The terrorists of january the sixth.

[NatMorton]

You are proving your reading deficiency AGAIN. Read it CAREFULLY this time.

I did. Make your point or move on. Time’s a wastin’.

 

[eohrnberger]

1/6 Terrorists?



Yeah, right.
I'm not buying this hyper-partisan hyperbole and gross exaggeration, 'terrorists' BS, especially because it is 100% hyper-partisan politically driven.

 

[jnug]

I did. Make your point or move on. Time’s a wastin’.

Geezuz how you love to did a hole for yourself and then just keep on digging:
FBI definition of domestic terrorism:
"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

- committed by individuals, Is that plain enough for you?
- and or groups, such as the oath keepers, three percenters, proud boys. Were those groups the only people participating in the events of 1/6? Here I wili answer this one for you. No they were not. However if members of those groups committed violent criminal acts they would have exposed the entire group of oath keepers or three percenters or proud boys to possible investigation and possible prosecution.

 

[Sand Castle]

If Trump did want violence (but didn't want to be convicted of incitement) what more could he have done to provoke it? He spread his endless lies, he told militia groups to "stand back and stand by," he floated the idea of maintaining power by military force/martial law, he gathered the crowd for a "wild" event and told them to "fight, and if you don't fight you're not going to have a country any more."

In all the months prior, only one single line about peacefully making their voices heard - buried a quarter of the way into an hour long speech - offers even the slightest shred of deniability, as far as I can see. But then he went on to praise the rioters on Twitter as "great patriots," so there goes that theory...

That line was put in by his lawyers and handlers. But like say abusive husbands, a bouquet of roses doesn't remove the black eye

 

[Binary_Digit]

I think the idea that Trump somehow wanted that riot is foolish.

A senior FBI official told NBC News that before the rally, the agency learned "credible and actionable information about individuals who were planning on traveling to the protests who expressed a desire to engage in violence."

This is exactly the kind of thing that would appear in a Presidential Daily Brief. So Trump knew damn well there were violent people in that crowd when he sent them to a building full of his political enemies. He told them to show strength and fight like hell to save their country because he wanted a violent uprising against his political enemies. He only told them to do it peacefully to cover his own ass, and anyone with more than a single-digit IQ can plainly see that.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It’s think it’s fair to say that “Zip Tie Guy” and a few others can be classified as terrorists. The vast majority were no more than idiotic rioters.

If you follow the bank robbers in guess what you'd get charged with.

 

[Michael Cole]

It’s think it’s fair to say that “Zip Tie Guy” and a few others can be classified as terrorists. The vast majority were no more than idiotic rioters.

Doesn't excuse anything.

Ever see a group of Iranians chanting death to America? Most of those aren't terrorists either.

It's what was in their minds, both the Iranians and 1/6 "tourists" that's dangerous

 

[HenryChinaski]

I think the idea that Trump somehow wanted that riot is foolish. What Trump was, and IMO it’s bad enough to disqualify him from holding office again, was reckless.

He sat there watching and rewatching the riot giddily.

 

[bongsaway]

I think the idea that Trump somehow wanted that riot is foolish. What Trump was, and IMO it’s bad enough to disqualify him from holding office again, was reckless.

So why did he use the words fight or fighting twenty times in his speech before the picnic at the capitol? He could have just as easily told his minions over and over to make sure they vote for what they want instead of fight for what they want. And, if he didn't mean fight literally, how come so many were dressed for combat? What was the body armor for, protection against words?

 

[soap box]

I think the idea that Trump somehow wanted that riot is foolish. What Trump was, and IMO it’s bad enough to disqualify him from holding office again, was reckless.

Do we agree that trump shouldn't hold office again? I know we disagree on lots of other things, and I'm not asking all that, but just the idea that it's bad enough already, disqualified is appropriate?

 

[ecofarm]

Violence for political ends is terrorism.

 

[j brown's body]

They certainly managed to terrorize everyone.

 

[Mithrae]

My assessment is sound. Your hyperbole is not.

It was a pretty simple question: Had he wanted to, what more could Trump have done to provoke violence/rioting without openly breaking the law?

