Canada adds Proud Boys to the terrorist group list

[Generals]

After so many people mislabeled BLM and antifa as terrorist organizations for so long time, claiming you're worried about mislabeling is actually insulting. Heck! The only way such label could not be misused is if it didn't ever existed for anyone in the first place. But it does. Deal with it! (like the rest of us have already done)

Have they been labaled as such by countries? Because while i'd still disagree with individuals labeling them as such a label you get from a random civilian is without any real consequence, when a country labels you as one it has direct ramifications. Wonder how you'd react if Canada decided to officially consider BLM and Antifa as terrorist organizations...

To state that, you have to ignore that the "angry protest which turned sour" was not a plotted out event. Because there wasn't an protest plotted out by them, but an insurrection. And you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to deny that.

As the video showed, Proud Boys met up at the capitol prior to when Trump suggested the protesters should march to the Capitol.

As this article states, weeks prior did they campaign and fund raise for materials that are unbecoming a simple protest.

Sure, and not too long ago some people who wanted to protest against Covid measures were found with objects like fireworks, hammers, etc. These were also totally unnecessary for a simple protest but we don't call every person taking objects which do not belong in a peaceful protest a terrorist. (Soccer hooligans also come to mind)
I would counter argue that I've yet to hear about terrorists who prepare an act of terrorism by gathering " "protective gear" and "communications equipment," ". I would expect offensive gear such as guns, bombs, etc.

To say this 'went sour' is to look at everything they planned in the openness of Social Media and say "January 6th went sour because everything they fund raised, planned and coordinated actually happened."

They prepared to show in force and had protective gear: probably to fend off potential law enforcement officers which would try to disperse them. But that doesn't mean they prepared an act of terrorism. You can find plenty of people in all kinds of protests which come prepared for more than just a peaceful protest. They do not get labeled as terrorists because of that.

Put it this way. Think of a Football star in high school. He got a date with the new girl, and he texts on his twitter and with his friends about how much he wants her, how he's going to have her at that date, no matter what she says. And he's asking for cash for roofies and a hotel room to 'get lucky'. And then the date comes, and he drugs her, and he has his way with her.

I don't think we can compare the social dynamics of protesting and dating.

... He doesn't get to claim the date went sour when he planned it out, fund raised, hatched a plan, and went through with it. You don't get to frame it as a 'simple date' when you planned to force yourself upon her no matter what.

They may have planned a lot about the events which happened on that day and you can throw a lot at them but the question remains: was this a one time crime for which they deserve to be punished or is this a planned act of terrorism the kinds of which they are willing to repeat to get what they wish.

People can have a field day with saying BLM protests and riots. Fine, go ahead. I know there were riots at the BLM marches that weren't planned by BLM members. But the issue, as always, goes with actual definitions. BLM protests and the people who rioted during that time went against the Police. Which are funded and empowered by the state. The Proud Boys and the other people who took part of the break-in and taking over of the capitol went against the federal government.

I fail to see how that distinguishes them based on the definition of terrorism of the FBI that was presented to me.
And I'd add to that the role of the police is to uphold the law (which they don't seem to do very well all the time), if you take them down you basically remove the governments tool to enforce its policies. Attacking government agencies is basically attacking the government. The capitol just happens to have a much bigger symbolic value. But if you take down law enforcement, who will enforce the laws enacted by the government? Doesn't the government de-facto lose all its power?

That's Treason, folks.

I don't disagree there.

And lastly, and this isn't directed to you Generals, but just because some people are afraid of Black People unifying and speaking against the oppression that most people are complicit by allowing it to happen doesn't make it terrorism. It makes it them speaking out. Especially when they aren't taking over capitols and such.

Just to be 100% clear. I'm not saying BLM can be equated to the proud boys and I know the former at least persues noble goals based on valid grievances while the latter group is just a concentration of bigotry and stupidity. But it was just to point out how labeling groups as terrorist organizations "à la carte" can quickly backfire. "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist".

 

[Generals]

In order to join the proud boys you have to go through an initiation process. A lot of it is goofy stuff like reciting the names of breakfast cereals while getting beaten up and committing to never masturbating, but one of the initiation points is that you need to commit an act of violence "for the cause".

