Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:27:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2021 20:43:29 GMT -5
You can only use a taser once, as far as I've read. The thug breaking in through the window had a backpack, which could have contained a bomb. That's why protecting lawmakers in the highest office in the land is different than protecting the local Target store. Nice touch on thug. Yes, lawmakers are a superior, higher up grade of human, than mere shoppers at target. No, they’re no “better” of a human than I am. The lengths taken to protect them is not because they are a “superior, higher up grade of human”, but because of the positions they’re in and how important their roles are in our government and our nation. Even the ones I despise, I don’t have to respect the person to respect their position. My life and the rest of the mere shoppers at Target are all just as valuable as any of theirs. But an attack on me or other Target shoppers is an attack on an average citizen just going about their life. Still absolutely shouldn’t happen, is a tragedy and deserving of justice to the umpteenth letter of the law. It’s still a little different than an attack on the people carrying out official duties of the federal government of the United States of America. January 6th wasn’t just an attack on them personally (the ones at least some in the mob wanted to find and harm/kill), it was an attack on our government….. our democracy, and our nation. But I think you already knew all that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 0:48:54 GMT -5
terrorism is defined by the state department as non state actors engaging in activities which are designed to disrupt or do harm with the aim to affect political change among those that are part of the state which is targeted.
Jan 6th is textbook terrorism.
consider this: if the crowd of 10k was Al Qaida, they would simply have been gunned down on the capitol steps.
Terrorism? I should have said "destroy, maim or murder" rather than "distrupt or do harm", which MIGHT apply to protest (though I don't think doing harm is part of the plan with protest).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 0:53:51 GMT -5
I see this as a meaningful description of terrorism that is useful to distinguishing it from other acts. Although the term is not subject to a universally agreed definition, terrorism can be broadly understood as a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and thereby attain political or ideological goals. Contemporary terrorist violence is thus distinguished in law from “ordinary” violence by the classic terrorist “triangle”: A attacks B, to convince or coerce C to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A. The attack spreads fear as the violence is directed, unexpectedly, against innocent victims, which in turn puts pressure on third parties such as governments to change their policy or position. link I agree with that definition, and was paraphrasing it in my own.
however, I should point out that our foreign wars also meet this definition. when we enter a country like Iraq for "regime change" we are committing acts of violence to precipitate political change. ergo, we are a terrorist state.
this is, in fact, how the world sees us, which is why we are one of TWO countries to be prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for terrorism by the world court. this action, of course, inspired us to leave the world court immediately. can't have a little thing like international law stopping our terrorist activities. which, of course, makes us no better than the people we pretend to hate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 0:54:52 GMT -5
I should also add that terrorism is remarkably effective. which is why it is growing as a method of warfare presently and in the future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 0:56:38 GMT -5
Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror? I refer to it as terrorism because I don’t like the Trumpists trying to water this act down after the fact by calling it simply a protest. These people were attempting to subvert the validation of a duly elected president from happening, and at least some of them were attempting to at least capture congress (remember the guy with the wrist restraints?) and possibly lynch Pence (someone brought the rope). It became half asses in the end, but it could have been much much worse. I call that terrorism. I think it comports fairly well with the definition of terrorism that bills posted in 287.
and I think it had the desired impact. Republicans were heard to say that we should not impeach Trump, to give one visible example, because it might escalate the violence. that is PRECISELY what terrorism is designed to do. to instill FEAR OF FURTHER VIOLENCE as a method of coercion.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on May 10, 2021 8:35:51 GMT -5
Going by the wealth of information prosecutors have available, not one charge of insurrection against anyone involved in the protest. That's what I know. ymam.proboards.com/post/3255969/thread
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 8:36:39 GMT -5
I refer to it as terrorism because I don’t like the Trumpists trying to water this act down after the fact by calling it simply a protest. These people were attempting to subvert the validation of a duly elected president from happening, and at least some of them were attempting to at least capture congress (remember the guy with the wrist restraints?) and possibly lynch Pence (someone brought the rope). It became half asses in the end, but it could have been much much worse. I call that terrorism. I think it comports fairly well with the definition of terrorism that bills posted in 287.
and I think it had the desired impact. Republicans were heard to say that we should not impeach Trump, to give one visible example, because it might escalate the violence. that is PRECISELY what terrorism is designed to do. to instill FEAR OF FURTHER VIOLENCE as a method of coercion.
