Biden

[Vertigo 7]

I'm not so sure how I should file Biden's reaction to the storm of the Capitol. I understand that those people were ransacking the place. But does this to justify calling them "domestic terrorists"? I don't know. Has a bad taste to it and I doubt anything good will come from this.

The white supremacists were classified by the federal government as terrorists long before this. And they are domestic groups. So, yes, "domestic terrorist" is a very appropriate label.

[Axeface]

I'm not so sure how I should file Biden's reaction to the storm of the Capitol. I understand that those people were ransacking the place. But does this to justify calling them "domestic terrorists"? I don't know. Has a bad taste to it and I doubt anything good will come from this.

I too think the term terrorist is thrown around way too much, people need to be careful throwing around such words. Theres many other terms too that went from severe rarely used words to something we see everyday over the last decade or so, it is indeed dangerous and problematic to the issues they aim to highlight. Most of the people that entered the capitol building were probably just morons, brainwashed conspiracy nuts and people that should be interned in asylums - these people should get some jail time but nothing crazy, and some should even get offered professional help. But some of them however such as the ones organising, the ones attacking people or with real intent to capture and hurt/kill government officials absolutely could be called terrorists, I would however prefer if they used the term insurgents and treated them as a violent rebellion.

True white supremacists of course should be considered terrorists if they act on their beliefs or attempt to make others act on them, they fit the classification perfectly. But not everyone storming the capitol was a white supremacist.

PS: Like I said earlier however, patriot act 2.0 is coming and terrorist is going to be the word of the week.

[felter]

To cal them a terrorist you first have to look at what a terrorist actually is, the definition of a terrorist is:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

So from that you have to look at what is actually terrorism, and that definitions is:

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

So now we can ask what were these people after, they were after political gain and to subvert that legitimate change in government to one that is more to their personal liking, I would say that they had a political purpose. So we now have to ask did they use threats and intimidation to try to gain their political purpose. One of the main things they were chanting was "Hang Mike Pence", and to show that they meant it, they had also brought along a hangman's noose and setup a gallows, presumably to hang Mike Pence. Not just that they had also setup a guillotine which only has a single use, to violently remove one's head. So we now have them threatening violence with the full intention of committing violence, this was done in an attempt to coerce others to bend to their political purpose.

Axeface points out that they were.

Most of the people that entered the capitol building were probably just morons, brainwashed conspiracy nuts and people that should be interned in asylums

So we then have to ask, if you are a moron you can't be a terrorist, the brainwashed part is interesting, as a lot of the time when explaining how one has become a terrorist they will use that exact term, they were brainwashed into becoming a terrorist.

So are they terrorists, well if you look at the definitions and even how they are being defended as they are just brainwashed morons, then everything points to yes, they are terrorists, there is no ifs or buts about it.

[Vertigo 7]

Felter's absolutely right. So they were Yeehawdists and not Jihadists, big deal. Their whiteness isn't an excuse.

I really don't get why we should be considering going easy on any of them. If it had been any other group, the "patriots" would be screaming for blood, but white folks try to overthrow the government? Newp, can't call them terrorists.

And bear in mind, the folks that attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi were labeled terrorists and 4 people died then. And the republicans bring that up to this very day to attack democrats. I'm sorry but their own members acting exactly like those that attacked the embassy aren't going to get a pass.

[Gavrushka]

White people seem programmed, in the main, to associate the word 'terrorist' with non-white people. - I've just read that even James Comey described the threat at Biden's inauguration as coming from 'armed disturbed people.' - We're sanitising what is simply terrorism. We *must* stop choosing different language because the skin colour doesn't match our preconceptions. I feel our selective language is just another sign of just how deeply engrained racism is in the US (and elsewhere.)

It's gonna take generations, and far better political leadership than currently makes the ballot paper to put right.

[The Q]

Family Guy got it right:



(Original says "Okay" / "Not Okay", but the context is also identifying terrorists.)

