The rush to call the storming of the capitol terrorism is really misplaced.
By adopting words like "terrorism" you're paving the way for an overreaching response from lawmakers and law enforcement -- something that will likely end up being used against a cause you might support, like BLM.
Firstly, nobody was terrorized. No, this wasn't "our 9/11." I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.
I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds and they should be prosecuted; the violence and property damage is inexcusable. But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
This doesn’t seem to be true. Several elected officials have expressed fear they or their family would be harmed by members of the far right, most notably Rep. Pete Meijer (R-MI), who was one of the few house republicans to certify the results of the election:
“I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families,”
He also said “That was what weighed on the colleague in mind’s conscience, and the last thing that that individual said to me, concern about the safety of that individual’s family, if that individual voted to certify the election... That is where the rhetoric has brought us. That is the degree of fear that’s been created.”
In Facebook comments, one rioter wrote:
“Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in.”
“We get our President or we die,” they added. “NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
Now, do I think we need increased surveillance? Absolutely not, it was largely planned in public on Facebook. We just need an FBI that takes this movement’s threats more seriously. Exposing that some far right elements act like terrorists is one way of calling attention to the seriousness of the problem.
Edit: I also think the appeal that they might somehow treat BLM protestors even worse is not worth considering much. I don’t identify with any “side” that uses the threat of physical violence against elected officials to change their vote, even if they were to do it for a “good cause”. I don’t want that to be an available tool for BLM or anyone either.
Millions of Americans watched the Capitol insurrection play out live on tv. That has an impact on the national psyche that's very similar to a terrorist attack. People aren't going to forget about it because we all witnessed it together. It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not
You honestly think that THE defining event of Trump's presidency is going to be the Capitol riot? You don't think it's the bungled response to coronavirus that landed us all locked up in our houses for over a year, the assassination of an Iranian leader on another sovereign's soil, the trade war with China, the tax reform bill he pushed through, the Mueller probe, the BLM protests, the "stolen" SCOTUS seats, or any number of other things he did?
You think the defining moment of his presidency is something that he only tangentially had a hand in that resulted in a couple arrests and a stolen podium?
We remember Nixon for Watergate rather than how he normalised the relationship with China, ended the Vietnam War, floated USD and handled the Civil Rights movement despite all of that stuff having more long term consequences
> It's just hard for me to believe that in fifty years I'll be saying "oh boy you remember those dudes that broke into the Capitol?"
I betcha it's a Jeopardy clue in 50 years. "This president incited a riot that led to an invasion of the Capitol building for only the second time in its history".
> It's just hard for me to believe that in fifty years I'll be saying "oh boy you remember those dudes that broke into the Capitol?" as I stand in line for my bi-monthly mRNA booster shot that the newly appointed 99th Supreme Court Justice (after the Court has been packed, of course) has ruled is mandatory for all citizens.
Well, yeah, all the stuff added to describe the context in which you would be remembering the events sounds pretty implausible.
those dudes who attempted a coup and got pretty close to a hostage situation or even assassinating the Vice President or congressmen
This event made the US seem less like a super stable countries and more like one of those tin pot countries where coups frequently happen. Could it have succeed, probably not even if they did kill the VP but will we see more coup attempts is the real question
To be honest I had almost forgotten about many of these events until you mentioned them again. There are just so many things going on that it's hard to fixate too much on one thing. That said, humans tend to focus on both the beginning and end of a time-frame. In this case, the Capitol raid has a clear advantage over the other things you listed.
The virus is in its own zone as far as memory is concerned. It's been going on for so long that it overshadows Trump to some extent
> It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not
Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency - it was lower in Dec 2017 [0], and even now at 39.2% it's almost twice that of Congress [1] at 20%.
It doesn't seem to have hurt him all that much. If you look at favorability rather than job approval, it even seems to be almost unchanged [2], only having gone from 45% to 43%. And if you give any weight to Rasmussen, they have Trump's total approval going up since the 6th, from 47% to 51% [3]!
> Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency
In the Gallup poll it is [0], in the particular weighting and aggregation used by 538 it is not.
