Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

Post by tomcam » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #564

zionic wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call CHAZ? Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

You mean that thing[1] > The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands: > 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent, > 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and > 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes. Is that what you meant? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hi…

Post by pstuart » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

King-Aaron wrote: post #532

sojournerc wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, there's a few things to unpack here. 1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is un…

Post by heleninboodler » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:00 AM UTC

sol_invictus wrote: post #501

jasonlotito wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of which were the goals of CHAZ, both were related to gangs that happened to be there. Context matters. One group had specific goals, none of which involved killing. The other group specifically was calling out to kill someone.

So it’s OK that someone died, because your political framework is aligned with some ethereal goal of CHOP. Based on the definitions stated in this thread, you support terrorism.

Post by rat87 » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:04 AM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #678

ruanmed wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting "bogus" proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted? P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.

If "telling people that the election was a fraud" is equivalent to encouraging insurrection, you'd need to convict everyone who pushed the Trump/Russia narrative for years. So basically every leftist media entity and person and many of the politicians too. Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth. People are allowed to question election integrity.

Post by BoorishBears » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:06 AM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #545

tomp wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the biggest difference between successful breach of the Capitol and an unsuccessful attack on the White House is the defence? Clearly the attackers/rioters had malicious intent both times, clearly they very extremely violent. The only real difference is the success/failure of the security forces.

That's one of the biggest differences, yes... did I imply otherwise? The other two are the trigger and the timing. The trigger being the President, and the timing, while Congress was in session trying to confirm the next President were what took it even further into the public consciousness.