Was there terrorism on 6 Jan?

[Salty]

• a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"

adjective

• 1.unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:

Using the definition above - yes, some were terrorist.
Many assaulted cops and caused extensive damage.

and they needed to be arrested and tried for their crimes.

So here is one question --- Why do conservatives NOT want to call those individuals terrorists?

(keep in mind - we are not talking about the vast majority - who went no more than a peaceful protest)

 

[Reformed1689]

• a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"

adjective

• 1.unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:

Using the definition above - yes, some were terrorist.
Many assaulted cops and caused extensive damage.

and they needed to be arrested and tried for their crimes.

So here is one question --- Why do conservatives NOT want to call those individuals terrorists?

(keep in mind - we are not talking about the vast majority - who went no more than a peaceful protest)

I will say this. Not every person that entered the Capitol were engaged in terrorism. But those doing damage, breaking doors, busting windows, etc, they fall into that definition. I have no problem with what Ted Cruz said after hearing his clarification. I think Tucker, and I like Tucker, can be over the top sometimes.

@Reynolds I hope we are still friends lol.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

So here is one question --- Why do conservatives NOT want to call those individuals terrorists?

(keep in mind - we are not talking about the vast majority - who went no more than a peaceful protest)

I have 2 reasons I don't call them that.

I'm unwilling to call them that because the Government can't call BLM terrorists. If you compare the worst of BLM with the worst of Jan 6th it's not even a comparison.

The government has an entire forested mountainside stuck up in their eyeball and they're going on about the toothpicks in "Q Shaman's" eye.

Secondly, I cannot argue with the point the protestors were making, which is that there WAS some level of fraud and unfair rule changes and the Government should've ensured a free and fair election, which they didn't. The reaction is justifiable.

 

[Reformed1689]

Secondly, I cannot argue with the point the protestors were making, which is that there WAS some level of fraud and unfair rule changes and the Government should've ensured a free and fair election, which they didn't. The reaction is justifiable.

The reaction of the PROTESTORS is justified, not the rioters.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

The reaction of the PROTESTORS is justified, not the rioters.

I would not agree with that opinion.

 

[Reformed1689]

I would not agree with that opinion.

So in your view, rioting is justified? Destruction of property is justified? Should not have any penalties?

 

[Reynolds]

So in your view, rioting is justified? Destruction of property is justified? Should not have any penalties?

Ask the founders of our nation.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ask the founders of our nation.

You do realize that is fundamentally different right?

 

[canadyjd]

I don’t think it was terrorism. The definition is vague enough that parents protesting CRT would be consider terrorists because they were attempting to “intimidate” elected school board members by “threatening” to remove them from their positions.

That is what the DOJ/FBI is doing right now.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

I don’t think it was terrorism. The definition is vague enough that parents protesting CRT would be consider terrorists because they were attempting to “intimidate” elected school board members by “threatening” to remove them from their positions.

That is what the DOJ/FBI is doing right now.

peace to you

But there is no violence in that situation. Intimidation alone is not terrorism, it is intimidation and violence.

 

[Reynolds]

You do realize that is fundamentally different right?

How was the Boston massacre or Boston tea party any different?

 

[Reformed1689]

How was the Boston massacre or Boston tea party any different?

The Boston Tea Party was a shameful event.

 

[Reynolds]

The Boston Tea Party was a shameful event.

I don't think it was. It was some of the founders of our nation. Our nation founded by terrorists?
The real story of the Tea Party is even more interesting than the P C. Story in most history books. Much more dark as well. The Tea Act did not raise the tea tax. It waived the tea tax on over a half million pounds of East India Tea Company tea. This would strike a financial blow to The Sons OF Liberty, most of whom were smugglers or merchants who sold their smuggled goods. The Tea Act would have made legal tea cheaper than smuggled tea.

A nation founded in Violent Revolution has the right to condemn a protest over a stolen election that got a little violent?

I believe plants started the violence. Ted Cruz actually thinks that as well. The number who broke the law were actually few. The fact police invited them in changes the entire scope of view. If law enforcement invites you to commit a crime then it legally becomes entrapment and a non prosecutable offense.
Some did break in. They are criminals. Most were invited in.

 

[Salty]

... The number who broke the law were actually few. ... Some did break in. They are criminals.

Fully agree

Most were invited in.

valid source??

 

[Reynolds]

@Reformed1689
What I believe you are missing is the legal implications that go with "terrorism". We have to be careful how that label is used. When someone becomes a "terrorist", under the Patriot Act, they basically no longer have any Constitutional rights. Cruz understood that. Doj was trying to label parents going to school board meetings as terrorists.

 

[Reynolds]

Fully agree


valid source??

The videos were posted. They disappear quickly. Tucker has shown them.

 

[Reformed1689]

I don't think it was. It was some of the founders of our nation. Our nation founded by terrorists?
The real story of the Tea Party is even more interesting than the P C. Story in most history books. Much more dark as well. The Tea Act did not raise the tea tax. It waived the tea tax on over a half million pounds of East India Tea Company tea. This would strike a financial blow to The Sons OF Liberty, most of whom were smugglers or merchants who sold their smuggled goods. The Tea Act would have made legal tea cheaper than smuggled tea.

A nation founded in Violent Revolution has the right to condemn a protest over a stolen election that got a little violent?

I believe plants started the violence. Ted Cruz actually thinks that as well. The number who broke the law were actually few. The fact police invited them in changes the entire scope of view. If law enforcement invites you to commit a crime then it legally becomes entrapment and a non prosecutable offense.
Some did break in. They are criminals. Most were invited in.

We did not start the war, Britain did.

 

[Reformed1689]

@Reformed1689
What I believe you are missing is the legal implications that go with "terrorism". We have to be careful how that label is used. When someone becomes a "terrorist", under the Patriot Act, they basically no longer have any Constitutional rights. Cruz understood that. Doj was trying to label parents going to school board meetings as terrorists.

I understand what you are saying. However, if you look at the actual definition of terrorism, it applies. Now the legal definition is another question.

 

[Reynolds]

We did not start the war, Britain did.

That could be debated.
The Colonists raised an Army and declared rebellion. Those are acts of war. It could be easily said they started a rebellion against the King.

 

[Reynolds]

I understand what you are saying. However, if you look at the actual definition of terrorism, it applies. Now the legal definition is another question.

You can't give them an inch. Cruz knew this well but did it anyway. The Dems are trying to label all opposition as terrorists and too many Republicans are playing along.
Cruz is an attorney. He always has the legal definition of everything forefront in his mind.
Considering that at that moment in time the debate was raging over school board protestors being labeled terrorists, that Ted just carelessly made that statement. He never carelessly chooses words.