• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Baleforce said:
It’s not a matter of perspective, it’s a matter of law.

You can’t break into a military installation, damage an aircraft worth millions, leave a political slogan and not have that considered a terrorist act.

There are flow charts of rules in play here. There is no consideration, or discussion or weighting, just truth gates, if this, then that.
Click to expand...
Its simple criminal damage. Otherwise you are accepting authoritarianism

You are getting into Tianoman Square territory if you can't gesture protest against unethical use of your own military
 
What do the flow charts say about high-velocity bullets ripping through kids' heads? Ok to support that or not? Should we be confused whether that is a good thing or not until the law decides for us? I think I'm OK with the protest painters. I feel there is a little sunken cost thinking going on here.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Its simple criminal damage. Otherwise you are accepting authoritarianism

You are getting into Tianoman Square territory if you can't gesture protest against unethical use of your own military
Click to expand...

Of course you can protest.

But you can’t trespass on a secure area, inspect military secrets and damage expensive machinery.

If they had daubed their message on the pavement outside, or hung a flag from nearby trees it would have been dealt with completely differently.
 
Baleforce said:
Of course you can protest.

But you can’t trespass on a secure area, inspect military secrets and damage expensive machinery.

If they had daubed their message on the pavement outside, or hung a flag from nearby trees it would have been dealt with completely differently.
Click to expand...
That is not terrorism by any reasonable description.
 
Rorschach said:
What do the flow charts say about high-velocity bullets ripping through kids' heads? Ok to support that or not? Should we be confused whether that is a good thing or not until the law decides for us? I think I'm OK with the protest painters. I feel there is a little sunken cost thinking going on here.
Click to expand...

It’s fudging horrific isn’t it.

But none of that is a consideration in the decision tree that decided PA were terrorists.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The parallel is the British government being on the wrong side of history, in contrast to public opinion. Backing the Far Right oppressors and genocide deliverers, over the oppressed and suffering.

PA arent domestic terrorists. They symbolic daubed blood coloured paint on some bombs that were heading to a genocide. It was a Greenham Common gesture
Click to expand...
We have a judicial system to examine that.
I'm not comfortable with them being designated, however they did attack a military base.
It's the "information not in the public domain" part that sways me - I see everyday in my job decisions that get made by legal professionals on information that wouldn't be put into the public domain (for good reason).
I'm a little uncomfortable with that position because there are echoes of the WMDs claim under Blair.

PA can request deproscription however, which invokes what is akin to a Judicial Review upon appeal.
I would like to see the proscription legally scrutinized.
But, as it stands - they are terrorists.

www.gov.uk

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
monkeybarry said:
They are a terrorist organisation as per the laws/policies of the country.

I happen to agree with the last para. based upon what is in the public domain; however, it has been mentioned that there are non public informations that point to something more dangerous.
But that's why I specifically said to disregard views about the designation - the designation is the designation, any challenges to that should be via judicial process.

So I can see no issue with anyone supporting Palestine Action being arrested - they are supporting a terrorist organisation.
If they want to support the cause of PA - do so.
But no-one can complain about being arrested for supporting the group itself.
And, much like the suffragette movement (who almost certainly would be prescribed if around today - they planted bombs if I remember correctly), it may turn out that those people supporting Palestine Action end up on the right side of history and me on the wrong side.

Edit
en.m.wikipedia.org

Suffragette bombing and arson campaign - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
The Suffragettes were terrorists - they even had the, *cough*, balls to call themselves terrorists!
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know most of that.
Partially responsible for arsenal moving north of river.
 
Rorschach said:
What do the flow charts say about high-velocity bullets ripping through kids' heads? Ok to support that or not? Should we be confused whether that is a good thing or not until the law decides for us? I think I'm OK with the protest painters. I feel there is a little sunken cost thinking going on here.
Click to expand...
I think you've completely missed my point.
Protesting PA's cause - hell yes, go for it.
Supporting a terrorist organisation (which PA are, like it or not) - no.

