1w ago

Labour knew Palestine Action posed no violent threat, but banned it anyway amid lobby pressure

1w ago

Labour knew Palestine Action posed no violent threat, but banned it anyway amid lobby pressure

1w ago

Labour knew Palestine Action posed no violent threat, but banned it anyway amid lobby pressure

1w ago

Labour knew Palestine Action posed no violent threat, but banned it anyway amid lobby pressure

9 comments

Bowing down to an insane cult known for terrorism and murder isn't a good look.
Yep, and now he's painted himself into a stupid corner with it.
Well done Kid Starver.
the majority of direct action by Palestine Action would not be classified as terrorism
it was that minority action involving military bases that did it
oops
- I'd agree that's what got the government's attention, but surely if it's against military bases, wouldn't that mean it's not terrorism?
  I was under the impression that, by definition, terrorism had to be against civilian/non-military things, with the aim of generating fear, or terror amongst the population.
  I remember things like bombs in shopping centres, cars, schools, city centres, buses, venues etc as terrorism, for example.
  These people did what? Broke into a military base and sprayed some paint on an aircraft?
  That's not terrorism. That's basically just "a bit naughty". Vandalism at worst.
  Who decided that was terrorism? Budgie the Little Helicopter? Jimbo of the Jet Set?
  
  Terrorism is a nebulous word that means whatever the government wants it to mean.
  This is why anti-terrorist laws should be abolished.
  
  Its definitely not terrorism, but its more than just vandalism. Spraying paint into a jet engine is going to severly damage if not completly break it. Sabotage is probably the best description, of military equipment that wasnt doing anything involved with Palestein.
- Your point?

9 comments