Hacker News Reader

Comment by wizzard | Hacker News Reader

They brought semi-automatic weapons, Molotov cocktails, zip-tie handcuffs, pipe bombs, chemical agents, and more. The congresspeople had to escape via the underground tunnels and five people died. How is using the word "terrorism" here hyperbolic?

View on HN

If "organized crime" was good enough for the mafia, why not here?

To the best of my knowledge, other than preferential legal treatment, organized crime tends not to aim to influence politics. Terrorism, on the other hand, is the use of violence or threats of violence for political purposes.

"Rebels" "Revolutionaries" and "Freedom fighters" (amongst others) also refer to political violence. What distinguishes them from terrorists?

Actually, I think all four of these words have the same issue: none of them refer to a specific deed. Arson can be terrorism. Assault and battery can be terrorism. Mass murder can be terrorism.

Maybe we need to turn it into an adjective instead. Terror-theft, terror-torture, terror-trespassing. It seems obvious to me that those things are not the same. Yet we lump them all under one label. Maybe there's different lines where those acts cross into terrorism? It's not terror-theft unless you've stolen the nuclear briefcase? Or maybe a laptop is enough. Is that what we're arguing?

Terrorism is an all-encompassing evil because it aims to undermine democracy. It doesn't matter if you do that by murder, arson, or mailing a letter to someone telling them if they vote you'll kill them. They all undermine the very foundation of our democracy and should be treated equally, harshly, and swiftly.

> Terrorism is an all-encompassing evil because it aims to undermine democracy.

I can agree with this part. But it seems to me that the primary method by which it undermines democracy is our [over]reaction to it, like an autoimmune disorder. To be glib about it,

Terrorism: exists

Democracy: undermines self

If the goal of terrorism is to undermine democracy, reacting by shifting towards totalitarianism is self-defeating.

The insurrection wasn't organized.

How are you so sure of that? Especially in this age of rapid telecommunication I find it unlikely that no one in the crowd coordinated ahead of time with at least one other person there.

I didn't say nobody coordinated. But no large number showed signs of a shared coherent plan.

Going to need some sources—the fact that cops found some of that stuff in various locations around the Capitol is not prima facie evidence that the specific individuals who actually broke into the Capitol building brought those things or intended to use them to commit acts of terrorism.

> Going to need some sources—the fact that cops found some of that stuff in various locations around the Capitol is not prima facie evidence that the specific individuals who actually broke into the Capitol building brought those

Well, re: “zip tie handcuffs”: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip-cuffs-capitol-riots/

Dude...listen to yourself.

The rule of law demands high standards of evidence, because reality is messy. Case in point: One of the men in the Capitol building was John Sullivan, founder of a pro-BLM protest organization. If specific tools of mayhem were brought to this event, then specific individuals can be identified who own those tools. Those individuals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that’s that. You don’t get to use some vague cloud of evidence to declare that a conspiracy to armed insurrection existed here—we need the same standard of evidence that is e.g. required of Trump to prove his claims of election fraud.

Arguementum Ad BLM - you mentioned BLM, therefore any criticism of the capital protests are invalid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com