If on January 6th there would have been an attack on the state capital of, say, Georgia and a communique that another state capital would be hit unless Trump were declared the winner of a second term, that would fit the definition I offered. The direct attack on the body engaged in the vote does not.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 8:46:09 GMT -5
Going by the wealth of information prosecutors have available, not one charge of insurrection against anyone involved in the protest. That's what I know. ymam.proboards.com/post/3255969/threadI also think the House Managers did an excellent job of laying out the case that former President Trump engaged in the incitement of an insurrection.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 8:55:15 GMT -5
I also think the House Managers did an excellent job of laying out the case that former President Trump engaged in the incitement of an insurrection. And the case was lost on incitement also. Looking at the case that was made, not the political vote on the charge.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on May 10, 2021 9:54:05 GMT -5
More armchair quarterbacking with no actual information. Opinions vary, until then there are no insurrection charges. You are correct. Currently, there are no insurrection charges. You seem to be implying that the Jan 6th event does not become an insurrection until the moment it is officially labeled as such when the first charges are filed. However, the event has already occurred. So it is what it is and exists "out there in the ether" (or what have you) regardless of the label attached. By the same logic, one could argue that from the point when a murderer kills someone until the point they are charged with (or would it be convicted of) murder, that no murder actually occurred. But in the meantime, the victim would still be dead, killed by the murderer. Technically and semantically, you may be correct, but that's not the way most people's conventional wisdom operates. Anyways, does that mean there will be no insurrection charges in the future? Only time will tell. I think there will be, although they may be charged as "sedition" or "seditious conspiracy". Do you think there will be such charges?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on May 10, 2021 10:33:00 GMT -5
Those sound like different ways to say the same thing? Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror? Agreed. I don't think I had great comprehension on my reading there. Your explanation makes sense - the shooter did not make an example of her, but was the first to breech the doors and therefore took the punishment. The fact that it turned out to scare off the rest of the people behind her was a bonus. Also, she got shot at the same time the heavily armed law enforcement showed up. That stopped people from continuing to try and get through that doorway. I'd wager that if they had gotten there 2 minutes earlier, no one would have been shot. Her death is (a) her responsibility for all her actions that day and (b) the responsibility of the lack of foresight by the Capitol police. Total shit show there.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 11:02:28 GMT -5
You are correct. Currently, there are no insurrection charges. You seem to be implying that the Jan 6th event does not become an insurrection until the moment it is officially labeled as such when the first charges are filed. However, the event has already occurred. So it is what it is and exists "out there in the ether" (or what have you) regardless of the label attached. By the same logic, one could argue that from the point when a murderer kills someone until the point they are charged with (or would it be convicted of) murder, that no murder actually occurred. But in the meantime, the victim would still be dead, killed by the murderer. Technically and semantically, you may be correct, but that's not the way most people's conventional wisdom operates. Anyways, does that mean there will be no insurrection charges in the future? Only time will tell. I think there will be, although they may be charged as "sedition" or "seditious conspiracy". Do you think there will be such charges? I go by technically, not the very subjective "most people's conventional wisdom". It's been 4 months, no evidence yet found to charge with insurrection. I don't use partisan/political authoritative declaration to name events. I would go with the quite obvious protest/riot. Current charge count April 22 @ 441 people Not one charge for insurrection. Something funny while searching last week... www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-schumer-says-erection-instead-of-insurrection-during-impeachment-trial-update/ar-BB1d0tYA Okay, a riot. That is a step. Now factor in the political intent of that riot. Put them together and what have you got
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 11:35:51 GMT -5