[Chips]

I'm not so sure how I should file Biden's reaction to the storm of the Capitol. I understand that those people were ransacking the place. But does this to justify calling them "domestic terrorists"? I don't know. Has a bad taste to it and I doubt anything good will come from this.

What did they claim was the intent prior to the act?

Claiming afterwards "Well, we threw a few things, smashed a few things, but kept within the velvet ropes..."

If they went to force a change, then they should have the book thrown at them. On what planet was the idea of turning up to "storm capitol" remotely, possibly, even a good idea in ANYONE's mind.

[Cpt.Jericho]

On the other hand, it could have been way worse. From my point of view it was fascianting how few guns I've seen in the pictures and footage. If the rioteers had really meant to go in there and start a bloodbath they could have done so.

[Vertigo 7]

On the other hand, it could have been way worse. From my point of view it was fascianting how few guns I've seen in the pictures and footage. If the rioteers had really meant to go in there and start a bloodbath they could have done so.

And they would have been arrested before they got started. DC has the most stringent gun laws in the country. They don't permit open carry, they don't honor concealed carry permits from any other jurisdiction, and they don't allow rifles or shotguns in the district. And considering that most of them flew into DC, TSA would have handed them their ass if they tried to bring a gun in through the airport.

[Mightysword]

I'm not so sure how I should file Biden's reaction to the storm of the Capitol. I understand that those people were ransacking the place. But does this to justify calling them "domestic terrorists"? I don't know. Has a bad taste to it and I doubt anything good will come from this.

I too think the term terrorist is thrown around way too much, people need to be careful throwing around such words. Theres many other terms too that went from severe rarely used words to something we see everyday over the last decade or so, it is indeed dangerous and problematic to the issues they aim to highlight. Most of the people that entered the capitol building were probably just morons, brainwashed conspiracy nuts and people that should be interned in asylums - these people should get some jail time but nothing crazy, and some should even get offered professional help. But some of them however such as the ones organising, the ones attacking people or with real intent to capture and hurt/kill government officials absolutely could be called terrorists, I would however prefer if they used the term insurgents and treated them as a violent rebellion.

Most of the religious suicide bombers also do it thinking they're doing god service. I don't think personal background or literacy is an excuse, for what they tried to do (and accomplished) during the event, I have no qualm those people got slapped with the terrorist label, because that's what they are. I don't think you have to be smart to be a terrorist, neither being a brainwashed moron is a valid excuse to act like one.

BUT, I do share your concern however. To those who encourage and commit harm on the hill that days, they are terrorist, but that is only a legit label if it specifically limited to those presented that day. However if history shows, it probably will become a sticking point and over-generalize until the term itself become jaded. In the day ahead, the convo between the 81mil and 74mil will probably see that term threw around a lot, both deserved and undeseved.

It's an ironic problem that politic talk suffers two contradicting issues at the same time. On one hand, sometime we avoid the big elephant and don't want to call things as they are because of political correctness. But on the other hand, we also often overgeneralize the ugliness to the point almost everything is painted by the same taint.

[Cpt.Jericho]

I can't help wondering how the founding fathers would be labeled today if the US had lost the independence war.

[Vertigo 7]

I can't help wondering how the founding fathers would be labeled today if the US had lost the independence war.

I hope you're not comparing murderous inbred crack pot conspiracy theorists to actual revolutionaries. The founding fathers fought to free themselves from a monarch, not to install one. And they didn't do it because some moron on TV told them to do it. There was nothing revolutionary about the acts of the terrorists that attacked the capitol. If anything, they're devolutionaries.

[Axeface]

Most of the religious suicide bombers also do it thinking they're doing god service. I don't think personal background or literacy is an excuse, for what they tried to do (and accomplished) during the event, I have no qualm those people got slapped with the terrorist label, because that's what they are. I don't think you have to be smart to be a terrorist, neither being a brainwashed moron is a valid excuse to act like one.

