“After exhorting the crowd, telling them that “today is the day for patriots” to start “taking names and kicking ass,” Brooks went even further, invoking the spirit of American revolutionaries who “sacrificed their blood” and “sometimes their lives” on behalf of the country.
“Are you willing to do the same?” he then asked the crowd. “Louder! Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America? Louder! Will you fight for America?”
“Today is the day…”. I suppose it was Mo, I suppose it was. Watching police get assaulted, clubbed, dragged down steps by yellow bellied thugs is hard to reconcile. But Mo did it. He is slated to be censured, but he should face incitement charges. His words could not be any more clear for a call for bloody violence. Of course, this was all part of the Trump rally to insurrection.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “He is slated to be censured, but he should face incitement charges. His words could not be any more clear for a call for bloody violence. ”
Ridiculous.
There’s a big difference between fiery rhetoric and incitement to violence.
LikeLike
Maybe those folks who charged the Capitol and killed one policeman and severely beat others to get at the Congressman with zipties did not realize the nuanced difference.
So you are saying that “Today was NOT the day…” and the gangs misunderstood?
Do you not believe that there was an attack on the Capitol? Or that police were beaten and dragged down the steps to be stomped? Or even that this might not be a good thing to do?
Do you think that Trump should have led the crowds as he promised to do in his speech? Perhaps he could have saved some lives if he was in “charge of the charge”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RE: “Do you not believe that there was an attack on the Capitol?”
No, I don’t.
LikeLike
Why not? All staged with a few thousand actors like Sandy Hook?
LikeLiked by 3 people
A sickness you can’t fix with facts.
Your not in a debate when fighting a cult, it actually makes the illness worse to do so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Why not?”
“Attack” is your word. I don’t agree with your premises.
LikeLike
What would you call the bloody assault, complete with body armor, knives, spears, clubs, Mace sprays, ziptie handcuffs and as Sund said with great surprise, even climbing gear. Was he lying?
“As soon as they hit the fence line, the fight was on,” Sund said. “Violent confrontations from the start. They came with riot helmets, gas masks, shields, pepper spray, fireworks, climbing gear — climbing gear! — explosives, metal pipes, baseball bats. I have never seen anything like it in 30 years of events in Washington.” WaPo 1/10/21
Videos from all sources show incredible violence, calls for hanging Pence, killing Congressmen.
And this was not an attack. What was it in your eyes?
LikeLiked by 4 people
RE: “And this was not an attack. What was it in your eyes?”
I have called it an incursion and a big bungle:
https://tidewaterforum.blog/2021/01/07/the-capitol-incursion/#more-8763
LikeLike
“I have called it an incursion and a big bungle:”
Yerp. you did. And people a lot smarter than you or I called it what it was “domestic terrorism.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/533244-terrorism-is-a-tactic-not-a-color-or-ideology
LikeLike
“incredible violence, calls for hanging Pence, killing Congressmen.”
A rational mind could not dispute such actions, but again facts and logic make it worse, as you can see from the embarrassing search for a coherent response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There’s a big difference between fiery rhetoric and incitement to violence.”
Not when the people have been gathered in DC to “Stop the steal.” And have been told that now is the time for “trial by combat.
You quibble with the word “attack?” How many policemen guarding one of our most sacred buildings would have to be clubbed to death before you would be willing to call it that? Mike Pence got the word that he was to be hung if they could get their hands on him. He seemed to think it was an “attack” when it was he who finally got the National Gaurd involved in stopping it while Trump fiddled (with his TV remote).
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Not when the people have been gathered in DC to ‘Stop the steal.'”
Yes, even then. But go ahead, try to prove incitement. Take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
Prove incitement?
That is the wrong choice of words. There is nothing to “prove.” The facts are all on the record. A long history of Trump talking of how tough his supporters are and how “bad” and “wild” it would be if he lost. His instruction to “Stand by.” His summoning of the militant to Washington to “Stop the Steal” and “Save the Country.” On the day he fired up the mob with inflammatory lies and sent them to the Capitol for “trial by combat” where, in fact, they invaded the building, assaulted and even killed the police, hunted for Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Pence who were to be “executed” if they could be found.
In a criminal case it is up to a jury to distinguish between rhetoric and incitement. In the case of the President it is up to the Congress. The House will be voting on this question tomorrow.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/full-text-draft-articles-impeachment-against-trump-incitement-insurrection-n1253562
LikeLiked by 2 people
“quibble“ represents simply an attempt to distract from reality.
There will be NO end to the defense of trump until the deprogramming s done.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There seems to be little difference between radicalized Islamic extremists and Trump followers.
Suicide vests are not here yet, but be patient. Some of the commentary I have seen indicate such a devotion to a cult leader.
American exceptionalism? We may not be as exceptional as we think after the failed insurrection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very little difference; cults be cults…
I do believe it is a distinct possibility that suicide vests become a tool in the rebellion arsenal. However, an impediment such action is the “spoiled and selfish” American mind-set that values personal existence beyond sacrifice. Of course it only takes one…
LikeLiked by 2 people