Why are the 9/11 attacks considered terrorist attacks but the Jan 6 Capitol attacks are not terrorism?
By - gundum285
Some argue that the Capitol incident was less of an attack and more of a mob gone out of control. Terrorism is more of planned and directed event, and not protesters that have gone too far. If that were the case, any type of protest that inches over the line would be considered terrorism, and thus it would dilute to word to the point it becomes meaningless.
People arrived with a plan to kidnap senators in zip cuffs. Just like what nearly happened in Lansing Michigan and events in T dad to run the Biden campaign bus off the road.
While some were just "there" many were there with a plan.
Uh, I dunno. Even then those are groups that were just part of the mob. It wasn't really a unified effort. You also had people who just wanted to take a shit in Pelowsi's toilet. It was a big spread. Like, there may have been some terrorist activity using the riot as a cover?
I think classifying it entirely one way or the other is too broad a statement.
I think "accidentally" joining an assault on our capital building is an unforgivable act and should be prosecuted in the strictest and most severe manner possible as a way to dissuade future insurrections.
I don't think you understand how a riot works then, or what went down there.
I'm not sure what your agenda is but I'm unable to help you further.
I don't have an agenda man, I'm just here to talk about shit.
> Terrorism is more of planned and directed event, and not protesters that have gone too far. If that were the case, any type of protest that inches over the line would be considered terrorism,
I would shift this slightly. Terrorism doesn't have to be planned (if you did something like hijack a plane spur of the moment, it'd still be terrorism). However, the goal generally has to be some kind of influence. If they were trying to do something else and it just has spill-over effects, it's a bit of a grey area.
You wouldn't call someone who murdered during a robbery a terrorist. The murder might cause fear, but the goal was just to steal the stuff.
>If that were the case, any type of protest that inches over the line would be considered terrorism, and thus it would dilute to word to the point it becomes meaningless.
I mean, it would be. And should. The FBI's definition is
'Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.'
I wouldn't call that diluted. The difference is any protest that inches over the line usually isn't doing so to push an ideological goal. Things just get a bit overheated.
because one was from foreigners and the other were home grown white people. America does not want to upset it's white population. Same reason a white kid could shoot up a church and be arrested peacefully while an african american or latino will get a knee to the throat and treated like a threat on site
You are very much correct 👍🏾✊🏾
An attempted coup is not terrorism. It's its own thing.
The FBI described it as terrorism
*Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray called the Jan. 6 insurrection "domestic terrorism" and defended the FBI's handling of intelligence prior to the attack.*
The current charges are 'seditious conspiracy' - meaning an effort to conspire to overthrow the US government.
They'll be looking at 20 years for seditious conspiracy and some have already been charged with 30 years. 20 years is comparable to 'proper' terrorist charges - [example](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-sentenced-20-years-prison-attempting-provide-material-support-isis)
Of course it was a terrorist attack. They did have plans to take legislators captive and countless varying reports of what they planned to do if they caught any lawmakers. We know for certain some of the insurgents did plan on carrying our trials and executions.
How is this not a terrorist attack??? Had this been any other group, there would be no mincing words. The reason, they’re not calling it a terrorist attack? How do you call your own citizens terrorists when a large portion of the Republican Party can’t even be honest about it. After all, they would be calling their own constituents terrorists.
That’s why, plain and simple. Any other arguments around this is fluff from sympathizers that want a dictatorship…..so called “democratic patriots”.
Because half the country actually believes that domestic terrorism can't be committed by white people.
The Republican Party won't condemn the far right/white supremacists, or the most extreme racists or gun-toting *domestic* threats to our country, because that's frankly much of their voting block. The party wouldn't survive another election. That's why the few Republican politicians who spoke out against the attack were so heavily chastised by the right.
Party > People
Party > Country
That's how both political parties work frankly, but in this particular case, it's the Republican Party downplaying the attack.
Because they cant risk alienating the far right people in fear of losing them as voters
Skin Color and alternative narrative(911).
The capitol attack was a terrorist attack. It just isn't considered one by the Right because they are both sad that nothing came of it, and would prefer if people forgot about it.
And unsurprisingly, to me at least, the national security departments do consider right wing extremist groups to be the biggest threat when it comes to terrorists attacks directed at the US.
Edit: I like how I'm getting downvoted even though what I said is easily googled and can be confirmed.
No it was not a terrorist attack
The FBI disagrees with you.
Because the vast majority of people involved in the Jan 6 attack were white.
The Capitol Riots were a mob of protesters gone out of control who impulsively decided to try force their way in and stop a process combined with piss poor security from the Capitol Hill Police that ended is disaster. It was an embarrassment, but it's not technically accurate to call it a coup or terrorist attack and the people calling it such are usually using it to push a political agenda.
9/11 was an highly planned event funded by an organized terrorist group that killed thousands with a clearly defined motive being US support to Israel, the sanctions imposed against Iraq, and the presence of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Calling the capitol riots terrorism only dilutes the word into a meaningless buzzword.
> It was an embarrassment, but it's not technically accurate to call it a coup or terrorist attack
The definition the FBI uses for domestic terrorism is
''Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.''
Which would seem to be technically accurate. I wouldn't call that diluted.
>9/11 was an highly planned event funded by an organized terrorist group that killed thousands with a clearly defined motive being US support to Israel,
Terrorism doesn't have to be highly planned, or kill thousands to be terrorism. Diluting it is a serious issue, but at the same time, so is elevating it.
I agree that words need to be considered carefully here to avoid diluting or elevating what happened with the capitol riots. Although I think calling it an insurrection would be the most accurate term.
9/11 was a an organized terrorist group that killed thousands to get a message across.
Jan 6th was misguided protesters that forced their way into a building thinking they'd stop a process.
It would be a *lot* more accurate to call it a riot than a terrorist act.
> was a an organized terrorist group that killed thousands to get a message across.
Terrorism doesn't really have to be organized to be terrorism. Nor does it need to kill thousands.
>thinking they'd stop a process.
This, I think is the central claim. If the goal was just to stop the process, then it's technically probably not terrorism. However, if part of the idea was to send a message to further a political/ideological goal, that would be terrorism.
>It would be a lot more accurate to call it a riot than a terrorist act.
A riot can be a terrorist act. The FBI definition of domestic terrorism is
'Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature'
A riot very much can fit into that.
So a school shooter would be a terrorist
If it were something like Columbine, where the goal was to cause fear/social change? Yes.
Mass shootings are a form of terrorism.
They were fucking chanting for Mike Pence's death.
thought jan 6 was a riot but canada did recognize the organizers as a terrorist organization
because conservatives only consider them terrorists attacks when the people doing wrong are people of color. others downplay the seriousness of it acting like it was not preplanned. you had people bring zip ties and guns with plans to shoot up the place, this was an attack.
Because the capitol attack was white people, 911 was brown people.
And if you think my comment is racist I hope you apply that logic to public opinion too.
I believe is the social environment we are in. The 9/11 attack was planned and executed.
The BLM looting and burning of buildings was not planned.
The Jan 6 Capitol riot was not planned.
An attack is a planned execution with calculated expectation of a result. The attack on 9/11 was suppose to terrorize, put fear and distrust. Terror was the end game. I believe both political extremes see their respective rioting/social disobedience as their right to protest (the peaceful denomination and classification aspect remains to be subjective to their respective side).