Neither do I (think personal background or literacy is an excuse) for terrorism, its the others in this thread that are slapping these connotations onto what I said and disgustingly also implying that I am acting differently towards capitol hill rioters vs other groups that have been given the terrorist moniker because of the colour of their skin (in general). I said the term is thrown around too much, as in thrown around at everyone.

In other news, as im not going to bother replying to the quite insulting comments on my other post, what the hell is going on with this bbc article and blatant photoshopping? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55690001
"There is a photograph of Kamala Harris, taken in 1986, while she was a student at Howard University.
She and two other friends, all shoulder pads and plaid, are smiling and laughing, a crowd behind them. It's a picture brimming with energy and hope. "
Sure about that, bbc? Its very important to not fuel the fires of 'fake news' sentiment, and they go and do things like this?
(posted here because relevent to biden administration).

[Vertigo 7]

Most of the religious suicide bombers also do it thinking they're doing god service. I don't think personal background or literacy is an excuse, for what they tried to do (and accomplished) during the event, I have no qualm those people got slapped with the terrorist label, because that's what they are. I don't think you have to be smart to be a terrorist, neither being a brainwashed moron is a valid excuse to act like one.

Neither do I (think personal background or literacy is an excuse) for terrorism, its the others in this thread that are slapping these connotations onto what I said and disgustingly also implying that I am acting differently towards capitol hill rioters vs other groups that have been given the terrorist moniker because of the colour of their skin (in general). I said the term is thrown around too much, as in thrown around at everyone.

In other news, as im not going to bother replying to the quite insulting comments on my other post, what the hell is going on with this bbc article and blatant photoshopping? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55690001
"There is a photograph of Kamala Harris, taken in 1986, while she was a student at Howard University.
She and two other friends, all shoulder pads and plaid, are smiling and laughing, a crowd behind them. It's a picture brimming with energy and hope. "
Sure about that, bbc? Its very important to not fuel the fires of 'fake news' sentiment, and they go and do things like this?
(posted here because relevent to biden administration).

Where are you seeing that it's been photoshopped (at least to the point of being faked, meaning not enhanced to make old photographs more vibrant)?

[Aken_Bosch]

Her and her two friends are a legit photo, but for some reason were badly cut and cropped over that crowd background. Whatever the reason, a botched photoshop job is just that. Depending on the support you are viewing the pic from, just enhance brightness a bit and you'll see how bad that cutting work has been executed.

[Axeface]

If you just increase your monitor gamma you will see the obvious cut lines, its very, very badly done. The article says she has been circulating this photo, its possible that there is some reason for it (like maybe someone in the original photo background didnt want to be shown) but in any case, its incredibly stupid to do this. Use another photo or explain why its shopped.

[matthewfarmery]

been watching the Inauguration for Biden, just heard Lady Gaga, don't know about anyone else, but she was a bad choice. Can't say I ever thought much of her to be frank, but her singing of the national anthem, she was totally tone deaf, and a turn off. Otherwise its been ok for the most part. But yeah, Lady Gaga, utter horrid.

[Vertigo 7]

The first sweep of executive orders are in. Among the orders signed is an immediate halt on funding of Trump's stupid wall, beginning process to rejoin the Paris accords, halt of the US's withdrawal from the WHO and appointment of Dr. Fauci as the lead of the US delegation to the WHO, end of the Muslim travel ban, and a mask mandate on all federal property.

Love it.

[matthewfarmery]

The first sweep of executive orders are in. Among the orders signed is an immediate halt on funding of Trump's stupid wall, beginning process to rejoin the Paris accords, halt of the US's withdrawal from the WHO and appointment of Dr. Fauci as the lead of the US delegation to the WHO, end of the Muslim travel ban, and a mask mandate on all federal property.

Love it.

Glad that stupid wall is been stopped, I bet Trump will be furious about that mind. LOL. Biden certainly done well for his first day in office.

[Gavrushka]

Will the US now engage Iran over weapons grade nuclear material and the like? As I remember, it was widely suggested Trump withdrew out of spite, not out of political acumen. - Can Biden re-engage with a simple executive order, or will it be starting from scratch?