Hoodlums that did a lot of planning to overthrowing the capital, and those in charge that let them do what they want that day. They used fear, intimidation, and the strong eat the flesh of weak mindset. And none of the motherfuckers wanna take full responsibility despite the evidence clear as day. They may be thundering dumbasses, but just because you're a terrorist does not make you some mastermind or shadowy threatening figure. Terrorists can and many are a group of thundering dumb asses. Some smarter than others, but theatening people of your country or different countries/religion/race to get what you want is terrorism. No if, maybes, or buts. Keep in mind that them and several other hardcore Trump/Q-Anon fanatics came in their with the attempt to kill and blow up the fucking capital! Thankfully, none of their bombs went off and were found. They're terrorists as far as I'm concerned and anyone with any logical sense.
www.splcenter.org
I saw a lot of vandalism and a doofus dressed like a shaman and other people who all looked very marginalized. For sure they are hoodlums but the aim of terrorists is to terrorize and to make as many civilian casualties as possible to influence public opinion and alter people's behavior. That has never been the aim of Proud Boys as far as I know. Just a lot of big words and demonstrations that got out of control. How many people have they actually killed? Now, compare that to ISIS.
It's not a inflating term if it's true. I don't care how ridiculous and or whatever stupid jargon comes out of their mouth, they are terrorists. Just because they are not ISIS, does not make them any less of a terrorist than them. Just because no large amount of lives were lost, does it make it any less true of what they did or what they are. Do not downplay them with a different term, that is something they want. We are a huge disagreement sir. You cannot tell me otherwise.
The definition of "terrorism" doesn't really factor the numbers or success rate of such groups.
Compare IRA, RAF, Golden Dawn, Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaeda etc. to ISIS. Suddenly all these groups doesn't seem as "worthy" to be deemed terrorists either, by your measure. But of course, you're measuring against a practical war-mongering state.
I posted this in another thread
Other than vandalizing the capitol what other acts of 'terrorism' have they ever committed then? They weren't even the only ones at that riot. Are conspiracy loons then terrorists as well? Not saying these are nice people or anything but like I said; the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize and make as many civilian casualties as possible to alter people's behavior. Proud Boys in no way seems to fit that profile and calling them 'terrorists' only serves to downplay actual terrorists like indeed IS or AQ.
Are large civilian casualties necessary to classify? Some organisations which are widely recognised as terrorist tended to target public buildings etc, including empty ones, sometimes even providing advance warnings for workers to evacuate. The purpose being to cause fear & undermine the functions of the agencies which used those buildings, but not necessarily to kill personnel.
They are terrorists; end of discussion. The evidence speaks for itself. Whether you choose to acknowledge this or not is a "you" problem. I am disappointed and I find this surprising coming from you. Enough of this technicality bullcrap, they are terrorists. I don't care for your pathetic terms or definitions.