Proud boys are only proud boys because they have committed at least one act of political violence. That is the entire nature and ideology of the group.

Now that's interesting and that argument would work strongly in favor of them being terrorists. But based on how stupid and ridiculous the rest of their initiation is I have to wonder what they mean with " commit an act of violence "for the cause"". It just seems so oddly out of touch with the other goofy initiation requirements. (And I also wonder why we haven't heard of these acts of political violence as I suppose there are quite a few members which should therefor involve quite a few acts of violence). Are there examples of these "acts of violence" which count towards the initiation?

 

[Elijin]

Terrorists incite terror in the populace, or part thereof. A group that stands for white supremacy might not incite terror in some of you, and just seem like some assholes goofing off and making a nuisance of themselves. But for others, the continued operation (including regularly flaunting their defiance of gun laws) without meaningful consequence or opposition while representing the values they do....pretty terrifying.

This is an organization who regularly make certain demographics feel very unsafe, not incidentally, but on purpose as one of their core reasons to exist.

Seems some of you have conflated terrorism with bombings.

 

[Generals]

Terrorists incite terror in the populace, or part thereof. A group that stands for white supremacy might not incite terror in some of you, and just seem like some assholes goofing off and making a nuisance of themselves. But for others, the continued operation (including regularly flaunting their defiance of gun laws) without meaningful consequence or opposition while representing the values they do....pretty terrifying.

This is an organization who regularly make certain demographics feel very unsafe, not incidentally, but on purpose as one of their core reasons to exist.

Seems some of you have conflated terrorism with bombings.

The point about about flaunting their defiance of gun laws without consequence is a whole other issues which should be addressed through proper law enforcement.
The fact some people feel terrified by their mere existence however is a way too subjective parameter. You need to objectify that, I would be terrified by angry commies breaking down windows and burning cars during a protest as well. This doesn't necessarily make them terrorists. And do mind that since history has shown us what commies tend to do with middle class or rich people who do not agree with giving all their property away, there is a reason to fear them for a part of the population as well. But again as long as it's all ideology and not leading to actual actions which the ideology may imply I do not feel we should consider these movements "terrorist organisations".
It's the whole "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" all over again. If their terrorist behavior can be objectified beyond "they were part of that one angry protest turned riot" than yes they should be classified as terrorists.
But "their ideology frightens me" doesn't cut it. Because in this case you may be on the winner's side this time but you don't know what tomorrow is made of and who could be the next ones to be officially labeled as terrorists. Maybe it's going to be BLM, AntiFa, some worker's unions (although that last one might feel far fetched for the USA) or whatever. You'll always find people who feel they are "legitimately frightened" by high profile groups with conflicting ideologies.

Just as an example: didn't Erdogan label protesting LGBT activists as terrorists recently?

And I feel like I am repeating myself, you do not need to have them labeled as terrorists to "oppose them" or to bring those breaking the law to justice.

 

[Elijin]

There's a chasm between "Their ideology differs from mine and it frightens me" and "Their ideology is that I and those like me are less than them due to the circumstances of our birth."

This isnt a political disconnect, this is a group who believe in white supremacy.

It's honestly saddening that you equate the surge of popularity white supremacy is having as 'just a political stance to support or find scary.'

You're also using a literal dictator who violates human rights as your bar there. Yes, a government can label something as terrorist and it requires critical thought as to where the lines really are. Well done, you did it, you won the interent.

 

[Hades]

You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to call it an insurrection when you just acknowledged that they weren't even armed.
When plotting an insurrection, "bring guns" is usually #1 on the list. Kinda hard to overthrow a government without weapons.

Is it? When the ones in charge of defending the capitol massively understaff the defenses when then protesters stop being black(assuming they weren't on board with Trump's insurrection to begin with) it suddenly becomes quite easy. Had the congressmen not manage to flee and had they been either lynched or threatened into giving Trump another term then the government would have been overthrown.

The government not being overthrown hinged on the government fleeing, not the insurgents lack of guns.

