6y ago

The people huddled in offices with an angry mob banging on the door were terrorized.

bigiain 6y ago
And so were a nation that believes in democracy and democratic elections.
- LarvaFX 6y ago
  True. Here in Germany, we were very frightened by the attempts of the president to attack the election. It looked like a banana republic to be honest.
  - BetterDays 6y ago
    >True. Here in Germany, we were very frightened by the attempts of the president to attack the election. It looked like a banana republic to be honest. Also German here. I watched the deepstate cabal steal an election through fraudulent mail-in voting. Bland career politician Joe Biden received more votes than Barack Obama, who was hailed like the second coming of Jesus. Must be disgruntled Donald Trump voters? No at all. Trump received even more votes than in 2016. This election was shady with Biden losing most of the swing states and almost all of the traditional bellwethers.

King-Aaron 6y ago

I'm deeply saddened to see so many people on Hacker News trying so hard to downplay this.

nostromo 6y ago
Saying something wasn't terrorism doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful or stupid or terrible. It just means it wasn't terrorism.
- King-Aaron 6y ago
  The definition - 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims' - seems to fit the event we're discussing.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor's apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists. The media is not even handed here.
    - King-Aaron 6y ago
      Yes, there is credence to the old saying: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
      - sojournerc 6y ago
        This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol. I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere. I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.

krapp 6y ago

>doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all. Unlike the Senate bombing, the Capitol attack was the coda on four years of the American right wing and Republican Party sliding into fanatical racism-fueled conspiracy theory on behalf of, and encouraged by, the most hated President in American history losing his damn mind about not winning a second term. I mean, Trump was already going down in history based on his personality, Twitter trolling and all around incompetence even before he purposely undermined and politicized America's COVID response, creating the atmosphere of fear and paranoia that led to armed marches in the streets. And then came the "stop the steal" movement, which had already committed violence prior to an armed insurrection against the government itself. People will definitely still be talking about this in a few years. People will be writing theses on this. You could argue this isn't "our" 9/11, but only for the relative lack of violence. In terms of the repercussions on America's cultural, social and political landscape, it is, and it isn't leaving the cultural consciousness for a long time.

hooande 6y ago

Millions of Americans watched the Capitol insurrection play out live on tv. That has an impact on the national psyche that's very similar to a terrorist attack. People aren't going to forget about it because we all witnessed it together. It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not

abduhl 6y ago
You honestly think that THE defining event of Trump's presidency is going to be the Capitol riot? You don't think it's the bungled response to coronavirus that landed us all locked up in our houses for over a year, the assassination of an Iranian leader on another sovereign's soil, the trade war with China, the tax reform bill he pushed through, the Mueller probe, the BLM protests, the "stolen" SCOTUS seats, or any number of other things he did? You think the defining moment of his presidency is something that he only tangentially had a hand in that resulted in a couple arrests and a stolen podium? That's a hot take.
- selectodude 6y ago
  Those are slow burns. The attack on the capital was a severe jolt to our national psyche. You may not want them to be different, but they are.
  - abduhl 6y ago
    I disagree. The things that happened at the Capitol stick out in your mind because they are the most recent thing that happened. Every moment I posted was hailed as "the most important thing to happen in our lifetime" when it occurred. This is one of the big problems with our society now: sensationalism rules and our collective memories are short. It's just hard for me to believe that in fifty years I'll be saying "oh boy you remember those dudes that broke into the Capitol?" as I stand in line for my bi-monthly mRNA booster shot that the newly appointed 99th Supreme Court Justice (after the Court has been packed, of course) has ruled is mandatory for all citizens.