Okay, a riot. That is a step. Now factor in the political intent of that riot. Put them together and what have you got A political protest. Make all the authoritative declarations you want, deflect to partisan house managers losing their cases, doesn't change anything. After four months of going through evidence, with 441 cases, none with insurrection charges. There you go taking a step back. You identified it as a riot in your previous post. Now it is back to just protest. And I thought you were getting there. On the bright side, I did note that you got the person shot back into the broken window from her beating on the door by the door.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on May 10, 2021 11:50:40 GMT -5
You are correct. Currently, there are no insurrection charges. You seem to be implying that the Jan 6th event does not become an insurrection until the moment it is officially labeled as such when the first charges are filed. However, the event has already occurred. So it is what it is and exists "out there in the ether" (or what have you) regardless of the label attached. By the same logic, one could argue that from the point when a murderer kills someone until the point they are charged with (or would it be convicted of) murder, that no murder actually occurred. But in the meantime, the victim would still be dead, killed by the murderer. Technically and semantically, you may be correct, but that's not the way most people's conventional wisdom operates. Anyways, does that mean there will be no insurrection charges in the future? Only time will tell. I think there will be, although they may be charged as "sedition" or "seditious conspiracy". Do you think there will be such charges? I go by technically, not the very subjective "most people's conventional wisdom". It's been 4 months, no evidence yet found to charge with insurrection. I don't use partisan/political authoritative declaration to name events. I would go with the quite obvious protest/riot. Current charge count April 22 @ 441 people Not one charge for insurrection. Something funny while searching last week... www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-schumer-says-erection-instead-of-insurrection-during-impeachment-trial-update/ar-BB1d0tYA But now you are saying something different than the factual claim that no charges of insurrection have been filed. How do you know the DOJ presently has "no evidence yet found to charge with insurrection"? Maybe they have some amount of evidence, and are in the process of gathering more? Maybe they have enough evidence to charge, but are gathering even more to make their cases that much more bulletproof. Maybe they have all the evidence they need, or overwhelming evidence, and are now on the next steps of dotting all "i"s and crossing all "t"s before they formally file any charges? And maybe they are planning on filing said charges in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal. There are any number of situations that could exist where evidence has been obtained but charges have not yet been filed. And you are not in a position to know. Neither am I. Surely as a past successful business owner, you have experience with the legal system and are aware of the (slow) pace of legal proceedings? Personally, I have been involved in one lawsuit...a case MUCH smaller than the entirety of this one, consisting solely of a matter between myself and another entity. It took a year and a half from start to finish, and ended with a settlement. It didn't even make it to court or else it would've taken even longer. Four months is a mere blip on the legal timeline, especially given the enormity of the situation involved. But like I said, time will tell, and I'll ask again. Do you think there will eventually be charges of insurrection / sedition / seditious conspiracy toward one or more parties for the Jan 6 events?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 12:03:57 GMT -5
But now you are saying something different than the factual claim that no charges of insurrection have been filed. How do you know the DOJ presently has "no evidence yet found to charge with insurrection"? Maybe they have some amount of evidence, and are in the process of gathering more? Maybe they have enough evidence to charge, but are gathering even more to make their cases that much more bulletproof. Maybe they have all the evidence they need, or overwhelming evidence, and are now on the next steps of dotting all "i"s and crossing all "t"s before they formally file any charges? And maybe they are planning on filing said charges in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal. There are any number of situations that could exist where evidence has been obtained but charges have not yet been filed. And you are not in a position to know. Neither am I. Surely as a past successful business owner, you have experience with the legal system and are aware of the (slow) pace of legal proceedings? Personally, I have been involved in one lawsuit...a case MUCH smaller than the entirety of this one, consisting solely of a matter between myself and another entity. It took a year and a half from start to finish, and ended with a settlement. It didn't even make it to court or else it would've taken even longer. Four months is a mere blip on the legal timeline, especially given the enormity of the situation involved. But like I said, time will tell, and I'll ask again. Do you think there will eventually be charges of insurrection / sedition / seditious conspiracy toward one or more parties for the Jan 6 events? I want to add to the list of "maybe's". Prosecutional discretion might lead to a decision to not bring that particular (or similar) charge. I personally do not need governmental officials to tell me what word describes what I saw and heard take place leading upto and on that day. YMMV.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on May 10, 2021 12:16:14 GMT -5