Judging by your non-answer, it seems we can conclude that within the limits of potential legal defensibility, Trump did pretty much everything possible to provoke violence/rioting.

And then celebrated the results his "great patriots" gave him.

 

[HangLow]

FBI definition of domestic terrorism:
"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

There, wasn't that easy.

​

 

[NatMorton]

Geezuz how you love to did a hole for yourself and then just keep on digging:
FBI definition of domestic terrorism:
"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

- committed by individuals, Is that plain enough for you?
- and or groups, such as the oath keepers, three percenters, proud boys. Were those groups the only people participating in the events of 1/6? Here I wili answer this one for you. No they were not. However if members of those groups committed violent criminal acts they would have exposed the entire group of oath keepers or three percenters or proud boys to possible investigation and possible prosecution.

Read my original post in this thread where I asserted some members of that riot could be fairly labeled terrorists.

 

[NatMorton]

A senior FBI official told NBC News that before the rally, the agency learned "credible and actionable information about individuals who were planning on traveling to the protests who expressed a desire to engage in violence."

This is exactly the kind of thing that would appear in a Presidential Daily Brief. So Trump knew damn well there were violent people in that crowd when he sent them to a building full of his political enemies. He told them to show strength and fight like hell to save their country because he wanted a violent uprising against his political enemies. He only told them to do it peacefully to cover his own ass, and anyone with more than a single-digit IQ can plainly see that.

Do you suppose that is a rare on common report when there's a large protest planned in Washington?

 

[NatMorton]

If you follow the bank robbers in guess what you'd get charged with.

Depends what your intent is.

 

[NatMorton]

Doesn't excuse anything.

Ever see a group of Iranians chanting death to America? Most of those aren't terrorists either.

It's what was in their minds, both the Iranians and 1/6 "tourists" that's dangerous

I've excused nothing.

 

[NatMorton]

He sat there watching and rewatching the riot giddily.

I'm sure you think that.

 

[NatMorton]

So why did he use the words fight or fighting twenty times in his speech before the picnic at the capitol? He could have just as easily told his minions over and over to make sure they vote for what they want instead of fight for what they want. And, if he didn't mean fight literally, how come so many were dressed for combat? What was the body armor for, protection against words?

Do we really need a remedial review of the kind of figurative expressions commonly used in political speeches? What you've cited proves nothing.

 

[NatMorton]

Do we agree that trump shouldn't hold office again? I know we disagree on lots of other things, and I'm not asking all that, but just the idea that it's bad enough already, disqualified is appropriate?

Yes, we agree, but then again, I didn't think he was qualified for office in 2016, either.

 

[NatMorton]

Trump did pretty much everything possible to provoke violence/rioting.

Those are you words, not mine.

 

[jnug]

Read my original post in this thread where I asserted some members of that riot could be fairly labeled terrorists.

Here is my original post that you quote boxed in your response:
FBI definition of domestic terrorism:
"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

There, wasn't that easy.

Here is your response to it.
By that definition the moment a single crime is committed as part of a larger political protest that protest becomes an act of terrorism.

Your response was not an accurate reading of the consequences of the FBI definition and you now appear to be saying that your response actually contradicted your earlier post.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Depends what your intent is.

Posting seditious videos on your Facebook account.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I'm sure you think that.

Aide reveals Trump kept ‘gleefully’ rewinding Capitol riot footage

Grisham said she and other disillusioned former Trump staffers are gathering to discuss how to stop him before 2024

www.independent.co.uk

As rioters breached the Capitol building and attacked police officers on 6 January, 2021, the world waited anxiously for then-President Donald Trump to make a statement. According to one aide, Mr Trump was busy watching the Capitol riot, over and over and over

Mr Trump's former press secretary Stephanie Grisham told CNN Thursday that she saw Mr Trump sitting in the White House dining room rewinding and rewatching the footage.
“He was in the dining room gleefully watching on his TV as he often did, [saying] ‘Look at all the people fighting for me’, hitting rewind, watching it again, that’s all that I know,” she said.

This man is a narcissistic sociopath and this is exactly within his character.