3 ms·

Here's the AP story: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-national-security-terrorism-899caf47624dd8741d04f73e65659e68 https://apnews.com/article/united-sta

• rafale 5y ago
  Jan 6 doesn't fall under that definition. It wasn't systematic.
  • lookalike74 5y ago
    It absolutely was and there's extensive documentation on who paid for it and how it came about.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • Invictus0 5y ago
    It wasn't even terror.
    • dkobia 5y ago
      5 people died as a result.
      • Invictus0 5y ago
        Quantity of death should have no impact on whether something is terror or not. 10 people died at Astroworld, that was obviously not a terror attack. If the Boston bombings had merely injured people instead of killed them--or even if it had miraculously failed and hurt no one--we would obviously still call that a terror attack. No one is going to be scared to visit the Capitol on January 6, 2022 or 2023, unlike how people were afraid to go to las vegas or the Boston marathon after the attacks.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • ryan93 5y ago
        Mostly rioters or suicide later.
      • yucky 5y ago
        Would you say this is an honest statement, or an intentionally misleading one? Follow up question - with thousands of hours of footage of the events, has anybody been charged with any murders? Last question, why would you post an intentionally misleading statement like that, do you think it helps your argument or hurts it?
        • beeboop 5y ago
          The comment you're replying to is an example of what they meant by Trump derangement syndrome. People convince themselves of things that are blatantly just not accurate because "orange man bad".
    • shrimpx 5y ago
      Trump's and Giuliani's incessant campaign can be seen as domestic terror: "to intimidate and coerce a civilian population", "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". The capitol "tourist visit" were boots on the ground, and can themselves be seen as both terrorists and victims of terror. They were intimidated and coerced by trump ("your country will be taken from you unless you fight like hell", etc.) into themselves using force and violence to coerce congress into overthrowing the vote certification. Ultimately DOJ and the courts will settle this discussion.
  • yucky 5y ago
    It was if the BLM riots of the previous summer count as well. There doesn't seem to be a difference when looking at the two of them subjectively.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• IAmGraydon 5y ago
  The entire thing is a bit odd, as we’ve always had an agency that investigates domestic terrorists. It’s called the FBI.
  • ethbr0 5y ago
    The FBI is part of the DoJ, and typically has task forces comprised of personnel from both organizations. So, this is tantamount to saying "We take domestic terrorism seriously enough to assign dedicated resources to it."
• orang2tang 5y ago
  [flagged]
• nabla9 5y ago
  > "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Interesting side effect of this definition is that because the main effect of terrorism is not material or human casualties, but terror, it's usually less damaging way of waging a war than conventional warfare. There are typically more civilian casualties in conventional warfare where civilians are just collateral than terrorist campaigns that target civilians. Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF > The costs of terrorism very often come mostly from the fear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) it characteristically inspires (qualities stoked by the terrorism indus- try), not from its direct effects which are usually comparatively limited. Therefore, policies designed to deal with terrorism should focus more on reducing fear and anxiety as inexpensively as possible than on objectively reducing the rather limited dangers terrorism is likely actually to pose. Doing nothing (or at least refraining from overreacting) after a terrorist attack is not necessarily unacceptable, and, despite U. S. overreaction, the campaign against terror is generally going rather well because, no matter how much they might disagree on other issues (most notably on war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states to cooperate to deal with a common problem ‘terrorism industry, an entity that includes not only various risk entrepreneurs and bureaucrats, but also most of the media and nearly all politicians.
• tbp105 5y ago
  Your definition doesn't really matter... it is defined in criminal code https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter113B&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par... The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States