Was Storming the Capitol Hill Justified? -

[TerribleIdeas™]

I have a question for those who said "violence is not the answer" regarding this incident on the Capitol. When does violence become the answer? I am old enough to remember being taught how the United States came to be and it wasn't just some guys in colonial clothes wrote their names on a piece of paper and a new nation was born. I am old enough to remember being taught the eventual abolition of slavery in the US included an incident at Harper's Ferry. While MLK is recognized for his peaceful demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement, it seems prominent black voices have shifted towards Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" approach in recent years. We all saw how businesses submitted to the mob last year where some wrote they supported BLM to avoid destruction.

I get taking the high ground and being a nation of laws. But it appears to me that civility has been thrown out the window for about a decade and tensions in this country are reaching a boiling point.

When the elite political class has the power to crush you, using violence becomes a massive risk, and between the escalating lockdown punishments and the mobilization of 25k National Guard for the Inauguration, the political class are showing that they have that power, and will use it. 25,000 National Guard forced to sleep in hallways (despite the supposed fear of COVID we're all supposed to have) is such an excessively overreaction to a bunch of boomer retards that mostly behaved like lost tourists, barring Ashli Babbit, whoever shit on the desk and floors, and anyone that was stealing shit. Those people are all various amounts of stupid, but barring Babbitt, there's nothing that justifies that much security.

Unless people are willing to go on a massive general strike, they're kind of fucked; the gov't forcing everyone back to work, or mobilizing military engineers to cover legitimately essential infrastructure and energy services is pretty much the worst optics possible at the moment, but the gov't being able to invoke the Insurrection Act, or otherwise claim to be addressing some kind of secessionist threat of violence is something they can spin as "muh huwite spremacist dumbestic terrorism!", and rationalize through the media. The latter gives the gov't the veneer of justified force and the ability to restrict civil rights in the same way that 9/11 gave it the ability to justify the abrogation of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th (and probably other amendments) through the Patriot Act.

Edit, since @DeadFish covered it more thoroughly than I did - any attempt at behaviour that is already criminalized, or that can be construed as justifiably criminalized, will be used as an excuse to clamp down on everyone, everywhere, all the time, which really only leaves lawful civil disobedience. I think "moving off grid" and "prepping because collapsitarian" are part of that category, personally.

Ayn Rand covered this, funny enough -

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”​

Conspiracy theory: Wouldn't it be interesting if Biden were still attacked despite the massive protection and somehow rendered unfit for duty, forcing Kamala had to immediately invoke the 25th Amendment, then declaring martial law, etc. as her first acts as "PotUS"?

 

[DeadFish]

Yeah whatever you decide accept you have already lost and going lose more.

If you expect a painless and comfy happy ever then youre deluded. What youre going more likely get is multiple shit endings cyberpunk 2077 type deal.

The sooner you come to terms to that fact the better off you'll be.

____________________________________________

 

[JosephStalin]

Notable. These aren't the people "they" need to worry about. "They" need to worry about the lone wolves and very small, very tight groups who are saying nothing. You may be shocked at just what happens, but you shouldn't be surprised.

Prosecutors Face Daunting Challenge in Wake of Capitol Riot​

Getty Images
Kevin Daley - JANUARY 16, 2021 5:00 AM

Federal authorities are contending with daunting tasks as they build criminal cases against rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Top federal prosecutors are scrambling to coordinate searches or arrests with dozens of law-enforcement entities across the nation, process a colossal sum of digital evidence, and precisely trace the activities of hundreds of potential defendants. They're doing so in an uncertain security situation, with thousands of National Guardsmen deployed to protect President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration.