No, they’re no “better” of a human than I am. The lengths taken to protect them is not because they are a “superior, higher up grade of human”, but because of the positions they’re in and how important their roles are in our government and our nation. Even the ones I despise, I don’t have to respect the person to respect their position. My life and the rest of the mere shoppers at Target are all just as valuable as any of theirs. But an attack on me or other Target shoppers is an attack on an average citizen just going about their life. Still absolutely shouldn’t happen, is a tragedy and deserving of justice to the umpteenth letter of the law. It’s still a little different than an attack on the people carrying out official duties of the federal government of the United States of America. January 6th wasn’t just an attack on them personally (the ones at least some in the mob wanted to find and harm/kill), it was an attack on our government….. our democracy, and our nation. But I think you already knew all that. Going by the wealth of information prosecutors have available, not one charge of insurrection against anyone involved in the protest. That's what I know. You have information for them, showing otherwise, to back your opinion ? Please post it. It was sarcasm on Target, my answer to lizard queen who took that stance. Reply #267 You know damn well I meant exactly what Pink said, but you're just proceeding going round and round trolling. That's all you have to argue this topic with--nothing but circles. Why don't you head back to the Boulder Colorado thread and read about the 9 new mass shootings last weekend? I'm sure you can counter with 9 stories of good guys with guns last weekend.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on May 10, 2021 12:22:55 GMT -5
I personally do not need governmental officials to tell me what word describes what I saw and heard take place leading up to and on that day. YMMV. And that is the glaring flaw in his line of argument. Who is the "source of truth" and by what authority must they apply a label before said label is decidedly so? In a legal situation, one could argue that the source of truth would be the authority creating and upholding the laws (i.e. the gov't) and that might make some sense, although there are holes in such an argument, like the murder situation I mentioned in my previous post. But why stop there? The argument could be extrapolated out to pretty much anything. Does someone have to label a sunrise before it's actually a sunrise? Perhaps from a linguistic standpoint, but the sun still rises every morning, no matter what it's a called. And hey, I just took a drink of water from my bottle, but did I really? Or do I have to label my action as such before it becomes reality? And do I really have the authority to do so, or am I not an adequate source of truth? And how would I get the authority, and from whom? And on and on into nonsensical oblivion. I mentioned the conventional wisdom aspect because that's pretty much a necessity for a society to function, unless they want to continually engage in pseudo-philosophical mental gymnastics to the point where all communication becomes useless. But that's just common sense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 15:56:45 GMT -5
I think it comports fairly well with the definition of terrorism that bills posted in 287.
and I think it had the desired impact. Republicans were heard to say that we should not impeach Trump, to give one visible example, because it might escalate the violence. that is PRECISELY what terrorism is designed to do. to instill FEAR OF FURTHER VIOLENCE as a method of coercion.
If on January 6th there would have been an attack on the state capital of, say, Georgia and a communique that another state capital would be hit unless Trump were declared the winner of a second term, that would fit the definition I offered. The direct attack on the body engaged in the vote does not. why not?
I agree that the proximate goal was regime change and sedition rather than changing the politics- but ultimately it changed politics, as well. so whether it was INTENDED as an act of terror or not, the result is the same.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 16:31:00 GMT -5
If on January 6th there would have been an attack on the state capital of, say, Georgia and a communique that another state capital would be hit unless Trump were declared the winner of a second term, that would fit the definition I offered. The direct attack on the body engaged in the vote does not. why not?
I agree that the proximate goal was regime change and sedition rather than changing the politics- but ultimately it changed politics, as well. so whether it was INTENDED as an act of terror or not, the result is the same.
