Capitol Attack. What happens next time ?

[mistermack]

As far as the original question goes, I don't think anyone's answered yet. Just saying it's not likely to happen like that isn't really an answer. You can't predict that kind of thing. Nobody did, and next time will be different but could be much more deadly. 

Look what happened to Ukraine, it all started with a 'demonstration'. 

The US should really be looking at how people might try to turn an 'ordinary' demonstration into a takeover. Looking at the current support for Trump, you can't say that 'it will never happen here'. It could, and the attitude of one half of the population makes it something worth trying, in the right circumstances.

I'm amazed that the Republican Party hasn't banned Trump from using their platform. There is loads of justification for doing it. 

Obviously, they would rather have Trump in power, than Biden winning again. Even after all he's done.

So when do the government forces start shooting? 

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

but don't make implications that are not true.

I didn't imply anything. I questioned, then rejected your presentation of the cause-effect relationship of events. Any way you mix it around, the original statement:

 

On 7/22/2022 at 2:01 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

To some degree I think they may have been emboldened by the the degree some of the Black Lives Matters protests were allowed to become violent, with much of that violence overlooked, condoned, and even sometimes encouraged by the media and some politicians.

did attribute the earlier instance of violence to the BLM protesters, whereas the bulk of it it was in fact carried out by right wing extremists.   

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm amazed that the Republican Party hasn't banned Trump from using their platform. There is loads of justification for doing it. 

Obviously, they would rather have Trump in power, than Biden winning again. Even after all he's done.

I don't understand either your amazement or your perspective on this. To me, it's obvious he represents a block of voters they can't afford to lose. They may pick up some older voters by taking the high road, but I don't think their numbers are anywhere near what the Trumpets represent. The GOP already doesn't have the numbers to win a popular presidential vote, so sniffing at the deplorables sinks them forever.

[mistermack]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't understand either your amazement or your perspective on this.

I thought my last sentence made that perfectly clear. 

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Obviously, they would rather have Trump in power, than Biden winning again. Even after all he's done.

  That's what I'm amazed at. Personally, if I was a republican, I would still rather Biden got four more years, than Trump. There is a bigger picture than just win/lose for the Republicans. 

In any case, I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. I would guess that a lot of habitual democrat voters will be voting for Trump. His appeal isn't purely on party political lines. 

If the Republican Party had banned him from running for them straight after the Capitol attack (if that's actually possible), Trump might well run against them as an independent, that would be the worst scenario. But he might well be taking Democrat votes, as well as Republican, so they might still win, with the right candidate.  Would Trump run as an independent? It would cost a lot of money, and the odds are he would lose. 

I think banning him would have been a good move for the Republican top brass. It's obvious they don't like him, and surely can't trust him. 

 

 

 

 

[geordief]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

surely can't trust him

I wonder who does.

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't imply anything. I questioned, then rejected your presentation of the cause-effect relationship of events. Any way you mix it around, the original statement:

 

did attribute the earlier instance of violence to the BLM protesters, whereas the bulk of it it was in fact carried out by right wing extremists.   

In your biased mind yes. Literally no. If I had wanted to blame all of it on the BLM protesters I would have said so.

Some of the protests were allowed to become violent, These are the ones that have been compared in terms of violence to Jan 6, not the 93% that remained peaceful. The distinct difference for Jan 6 is the threat to the capitol, and I would guess that most of the protesters there were there to protest and got carried away as a mob in the same manner as many of the BLM protesters.

Some of the worst of the riots were from the presence of ANTIFA or right wing extremists, or both.

None of this excuses any of the violence, or especially those taking advantage of it, or hoping or planning to.

But to Mistermacks point, it's important to not just hold the bad actors accountable, it's important to make it well known that will be the case going forward, and with appropriate security where possible.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't imply anything. I questioned, then rejected your presentation of the cause-effect relationship of events. Any way you mix it around, the original statement:

 

did attribute the earlier instance of violence to the BLM protesters, whereas the bulk of it it was in fact carried out by right wing extremists.   

Anything to back that up. (and please read it first, and note if it's based on justifying some of the violence and condemning other violence)

[mistermack]

I would have a hugely powerful PA system all around the government buildings, and in the case of an attempted intrusion, they should broadcast a warning. Here in the UK, we have the "Riot Act" and in the event of a riot, it can be read out as a warning that rioters are risking their lives. 

