3 ms·

Yes, we agree that Trump's action were deplorable, borderline treasonous/seditious. But why are so many unwilling to admit/conceded/realize that the US Capitol

by jariel 6y ago

Yes, we agree that Trump's action were deplorable, borderline treasonous/seditious. But why are so many unwilling to admit/conceded/realize that the US Capitol was very clearly warned of impending problems, and refused help in a very public way. If this were any different, 'normal' president that had a rally that got out of hand, we would be blaming the officials who were straight up told of problems in preparation. Also, very unfortunately, this situation very well shows us how 'freedom of expression' has a dark side as well, in that it allows people to orchestrate violence. It's rare, but it it will happen. So we have to 'find a way' to not have the VP almost assassinated while not becoming China. It's a problem.

dragontamer 6y ago
> But why are so many unwilling to admit/conceded/realize that the US Capitol was very clearly warned of impending problems, and refused help in a very public way. Because on January 5th, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys weren't considered a threat. That changed on January 6th. I still remember the debates when Biden pointed out that the Proud Boys could be a threat on national TV. Within my circle of friends, that caused some debate. I've had only minor experiences with the Proud Boys: but I generally remember them as those dumbasses with guns at protests (and I didn't really think of them as a threat, especially in a town like DC where marching with guns is illegal). True story: the general feeling in my circle of friends was that Biden was exaggerating the threat. None of us were proud of Trump's answer either, but for Biden to call them out explicitly still seemed unusual. Of course, that changed on January 6th when Proud Boys / Oath Keepers invaded the capitol and demonstrated themselves to be a threat. --------------- In hindsight: we all had a blind spot for the damage right-wing protesters could cause. They've been marching for years with guns and getting rowdier and rowdier. But I think we generally still trusted them to "do the right thing". Generally speaking, we do want to support the police. And seeing people march with pro-police signs is usually a decent thing (racism of Blue Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter aside, I don't think anyone disagrees with the core message of "Police matter" and "African Americans matter"). It isn't until one of those groups starts beating literal Police officers with their Blue-lives matter flags before we realize that they too were just in the political game, playing us all along.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Because on January 5th, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys weren't considered a threat. That changed on January 6th." This is not true. "FBI alert about possible ‘war’ against Congress reached D.C. and Capitol Police on eve of attack, deepening security questions" [1] "FBI, NYPD told Capitol Police about possibility of violence before riot, senior officials say" [2] The FBI issued direct warnings to the Capitol Hill police and others, including such language: "The FBI issued a report from its Norfolk, Va., field office on Jan. 5 that detailed specific calls for violence on Jan. 6, including those that suggested protesters go to the Capitol “ready for war.” [3] Literally 'ready for war'. “We did communicate that information in a timely fashion to the Capitol Police and MPD in not one, not two, but three different ways,” (FBI statement) [4] There's clear evidence that the FBI made a stark warning + assessment and made every attempt to communicate it. Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund says that he 'didn't get the memo' but admitted his agency actually did, that he didn't see it himself. It seems pretty clear that the Capitol Hill police and DC Government were informed of the severe potentiality and should have at least had reinforcements or communication channels open if needed. It's hard to know what exact actions they could have taken, but at very least having supplementary support at the ready would have been prudent, rather than have to wait hours for DoD etc. to start moving gears. FYI "True story: the general feeling in my circle of friends " None of us really believed the Proud Boys were that big of a threat - but 'your friends' opinions (and mine) don't matter really, do they? When the FBI is submitting clear and stark intelligence information, that's what matters. It's not about 'how we felt' it's about the material and actionable information available. Finally here is the DC Mayor's public statement indicating she doesn't want/need further support, and that they are prepared. Dated Jan 5. [5] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-intelligence/2021/02/23/1cdfd126-75f4-11eb-ae66-8b9e3c6918a1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-intelli... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-nypd-told-capitol-police-about-possibility-violence-riot-senior-n1253646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-nypd-told-capi... [3] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/540081-ex-capitol-police-chief-did-not-get-fbi-report-warning-of-violence https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/540081-ex-capit... [4] https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/03/capitol-police-chief-disputes-fbis-account-of-pre-insurrection-warnings/ https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/03/capitol-police-chief-dis... [5] https://twitter.com/mayorbowser/status/1346530358674792466?lang=en https://twitter.com/mayorbowser/status/1346530358674792466?l...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krapp 6y ago
>But why are so many unwilling to admit/conceded/realize that the US Capitol was very clearly warned of impending problems, and refused help in a very public way. You have to remember this forum is full of people who supported Trump, QAnon and the insurrection, and they make an effort to reframe and distort the narrative at every opportunity. You can't assume good faith in threads like this, even though the site guidelines require you to.
- jariel 6y ago
  On HN people are commenting good faith and overwhelmingly are not Trump supporters, and definitely not QAnon. In fact I suggest it's slightly left/anarcho/libertarian for the most part, with some hot-button issues where I feel the discussion gets out of hand. Trump, Bitcoin, Security, Hackers, Whistleblowers, NIMYBISM are all issues in which I feel there's what I would call a 'lack of maturity' or more politely an 'overabundance of idealism' in getting to the nature of especially macro issues, something resulting from 'highly intelligent and academic viewpoints' of those who haven't generally had to contend with the reality and mechanics of power, responsibility and public communications. Everything is intellectual in rhetoric, but it's 100% 'making sausage' in the real world. A kind of populist, intellectual idealism here. But it's definitely in 'good faith'.