> it's almost twice that of Congress
Congress isn't a person, it's an aggregate, for which any voter will not have had a voice in selecting 532 of 535 voting members. Comparison of Congress’s approval ratings to the President’s are meaningless, and only ever resorted to by people trying to make horrendously unpopular Presidents look more popular than they are.
> if you give any weight to Rasmussen,
You probably shouldn't; they've always had a pro-Republican house effect as a pollster matching their editorial tilt, which isn't too worrying, but they’ve pretty overtly gone into hyperpartisan mode since the election.
The first one is an aggregate, the second and third were just among the top of my Google results (and CNN has been pretty biased against Trump for his whole presidency), and I do specifically call out Rasmussen.
The capitol was ransacked by a non-homogeneous group as far as I can tell. Some people were probably there just to wave some flags and take some selfies, as you suggest. Others were erecting gallows, setting bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters, breaking windows, carrying zip-tie handcuffs into the building, actively searching the building for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, fighting with the police, and so on. (This is just the stuff we know about.)
I think it would be a stretch to call all the rioters terrorists, but I think a lot of them would fit any reasonable definition and they were well-organized, intentional, and numerous. Even if a terrorist attack is unsuccessful or does not kill or injure a large number of people that doesn't make it not terrorism. And I think there was a real risk that members of Congress could have been kidnapped, injured, or killed if things had gone a little bit differently.
The definition - 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims' - seems to fit the event we're discussing.
Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor's apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists.
Yes, there is credence to the old saying: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".
But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is undeniably a political goal. While some BLM rioters eventually did conduct what could be described as terrorist acts, it fundamentally isn't the same thing.
2. You're welcome to disagree on that point, but it's not what's being discussed in this thread.
3. Yes, media overreach is an issue, but it's not the topic of the conversation.
4. I am still sad that people are trying to downplay the issue, and not just because some people don't want to call it terrorism. People saying 'oh in the future it won't even be remembered' etc etc is also problematic as it's downplaying the event itself.
Thank you; I really appreciated this comment. I’m feeling much the same way, and it’s been in my mind a lot lately. I think the heart of the issue is a failure to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. People look at each thing in isolation and say, “it’s not that big a deal”, but somehow (especially surprising for folks who frequent HN) fail to see the larger patterns.
93% of the BLM protests were peaceful [1] despite protestors numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions - compared to the tens of thousands at the capitol. The most notable violence during the BLM protests was an incident where far right extremists, members of Bugaloo boys group involved in the capitol attack, used the protests as cover to murder cops [2].
This is not about the probability but the outcome at the tail
7% or 3% or 1% is still huge.
The right number to use is 0%. Not 1% or 7% Zero. Those protests literally shut down critical stores for people in dire straits. For ex. The only pharmacy near low income seniors with limited motor ability, with the double whammy that public transport also shut down.
Cities on fire every week is not OK especially when the offenders are inmune from law enforcement.
To think that 7% is acceptable smacks of priviledge. Someone is clearly not living in the inner city, and does not know what it means to not own a car when the public transport system is halted and the only supermarket near is razed.
95% of meteors don't even hit the ground, and most of those that do are just pebble sized.
Are you really trying to compare Black Lives Matter to a mass extinction event?
Edit:
Okay, you've massively edited your comment. A single gender reveal party caused more property damage than all the BLM protests combined. I do not get this continued obsession with BLM protests, especially in conversations regarding the insurrection at the capitol this month.
Well, it is racism. Watching America from the outside, it is quite obvious. Blacks from my country visiting America experience a culture shock how they are treated there compared to here; for context.
Within a few blocks of where I used to live, armed “protesters” physically seized control of a police station and city park and committed four shootings—ironically, the last of these entailed the armed “security” forces misidentifying and opening fire on two black teenagers, killing one of them.
Sounds like you're talking about Seattle. I followed the news enough to know you've misrepresented it.
Unarmed protesters wanted to protest in front of the police station. The police blocked them. The protests grew day by day because the police kept escalating to violence.
Then the police suddenly abandoned the station and the area. The protesters didn't ask for it. The mayor and police chief denied ordering it. The police just went rogue and left the protesters to figure out what to do. They never occupied the police station.
The first shooting was just outside the protest area. People who knew the victim and the suspect said it was a long running feud.