 

[Generals]

There's a chasm between "Their ideology differs from mine and it frightens me" and "Their ideology is that I and those like me are less than them due to the circumstances of our birth."

I do have to wonder, is there any objective proof of what you feel is their ideology? Because usually people aren't frightened only because they have different ideologies but because of what they feel/believe could be the consequence of said ideology.
Your subjective take on what you fear proud boys may do to you is not worth one penny more than a random conservative's fear of "socialist-communist democrats" (example) unless this can be objectified. Hence why I have repeatedly pointed out that apart from them taking part in the protest gone wrong at the capitol there is not a lot of objective elements which would justify them being considered "terrorists". Instead of going on and on about how your subjective fear is more justified because "white supremacy" why don't you give me something tangible?
Let me give you an example, I once saw an interesting and shocking documentary about Neo-nazi groups in some eastern european countries. While I forgot the specific country, in one you had Neo-nazi militias roaming around neighbourhoods where Romas lived and they would threaten them and even use violence to force them to move away. Now that's more like terrorism.

At least Terminal blue peaked my interest as he mentioned an interesting point about their initiation which would objectify their adherence to terrorism.

It's honestly saddening that you equate the surge of popularity white supremacy is having as 'just a political stance to support or find scary.'

You're also using a literal dictator who violates human rights as your bar there. Yes, a government can label something as terrorist and it requires critical thought as to where the lines really are. Well done, you did it, you won the interent.

I have not equated anything. As I said to Obsidian: " Just to be 100% clear. I'm not saying BLM can be equated to the proud boys and I know the former at least persues noble goals based on valid grievances while the latter group is just a concentration of bigotry and stupidity. But it was just to point out how labeling groups as terrorist organizations "à la carte" can quickly backfire. "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist". "

And yes I am using the example of a literal dictator. Because in the end it doesn't matter what he is. He knows there is a strong ultra conservative Islamist base in Turkey that is just waiting for excuses to hate the LGBT movement even more. Such a base can be found or can arise about anywhere in the world. The USA just went through 4 years of Donald Trump. A far right populist who looked up to the likes of Putin, Erdogan, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong un. This wasn't just a fluke, in 4 years a Trump 2.0 could very well arise again. And do you really want to give such a person the precedent of being able to classify organisations as terrorist groups because a segment of the population were afraid of them? I personally wouldn't.

 

[ObsidianJones]

*snip*

I'm going to ask if this is just your definition before I respond further. A Congressional Think Tank defines their actions as terrorism, and you don't want to go that far because of guns? Because if that's the case, there's not a bridge for us to cross.

The 9/11 attacks is still the worst unified terrorist attack that has ever happened to America.

The Casualities, 19 years after the fact, are still horrific.

265 in the hijacked airplanes.

2,606 in the towers.

125 at the Pentagon.

This act was done by 19 people with utility knives.

And note: I didn't say Terrorist. Because according to your definition, since they didn't have guns or weapons particularly created to kill, we shouldn't call them terrorists.

This is the argument that has been presented to us.

 

[Elijin]

I have no interest in continuing the discussion with someone who's defending white supremacists and suggesting it's all just a matter of points of view on political groups.

 

[Generals]

I'm going to ask if this is just your definition before I respond further. A Congressional Think Tank defines their actions as terrorism, and you don't want to go that far because of guns? Because if that's the case, there's not a bridge for us to cross.

The 9/11 attacks is still the worst unified terrorist attack that has ever happened to America.

The Casualities, 19 years after the fact, are still horrific.

265 in the hijacked airplanes.

2,606 in the towers.

125 at the Pentagon.

This act was done by 19 people with utility knives.

And note: I didn't say Terrorist. Because according to your definition, since they didn't have guns or weapons particularly created to kill, we shouldn't call them terrorists.

This is the argument that has been presented to us.