by jariel 6y ago

dragontamer 6y ago

> But why are so many unwilling to admit/conceded/realize that the US Capitol was very clearly warned of impending problems, and refused help in a very public way. Because on January 5th, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys weren't considered a threat. That changed on January 6th. I still remember the debates when Biden pointed out that the Proud Boys could be a threat on national TV. Within my circle of friends, that caused some debate. I've had only minor experiences with the Proud Boys: but I generally remember them as those dumbasses with guns at protests (and I didn't really think of them as a threat, especially in a town like DC where marching with guns is illegal). True story: the general feeling in my circle of friends was that Biden was exaggerating the threat. None of us were proud of Trump's answer either, but for Biden to call them out explicitly still seemed unusual. Of course, that changed on January 6th when Proud Boys / Oath Keepers invaded the capitol and demonstrated themselves to be a threat. --------------- In hindsight: we all had a blind spot for the damage right-wing protesters could cause. They've been marching for years with guns and getting rowdier and rowdier. But I think we generally still trusted them to "do the right thing". Generally speaking, we do want to support the police. And seeing people march with pro-police signs is usually a decent thing (racism of Blue Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter aside, I don't think anyone disagrees with the core message of "Police matter" and "African Americans matter"). It isn't until one of those groups starts beating literal Police officers with their Blue-lives matter flags before we realize that they too were just in the political game, playing us all along.

jariel 6y ago
"Because on January 5th, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys weren't considered a threat. That changed on January 6th." This is not true. "FBI alert about possible ‘war’ against Congress reached D.C. and Capitol Police on eve of attack, deepening security questions" [1] "FBI, NYPD told Capitol Police about possibility of violence before riot, senior officials say" [2] The FBI issued direct warnings to the Capitol Hill police and others, including such language: "The FBI issued a report from its Norfolk, Va., field office on Jan. 5 that detailed specific calls for violence on Jan. 6, including those that suggested protesters go to the Capitol “ready for war.” [3] Literally 'ready for war'. “We did communicate that information in a timely fashion to the Capitol Police and MPD in not one, not two, but three different ways,” (FBI statement) [4] There's clear evidence that the FBI made a stark warning + assessment and made every attempt to communicate it. Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund says that he 'didn't get the memo' but admitted his agency actually did, that he didn't see it himself. It seems pretty clear that the Capitol Hill police and DC Government were informed of the severe potentiality and should have at least had reinforcements or communication channels open if needed. It's hard to know what exact actions they could have taken, but at very least having supplementary support at the ready would have been prudent, rather than have to wait hours for DoD etc. to start moving gears. FYI "True story: the general feeling in my circle of friends " None of us really believed the Proud Boys were that big of a threat - but 'your friends' opinions (and mine) don't matter really, do they? When the FBI is submitting clear and stark intelligence information, that's what matters. It's not about 'how we felt' it's about the material and actionable information available. Finally here is the DC Mayor's public statement indicating she doesn't want/need further support, and that they are prepared. Dated Jan 5. [5] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-intelligence/2021/02/23/1cdfd126-75f4-11eb-ae66-8b9e3c6918a1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-intelli... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-nypd-told-capitol-police-about-possibility-violence-riot-senior-n1253646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-nypd-told-capi... [3] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/540081-ex-capitol-police-chief-did-not-get-fbi-report-warning-of-violence https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/540081-ex-capit... [4] https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/03/capitol-police-chief-disputes-fbis-account-of-pre-insurrection-warnings/ https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/03/capitol-police-chief-dis... [5] https://twitter.com/mayorbowser/status/1346530358674792466?lang=en https://twitter.com/mayorbowser/status/1346530358674792466?l...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

krapp 6y ago

>But why are so many unwilling to admit/conceded/realize that the US Capitol was very clearly warned of impending problems, and refused help in a very public way. You have to remember this forum is full of people who supported Trump, QAnon and the insurrection, and they make an effort to reframe and distort the narrative at every opportunity. You can't assume good faith in threads like this, even though the site guidelines require you to.

jariel 6y ago
On HN people are commenting good faith and overwhelmingly are not Trump supporters, and definitely not QAnon. In fact I suggest it's slightly left/anarcho/libertarian for the most part, with some hot-button issues where I feel the discussion gets out of hand. Trump, Bitcoin, Security, Hackers, Whistleblowers, NIMYBISM are all issues in which I feel there's what I would call a 'lack of maturity' or more politely an 'overabundance of idealism' in getting to the nature of especially macro issues, something resulting from 'highly intelligent and academic viewpoints' of those who haven't generally had to contend with the reality and mechanics of power, responsibility and public communications. Everything is intellectual in rhetoric, but it's 100% 'making sausage' in the real world. A kind of populist, intellectual idealism here. But it's definitely in 'good faith'.