The second shooting was outside the protest area. The victim said he was attacked by white supremacists.
The third shooting was outside the protest area. The victim refused to talk to police. So no one knows who did it.
The last shooting did involve armed protesters working as security guards. It wasn't a case of mistaken identity though. The teenagers drove at the barricades minutes after erratically driving through the occupied park.
> The last shooting did involve armed protesters working as security guards. It wasn't a case of mistaken identity though. The teenagers drove at the barricades minutes after erratically driving through the occupied park.
Setting aside the notion of gunmen manning barricades on public streets here—the SUV they fired on was, by many reports, a different SUV from the vehicle before.
Regardless, this is still the exact type of incident that they were supposedly protesting against in the first place.
The city placed the barricades. People driving into protesters was common.[1] Other people had threatened to harm the Seattle protesters. The police had abandoned the area. Carrying guns on public streets is legal there.
The SUV the guards shot was recorded driving through the park.
Many reports said shots were fired from that vehicle. They didn't find any guns so probably not. Internet detectives decided the shots were fired from a different SUV recorded speeding away afterward. But it was actually recorded speeding toward the area. And people feared getting rammed not just shot.
They were protesting police brutality against peaceful or restrained black people. That isn't exactly like an oncoming SUV.
I would want to know why the police didn't set up a safer perimeter or have spike strips. They have resources volunteers don't. But they have a moral duty to protect other people when they reasonably believe lives are in danger. And people there believed their lives were in danger.
What I might say in another situation is irrelevant anyway. Someone can be right for the wrong reasons.
Sorry man, but the most notable violence during the BLM protests was the gangland style execution of two black teens after the "movement" had taken over six city blocks.
I was noting flashbangs, less-lethal bullets, gas, and batons being used against unarmed people for months, but you are right that those things aren't notable. It is, in fact, the most expected, and normal thing about the entire summer.
In fact, half of the point of the protests were to protest against that kind of run-of-the-mill, un-notable, indiscriminate application of violence by police.
Well, just today 11 officers were injured in the MLK day protest at City Hall, NYC. The Police Commissioner Dermot Shea himself stated that this was not a peaceful protest.
What about the BLM protesters who attempted to burn down the Portland courthouse with federal officers inside ?
Antifa doesn't even exist as an organization and yet it was classified as a terrorist organization. I know many people who live in Portland with families and exactly zero of them had any concern about the protesters, fwiw.
Terrorism is one of those words that are a bit hard to define.
If you would use the definition you wrote here, a lot of things would be considered terrorism. There would probably be more terrorists than non-terrorists in the world then..
But anyway, I think we can agree on the "violence is wrong"-part, and the counterproductive part.
But saying that if any form of violence occured during a protest, then those protests should be considered equal, is, well, I don't even know what to call it; Dishonest?
Now, what I really disagree about is the "I'm pointing out media hypocrisy"-part. I really don't think you are doing that, I think that what you are doing is, complaining that "the media" seems to agree more with me than with you on this issue, and then phrasing it like your point of view is objectively correct.
I think missing from the definition is "indiscriminate"
That makes a significant difference.
On one side, the Right's movement against the capitol was specifically targeting politicians. This movement affected a priviledged political class and the people that they employ.
In the other extreme, the BLM movement against (x) targeted (y) . This movement affected seniors, students, women, owners , employees, blacks, latinos, indiscriminately.
This is the crux of the issue. X and Y are quite random and thus lend themselves far easier to the classic definition of terrorism
Terrorism, by definition to many, requires the intentional infliction of terror to achieve those aims. That’s why it’s called “terrorism” rather than “political violence”
the same people have been denying this problem for the past few years. they’ve been constantly either changing the subject or denying that the problem exists at all. mass shootings? oh no big deal. a newsroom was shot up? oh no big deal. bombs sent to every democrat leader, cnn, soros, etc..? oh don’t discuss that, discuss this instead! obvious signs of misinformation and propaganda spreading like a virus through internet forums? oh that’s not anything to worry about.
There is already a huge gulf between how BLM protests were treated and how the capitol protest was. There’s a photo from a BLM protest in DC where the Lincoln Memorial steps (not the capitol building, which is widely-stated misinformation) had lines of National Guard troops stationed on it.