mattnewton 6y ago

> Firstly, nobody was terrorized. This doesn’t seem to be true. Several elected officials have expressed fear they or their family would be harmed by members of the far right, most notably Rep. Pete Meijer (R-MI), who was one of the few house republicans to certify the results of the election: “I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families,” He also said “That was what weighed on the colleague in mind’s conscience, and the last thing that that individual said to me, concern about the safety of that individual’s family, if that individual voted to certify the election... That is where the rhetoric has brought us. That is the degree of fear that’s been created.” In Facebook comments, one rioter wrote: “Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in.” “We get our President or we die,” they added. “NOTHING else will achieve this goal.” https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-says-gop-lawmaker-on-going-against-trump.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-s... https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-intimidate-legislators https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-int... Sure seems like terrorism to me. Now, do I think we need increased surveillance? Absolutely not, it was largely planned in public on Facebook. We just need an FBI that takes this movement’s threats more seriously. Exposing that some far right elements act like terrorists is one way of calling attention to the seriousness of the problem. Edit: I also think the appeal that they might somehow treat BLM protestors even worse is not worth considering much. I don’t identify with any “side” that uses the threat of physical violence against elected officials to change their vote, even if they were to do it for a “good cause”. I don’t want that to be an available tool for BLM or anyone either.

a_new_start1 6y ago

There is something deeply wrong with you. If I ever find out who you are...

elihu 6y ago

The capitol was ransacked by a non-homogeneous group as far as I can tell. Some people were probably there just to wave some flags and take some selfies, as you suggest. Others were erecting gallows, setting bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters, breaking windows, carrying zip-tie handcuffs into the building, actively searching the building for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, fighting with the police, and so on. (This is just the stuff we know about.) I think it would be a stretch to call all the rioters terrorists, but I think a lot of them would fit any reasonable definition and they were well-organized, intentional, and numerous. Even if a terrorist attack is unsuccessful or does not kill or injure a large number of people that doesn't make it not terrorism. And I think there was a real risk that members of Congress could have been kidnapped, injured, or killed if things had gone a little bit differently.

filoeleven 6y ago

There is already a huge gulf between how BLM protests were treated and how the capitol protest was. There’s a photo from a BLM protest in DC where the Lincoln Memorial steps (not the capitol building, which is widely-stated misinformation) had lines of National Guard troops stationed on it. Compare that with the tiny Capitol Police force guarding the Capitol building while one of the most important state functions was in progress, with much of the executive branch succession and the legislative branch in attendance. National Guard troops were denied both in advance and for a while during the ensuing riot, citing concerns about “the optics.” Any meaningful discussion of protest response and overreach, potential or actual, has to account for that disparity. As you said, some rioters were “planning terrible deeds,” which increasingly clearly means “kidnapping or executing congresspeople and the VP for not keeping DJT in power.” This raises the issue to the level of sedition (organized incitement to rebellion) and insurrection (actual acts of violence against the state or its officers). Maybe “terrorism” doesn’t broadly apply here, and it’s better to refer to the capitol invaders as “insurrectionists.” Trump, the other government supporters of the protest, and any private backers should be labeled as “seditionists.” I am less likely to push for a “terrorism” label if I can be confident that the other two labels will be applied and prosecuted as such.

caseysoftware 6y ago
Alternative take: Maybe DC Police and others learned some restraint in the ~6 months in between and tried to avoid escalating the situation in the earliest moments. Even if it was misplaced, isn't that a better opening mindset?
- filoeleven 6y ago
  That’s a fair take concerning the Capitol police (who are a separate force from DC police, just FYI). But even the calls to have the National Guard on standby, given new intel 1 or 2 days before the event that it was going to be bigger than expected, were denied before the event. Then when things began to escalate, calls for National Guard assistance were denied by the Pentagon for at least a full hour. In a rapidly-evolving situation, especially when the Capitol building has been breached and it takes time to summon the troops since they weren’t on standby, that is an eternity.

triceratops 6y ago

> I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all. We still talk about the Clinton impeachment today, and the acts that precipitated it. Students of history still study the Andrew Johnson impeachment. You're being naive if you think an unprecedented, record, second impeachment of a president will be forgotten that quickly.

tigershark 6y ago

They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints. Their intent was to kidnap and kill the politicians and they almost succeeded if it wasn’t for the hero that killed the terrorist that was breaching the only door left between them and the politicians. You are disingenuous if for you this wasn’t a terrorist attack just because they didn’t succeed and only managed to kill some cops instead of some politicians.

masonic 6y ago
They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints. How many functional "bombs" were deployed? How many people were shot (by trespassers)? How many abductions occurred?
- mushbino 6y ago
  Luckily they never got to their intended targets.
- CRConrad 6y ago
  So a bungled incompetent terrorist attack isn't a terrorist attack?