When everything is ( ), then nothing is ( ). Doesn't matter what fills the blank it remains true. If the definition of terrorism is made broad enough and the criteria flexible enough, most anything can be terrorism. I support keeping it tighter so that the word will mean something when used rather than, "Oh, another terror attack. Wonder what's on Netflix tonight."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 16:50:10 GMT -5
why not?
I agree that the proximate goal was regime change and sedition rather than changing the politics- but ultimately it changed politics, as well. so whether it was INTENDED as an act of terror or not, the result is the same.
When everything is ( ), then nothing is ( ). Doesn't matter what fills the blank it remains true. If the definition of terrorism is made broad enough and the criteria flexible enough, most anything can be terrorism. I support keeping it tighter so that the word will mean something when used rather than, "Oh, another terror attack. Wonder what's on Netflix tonight." please stop it with the reductionism. thanks.
I am not suggesting we broaden the definition to fit the case. I am suggesting that the definition that is already there objectively meets January 6th. in order to DISAGREE with that, you would have to be able to argue that the presence of this threat is NOT impacting politics today.
is that your position?
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on May 10, 2021 16:53:26 GMT -5
I also think the House Managers did an excellent job of laying out the case that former President Trump engaged in the incitement of an insurrection. Trumps defense team had no problem beating that authoritative declaration. The case was lost on incitement. Are you really implying that the 2nd Trump Impeachment hearing had some sort of equivalency to an actual legal case in regards to burden of proof? On a purely unrelated (but totally related) note, do you happen to be a supporter of Scott Adams?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 16:57:11 GMT -5
When everything is ( ), then nothing is ( ). Doesn't matter what fills the blank it remains true. If the definition of terrorism is made broad enough and the criteria flexible enough, most anything can be terrorism. I support keeping it tighter so that the word will mean something when used rather than, "Oh, another terror attack. Wonder what's on Netflix tonight." please stop it with the reductionism. thanks.
I am not suggesting we broaden the definition to fit the case. I am suggesting that the definition that is already there objectively meets January 6th. in order to DISAGREE with that, you would have to be able to argue that the presence of this threat is NOT impacting politics today.
is that your position?
I think the State Department definition is too broad. I don't think January 6th involved a triangle so does not fit the definition I provided.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 17:02:01 GMT -5
please stop it with the reductionism. thanks.
I am not suggesting we broaden the definition to fit the case. I am suggesting that the definition that is already there objectively meets January 6th. in order to DISAGREE with that, you would have to be able to argue that the presence of this threat is NOT impacting politics today.
is that your position?
I think the State Department definition is too broad. I don't think January 6th involved a triangle so does not fit the definition I provided. i think the State Department definition is TOO NARROW. so, let's start with the position that we BOTH have problems with the State Department definition, and work with yours.
if we do that, do you agree that our war in Iraq was an act of terror?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 17:03:22 GMT -5
I think the State Department definition is too broad. I don't think January 6th involved a triangle so does not fit the definition I provided. i think the State Department definition is TOO NARROW. so, let's start with the position that we BOTH have problems with the State Department definition, and work with yours.
if we do that, do you agree that our war in Iraq was an act of terror?
No. Our war with Iraq was an act of war.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 17:07:29 GMT -5
just going through the list and comparing to Jan 6th:
Although the term is not subject to a universally agreed definition, terrorism can be broadly understood as a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and thereby attain political or ideological goals.
CHECK
Contemporary terrorist violence is thus distinguished in law from “ordinary” violence by the classic terrorist “triangle”: A attacks B, to convince or coerce C to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A.
what you are claiming is that this was a direct action, and therefore not meant to coerce C, but to basically ELIMNINATE C. i agree with that. however, in the end, C was highly influenced. the Stop The Steal bullshit is still going on, Bills, and is the existential reason for the uprising. if you step back and look at cause and effect, the intended act was a coup. HOWEVER, the impact is clearly the same as if the action had only been threatened and not actually done.
The attack spreads fear as the violence is directed, unexpectedly, against innocent victims, which in turn puts pressure on third parties such as governments to change their policy or position.