Compare that with the tiny Capitol Police force guarding the Capitol building while one of the most important state functions was in progress, with much of the executive branch succession and the legislative branch in attendance. National Guard troops were denied both in advance and for a while during the ensuing riot, citing concerns about “the optics.”
Any meaningful discussion of protest response and overreach, potential or actual, has to account for that disparity.
As you said, some rioters were “planning terrible deeds,” which increasingly clearly means “kidnapping or executing congresspeople and the VP for not keeping DJT in power.” This raises the issue to the level of sedition (organized incitement to rebellion) and insurrection (actual acts of violence against the state or its officers).
Maybe “terrorism” doesn’t broadly apply here, and it’s better to refer to the capitol invaders as “insurrectionists.” Trump, the other government supporters of the protest, and any private backers should be labeled as “seditionists.” I am less likely to push for a “terrorism” label if I can be confident that the other two labels will be applied and prosecuted as such.
Well the left wingers have already successfully bombed the Capitol building in 1983, so it's prudent for law enforcement to be wary when they protest near it.
Alternative take: Maybe DC Police and others learned some restraint in the ~6 months in between and tried to avoid escalating the situation in the earliest moments.
Even if it was misplaced, isn't that a better opening mindset?
That’s a fair take concerning the Capitol police (who are a separate force from DC police, just FYI). But even the calls to have the National Guard on standby, given new intel 1 or 2 days before the event that it was going to be bigger than expected, were denied before the event.
Then when things began to escalate, calls for National Guard assistance were denied by the Pentagon for at least a full hour. In a rapidly-evolving situation, especially when the Capitol building has been breached and it takes time to summon the troops since they weren’t on standby, that is an eternity.
You’re onto something there. But it’s more a means to a political end, as opposed to another data point of systemic racism. Both are awful, but not entirely correlated in this instance.
They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints. Their intent was to kidnap and kill the politicians and they almost succeeded if it wasn’t for the hero that killed the terrorist that was breaching the only door left between them and the politicians.
You are disingenuous if for you this wasn’t a terrorist attack just because they didn’t succeed and only managed to kill some cops instead of some politicians.
I can count six DC-area thousand+ employee firms that provided grief counseling in response. And as a reminder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - even if a subset of people implemented violence with political ends in mind (breaking in, beating innocent people, attempting to take hostages, all in the name of overturning a legitimate election), at the very least, that subset meets the precise definition of "terrorists."
> No, this wasn't "our 9/11."
The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814.
> I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds, and the violence and property damage is inexcusable.
Yes, using the rest of the people in the crowd as human shields, but nonetheless:
> But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
This isn't a valid defense to any crime literally ever.
I think you're underestimating the intent of people who showed up with pipe bombs and flex cuffs and gallows.
Sure, there were a lot of play acting idiots hanging on and joining in, like that girl who seemed somehow incensed that she got pepper sprayed when "all she'd done" was "shown up for the revolution and trespassed on The Capitol", but not all of them were just clueless morons.
Some of them had plans and intent that would 100% be called "terrorism" if they were of middle eastern descent, and should 100% be called terrorism even though they're home-grown American citizens.
So what was the goal of storming the Capitol? You keep saying it wasn't terrorism, so what was the purpose?
It seems pretty obvious to me the purpose was to intimidate elected officials in some misguided attempt to prevent them from completing their constitutional duties. That is literally terrorism.
>Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
> If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism.
> The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.
> The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn't similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind.
I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.
I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year.
Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too
> I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year.
> Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too
I'm straining my neck to understand how you equated the litany of protesters who broke into the Capitol building (excluding the terrorists who came equipped with pipe bombs, tactical gear for hostage-taking, and who planned the insurrection for months) with innocent bystanders on doomed flights on 9/11.
You're talking about people who wear tactical gear to go to the corner store. Who carry guns and flex-cuffs because they are desperate to be some kind of "big man".
Probably a handful of them intended to actually "do" something.
But mostly they just milled about looking like penguins escaping the zoo.
Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.
The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.
It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?
> Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.
Didn't say that.
> The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.
You didn't understand me.
> It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?