I have never said you need to have guns or weapons "particularly created to kill" to be a terrorist or commit an act of terror. I would like you to re-read what I posted because you've managed to miss the point. I guess you reduced it all to that one part:
"I would counter argue that I've yet to hear about terrorists who prepare an act of terrorism by gathering " "protective gear" and "communications equipment," ". I would expect offensive gear such as guns, bombs, etc."
But what preceded it is the most important point:
"Sure, and not too long ago some people who wanted to protest against Covid measures were found with objects like fireworks, hammers, etc. These were also totally unnecessary for a simple protest but we don't call every person taking objects which do not belong in a peaceful protest a terrorist. (Soccer hooligans also come to mind)"

The first point was to further emphasize that it's not realistic to consider the protest (and how it devolved) an act of terror just because prior to the protest they gathered certain objects which shouldn't be part of a protest. Because if you're going to focus on the object gathering and make that a core argument than they better be more than just protective gear and communications equipment...

The yellow vests protestors in France also often came in prepared (like with gas masks to be able to resist to tear gas) to fend of law enforcement to their "peaceful protests" which almost always lead to violence and vandalism. Terrorists?

 

[Avnger]

I have never said you need to have guns or weapons "particularly created to kill" to be a terrorist or commit an act of terror. I would like you to re-read what I posted because you've managed to miss the point. I guess you reduced it all to that one part:
"I would counter argue that I've yet to hear about terrorists who prepare an act of terrorism by gathering " "protective gear" and "communications equipment," ". I would expect offensive gear such as guns, bombs, etc."
But what preceded it is the most important point:
"Sure, and not too long ago some people who wanted to protest against Covid measures were found with objects like fireworks, hammers, etc. These were also totally unnecessary for a simple protest but we don't call every person taking objects which do not belong in a peaceful protest a terrorist. (Soccer hooligans also come to mind)"

The first point was to further emphasize that it's not realistic to consider the protest (and how it devolved) an act of terror just because prior to the protest they gathered certain objects which shouldn't be part of a protest. Because if you're going to focus on the objects gathered and make that a core argument than they better be more than just protective gear and communications equipment...

The yellow vests protestors in France also often came in prepared (like with gas masks to be able to resist to tear gas) to fend of law enforcement to their "peaceful protests" which almost always lead to violence and vandalism. Terrorists?

They built a set of gallows and were carrying gear like plasticuffs for taking hostages/prisoners...

 

[Specter Von Baren]

So they should also label anarchists as being part of a terrorist group by this logic.

 

[Generals]

They built a set of gallows and were carrying gear like plasticuffs for taking hostages/prisoners...

Were these people part of "Proud Boys"? Because with how many groups/individuals took part in the assault on the capitol it becomes hard to keep track of who did what specifically.

 

[BrawlMan]

They built a set of gallows and were carrying gear like plasticuffs for taking hostages/prisoners...

I'm going to ask if this is just your definition before I respond further. A Congressional Think Tank defines their actions as terrorism, and you don't want to go that far because of guns? Because if that's the case, there's not a bridge for us to cross.

The 9/11 attacks is still the worst unified terrorist attack that has ever happened to America.

The Casualities, 19 years after the fact, are still horrific.

265 in the hijacked airplanes.

2,606 in the towers.

125 at the Pentagon.

This act was done by 19 people with utility knives.

And note: I didn't say Terrorist. Because according to your definition, since they didn't have guns or weapons particularly created to kill, we shouldn't call them terrorists.

This is the argument that has been presented to us.

I appreciate you all but you are talking to a brick wall here. on second thought that I'll be an insult to the brick wall cuz even that's more engaging than whatever these guys have to say or whatever "logical" arguments they are making.

Just remember that those are trying to down play the Proud Boys, trying to make them come off as sympathetic, or defending white nationalists and nazis. You wanna defend Nazis that badly? I know some of you sure as hell ain't white, so they don't care about your ass either. Remember that. They will be more than willing to sacrifice you to get what they want. You want to keep Hitler alive that badly? Will it be worth it?

