The Red Fort Breach as you call it is nowhere similar with the Capitol riot. Not from any meaningful dimension.
The Red Fort is merely a tourist spot from where the PM addresses the nation on Independence Days.
On the other hand, the Capitol is a significant seat of power in the US. The Capitol was breached when the vote was being counted to confirm the win of a Presidential candidate, to stop it.
One breach was to undermine democracy itself. Another was to merely attract attention to their cause.
I have trouble with this idea that there is equivalence between violence on private property (or even public property), and violence in the US Capitol. Especially when that violence is timed to happen while Congress is in session counting the votes from a presidential election, and the people committing the violence are explicitly saying things about overturning the election results.
My feeling is that everyone actually agrees it was an insurrection, and the arguing is pro-forma.
None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power.
If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.
Surely the biggest difference between successful breach of the Capitol and an unsuccessful attack on the White House is the defence? Clearly the attackers/rioters had malicious intent both times, clearly they very extremely violent. The only real difference is the success/failure of the security forces.
Comparing a deadly coup attempt and a direct attack against the representatives and the VP himself in the US capitol the day that the election results were certified by the Houses with random protests?
This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation's capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.
I guess you didn't read my response, I said "Whenever people historically have stormed the capital building, everyone coordinates to ban them from their platforms." Your "rebuttal" lists no one who stormed The Capital Building (sorry should've put that in bigger letters)
Are you referring to the Red House? You believe that a fenced in house that was sometimes called an 'autonomous zone' (as far as I can tell, most often by people outside - the mayor of Portland for example apologized for calling it such) was closer to an insurrection than people seeking to overturn the legal results of the election entering the Capitol building while congress was in session?
Even if the people defending the Red House did call it an autonomous zone, their only real demands were to protect the livelihood of one family. They did not seek to expand, they did not try to gain political power from it,they did nothing that I would actually view as a significant attempt to challenge the authority of the state beyond a very specific case.
Except that one of them occurred at the time & place of the major transition of power and actively stormed a congressional session resulting in deaths in a core federal government building. But sure... other than that "not all that different".
Except in one of those, protesters weren't invading government buildings, they were assembled in an open square. And it wasn't just one rioter about to break into the house chamber that got shot, it was hundreds or even thousands of people gunned down.
Drawing any sort of equivalency between these two events strikes me as extremely far fetched.
How are they not equivalent? Both were organized protests intended on occupying the capitol for the sake of airing out their political grievances. What truly harmful action took place that was caused by the protestors? Be specific.
The only difference that in can see is that during the 1/6/21 event, the police were called in. They attacked and killed 4 protestors.
They invaded the capitol with the sole intention of disrupting congress and preventing a constitutionally mandated handover of power to a democratically elected government. This was an attack on the democracy of the United States, not a building. To portray it as anything else is disingenuous.
Fair, I think. We had protestors storm the centers of government, attempting to overthrow it, after the last election. So many similarities if you only look.
The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone (not to mention they were hardly an uprising).
>Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government.
There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way.
Yes, shouting at elected officials totally compares to forcing your way into the Capitol, making congresspeople flee for their lives, looting their offices, and killing a cop.
Are we really sitting here comparing storming the capitol building and interrupting the certification of the electoral vote, to CHAZ? Pipe bombs were placed in capital buildings, the insurrectionists were armed and had zip ties. Five people died as a result of these actions. The idea that this is at all comparable to CHAZ, is ridiculous.
The Red Fort is merely a tourist spot from where the PM addresses the nation on Independence Days.
On the other hand, the Capitol is a significant seat of power in the US. The Capitol was breached when the vote was being counted to confirm the win of a Presidential candidate, to stop it.
One breach was to undermine democracy itself. Another was to merely attract attention to their cause.
reply