Prosecuting rioters is hard by nature, since the chaos mobs unleash makes it difficult to establish facts and assign blame. Many wrongdoers will ultimately escape criminal charges: Washington, D.C., prosecutors have brought fewer than 300 criminal cases related to unrest in the capital over the summer. The scale of the evidence from the Capitol riot and the mammoth federal investigatory effort underline those challenges and the unique threat riots pose for the rule of law.
Zachary Smith, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow who served as a federal prosecutor in Florida, said one immediate challenge is an organizational one. Many of the rioters, he noted, were only visiting Washington and have since returned to their homes. That means investigators need to enlist support from law-enforcement agencies all around the country as they pursue leads and make arrests. Once charges are entered, those entities will also help officials in Washington keep an eye on defendants to prevent further unrest.

"This will involve coordination between most of the U.S. attorneys' offices and FBI field offices across the country," Smith told the Washington Free Beacon. "Most of the time when information is needed, or there's a search warrant, that's going to have to be run through the local U.S. attorney's office wherever the suspect or information is located."

For example, Richard "Bigo" Barnett was an early target for authorities because images of him lounging in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office had circulated across social media. After the riot, Barnett made a quick retreat to his home in northwest Arkansas, where he was taken into custody by local sheriffs on Jan. 8. A Justice Department prosecutor in west Arkansas will handle Barnett's case, and his initial appearances have been before a federal trial court in Fayetteville.

Another problem is the quantity of information prosecutors must review. Investigators are scrambling to compile, sort, and examine thousands of pieces of digital evidence, such as pictures, videos, and cell phone tracking information. Authorities will examine each item individually, then cross-reference it with witness statements and other data. Hundreds of agents and prosecutors are needed to complete those tasks.

"The biggest issue that the FBI, DOJ, and other investigating agencies are facing is the sheer volume of evidence that they're going through," Smith said. "It's really a time-intensive, manpower-intensive process to sort through all of it."
Digital evidence will help authorities identify rioters and track their activities. But in many instances, it won't be enough to sustain a criminal case. Smith pointed to the now-famous images of a rioter parading the speaker's lectern through the Capitol as the sort of evidence on which the government can comfortably rest a case. Bringing a case on the basis of cell phone location information or a grainy video is a closer call. And connecting a particular defendant with a particular crime in a setting as chaotic as a riot is harder still.

"A prosecutor has to be able to prove whatever charges they bring in court beyond a reasonable doubt," Smith told the Free Beacon. "That's the highest burden we know in American law. So it's really important that they have all their T's crossed and their I's dotted."

Such challenges undermined over 100 cases federal prosecutors brought against Inauguration Day rioters in 2017. As President Donald Trump took office, protesters in downtown Washington charged police lines, hurled rocks at officers, set cars on fire, and shattered storefronts. Over 200 black-clad demonstrators were arrested and charged with riot-related offenses.

The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia divided the defendants into subsets and tried them in small groups. The first six defendants stood trial on five felony charges late in 2017. Prosecutors said from the start they couldn't prove the defendants committed specific acts of violence. But the defendants should still be convicted, they argued, because their very presence helped wrongdoers move freely and elude police.

A jury rejected that theory and acquitted the defendants of all counts, prompting prosecutors to drop charges against 129 others.

Seventy-one people have been charged with crimes related to the Capitol riot as of Thursday, according to a database maintained by George Washington University's Program on Extremism. Forty-four of those cases are in federal court, while 27 are in Washington, D.C. Superior Court.

Prosecutors Face Daunting Challenge in Wake of Capitol Riot - Washington Free Beacon

Federal authorities are contending with daunting tasks as they build criminal cases against rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

freebeacon.com

https://archive.vn/BVUK6

 

[The Last Stand]

While MLK is recognized for his peaceful demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement, it seems prominent black voices have shifted towards Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" approach in recent years. We all saw how businesses submitted to the mob last year where some wrote they supported BLM to avoid destruction.

What people forget about MLK, the Civil Rights and nonviolence is that the segregationists and law were the first to initiate violence. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers showed that force can be necessary as a means of self-defense. That mantra was popular around the 70s.

 

[Terrorist]

I think it's useful to understand why people consider 1/6 a success: According them, it triggered the libs in government and made them scared of right-wing revolutionary potential.