​

 

[ObsidianJones]

I have never said you need to have guns or weapons "particularly created to kill" to be a terrorist or commit an act of terror. I would like you to re-read what I posted because you've managed to miss the point. I guess you reduced it all to that one part:
"I would counter argue that I've yet to hear about terrorists who prepare an act of terrorism by gathering " "protective gear" and "communications equipment," ". I would expect offensive gear such as guns, bombs, etc."
But what preceded it is the most important point:
"Sure, and not too long ago some people who wanted to protest against Covid measures were found with objects like fireworks, hammers, etc. These were also totally unnecessary for a simple protest but we don't call every person taking objects which do not belong in a peaceful protest a terrorist. (Soccer hooligans also come to mind)"

The first point was to further emphasize that it's not realistic to consider the protest (and how it devolved) an act of terror just because prior to the protest they gathered certain objects which shouldn't be part of a protest. Because if you're going to focus on the object gathering and make that a core argument than they better be more than just protective gear and communications equipment...

The yellow vests protestors in France also often came in prepared (like with gas masks to be able to resist to tear gas) to fend of law enforcement to their "peaceful protests" which almost always lead to violence and vandalism. Terrorists?

Offensive would be a weapon that is designed to kill. Tasers are a defensive weapon. Mace is a defensive weapon. Sonic weapons are a defensive weapon. They were never designed to take a life.

Bombs are made to kill and destroy. Guns are made to kill. They are offensive weapons. The point was made. And it was taken. You had the response that your point raised.

You might not. I took exception to the Michigan Riots. Because I thought it would always escalate. And guess what? It did. The Kidnapping Plot and all.

So, you misunderstand me it seems.

I actually believe there were people who attended Trump's rally who actually were going there to protest. I don't consider them apart of the riots. I don't flip-flop. Much like I don't think anyone who attended the BLM protests were necessarily apart of the riots. The rioters rioted, and the protesters protested.

But like the video I posted stated, the bulk of the Proud Boys didn't attend the actual protest. They waited for the Protesters to come, and then under the peaceful guise of the protest did the Proud Boys start the riot, placing themselves at key points of the Breach. If not being the ones who were doing the breach. They organized their points of entry, their tasks, and did it with precision.

And most important. Planned Aforethought.

Prior to Capitol riot, Proud Boys took Trump's words as call to action

On Jan. 3, three days before the attack on the Capitol, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right organization known as the Proud Boys, shared a cryptic...

www.marketwatch.com

On Jan. 3, three days before the attack on the Capitol, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right organization known as the Proud Boys, shared a cryptic post on the messaging app Telegram: “What if we invade it?”
...

In December, after Trump tweeted about the Jan. 6 rally and said to “be there, will be wild,” the Long Island chapter of the Proud Boys posted that Trump supporters have been “waiting for the green light from the President.”

“Everyone who said ‘Mr. President, just say when?’ He just did,” the post said.

Trump Supporter Rage Simmered on Social Media Before D.C. Violence

In some of the more obscure corners of the internet, the calls for violence and revolution have been consistent among what appeared to be a subset of President Donald Trump’s supporters in the months since he lost re-election.

www.bloomberg.com

In some of the more obscure corners of the internet, the calls for violence and revolution have been consistent among what appeared to be a subset of President Donald Trump’s supporters in the months since he lost re-election.

But in recent days, as Trump’s attempts to delegitimize the election and remain in office have continually failed, the violent rhetoric sharply increased. It also blossomed in the far-more-mainstream Facebook, hidden away in private far-right groups with names like “Joe Biden is not my president.”

On pro-Trump forums such as thedonald.win, supporters couched their pronouncements in patriotic terms, calling for a “1776 moment” at Wednesday’s protests, or more bluntly, a “reign of terror.”

“So will January 6th, 2021 be like the new July 4th, 1776?” RuthBaderDeadsburg, one of the forum’s users asked. “We are declaring our independence from corrupt, cheating, non-representative f*****s.”

Others fully embraced the opportunity for conflict. “TODAY WE GO TO WAR! DC I AM COMING,” user ANTI_Globalist12 posted on the forum just hours before the U.S. Capitol building was stormed by a pro-Trump mob.

And to your last point, there is a not so subtle difference between a Protest and a Political Terrorist act.

A Protest is a group of people standing in unifying step to decry, condemn, or bring light to an issue of which they deem great importance. Their hopes are to sway government and/or their public to their cause by bringing light and information of this issue.

