Help me understand.

roscoe

Well-known member
So they thought the Capitol Police would just stand aside and let them attack Congress? If they considered being "mowed down" by the Capitol Police as a reason to not bring guns then they obviously assumed the police would be there - which in turn means they thought they could accomplish their objectives despite the police being there. If you're doing a peaceful protest you may reasonably consider the presence of cops irrelevant - if you're planning to attack someone the cops are supposed to be defending you need a way to deal with the cops.

I know many cops - I've even talked with more than one Capitol Police officer. I've never seen any sign that they had any more resistance to using force than any other cops... which begs the question of why more of these people supposedly attempting to subvert the government by force weren't fired upon? Why, for example, wasn't the guy with the bat shot? That would, as you say, constitute grounds for use of lethal force in most jurisdictions (I'm not going to pretend to know DC law). So, again, why didn't the Capitol Police make widespread use of lethal force if the grounds for it were there, they were, as in most of the pictures, heavily outnumbered, and the bulk of the mob was armed and acting violently?

As for the "evidence-less conspiracy theory that has already been debunked" please enlighten me - who debunked it? Have the majority of those present given statements that they intended violence? As for the effects we've already seen those - talk of "domestic terrorists", supposed multi-state "right wing conspiracies" planning to attack state capitals (said attacks oddly not making the news - almost as if they didn't happen), putting people on no-fly lists, and of course fences and thousands of troops deployed to DC.

Bottom line: the mob was planning violence or it wasn't. If it was, why not come prepared for violence? You *have* heard the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight", yes? Do you think supposed right wing fanatics haven't? I'm not saying a mob armed with civilian weaponry (and more importantly ad-hoc civilian C3I) would have succeeded, but I've seen plenty of people who talk on the internet as if they think it would. Since those are the people who supposedly came to attack Congress, why didn't they come armed? Again, did they expect the cops to just let them kidnap Congress?

I cannot get inside the mind of the rioters, but, to the extent they were thinking logically, it is pretty clear they expected to get through, and to disrupt the vote counts in favor of Biden. Think about it - why would Democrats do anything? They had already won the election! It was just a matter of letting the process follow through. The only reason to attack would be on those supporting Trump.

Not having firearms on the grounds of the US Capitol was obviously the right call - it would have precipitated a firefight. Even the sight of one rifle would have created a bloodbath. As for why the Capitol Police didn't just shoot into the crowd - well, hopefully you know the answer to that one. No cop wants to be the one that fired the first shot into the crowd on live TV, and I don't blame them.

As to refuting the general conspiracy theory that somehow ANTIFA precipitated the attack, the fact that, having tracked down hundreds of rioters via social media and journalists' photos, every single person identified has been a true-red Trump supporter. The FBI has made a lot of arrests, but not one of an ANTIFA mole. So unless there is evidence, it is just a conspiracy theory. Besides - what were the "necessary emergency actions" and "temporary restrictions"? All it did was slow down the vote count by a few hours, but no laws have been passed, nor executive actions repressing the right to redress the government, or to protest.

A bunch of true-believers were encouraged to go for a hail-Mary by Trump (and Q-Anon), but it just didn't work the way they thought it would. It was a crowd that that got worked up, and they bought the lie. Many of them are still pretty upset Trump didn't pardon them. Oops.

As for kidnapping - these guys weren't a threat,
1619672874368.png


but I wonder what this guy's plan was?
1619672740783.png
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
-That's pretty much how I read it, Gridley.
An attempt to create the current equivalent of a Reichstag Fire, using a bunch of dupes and LARPers to take the blame... .

That simply doesn't make sense. The Democrats were about to take over the Senate and White House. They had already won.

Study up on the Reichstag fire - Hitler ordered it because the Nazis did not have a majority in the German parliament. The Democrats didn't have to do that - they HAVE a majority in both houses, and had won the White House. What did they have to gain?

You need a better conspiracy theory! Maybe it was to cover up the murder of Seth Rich!
 

Gridley

New member
I cannot get inside the mind of the rioters, but, to the extent they were thinking logically, it is pretty clear they expected to get through, and to disrupt the vote counts in favor of Biden. Think about it - why would Democrats do anything? They had already won the election! It was just a matter of letting the process follow through. The only reason to attack would be on those supporting Trump.

