5 ms·

You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life

by kypro 1y ago

You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Obligatory legal notice that I obviously do not support said group, but historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objectives. N one I've spoken to feels even remotely terrorised by Palestine Action, and it wouldn't even make sense to be given what they stand for. I say this as someone who neither supports Palestine Action or shares their concerns.

fakedang 1y ago
Even more chilling when you find out that sentences for previous criminals are being commuted and reduced significantly for heinous crimes (theft, burglary, rape, assault, etc.), so as to clear space and make room in prisons to accommodate these "terrorists". https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-serving-40-of-sentence-to-alleviate-overcrowding-13177051 https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-se...
- panarchy 1y ago
  The more dangerous people they can get on the street the more fear they can generate and the more they can whip the public to their bidding. Getting rid of the few people trying educate the public on these matters goes hand in hand.
graemep 1y ago
> spray painting British military equipment. Spraying paint down military jet engines rendering them inoperable until repaired, at a cos of millions of pounds. > historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objective The legal definition of terrorism in the UK has for many years (at least all of the current century, I think a lot longer) included "serious damage to property": https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism and I think causing many millions of pounds worth of damage is clearly serious. I do not entirely agree with the definition (I particularly oppose making collecting information and disseminating publications terrorism) but it is what has long been accepted.
arrowsmith 1y ago
Palestine Action broke into a British military base and sabotaged millions of pounds' worth of equipment. What did you expect the government to do exactly — shrug it off? What kind of message would that have sent? The Terrorism Act 2000 gives "serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism so I find it hard to argue that the government was doing anything more than neutrally applying the law here. Those protestors knew full well they were supporting a proscribed group and they were warned what the consequences would be. Protesting in support of Palestine remains entirely legal in the UK just as long as you don't use the name and branding of this one specific group. I'll probably regret posting this but there are some extremely disingenuous half-truths in this thread and I think that readers should know the full context.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Personally I expected prosecutions for sabotage rather than for terrorism. The UK has very broad terrorism legislation, but conventionally terrorism is something directed at civilians, and it's not something we usually tar, for example, resistance groups with. I think you even have to be able to kill people in internal political conflict without being called a terrorist. There are many circumstances during which such things are necessary.
  - arrowsmith 1y ago
    FWIW the specific activists who entered the base were charged with "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" and "conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK", not terrorism. [0] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dp5158720o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dp5158720o
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes, but then the organization was proscribed as a terrorist organization.
      - 1y ago
kitd 1y ago
Palestinian Action are a sanitised, Westernised front for Hamas fundraising. Their founders have praised the Oct 7th attacks and called for repeats. That by most measures counts as being an active part of terrorism. The spray painting was pretty small in the list of threats they pose.
mystraline 1y ago
> You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Yet more false equivalence. You can be for Palestine. You can be for Hamas. You can be against ethnic cleansing. You can be against genocide. These are all different things. And note, this smearing of things like equating 'genocide to Hamas so they deserve it' doesn't make genocide better. This smearing terms together is also being done by Israel as well, by trying to equate Israel with Judaism, and all Jews across the world. And that any denouncing of actions done in a genocide or ethnic cleansing is somehow antisemitic. All of these false equivalence arguments are basically just motte-and-bailey fallacies.
- tptacek 1y ago
  You can be for Hamas?
  - mystraline 1y ago
    I'm not, but I know those who are. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Last elections too. For quite many, Hamas are freedom fighters defending against invaders.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Hamas won that election in large part by throwing their opponents off the tops of buildings, and then, having secured power in Gaza, never allowed another election, to the point where a plurality of Gazan Palestinians are not old enough ever to have participated in an election. Anyone calling Hamas "freedom fighters" is telling on themselves. No, I don't think you can reasonably be for Hamas. I don't have anything else to nitpick about your comment! Just that one thing you said stuck out, because, no; being for Hamas is like being for the Khmer Rouge. Like, yeah, western imperialism in Indochina was absolutely a thing at the time of the Khmer Rouge. But no, you don't get to be for the Khmer Rouge! ("Last elections too"? What did you mean by that?)