First off, that argument makes 2 pretty dodgy assumptions:
1. The libs felt as threatened as they claim. Because liberals would never falsely claim trauma and victimhood for political points, amirite?
2. Everything was as it seemed, and there was no foul play involved. Because a disorganized rabble of boomers, twinks and e-celebs who had no plan beyond aimlessly smashing shit up could take over the fucking Capitol of the United States in a day or two, amirite?

Second, if the swamp creatures were scared, it was more likely due to the physical chaos than the possibility of being overthrown. If they did fear a revolution, they shouldn't have. The siege didn't change the balance of power in any way - the swamp still holds all the power. They'll crush these people, and use 1/6 as an excuse to do Patriot Act 2: Electric Boogaloo.

The lesson of 1/6 (and the Trump presidency) is that owning the libs doesn't actually disempower them. If you sneak up behind a donkey and taze it in the balls, but then it kicks you to death, you didn't win.

 

[NeoGAF Lurker]

I think it's useful to understand why people consider 1/6 a success: According them, it triggered the libs in government and made them scared of right-wing revolutionary potential.

First off, that argument makes 2 pretty dodgy assumptions:
1. The libs felt as threatened as they claim. Because liberals would never falsely claim trauma and victimhood for political points, amirite?
2. Everything was as it seemed, and there was no foul play involved. Because a disorganized rabble of boomers, twinks and e-celebs who had no plan beyond aimlessly smashing shit up could take over the fucking Capitol of the United States in a day or two, amirite?

Second, if the swamp creatures were scared, it was more likely due to the physical chaos than the possibility of being overthrown. If they did fear a revolution, they shouldn't have. The siege didn't change the balance of power in any way - the swamp still holds all the power. They'll crush these people, and use 1/6 as an excuse to do Patriot Act 2: Electric Boogaloo.

The lesson of 1/6 (and the Trump presidency) is that owning the libs doesn't actually disempower them. If you sneak up behind a donkey and taze it in the balls, but then it kicks you to death, you didn't win.

The right has been so thoroughly denutted that ownin da libs is considered good enough, even if da libs win in the end.

I consider 1/6 a success if only because Qoomers finally stopped trusting the plan and realized that discussion about Ouroboroses aren’t going to get them anywhere. The ideas discussed as a response by Washington were going to happen anyway: the left was always going to destroy the first and second amendments, the left was always going to push for actual hate speech laws.

None of what is being proposed is anything new: this was pretty much Hildawg’s plan for online censorship since 2015. It was going to be introduced by the next Democrat president whether we liked it or not. The average burger doesn’t really give a shit about free speech when push comes to shove. The only reason why it was considered a virtue was when the left used it; now that they are in charge of most everything, they don’t need it anymore.

The left has been conducting a permanent revolution for the last 60 years in the west and has finally decided to move forward and call all white Trump voters terrorists, something they want to extend to all white people, something that academia has been creaming their panties for since at least the 1980s when the retarded concept of white privilege as an original sin emerged. There was always going to be a moment when this was going to happen and looks like that time is now. It’s not going to be easy but there was going to be a time when the can can’t be kicked down the road any further and looks like we hit that for 2020/2021.

 

[milk]

without getting too autistic, it depends on whether you think violence is a legitimate answer to things or not. Personally I'm not sure if it's right or wrong, but I sure did enjoy seeing politicians shit themselves.

 

[HumanHive]

They had no real plan beyond kick the hornet’s nest and hope Trump did ?????

So no. Not justified. But on the other hand, democrat protestors occupy capitol offices all the time. So who cares.

 

[UnimportantFarmer]

No. A badly marshalled march ended in an utter mess. It doesn't matter in a way if provocateurs were mixed in, a disciplined march wouldn't have been so compromised. I imagine that's obvious.