A Political Terrorist Act is usually a group act of violence that intends to overthrow, forcibily change, or to ursup duly elected power away from a government. It is why most people defined January 6th as an attempted Coup D'Etat.

Was Jan. 6 a coup? An academic group now says yes

On Jan. 6, we published an article about the storming of the U.S. Capitol and the baseless accusations about the preside

www.politifact.com

The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture

thewire.in

A coup by any other name - The Boston Globe

"Our law enforcement needs to be alert and aware of what might be coming, both in Washington, D.C., and at state capitols around the country."

www.bostonglobe.com

And that's the fundamental difference. A Riot can spawn from frustration over an issue which leads people in the membership to destroy, damage, and basically hurt anything in their path because they are just so angry. A coup d'etat is expressly to change the hands of political power into the hands of those throwing the Coup D'Etat.

Remember, they went there to stop the steal. To prevent the Duly Elected President to take power by preventing the Electoral Votes. To keep Former President Trump in Power because they believe they would benefit from it. That's Political Terrorism. That's an attempted Coup D'Etat.

And remember. It was only an attempted Coup D'Etat because one man with Actual Balls delayed and misled the Mob long enough that these people who breached the Capitol weren't able to get our elected officials. Eugene Goodman is the only thing that kept January 6th from being one of the most truly dark days in American History.

These Breachers didn't chicken out at the last moment. They didn't get the chance to do what they wanted.

So yeah, Rioters are actual Vandals. They deserve punishment, but not any other definition than rioters and/or vandals. Rioters who plot to kidnap, hurt, and possibly kill political rivals? Terrorists.

~edited in the video. Sorry that I forgot.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

But they can't be terrorists!

They're suburban white Americans, everyone knows you need to be brown or like from eastern Europe or at least Irish to be a terrorist.

Basically, have an accent more exotic than "hillbilly".

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The point about about flaunting their defiance of gun laws without consequence is a whole other issues which should be addressed through proper law enforcement.
The fact some people feel terrified by their mere existence however is a way too subjective parameter. You need to objectify that, I would be terrified by angry commies breaking down windows and burning cars during a protest as well. This doesn't necessarily make them terrorists. And do mind that since history has shown us what commies tend to do with middle class or rich people who do not agree with giving all their property away, there is a reason to fear them for a part of the population as well. But again as long as it's all ideology and not leading to actual actions which the ideology may imply I do not feel we should consider these movements "terrorist organisations".
It's the whole "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" all over again. If their terrorist behavior can be objectified beyond "they were part of that one angry protest turned riot" than yes they should be classified as terrorists.
But "their ideology frightens me" doesn't cut it. Because in this case you may be on the winner's side this time but you don't know what tomorrow is made of and who could be the next ones to be officially labeled as terrorists. Maybe it's going to be BLM, AntiFa, some worker's unions (although that last one might feel far fetched for the USA) or whatever. You'll always find people who feel they are "legitimately frightened" by high profile groups with conflicting ideologies.

Just as an example: didn't Erdogan label protesting LGBT activists as terrorists recently?

And I feel like I am repeating myself, you do not need to have them labeled as terrorists to "oppose them" or to bring those breaking the law to justice.

FUCKING THANK YOU!!! Some fucking self awareness and sense!!!

 

[Houseman]

Is it? When the ones in charge of defending the capitol massively understaff the defenses when then protesters stop being black(assuming they weren't on board with Trump's insurrection to begin with) it suddenly becomes quite easy. Had the congressmen not manage to flee and had they been either lynched or threatened into giving Trump another term then the government would have been overthrown.

The government not being overthrown hinged on the government fleeing, not the insurgents lack of guns.

Did they know that? Did the Proud Boys have detailed information, enough to discern that the Capitol building was poorly defended, and would be, on the 6th? And based on this information they decided not to bring or use guns?

No, that's more mental gymnastics, and requires them to know things they couldn't possibly have known. If they did have this inside information, then, by definition, the government itself is guilty of staging, creating, or allowing an attack to occur on itself.

