Terrorism:
> the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Seems pretty damn clear cut that Jan 6th insurrectionists are Terrorists by that understanding.
The fact stands that plenty of people on Jan6 threatened / executed violent action for a political means by an illegitimate authority.
Nope, most reports that protesters were "armed" are "stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs" and even that is an exaggeration by the media as the number of even those "weapons" were carried by a minority of people.
To date, I believe there are have been only 3 people confirmed to be carrying a gun that was not law enforcement, none of which have been charged with discharging or using those guns in any way.
when you say "they did have guns" most people think it was a armed resistance, it was not and to be most favorable to you it is simply an exaggeration to say it that way, but if I want to be uncharitable I would say you are engaging in disinformation
>they did beat people with flag poles.
Again here, this is an exaggeration, there was ONE incident of that, where ONE person hit another person with a flag pole, ONE.
Don't be obtuse. Had members of Congress not evacuated their chambers just the fact a mob was outside the doors would be holding them hostage. Several rioters had flexi-cuffs and other bindings. It's not terribly difficult to hold someone hostage. It's downright easy for a large group of people to imprison a smaller group, especially one composed of unarmed geriatrics.
> Were they going to beat people with flagpoles?
You've got from obtuse to insipid. The answer is yes. They literally beat people with flag poles. Several were armed with guns. Many were armed with other blunt weapons, stolen police weapons, and chemical sprays.
>Several were armed with guns.
"Several" meaning 3... in a crowd of thousands the majority of which likely own guns but did not bring them.
>Don't be obtuse.
Take your own advice and look at the facts not the media spin and hype
Yes it is quite difficult for a group of unarmed and unorganized rioters to subdue a highly trained and well armed security force, much less perform a coup.
What would have been a worse case scenario here? They burst into the capital chamber, subdue dozens of armed guards in unarmed combat, and then seize control of the federal government by threatening to beat members of congress with flagpoles?
There is no evidence of this being anything other than a riot. And for the year 2020, it was a relatively tame one.
Terrorism isn't about "lawfulness." They just threw that in because violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is what most countries do at all times. The definition wants to call war "lawful."
Otherwise it would have been a different story indeed.