All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.
What's your point?
Even if all terrorism was violence to affect a political change, that does not mean all violence to affect political change must be terrorism. 9/11 was terrorism because it used innocent people in planes to kill innocent people in private buildings with no conceivable hope of achieving military victory, rather the only possible point was to terrorized the general population.
If they had hijacked military/government planes and smashed them into military/governmental targets it would still be violence to affect a political change but it would no longer be terrorism.
When a word means everything it becomes useless.
Terrorism doesn't mean everything and I didn't say it did.
You used a subverted definition that means more than it used to and thus became morally undetermined. The way you use the word, no wrongdoing is logically implied, those who subverted you simply hope that prejudices about the word carry on through momentum.
In the same way that the trans lobby attempts to capture "gender discrimination" to wield cultural and legal power, those who use the word "terrorism" in this way are attempting to annex the negative reaction to the word by redefining it knowing that the emotional baggage will echo for a time.
I don't believe the Matt Walsh types are terrorists.
This is a non-sequitur.
If violence for a political aim is terrorism then some terrorism is good. Such as the terrorism that freed the world from feudalism and ended slavery in most of the world.
That's because the victors write the history books. Trump isn't history yet, so whether or not Jan 6 gets viewed as good or not has yet to be seen.
Good and evil are objective. More specifically any claim of good and evil that is not objective is useless to discuss. Victors may write history books, but they are not always believed or objectively correct. If your thesis is that all political violence is terrorism until victory at which point it becomes a heroic war, that's a cynical dodge and not at all the point people will take when you say "Jan 6 was terrorism".
In a democratic republic if any significant number of people are motivated to travel thousands of miles to attack a government building that means power has become too centralized.
Or it means the mainstream media has become too powerful (with Jan 6; the mainstream media was Fox News and OAN).
Or maybe a religion, mass hysteria, etc... etc... There are plenty of reasons people are angry for no good reason and blame the wrong people. Just because it's not always true doesn't mean it's not generally true.
The government should be afraid of popular uprisings in general.
What a weird way to defend BLM riots!
What a non-sequitur. Just because nazis can vote doesn't mean defending democracy is defending nazis.
Jan 6 was not terrorism and neither was the attack on the whitehouse. Attacking the government is never terrorism
What was 9/11 then?
Terrorism. Attacking the Pentagon was still terrorism because they took a bunch of innocent hostages with them.
Democracies are stable only so long as people believe a ballot works better than a bullet.
Well, no matter what happens with the 2024 election; there is going to be violence in the streets.
Most likely, and calling some riots peaceful while calling others terrorism and then locking up everyone you can find on trumped up charges greatly contributed to that probability.
It gives a false sense of security to left-wing rioters and convinces right-wing rioters that there was no point in being unarmed if they'll be treated as if they were armed regardless.
(in the case of the USA power back to the states, if it happens at a state level power back to the counties, etc.. etc...)
What does states right have to do with Jan 6?
The people at Jan 6 saw what was happening federally as an unprecedented injustice and threat to their rights. If the federal government wasn't constantly wielding enormous power over education, healthcare, the economy, and the public discourse, there would be no (perceived) life and death struggle for the presidency.
Left-tribers and right-tribers agree that having the wrong president is an existential threat. They have been acting like it was an existential threat for the last decade. That means violence and eventually war.
Abortion, taxes, "DEI", etc.. etc.. all become nationwide issues BECAUSE policy flows from DC. If the supreme court for instance had never centralized power by their original decision in Roe v Wade it would have remained a state issue. Then people would go riot at their state capitols, but not very many of them because states are on average much more unified.
It was the perception that Trump was a looming fascist threat that caused left-tribers to decide that cheating in the election was for the greater good. Although the perception of his racism is indeed manufactured it was manufactured by people getting rich off the enormous money flowing through the federal government.
If DC wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy Trump might never have been elected, if he was he would just be a kind of humorous celebrity president who threatened nobody. Furthermore without a hundred three letter agencies under his command, without the FBI to arrest people, unable to deploy troops without an insurrection, he would not have been a threat even if they believed he was evil.
The oval office has become the iron throne, and it was never meant to be that. Everyone is fighting for it because they see it as power to protect themselves and promote their own idea of the good. It is inevitable that people fight for power, but it was meant to be decentralized and democratic so that it was much more difficult to abuse power or mislead people.
The CHOP was sedition, but sedition should be allowed.
I don't like US separatist movements.
That doesn't entitle you to mislabel them as terrorists.
Your quote responding to me:
My full quote and the context, emphasis added:
[TheUnderdog] Jan 6 was not done by half the country; just the Jan 6 protestors that entered the white house.
[ADOL] It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021. I can't believe in three pages no one corrected you.
[TheUnderdog](even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).
