Rjd2 wrote: » The police aren't perfect obviously, but their slow response is more due to Trump's cronies deliberately hamstringing them today.
Christy42 wrote: » This is delusional. They stormed government buildings to the point where elected officials had to go into hiding for their own safety. They have been vocal at wanting to change the election result, which would be fine if they were outside. Again. Whether or not they are successful is irrelevant for their status as terrorists. They are using the threat of violence to try and change the results. That they will fail does not change the intent.
irishrover99 wrote: » The policing has been unbelievably slow today. Really reminds you of the chaos on 9/11(obviously without all the deaths) but serious review will be needed after this.
Manic Moran wrote: » If someone scales the White House fence, even with an ideological motive the President is locked down for his own protection. Is does that make the person in question a terrorist? Of all the countries in the world, one would have thought that Irish people would be particularly careful about the random use of the word "terrorism". I am not being inconsistent here. Do an advanced search on Boards for "terrorism", filter to those uses posted by me. I have always been very narrow in my application of the term, because I believe that terrorism is a very particular and reprehensible action. Calling any violence terrorism is to demean actual terrorism such as Ireland suffered for decades. Similarly, I have never used "terrorism" to describe any of the incidents of violence the US has seen over the last year involving mass numbers of people causing destruction and damage. Examples, to save you time: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64551485&postcount=15https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100520468&postcount=524https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104853108&postcount=558https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73485155&postcount=1282https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100011675&postcount=425https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68051218&postcount=532https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113624327https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84787322&postcount=97
Tpcl20 wrote: » Police let protestors in.https://twitter.com/anastasiakeeley/status/1346934751018541057?s=20
Manic Moran wrote: » Umm.. Yes it does. Though there is no set accepted definition for terrorism in international law, the legal definition in the US is pretty good and shares characteristics with most international attempts at defining it. "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" It is the motive which differentiates terrorism from "common" crime.
Manic Moran wrote: » If someone scales the White House fence, even with an ideological motive the President is locked down for his own protection. Is does that make the person in question a terrorist? Of all the countries in the world, one would have thought that Irish people would be particularly careful about the random use of the word "terrorism". I am not being inconsistent here. Do an advanced search on Boards for "terrorism", filter to those uses posted by me. I have always been very narrow in my application of the term, because I believe that terrorism is a very particular and reprehensible action. Calling any violence terrorism is to demean actual terrorism such as Ireland suffered for decades. Similarly, I have never used "terrorism" to describe any of the incidents of violence the US has seen over the last year involving mass numbers of people causing destruction and damage.
Kiith wrote: » Pence changed his Twitter profile pic to Biden and Harris and unfollowed Trump :Phttps://twitter.com/Mike_Pence
listermint wrote: » But a pipe bomb was planted outside the RNC though..
. Now here's a fun scenario for you; replace the Trump supporters with Muslims with long beards; how do you think that would have been called in the news if they did exactly the same thing as the Trump supporters are doing currently? Would that then be considered terrorism or would it be misguided protestors? And do you think there would be as many people hurt and killed as now?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I think that's Pence and his Mrs
listermint wrote: » Guarantee he held back as much resources as he could via his cronies in whatever department.
theguzman wrote: » Will Twitter wait until the inauguration or until after for to ban Trump?
Lirange wrote: » Bombs have been disabled (2 confirmed at RNC & another within capitol complex). They are looking for more. Not fake bombs. Actual bombs. Even by your own narrow criteria that is terrorism. Full stop.
Rjd2 wrote: » Yep. Their is so much wrong with the police in America its unreal, but not sure today is on them especially the normal cops. However looking at some of the viral clips, memes etc, they are going to cop a lot of flack which is unfair. I think long term going forward any prominent politician who has even remotely annoyed Trump over last few years will need a very strong security detail especially the older politicians like Mitch, Pelosi etc. I'm not suggesting Trump is going to put bounties on their heads or anything like that, but he has supporters who are mentally ill and want to commit acts of serious violence. Christ imagine typing about an Irish politician. :eek:
Christy42 wrote: » Links? I know of one in the RNC but can't see news on the other 2.
Christy42 wrote: » How was the pipe bomb different from Omagh? Aside from the fact that they found the pipe bomb on time?
Itssoeasy wrote: » The capitol police were sitting ducks it seems because the mayor of DC asked for the DC national guard to be activated, but the DC national guard isn't like others because DC isn’t a state so no governor to order this. It goes through either the DOJ or DOD and it seems they didn’t agree to the request.
They planted explosives in the heart of the US government Manic, they are terrorists.
Manic Moran wrote: » It's not. And that action I have no quarrel with being considered a terroristic act. You are all making it sound like this is the first time an angry crowd has illegally crashed a legislative body because they don't like something. Unless you consider all such occasions to be domestic terrorism, I guess. What if the violence was, instead, caused by the politicians themselves? The Italian parliament would be a veritable den of domestic terrorism! As I posted earlier, they did. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html
Christy42 wrote: » Links? I know of one in the RNC but can't see news on the other 1.
Manic Moran wrote: » It's not. And that action I have no quarrel with being considered a terroristic act. You are all making it sound like this is the first time an angry crowd has illegally crashed a legislative body because they don't like something. Unless you consider all such occasions to be domestic terrorism, I guess. What if the violence was, instead, caused by the politicians themselves? The Italian parliament would be a veritable den of domestic terrorism! As I posted earlier, they did. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html Who is "they"? By that logic, everyone partaking in BLM protests is a destructive criminal, because of a few folks.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
