Thread by @GameDadJP

So, I hate to share this, but as someone who actually knows what he's talking about I feel compelled to correct the Congresswoman on a few things.

The Capitol riot on January 6th was insurrection, and the people involved were insurgents. The BLM protests were not. Why? Well.....

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1394674483663933441

(BTW this comes from a nearly twenty-year career in Counterinsurgency theory and practice, both in training our allies and practical application in two theaters of war, so I'm not just whistling dixie out of my ass)

An insurgency is a violent uprising by unlawful combatants against a constituted government, with the aim of overthrowing/supplanting that government. But wait, what is a LAWFUL combatant? Article IV of the Geneva Convention defines lawful combatants by four criteria:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and](d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In other words, a lawful combatant is a legally-recognized member of a constituted government's military, with visible identifiers such as rank insignia, country, etc. The insurgents present at the Capitol do not meet these criteria.

Now, was it TREASON? Eh. You'll have a hard time making that one stick. Treason is defined as acting to aid our country's enemies in violation of your allegiance as an agent of a hostile power.

Was it SEDITION? Yep. Sedition is defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 2383 as an organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state, and everyone from Trump to Giuliani to all the insurgents are guilty of it.

As for BLM protests, the Congresswoman is quite incorrect: these were not insurrections nor were they terrorism. Aside from there being no one agreed upon definition of "terrorism" across the world, you need a few things for an act to be considered terrorism:

Terrorism involves extreme violence or the threat of violence. The vast majority of BLM protests, 93% in fact, were peaceful. There were of course instances of opportunistic vandalism and looting, but that isn't terrorism; it's a crime of opportunity.

Terrorism is by it's nature inherently political for sure, but involves premeditated, organized violent attacks carried out against civilian and state targets with the intent to cause casualties so as to instill terror in the populace.

Not only is that not happening at BLM protests, there is zero evidence of BLM organizers engaged in planning targeted violent strikes against government and civilian targets, nor are they engaged in it. So no, it's not terrorism.

Also, not all violence is terrorism. I don't know how else to say it. You can scream that throwing a trash can into a Quizno's is terrorism until you're blue in the face, but it isn't. And anyone worth their salt in the CT field will laugh in your face over it.

Here, I'll say it again because it's very important:
not
all
violence
is
terrorism.

But overrunning the Capitol building with the intent to terrorize and harm legislators with the goal of helping an illegitimate government initiate a coup? THAT is terrorism. I hope this helped.

@AVindman would love your insight.

Nothing to say, @RepMTG @mtgreenee?