Not having firearms on the grounds of the US Capitol was obviously the right call - it would have precipitated a firefight. Even the sight of one rifle would have created a bloodbath. As for why the Capitol Police didn't just shoot into the crowd - well, hopefully you know the answer to that one. No cop wants to be the one that fired the first shot into the crowd on live TV, and I don't blame them.

As to refuting the general conspiracy theory that somehow ANTIFA precipitated the attack, the fact that, having tracked down hundreds of rioters via social media and journalists' photos, every single person identified has been a true-red Trump supporter. The FBI has made a lot of arrests, but not one of an ANTIFA mole. So unless there is evidence, it is just a conspiracy theory. Besides - what were the "necessary emergency actions" and "temporary restrictions"? All it did was slow down the vote count by a few hours, but no laws have been passed, nor executive actions repressing the right to redress the government, or to protest.

A bunch of true-believers were encouraged to go for a hail-Mary by Trump (and Q-Anon), but it just didn't work the way they thought it would. It was a crowd that that got worked up, and they bought the lie. Many of them are still pretty upset Trump didn't pardon them. Oops.

As for kidnapping - these guys weren't a threat,


but I wonder what this guy's plan was?
Odd that you say you "cannot get inside the mind of the rioters" but earlier you said that they didn't bring guns because they knew they'd be mowed down if they did. So, do you understand their minds, or not?

And since you keep missing it I'll ask again: WHY did they think the Capitol Police would just let them through if they planned an attack? "They expected to get through" isn't a method.

I don't recall bringing up ANTIFA - and you yet again ignore the things that have been done - I'll again point to increased use of the no-fly list for people who weren't even in DC that day.

If they weren't a threat, why did we need thousands of troops in DC?

If they were a threat, why weren't dozens of people hauled out in body bags?

If they intended to be a threat, where are the guns?
 

Selena

Active member
That simply doesn't make sense. The Democrats were about to take over the Senate and White House. They had already won.

Study up on the Reichstag fire - Hitler ordered it because the Nazis did not have a majority in the German parliament. The Democrats didn't have to do that - they HAVE a majority in both houses, and had won the White House. What did they have to gain?

You need a better conspiracy theory! Maybe it was to cover up the murder of Seth Rich!

If you had experience with herd animals it would make perfect sense. Once a mob, and the Democrat party is the party of mobs, loses momentum the people that benefit lose control. This is why Lenin attacked the Kulaks after the royal family had been slaughtered. Why Mao re-educated the intellectuals after the foreigners had been conquered. Not to mention why Che and Castro brutally murdered "counter revolutionaries." Once tyrants seize power,whether by vote or violence they need to consolidate power and bring the faithful into line.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Odd that you say you "cannot get inside the mind of the rioters" but earlier you said that they didn't bring guns because they knew they'd be mowed down if they did. So, do you understand their minds, or not?

And since you keep missing it I'll ask again: WHY did they think the Capitol Police would just let them through if they planned an attack? "They expected to get through" isn't a method.

I don't recall bringing up ANTIFA - and you yet again ignore the things that have been done - I'll again point to increased use of the no-fly list for people who weren't even in DC that day.

If they weren't a threat, why did we need thousands of troops in DC?

If they were a threat, why weren't dozens of people hauled out in body bags?

If they intended to be a threat, where are the guns?

Just to be clear, the Capitol Police did not 'just let them through'. They where overwhelmed by the numbers and decide not to fire into the crowd:
1619713104392.png


You are correct that one cannot truly know the minds of the rioters, but I offered the only plausible explanation for their not being armed with guns. But it is very clear that a lot of them did come prepared for conflict - hence the tactical gear, helmets, shields, zipties, mace,striking weapons etc. Those are not things you bring to a presidential rally. We now know who these people are, and they are very definitely Trump supporters:
1619713530337.png

1619713594282.png

1619713618168.png

1619713679508.png


If you have evidence for some sort of general crack-down by the Biden administration, you need to provide links. I haven't seen anything other than the FBI arresting people who were clearly there.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
If you had experience with herd animals it would make perfect sense. Once a mob, and the Democrat party is the party of mobs, loses momentum the people that benefit lose control. This is why Lenin attacked the Kulaks after the royal family had been slaughtered. Why Mao re-educated the intellectuals after the foreigners had been conquered. Not to mention why Che and Castro brutally murdered "counter revolutionaries." Once tyrants seize power,whether by vote or violence they need to consolidate power and bring the faithful into line.

