• SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Seems a bit much to label them as terrorist but they’ve done a lot of vandalism on various companies. Seems their MO is to find a target rationalize how it’s somehow tangentially associated with Israel and then break some shit.

    They crossed a line when they did this to a military base and vandalized some RAF planes. They had some weirdo rationalization for this, but forgot to rationalize how this kind of thing will help anyone in Gaza. They seem to be just breaking things to get attention for themselves.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      47 minutes ago

      You can’t say that this is a Christian server, where we support mass murder, like the good people that we are.

  • galmuth@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I don’t disagree that it wasn’t a reasonable protest and those responsible should be prosecuted for the criminal damage etc… but to list them as a terrorist group because of one non-terrorising action is a tad ridiculous, counter-intuitive, and the optics for the government are terrible.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I mean that’s what happens when your organisation organises a break-in of an RAF site and causes millions of pounds of damage to military aircraft.

    There are reasonable ways to protest, and that wasn’t one of them.

    Support one of the many other unaffected groups that support Palestine without doing absurd things like this.

    • Piatro@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s not what this is about. Everyone agrees that damage to military assets is a criminal action, no matter how you justify it. The problem I and others have is that the actions don’t meet any sort of sensible criteria for what is “terrorism”. Most people would say terrorism must involve mass harm to people, not necessarily property. Lots of other organisations over the years should have been proscribed if “terrorism” means property damage. Anyone involved in the race riots, Just Stop Oil, hell, even Banksy, would all qualify if that was the case. It opens the door for the UK government to proscribe any organisation it doesn’t like, which is especially concerning at a time when the next government is likely to be even more authoritarian and use this event as precedent to do the same but more.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Depends on your goals and what you are willing to risk to achieve them. Some people throw paint on priceless art, some people light themselves on fire, some people yell at people on the internet. Any protest is a cost-risk evaluation.

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 minutes ago

    This is absurd.

    Yes Palestine Action broke the law by damaging insanely expensive property. And like any protest that dose this. The right or wrong of the cause has no effect on the legal requirements of the actions.

    CND, Greenpeace and many many other protest organisations have also commited expensive crimes over the decades.

    When a government starts deciding what citizens can or cannot support rather the how. It is no different to banning book or speech.