What would have happened if the congressmen had not managed to flee is a hypothetical, and we'll never know the answer to that. But we do know that only one shot was fired in the building, and that was by Capitol Police. Their "planned insurrection" didn't account for armed defenses. The simplest explanation was that it wasn't a planned insurrection.

 

[BrawlMan]

FUCKING THANK YOU!!! Some fucking self awareness and sense!!!

And you disappoint me as well once again. Check the Lester Nightly News. They did have people on the inside that knew about the defenseless parts of the capital and where there was little to no security. They have his actual footage out there. Of them corroborating and getting info from tour guides and relaying it back to the Proud Boys, QAnon and the other hardcore Trump supporters. The evidence is all there, and the fact that you're denying it shows you that you're not all that there either. So are you really willing to support Nazis?

 

[Generals]

snip

As for the semantics issue: I think the bulk of the issue here comes from the fact when I think of "protective gear" I think of "gas masks", "Bulletproof vests", "shields", etc. I do not think a taser is protective and would thus fall under offensive gear (as an example). But it goes further than that, when you take a kitchen knife of hammer to a protest it's quite clear it's to be used as offensive gear as well. (Unless you were planning on repairing broken windows and cooking some steak...)

But that aside:

1) I am personally not that surprised they may have decided to go at the capitol straight away. It was after all where everything the protest was about happened. Them being prepared at breaching points? While that clearly doesn't shed a positive light on the events and clearly shows they premeditaded the act of illegally breaching into the building this is also not unseen among heated protests where people continuously try to breach into restricted areas. The main difference is that usually there is sufficient security prepared to prevent that from happening.

2) The telegram texts also show why this is so messy to judge as a terrorist action committed by a terrorist organization. You can clearly read that they felt they were following the President's instructions. And to a certain extent I can believe that, Trump had been inciting people to riot and do whatever they could to revert what he considered a grave injustice (the stolen election). I think the events which occured on 6th of January were so unprecedented in developed democracies and in a way so messy it's hard to put labels like "terrorists" on them and the groups to which they belong. That's not to say that these people did not commit crimes and shouldn't be severely punished for it.
You have linked to the story about the attempted kidnapping of the governor of Michigan. This is again a severe crime which should be punished swiftly. And you know what? If Proud Boys was behind that as well we could have seen a clear pattern of political intimidation/violence and i'd directly join the bandwagon of "let's label the group a terrorist organisation".
But right now, all we have for that particular label is one particular event which was a mess before it even started because it involved the frigging president questioning the democratic process and inciting popular "intervention". The fact they also failed to do anything beyond yelling shit and breaking into a building doesn't really help either. And I understand this may sound like the "Sideshow Bob" defence, but when judging a group for terrorism and having only one event to base yourself on, where plenty of elements which don't appear that extra-ordinary happened (except for the place), it would have helped making a better informed judgement had they committed acts of violence against their target.

3) As for the difference between a protest and political terrorist act. What if the issue you want to condemn is an alleged rigged election and you want to sway the government by breaching into the building where they are officializing the "stolen election"? And before I get strawmanned or falsely accused by a horde of escapist left wing brick walls; I am not saying the election was stolen nor that this lie justified what happened at the capitol. However we cannot simply overlook many of these people live in "alternative fact"-land and truly believe that shit. Just like there are some hardcore leftwing extremists who live in their own "alternative fact"-land. Does the fact their "grievances" were based on fabricated lies mean they cannot be considered grievances? Let's also not forget they think it was the other side who just committed a coup d'état... I personally feel like suddenly the difference you outlied is no longer that clear and simple.
In a way I feel that those who have spread and fed those lies are even more responsible for this madness. (And we all know the biggest culprit will get away with it... Isn't it, Mr Trump?)

All in all I just don't feel like the events which occured on 6th of January can be considered enough to label them as "terrorists" specifically. There are plenty of labels which can be attributed to them for plenty of reasons. And heck they have also given enough reasons for authorities to keep a close eye on them to be able to intervene swiftly once they step into illegality. But I fear that labeling them as "terrorists" now is opening a whole new can of worms. Maybe my standards of what an organization has to commit to be considered a terrorist organisation is too high. Time will tell.