CHECK
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 17:08:49 GMT -5
i think the State Department definition is TOO NARROW. so, let's start with the position that we BOTH have problems with the State Department definition, and work with yours.
if we do that, do you agree that our war in Iraq was an act of terror?
No. Our war with Iraq was an act of war. i would agree if you say "illegal act of war". a legal act of war would be one of defense. in the case of Iraq, there was nothing to defend against.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 17:16:39 GMT -5
just going through the list and comparing to Jan 6th: Although the term is not subject to a universally agreed definition, terrorism can be broadly understood as a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and thereby attain political or ideological goals. CHECKContemporary terrorist violence is thus distinguished in law from “ordinary” violence by the classic terrorist “triangle”: A attacks B, to convince or coerce C to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A. what you are claiming is that this was a direct action, and therefore not meant to coerce C, but to basically ELIMNINATE C. i agree with that. however, in the end, C was highly influenced. the Stop The Steal bullshit is still going on, Bills, and is the existential reason for the uprising. if you step back and look at cause and effect, the intended act was a coup. HOWEVER, the impact is clearly the same as if the action had only been threatened and not actually done.The attack spreads fear as the violence is directed, unexpectedly, against innocent victims, which in turn puts pressure on third parties such as governments to change their policy or position. CHECK re: bolded The violence was not done in order to spread fear. It was done in order to gain access. With that criteria not being met, "and thereby ..." does not come into play.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 17:30:56 GMT -5
No. Our war with Iraq was an act of war. i would agree if you say "illegal act of war". a legal act of war would be one of defense. in the case of Iraq, there was nothing to defend against. I would use immoral/moral rather than illegal/legal but agree with the principle.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2021 17:41:22 GMT -5
just going through the list and comparing to Jan 6th: Although the term is not subject to a universally agreed definition, terrorism can be broadly understood as a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and thereby attain political or ideological goals. CHECKContemporary terrorist violence is thus distinguished in law from “ordinary” violence by the classic terrorist “triangle”: A attacks B, to convince or coerce C to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A. what you are claiming is that this was a direct action, and therefore not meant to coerce C, but to basically ELIMNINATE C. i agree with that. however, in the end, C was highly influenced. the Stop The Steal bullshit is still going on, Bills, and is the existential reason for the uprising. if you step back and look at cause and effect, the intended act was a coup. HOWEVER, the impact is clearly the same as if the action had only been threatened and not actually done.The attack spreads fear as the violence is directed, unexpectedly, against innocent victims, which in turn puts pressure on third parties such as governments to change their policy or position. CHECKA did not attack B, it directly attacked C to coerce C to change its position .... (Side issue: it was non-state actors so not an attempted coup. It was a poorly executed insurraction.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2021 17:48:07 GMT -5
just going through the list and comparing to Jan 6th: Although the term is not subject to a universally agreed definition, terrorism can be broadly understood as a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and thereby attain political or ideological goals. CHECKContemporary terrorist violence is thus distinguished in law from “ordinary” violence by the classic terrorist “triangle”: A attacks B, to convince or coerce C to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A. what you are claiming is that this was a direct action, and therefore not meant to coerce C, but to basically ELIMNINATE C. i agree with that. however, in the end, C was highly influenced. the Stop The Steal bullshit is still going on, Bills, and is the existential reason for the uprising. if you step back and look at cause and effect, the intended act was a coup. HOWEVER, the impact is clearly the same as if the action had only been threatened and not actually done.The attack spreads fear as the violence is directed, unexpectedly, against innocent victims, which in turn puts pressure on third parties such as governments to change their policy or position. CHECK re: bolded The violence was not done in order to spread fear. It was done in order to gain access. With that criteria not being met, "and thereby ..." does not come into play. the two red things are saying the same thing.
the original bolded portion only comes into play if you think that the threat of violence, which was all over the web before the January 6th attack, was meaningless. I don't.
also, there is nothing about intentionality in the definition. if people end up getting scared by your intimidation tactics, that is also terrorism, by your definition.
|
|