I don't really see how the number of people killed makes a difference in whether an attack is terrorism. An attack can result in zero casualties and still be terror (depending on some definitions. Others require at least one death)
But while all of those are incidents, attacks, etc., I think the distinction (which I failed to highlight) is that 1814 and 2021 involved a complete overrun of the building rather than a localized incident or intrusion. Doesn't make much of a practical difference in the end, though.
> I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.
We still talk about the Clinton impeachment today, and the acts that precipitated it. Students of history still study the Andrew Johnson impeachment. You're being naive if you think an unprecedented, record, second impeachment of a president will be forgotten that quickly.
The violence and property damage wasn't the problem. Democracies can survive some broken windows, stolen laptops, and yes, even people getting hurt and killed at a protest. This sort of thing has happened for decades and centuries.
What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
There was an excellent article by someone from a place where a failed coup led to a real one a couple of years hence. Democracy is not 'intact', it is now damaged, and whether or not manage to repair it remains to be seen.
The most dangerous thing you can do now is to think this is behind you and from here on in everything is normal. It isn't and it probably won't be for some time. If you manage the next two transfers of power at the end of election cycles without further mishap I'd say that you can say democracy is intact. Until then all bets are off.
Edit: I wished I could locate the article, so far no luck.
edit2: finally found it in my history, this article was from 11 November 2020, and very prescient:
I would like to see some data on failed coups that does not involve any military.
The latest major failed coup that I can remember would be the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, and the effect it had on the country is well known. The general consensus internationally seems to be that the efforts by their government to stamp out their "terrorists" has been a bit of an overreaction, even if literal tanks was involved. The censorship machine in particular has been quite overreactive.
One can really hope that the US democracy manage a more appropriate reaction that is more proportional to the threat.
It's bunk because the military didn't play ball, not because it wasn't tried.
What's mostly bunk here is that you think that this is behind you and I am not willing to accept that until we have seen one, and preferably two transfers of power without mishap, preferably in both directions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're claiming the sitting President tried to mobilize the military to prevent a transfer of power. Do you have any evidence of that?
Claiming there was fraud in the past election, that the election was stolen, or that the results should not have been certified is not mobilizing the military. It's not even illegal, it's part of the constitutional process.
Hell, some Democrats did exactly that to Trump in 2017. Even the Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi herself disputed the results in 2005 yet she now claims that anyone else repeating her own words is an insurrectionist.
Democracy only works because we all believe that it works.
When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power.
I think it's far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight - not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.
You keep cutting off quotes without including the relevant details. You need to stop doing that. The original quote:
> What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
The last part of that sentence you cropped (emphasized by me) didn't come to pass because it was interrupted by Capitol contingency plans and Shelter In Place protocols, among other things. It very well could've been successful; we're lucky to not know that outcome.
Are we? Because to me there are huge cracks opening up. Death toll isn't the important part about terrorist attacks, it's the responses that count, and the response to this seems about the same or more extreme as 9/11 to me, and I lived through that on a military base. I don't remember 25k troops being deployed into DC for 9/11.
And that was a foreign attack. 25000 national guard are in D.C. due to a domestic enemy, white nationalist American terrorists, making credible threats.
It's self-evidently anti-Democratic. The last time this nation got into a dispute over an election where the minority decided to just set it aside and not submit to the result, resulted in the bloodiest revolution to date.
And now Trump is considering starting a "Patriot Party" due to his lack of support in the GOP for overturning the election. Spitting image of the failed Putsch when Hitler realized, in Jail, that a coup d'état wasn't going to work and they needed to attack at a different angle, a democratic angle, and be seen as a legitimate political party.
It's happening just like it was always going to, like clockwork. Americans aren't out of this yet.
These actors haven't finished.
The pattern so far is that the current admin has tried every single dirty trick they could muster to avoid leaving power.
Even if something happens to Trump today, these folks will recrystallize around a new cult leader.
By adopting words like "terrorism" you're paving the way for an overreaching response from lawmakers and law enforcement -- something that will likely end up being used against a cause you might support, like BLM.
Firstly, nobody was terrorized. No, this wasn't "our 9/11." I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.
I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds and they should be prosecuted; the violence and property damage is inexcusable. But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
What we need right now is de-escalation.