I believe that "reading the riot act" gives special powers to the police and security services, although I have no idea what they are. Surely there is some equivalent in American law? Ours goes back to 1714 so you would think that the USA has it's own copy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act  

Edit : I just had a quick read of that link, it has since been repealed, but I don't know what effect that had. Maybe it just means that a warning is no longer a legal requirement for using serious force against rioters. In any case, a US riot has far more deadly potential than a UK one, because of all the guns.

Edited July 23, 2022 by mistermack

[Phi for All]

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In any case, I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out.

I think it is. I think the best analogy is a terminal geriatric cancer patient who isn't strong enough to survive the surgery that might save them. Without the Goof Troop, the GOP flatlines on the operating table.

[Peterkin]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Anything to back that up.

Lots, but it's available to anyone who actually gives a damn.

 

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. Emboldened by everything else...but not that. Quite the perspective.

You have not made a case that BLM protests in any way emboldened in any the insurrection. Your claim was that:

 

On 7/22/2022 at 12:01 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

emboldened by the the degree some of the Black Lives Matters protests were allowed to become violent, with much of that violence overlooked, condoned, and even sometimes encouraged by the media and some politicians.

Except that the degree was low (a tiny percentage of actions became violent), you have provided zero evidence that the violence was overlooked (many were arrested, and there were reports of police violence against protesters and reporters and you also have not shown that violence was encourage by media and politicans.

Conversely, we know that the march on the capitol was in fact encouraged and orchestrated by politicians. So the only obvious parallel is only there if we ignore the facts of the matter. Now don't get me wrong, since we are talking about Trump followers, it is quite possible that they think that BLM and antifa are runnink amok and therefore they should do the same. But it should be highlighted that either way it is just a fantasy and they would likely have thought the same if the BLM protests were 100% peaceful. 

[Peterkin]

Quote

Amnesty International has documented 125 separate incidents of police violence against protesters in 40 states and the District of Columbia between 26 May and 5 June 2020. These acts of excessive force were committed by members of state and local police departments, as well as by National Guard troops and security force personnel from several federal agencies. Among the abuses documented are beatings, the misuse of tear gas and pepper spray, and the inappropriate and, at times, indiscriminate firing of less-lethal projectiles, such as sponge rounds and rubber bullets.https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/usa-unlawful-use-of-force-by-police-at-black-lives-matter-protests/

That one's fairly thorough as regards police violence. 

Quote

There were indications that the infiltration of BLM protests were part of a loosely coordinated campaign by far-right groups. Media reports have documented that a white supremacist channel on the messaging app Telegram encouraged followers to commit violence during the protests, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security intelligence note.https://kevinjshay44.medium.com/right-wing-provocateurs-likely-inflaming-protest-violence-bcf1c48e1d40

This one lists a number of specific incidents by organized Trump supporters.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/white-supremacists-rightwing-domestic-terror-2020 says:

Quote

Violent rightwing actors were responsible for 41 politically motivated attacks and plots this year, while “far-left” actors were responsible for 12, according to analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who have assembled a database of domestic terror attacks going back to 1994.

Emboldened? Hell, yeah!

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

Except that the degree was low (a tiny percentage of actions became violent), you have provided zero evidence that the violence was overlooked (many were arrested, and there were reports of police violence against protesters and reporters and you also have not shown that violence was encourage by media and politicans.

Conversely, we know that the march on the capitol was in fact encouraged and orchestrated by politicians. So the only obvious parallel is only there if we ignore the facts of the matter. 

So you're telling me that Jan 6 would have been okay if grouped in with thousands of peaceful GOP meetings? Or would they have had to be holding signs saying "defund the police"?

In other words...stop trying to hide the violence using percentages. In absolute terms violence at BLM protests exceeded that of Jan 6...and I'm not defending Jan 6. Nor have I ever. In fact of said from the start (back in January 2020) that it can't be compared to the equivalent protest violence due to the danger it represents. (If it sounds to you like I have...check your bias meter)

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Now don't get me wrong, since we are talking about Trump followers, it is quite possible that they think that BLM and antifa are runnink amok and therefore they should do the same. 

 Yes. Thank you. That was what I suggested...as a possible contributing factor...not as the main cause (due to what I considered OT...and I didn't think it was that controversial a point...or hard to understand)

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

But it should be highlighted that either way it is just a fantasy and they would likely have thought the same if the BLM protests were 100% peaceful. 