by kypro 1y ago

fakedang 1y ago

Even more chilling when you find out that sentences for previous criminals are being commuted and reduced significantly for heinous crimes (theft, burglary, rape, assault, etc.), so as to clear space and make room in prisons to accommodate these "terrorists". https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-serving-40-of-sentence-to-alleviate-overcrowding-13177051 https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-se...

panarchy 1y ago
The more dangerous people they can get on the street the more fear they can generate and the more they can whip the public to their bidding. Getting rid of the few people trying educate the public on these matters goes hand in hand.

graemep 1y ago

> spray painting British military equipment. Spraying paint down military jet engines rendering them inoperable until repaired, at a cos of millions of pounds. > historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objective The legal definition of terrorism in the UK has for many years (at least all of the current century, I think a lot longer) included "serious damage to property": https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism and I think causing many millions of pounds worth of damage is clearly serious. I do not entirely agree with the definition (I particularly oppose making collecting information and disseminating publications terrorism) but it is what has long been accepted.

arrowsmith 1y ago

Palestine Action broke into a British military base and sabotaged millions of pounds' worth of equipment. What did you expect the government to do exactly — shrug it off? What kind of message would that have sent? The Terrorism Act 2000 gives "serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism so I find it hard to argue that the government was doing anything more than neutrally applying the law here. Those protestors knew full well they were supporting a proscribed group and they were warned what the consequences would be. Protesting in support of Palestine remains entirely legal in the UK just as long as you don't use the name and branding of this one specific group. I'll probably regret posting this but there are some extremely disingenuous half-truths in this thread and I think that readers should know the full context.

impossiblefork 1y ago
Personally I expected prosecutions for sabotage rather than for terrorism. The UK has very broad terrorism legislation, but conventionally terrorism is something directed at civilians, and it's not something we usually tar, for example, resistance groups with. I think you even have to be able to kill people in internal political conflict without being called a terrorist. There are many circumstances during which such things are necessary.
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  FWIW the specific activists who entered the base were charged with "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" and "conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK", not terrorism. [0] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dp5158720o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dp5158720o
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Yes, but then the organization was proscribed as a terrorist organization.
    - 1y ago

kitd 1y ago

Palestinian Action are a sanitised, Westernised front for Hamas fundraising. Their founders have praised the Oct 7th attacks and called for repeats. That by most measures counts as being an active part of terrorism. The spray painting was pretty small in the list of threats they pose.

mystraline 1y ago

> You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Yet more false equivalence. You can be for Palestine. You can be for Hamas. You can be against ethnic cleansing. You can be against genocide. These are all different things. And note, this smearing of things like equating 'genocide to Hamas so they deserve it' doesn't make genocide better. This smearing terms together is also being done by Israel as well, by trying to equate Israel with Judaism, and all Jews across the world. And that any denouncing of actions done in a genocide or ethnic cleansing is somehow antisemitic. All of these false equivalence arguments are basically just motte-and-bailey fallacies.

tptacek 1y ago
You can be for Hamas?
- mystraline 1y ago
  I'm not, but I know those who are. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Last elections too. For quite many, Hamas are freedom fighters defending against invaders.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Hamas won that election in large part by throwing their opponents off the tops of buildings, and then, having secured power in Gaza, never allowed another election, to the point where a plurality of Gazan Palestinians are not old enough ever to have participated in an election. Anyone calling Hamas "freedom fighters" is telling on themselves. No, I don't think you can reasonably be for Hamas. I don't have anything else to nitpick about your comment! Just that one thing you said stuck out, because, no; being for Hamas is like being for the Khmer Rouge. Like, yeah, western imperialism in Indochina was absolutely a thing at the time of the Khmer Rouge. But no, you don't get to be for the Khmer Rouge! ("Last elections too"? What did you mean by that?)