You need to provide some evidence beyond heavy-breathing conspiracy theory. Show me ONE person in that crowd who was working with the Democrats. Because I bet that in 15 minutes of Google-searching I could list more than 100 who were long-time conservatives and Trump supporters.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Worth watching all the way through.



I think it is highly informative as to the mental state of many Trump supporters when faced with his losing the election.
 
Last edited:

Selena

Active member
Worth watching all the way through.



I think it is highly informative as to the mental state of many Trump supporters when faced with his losing the election.
ABC and the Washington Post? Really? Do you have anything from a reliable source or just Gannet clones?
 

Gridley

New member
So, for anyone who is actually interested in discussing what actually happened and whether it makes sense (i.e. not roscoe), let's consider four scenarios:

1. The MSM narrative. A bunch of Trump supporters 'stormed the Capitol' in an "insurrection" with the aim of holding Congress hostage.
Basic problem: as above, no guns. If they intended violence and didn't think the Capitol police would just let them pass, they would have brought guns. If the bulk of the mob intended to be peaceful and only some intended violence those "some" still should have brought guns. I've neither seen evidence of "rioters" with guns nor the body count that an exchange of fire should have led to.
2. The "friendly fire" idea. The bulk of the mob intended a peaceful protest. Among them were some pro-Trump individuals who triggered the fighting in order to distract the Capitol Police and get the run of the Capitol for long enough to seize documents (generally said to be regarding the election). This does explain why no one brought guns and why the violence was quite limited - that's all the instigators wanted. It doesn't explain the one area where the Capitol Police freely opened a fence to let demonstrators in (yes, there's video, and no, the Capitol Police didn't allow demonstrators past most of the lines without a fight).
Basic problem: no documents have been released, and the partial cooperation of the Capitol Police hasn't been explained in any forum I've seen. The former could simply be because the attempt failed, for one of various reasons. The latter is hard to explain, especially since I've seen no report of the Capitol Police trying to run that down themselves.
3. The anti-Trump hijackers. The bulk of the mob intended a peaceful protest. Among them were some anti-Trump individuals who wanted to create an incident as a pretext for a crack down on 'conservatives'. If one assumes that the same people providing periodic support to antifa and BLM were involved this can explain a number of oddities on the day, and of course also who got arrested.
Basic problem: while this would explain what happened, there's no definitive evidence (that I've seen).
4. The spontaneous attack. In this the mob originally intended to be peaceful, but were incited by... something... into making an ad-hoc assault. This explains the lack of guns and the lack of planning, and also why things petered out so quickly - the mob wasn't really set on an objective.
Basic problem: what incited them? I've heard Trumps "inciting" speech and seen his "inciting" tweets. If you were ALREADY planning violence I could see someone already psyched up reading them as support... but someone who was planning a peaceful demonstration? Not this side of an insane asylum.

Which ones do you feel make the most sense and why?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No. 2. Anyone with a helmet or tactical vest was prepared for conflict and likely had a specific plan to disrupt ballot counting. But most, including bison-head man, were just dressed to party for Trump. Once Trump got them worked up, however, the idea of stopping the vote snowballed. Never underestimate the foolishness of crowds.

To your point about the police, the Capitol Police are investigating why some folks were allowed in:
 

roscoe

Well-known member
So Trump got them worked up by telling folks to stay peaceful... Right.

That's your interpretation of his speech prior to the attack? When he told people to walk down the lawn to the Capitol? The speech many Republicans condemned as contributing to the attack? Huh. Well, people see what they want to see.
 
No. 2. Anyone with a helmet or tactical vest was prepared for conflict and likely had a specific plan to disrupt ballot counting.

Wrong.

Those outfitted for a fight were there to engage the expected Antifa rioters--and the Antifa folks were apparently too cowardly (or too smart) to show up.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Apparently at least one of the Antifa-types were involved in the Breaking-and-Entering part of the "insurrection" that let the LARPers into the building... .
 
Top