Sure. Highlight your fantasy...we will never know for sure as unlikely as that seems...I think Trump et al would have found it more difficult to recruit useful idiots...but who knows?

The truly dangerous ones might have been left more exposed.

Edited July 23, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[J.C.MacSwell]

From one of Peterkin's links:

link 1: "Amnesty International has documented 125 separate incidents of police violence against protesters in 40 states and the District of Columbia between 26 May and 5 June 2020. "

Amnesty International does important work. I have no doubt of the validity if it came from them,though I might be sympathetic to the police in some of those situations with the difficult position they were put in (compare with ANTIFA or the extreme right wilful involvement or planning...or any the other bad actors )

link 3.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

This one lists a number of specific incidents by organized Trump supporters.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/white-supremacists-rightwing-domestic-terror-2020 says:

"Violent rightwing actors were responsible for 41 politically motivated attacks and plots this year, while “far-left” actors were responsible for 12, according to analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who have assembled a database of domestic terror attacks going back to 1994."

Doesn't seem to be addressing the BLM protests but at a glance that would seem 41 to 12 for politically motivated attacks. Were there just 53? Why are the right wing actors referred to as violent but the "far left" actors not? My sense without seeing the actual data is that all of the right wing attacks are included in the 41, and only "unjustifiable" ones included in those on the left. But how would I know? It can certainly be read as I described.

link 2:

https://kevinjshay44.medium.com/right-wing-provocateurs-likely-inflaming-protest-violence-bcf1c48e1d40

Opening statement: (my bold)

"In a ten-week period during the “Freedom Summer” of 2020, almost 9,000 Black Lives Matter protests occurred across the country. Many people believe most of those protests contained burning buildings, vandalized and looted businesses, and physical confrontations between police and demonstrators.

The truth is that such violence was confined to only 7 percent of those protests"

Pretty obvious attempt to downplay the violence...and who wouldn't applaud the 8.000 + peaceful protests in the name of racial equality?

The problem is the 600+ BLM protests that lead to violence, and the condoning and encouragement from the left that went with it.

Not that that justifies any violence from the right (I shouldn't even have to add that but some pretty smart people can become pretty thick when their biases are lead by emotion)

And of course it doesn't justify Trump's actions leading up to Jan 6...but I think there is another thread on that.

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Peterkin]

That's a tiny sample of the available information. Many sources, many points of view. If you want to know, you can find out.

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And of course it doesn't justify Trump's actions leading up to Jan 6

How does that even come up as a possible question? Has anyone attempted to justify it? 

The correlation between Trump's calls to action and the actions his people have taken is evident. How events during the BLM protests relate to those actions is established. A time-line is drawn. Believe what you choose.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

How does that even come up as a possible question? Has anyone attempted to justify it? 

 

Just making sure no one sees all this as my justifying Trump's actions due to any fog of their emotional bias...not that you would ever do that...

Edited July 24, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sure. Highlight your fantasy...we will never know for sure as unlikely as that seems...I think Trump et al would have found it more difficult to recruit useful idiots...but who knows?

The irony considering that you have not provided anything but your fantasy. As I mentioned, 96% were without incidence and you even as non-Trump supporter thinks that thinks went horribly out of hand. What would be your threshold? 99%? And then why would you think that Trump supporter would use the same threshold? There is not a lot of space there, you know? And considering that many of them think the election was stolen, I doubt reality plays a big role there.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Yes. Thank you. That was what I suggested...as a possible contributing factor...not as the main cause (due to what I considered OT...and I didn't think it was that controversial a point...or hard to understand)

Except your claim was that the violence of BLM was ignored or even promoted by folks (without evidence) and that that was the mechanism contributing to Jan 6. Which, again is baseless and continues to reek of false equivalence. If you said, it happened that Trump supporter might believe that, despite it being patently not true, there might have been something to discuss here, but as stated your premise is simply false.

I will also mention that in the BLM protests around 15k folks were arrested, mostly due to curfew violations. So about 0.1% of the participants were charged. The actual serious convictions (violence & damages) are much smaller fraction thereof. So again, the initial characterization is at best misleading.

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trump et al would have found it more difficult to recruit useful idiots

The useful idiots were recruited when they voted for him. He wouldn’t have been elected without them.

I have a hard time swallowing this narrative that BLM protests are what made them rush the Trumps side, especially since 1) they were already at his side before the protests, and 2) they tended often to be the ones engaged in stirring up that violence at those BLM protests as a sort of false flag operation. 