 

[Chris_Stuckmann]

I'm a bit of a MAGAtard, but even I have to admit that the protest was really dumb and there probably wasn't enough election fraud to justify it. But it wasn't really that bad,
At least the rioters only attacked the people they had beef with, and there were minimal casualties despite lots of guns being present. That shows a remarkable amount of restraint. Compare that with BLM, who focused their aggression on their own supporters and neighborhoods and caused more casualties despite being mostly unarmed.

 

[18.7%Russian]

Not American but It seemed justified, the footlocker looters, I mean "African-Americans" got away with causing a lot more harm to all sorts of private business and government buildings during their chimp-out over the summer. Why not let the other side have a turn too? The lefties who say otherwise are just massive hypocrites for calling out the people at capital hill as "muh homegrown terrorists!" while not calling out their people who were doing worse stuff during the summer. I found the protest and breaking into capital quite funny actually I don't see much harm caused overall.

 

[Seventh Star]

Yeah. Just split off the country already.

 

[geovonnigeovonni]

Yeah. Just split off the country already.

balkanization is going to become a serious political issue next election. This country ain't long for this gay world.

 

[Seventh Star]

balkanization is going to become a serious political issue next election. This country ain't long for this gay world.

You say as if it's that big of a deal. We all win. You all get what you want, I'm happy to not hear about US politics anymore, and the US culture will get replaced by something shitty but not as extreme as cutting people's dicks off to make room for stinkditches.

 

[mario if smoke weed]

Obviously not as justified as everyone using some random black man's death to rob the nearest Walmart/Target/Best Buy/Blockbuster.
For real though, at least the righties didn't act like they gave a shit about small business and the little man while proceeding to shit on both.

 

[Doctor Placebo]

I think it's useful to understand why people consider 1/6 a success: According them, it triggered the libs in government and made them scared of right-wing revolutionary potential.

First off, that argument makes 2 pretty dodgy assumptions:
1. The libs felt as threatened as they claim. Because liberals would never falsely claim trauma and victimhood for political points, amirite?
2. Everything was as it seemed, and there was no foul play involved. Because a disorganized rabble of boomers, twinks and e-celebs who had no plan beyond aimlessly smashing shit up could take over the fucking Capitol of the United States in a day or two, amirite?

Second, if the swamp creatures were scared, it was more likely due to the physical chaos than the possibility of being overthrown. If they did fear a revolution, they shouldn't have. The siege didn't change the balance of power in any way - the swamp still holds all the power. They'll crush these people, and use 1/6 as an excuse to do Patriot Act 2: Electric Boogaloo.

The lesson of 1/6 (and the Trump presidency) is that owning the libs doesn't actually disempower them. If you sneak up behind a donkey and taze it in the balls, but then it kicks you to death, you didn't win.

Basically this. For it to be "justified" it would have to have accomplished something besides giving the Biden admin an excuse to wave a machine gun shaped dick around while reversing everything Trump ever did in a flurry of executive orders, and calling for every Republican to be put on a terrorist watch list.

Cathartic as it may have been, it accomplished nothing but bad things, including four people dying, three of whom were protesters with families, and a bunch of people are going to get hunted down and thrown in prison for probably inflated terms.

The right should stop thinking of these situations in moral terms, because their opponents clearly don't give a shit, and start thinking of them purely pragmatically.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Basically this. For it to be "justified" it would have to have accomplished something besides giving the Biden admin an excuse to wave a machine gun shaped dick around while reversing everything Trump ever did in a flurry of executive orders, and calling for every Republican to be put on a terrorist watch list.

Cathartic as it may have been, it accomplished nothing but bad things, including four people dying, three of whom were protesters with families, and a bunch of people are going to get hunted down and thrown in prison for probably inflated terms.

The right should stop thinking of these situations in moral terms, because their opponents clearly don't give a shit, and start thinking of them purely pragmatically.

Exactly.

One of the biggest problems with the Right is their fixation on the concept of morality.

Pragmatism and discretion is the key to victory. Don't be a moralist ninny but at the same time, don't be a psychopath and do anything that's idiotic and highly illegal either.