Based on the original news coverage I though this mob was just a few clown youtube activists leading a bunch of angry protesters. Someone here on HN corrected me and digging a bit deeper it appears that the corporate news missed a lot of details.
It turns out that everyone knew who would be there, what weapons they would have and their intentions. The only thing they got wrong AFAIK was the clothing. The militia that usually wear Hawaiian shirts were in plain clothes but they were still spotted instantly. Here is a documentary that covers this fairly well and everything leading up to it. [1] No covert communications. The militias were using public podcasts and social media sites to communicate and coordinate with one another and people were using machine learning to predict their actions quite accurately.
The bit I don't quite understand is why the Whitehouse had only a normal contingent of police in standard gear. These police were barely equipped to deal with a black Friday sale at Walmart much less a massive mob with some militia stirring them up.
This wasnt an organised militia seeking to overthrow the US oligarchy it was opportunist idiots with bad policing
It was both. Some of the groups involved were clearly taking it more seriously than others, even if none of them were really up to the task. Intent still matters.
And the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment would certainly consider one or more of them well-organized militias, once they're at the point of discussing tactics on Discord and color-coordinating their wardrobes.
By this logic unfortunately every single person who has the ability to chat online should be taken as a serious threat to national security, there is a dramatic difference between people who are crazy but think they're organised and a real organised group.
If the IRA were this disorganised there would be no northern-Ireland issues, if the taliban were this disorganised they wouldn't have overthrown Afghanistan (again).
By counter if 4chan is to be taken as seriously as the above we'd be living in a hell hole run by reactionary keyboard warriors.
Yes intent matters at the point of conviction, but frankly pretending people are more of a threat than they are paradoxically emboldens them and makes it so. Please don't give these people any more credit than they deserve.
Let's pretend the FBI and other three-letter intelligence community orgs don't simply react to events, they are often proactive in manifesting events.
Let's also pretend that same community is often in the mis-information business, as it pairs well with the being proactive. That is, get the ball rolling and then stay out in front of it with (misinformation) spin.
Was 6 Jan ugly? Sure. Are there entities who would prefer we focus on that ugliness, and not what led to it, context, failures, etc.? Yes, of course that's fact as well.
Comments
Based on the original news coverage I though this mob was just a few clown youtube activists leading a bunch of angry protesters. Someone here on HN corrected me and digging a bit deeper it appears that the corporate news missed a lot of details.
It turns out that everyone knew who would be there, what weapons they would have and their intentions. The only thing they got wrong AFAIK was the clothing. The militia that usually wear Hawaiian shirts were in plain clothes but they were still spotted instantly. Here is a documentary that covers this fairly well and everything leading up to it. [1] No covert communications. The militias were using public podcasts and social media sites to communicate and coordinate with one another and people were using machine learning to predict their actions quite accurately.
The bit I don't quite understand is why the Whitehouse had only a normal contingent of police in standard gear. These police were barely equipped to deal with a black Friday sale at Walmart much less a massive mob with some militia stirring them up.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22xC09WSVc
Excuses are exactly that. This wasnt an organised militia seeking to overthrow the US oligarchy it was opportunist idiots with bad policing...
It was both. Some of the groups involved were clearly taking it more seriously than others, even if none of them were really up to the task. Intent still matters.
And the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment would certainly consider one or more of them well-organized militias, once they're at the point of discussing tactics on Discord and color-coordinating their wardrobes.
By this logic unfortunately every single person who has the ability to chat online should be taken as a serious threat to national security, there is a dramatic difference between people who are crazy but think they're organised and a real organised group.
If the IRA were this disorganised there would be no northern-Ireland issues, if the taliban were this disorganised they wouldn't have overthrown Afghanistan (again). By counter if 4chan is to be taken as seriously as the above we'd be living in a hell hole run by reactionary keyboard warriors.
Yes intent matters at the point of conviction, but frankly pretending people are more of a threat than they are paradoxically emboldens them and makes it so. Please don't give these people any more credit than they deserve.
Let's pretend the FBI and other three-letter intelligence community orgs don't simply react to events, they are often proactive in manifesting events.
Let's also pretend that same community is often in the mis-information business, as it pairs well with the being proactive. That is, get the ball rolling and then stay out in front of it with (misinformation) spin.
Was 6 Jan ugly? Sure. Are there entities who would prefer we focus on that ugliness, and not what led to it, context, failures, etc.? Yes, of course that's fact as well.