You’ve got the cart before the horse IMO, and might consider reflecting upon your own stance more closely before casting aspersions at others for living in fantasy worlds. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not that that justifies any violence from the right (I shouldn't even have to add that but some pretty smart people can become pretty thick when their biases are lead by emotion)

It’s easy to become defensive when the people with whom you’re interacting seem to take every opportunity to throw needless jabs. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by iNow

[Trurl]

I think the situation worked out as best as it possibly could. As far as lives not lost. Any effort to stop the rioters would result in massive casualties. Killing your fellow Americans doesn’t make sense.

Trump doesn’t call of the rioters because if he does he has to admit he is in control of them. I think the only reason he makes a statement is to save the rioters lives. More firepower was on the way in my speculation. Whatever was planned didn’t work. And the game becomes more dangerous to prolong the riot.

I know it was bad but the dems say it could have been worse. As for future security I don’t know. It is just like gun violence issue with no easy answer. I say we ban Biden and Trump both from the next election.

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

The useful idiots were recruited when they voted for him. He wouldn’t have been elected without them.

I have a hard time swallowing this narrative that BLM protests are what made them rush the Trumps side, especially since 1) they were already at his side before the protests, and 2) they tended often to be the ones engaged in stirring up that violence at those BLM protests as a sort of false flag operation. 

You’ve got the cart before the horse IMO, and might consider reflecting upon your own stance more closely before casting aspersions at others for living in fantasy worlds. 

It’s easy to become defensive when the people with whom you’re interacting seem to take every opportunity to throw needless jabs. 

I mean, using the same metrics superbowl vandalism could have emboldened them. No you are right, they swallowed the lie, because they wanted to and to a significant degree because they think that creating an ethnostate would finally put them on top. The latter is the closest I can see where BLM could have played a role (I.e. black folks challenging the status quo).

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The latter is the closest I can see where BLM could have played a role (I.e. black folks challenging the status quo).

That's part of their motivation, of course. Some law-enforcement sources regard their participation at various BLM events as a direct response to Trump's calls to action.  There is a long history behind his relationship with racist extremists.  https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech  and also a recent history specifically aimed at BLM https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/01/over-over-trump-has-focused-black-lives-matter-target-derision-or-violence/  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/25/trump-attacks-black-lives-matter-racial-justice-movement.html

 

As for what happens next: If he gets the chance and they're still at large and loyal, it escalates.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/06/pitts-jan-6-insurrection-a-dress-rehearsal-for-something-far-worse/

[J.C.MacSwell]

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The irony considering that you have not provided anything but your fantasy.

I prefer opinion, but fine, my fantasy as debated by DC judges as to the extent of it.

 

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 As I mentioned, 96% were without incidence

 

 93% without violence not 96 without incident (I have no doubt it was at least in part a typo, no biggie)

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What would be your threshold? 99%?

 

100%. What do you feel is acceptable?

Is Jan 6 acceptable if you combine it with 99 Ghandi like protests?

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And then why would you think that Trump supporter would use the same threshold? There is not a lot of space there, you know? And considering that many of them think the election was stolen, I doubt reality plays a big role there.

Actually I think it does. Demonstrate some honesty in what they can readily see and maybe credibility is gained in what they can't.

Or just lie to them and let Trump and his ilk take advantage...

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Except your claim was that the violence of BLM was ignored or even promoted by folks (without evidence)

 

 

“If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,” Harris tweeted on June 1, just days after the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

 

Kamala Harris June 2020

 

Do you need more? Or perhaps you feel Harris's tweet only referred to those that feel they might be arrested unfairly, after doing nothing illegal?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

If you said, it happened that Trump supporter might believe that, despite it being patently not true, there might have been something to discuss here, but as stated your premise is simply false.

Well actually no. My statement should not require that. 

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

(I shouldn't even have to add that but some pretty smart people can become pretty thick when their biases are lead by emotion)

 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

I say we ban Biden and Trump both from the next election

How? Maybe with unicorns and sorcerers?

Edited July 24, 2022 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I have a hard time swallowing this narrative that BLM protests are what made them rush the Trumps side...

Someone claiming that was the case?

[iNow]

FFS. Never mind. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

LOL. Must be hard to argue with a moderate with a balanced view. I mean how can I get upset when you dump on the Republicans?...there every bit as bad as the Dems...

Hang on I'll do it for you:

Balanced view! You think it's balanced? That's a false equivalency!