Read on Twitter
You can see events, but you need to understand what you are seeing.
Investigators are claiming the January 6 riot inside the US Capitol, "was preplanned, organized." So who was behind it?
A third party?
A third party?
The many videos we saw on Jan 6, the huge input of social media postings, prior & during the speeches before the events, detailed analyses of multiple moves during the Hill protest & the violence that jumped into the Capitol, shows the matter is way more complex than described.
The "types" of participants at the 3 spots (rally, Hill & inside the Capitol); the actions by 1 type to provoke moves by another type; the combo of types that thrusted into the building; the display of specific signs & flags that were not displayed elsewhere; the offices targeted
.. the reactions on social media by protesters at the 2d site who did not go in, yet communicated with their circles what they were experiencing during these hours: that one group "moved" together from site two into the building; the "exotic characters" inside the melee...
Many more questions are still lingering: if these events were prepared days, or weeks, before, who were the organizers, what are their links, & to whom? Are all the 1000s who protested at the Hill part of a centralized action of a few 100s? Who led the latter & what was the goal?
Since the gates were forcefully opened, why didn't thousands go in? Why only hundreds? If we witnessed an insurgency, who are its leaders, what was its political program, its vision? Can it be an insurgency without these three components?
Who delayed dispatching the National Guard? Why would these "characters" take pictures and post them on social media during an "insurgency?" Who were the people gesticulating & shepherding the crowds to move to the gates?
If the media & politicians did not have answers to all these questions yet, why did they call it an organized "insurgency" and not violent riots? Why did they assume that those who went in represented the entire demonstration?
During the summer we distinguished between ANTIFA and BLM "protesters and looters" in several cities and at the White House siege. Why weren’t the same parameters applied at the Hill siege and violent riot?
Despite all the statements made in the media & in Congress, what is the actual organic link between #Trump's "words" & the actions of those who penetrated the building & committed violence? Is that what he said texturally? Or did someone around him explain it that way to them?
Does that mean that Pres. Trump wanted his lawmaker allies to conduct a very delicate legislative procedure of contesting the vote & at the same time rush weird characters to spread mayhem in the building? To achieve what exactly? 100s arrested & a legislative process failure?
Many questions are fusing from the material under assessment. But the main 1 remains: if this was a real "insurgency" against the Gov it would be a big deal & need to be completely exposed. But if it was labeled insurgency in order to achieve a political goal, that would be worse
At this point, despite all the material we as private citizens can access, it remains the domain of law enforcement and intel agencies to get to the bottom of it. They have the means, but if they cannot do so, the truth will be excavated by historians long after we are gone.
It's not my 1st choice to comment on domestic US politics but when I see analytical mistakes being made in the debate with national security effects I have no choice but to offer my take.The January 6 violence was not a "military insurgency" to seize power. Here are my arguments:
A military insurgency, regular or militia, has specific strategic aims:
1. Occupy a Gov site & hold it for a while, or
2. A "raid" on a Gov site to accomplish a particular goal & withdraw
3. Make a formal statement
None of these 3 aims materialized. We saw violent thuggery.
1. Occupy a Gov site & hold it for a while, or
2. A "raid" on a Gov site to accomplish a particular goal & withdraw
3. Make a formal statement
None of these 3 aims materialized. We saw violent thuggery.
The 1000s of protesters outside the Capitol weren't led by any visible leader from the campaign.They were leaderless. But "operatives" were seen in videos shepherding the protesters all the way to the building's gates. They thrusted in & others followed. Who are these operatives?
Inside the building, videos showed irresponsible protesters following the "operatives", breaking the law, walking in, taking selfies, posting. Airheads.
But we saw organized groups, using the flow of the airheads to move through the building, and reaching the floors they targeted
But we saw organized groups, using the flow of the airheads to move through the building, and reaching the floors they targeted
An analysis of the videos shows clearly demonstrators being "maneuvered" to get to the gates, to walk in, before the operatives broke off to target specific areas. Some of the airheads and "weird characters" got to offices, took pictures, looted, and displayed a confederacy flag
So was this an attack on the Capitol? Yes it was, but by a "group of operatives" that hijacked the demonstration from the street level to the gates level, then entered the building camouflaged among reckless demonstrators-turned-rioters and performed violence inside.
Note that certain "characters" were photographed most inside the Capitol: the 1 who held the confederate flag and the man with horns. Why? Well, to paint the entire protest with the radioactive optic of the "raid." This was the psychological signature delegitimizing the rallies.
The FBI has already arrested an "agitator." Law enforcement is reconstructing the manipulation of the protest & violence inside the Capitol. But so far, from available evidence, we can see a sinister "subversion operation" manipulating protesters. But who are thes agitators?