A choice has been made between standing up for Palestine and supporting PA - and that's where the idiocy lies. And, ridiculously, detracts from the message!
Instead of wearing a "I support Palestine Action* t-shirt, wear a t-shirt that says "free Palestine" or "Stop the Genocide " etc etc.

What you be happy with someone wearing a "I support ETA t-shirt "? "Basque sovereignty" however, is fine.

Or how about "free Palestine" Vs "I love Hamas" on a baseball cap?
 
Rorschach said:
Use your own judgement to decide if you are on the right side of this.
Click to expand...

These things exist in different spaces, the atrocities happening in Gaza are in no way influential over the designation of PA as a terrorist organisation.

If Greta Thunberg did the same thing, she would be a terrorist too, and I think she's right about pretty much everything.

I'm not on a side, regarding PA, I'm just trying to explain how it works. Nobody is making a moral call here, thats not how the law works when the military are involved.
 
Baleforce said:
No, it’s because the armed forces were the victim.
Click to expand...
Which by extension is a national security threat.
The world has changed the past decade - we can't, as much as we'd love to, treat these things lightly anymore; I think a lot of poster in the last page or so need to realise and come to terms with that truth. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it is today.
 
monkeybarry said:
Which by extension is a national security threat.
The world has changed the past decade - we can't, as much as we'd love to, treat these things lightly anymore; I think a lot of poster in the last page or so need to realise and come to terms with that truth. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it is today.
Click to expand...

It's a binary state, a military base is either secure, or under attack. If the perpetrators hadn't been British, we would be at war with wherever their passports were issued.

There are ways to protest effectively in this country, even just stop oil were never that stupid.

PA put themselves in a whole different game.
 
Gutter Boy said:
So ramp up climate change, the big driver of immigration?

Stamer wont be leader next election, he's never had any intention of doing a second term (he's too old). It will be Streeting or Burnham
Click to expand...
The UK isn't going to ramp up climate change by doing these things. Net zero for the UK is a scam. We still need to burn fossil fuels and we still need refined oil products for trains, trucks, planes and cars. So what we are doing now is simply penalising ourselves during the transition while as I've said doing daft sh*t like importing tonnes of solar panels from China who are turning the sky black to make them to a tune far in excess of the emissions we could produce even if we attempted to.

Nor is climate change a significant cause of immigration into the UK. Yet.
 
monkeybarry said:
I think you've completely missed my point.
Protesting PA's cause - hell yes, go for it.
Supporting a terrorist organisation (which PA are, like it or not) - no.

A choice has been made between standing up for Palestine and supporting PA - and that's where the idiocy lies. And, ridiculously, detracts from the message!
Instead of wearing a "I support Palestine Action* t-shirt, wear a t-shirt that says "free Palestine" or "Stop the Genocide " etc etc.

What you be happy with someone wearing a "I support ETA t-shirt "? "Basque sovereignty" however, is fine.

Or how about "free Palestine" Vs "I love Hamas" on a baseball cap?
Click to expand...
I think you have missed the point really . And there are so many logical fallacies in this one paragraph that it would take me an hour to point them out. I'm going to ignore all the strawmen and go back to the original point. Is painting a plane an act of terrorism or are you happy to hide behind the law on this? The latter it seems. I disagree with the law on this, and certainly not with the morals behind it. It is as simple as that, and I won't be printing t-shirts.
 
Baleforce said:
It's a binary state, a military base is either secure, or under attack. If the perpetrators hadn't been British, we would be at war with wherever their passports were issued.

There are ways to protest effectively in this country, even just stop oil were never that stupid.

PA put themselves in a whole different game.
Click to expand...
I think Mr Putin and his cathedral city loving (Salisbury, not cheese) friends might disagree.
Proscribing PA is the political equivalent of tutting and not offering them tea; war with anyone that doesn't have US backing is not something we have the political balls to do.

That said, I do take your points and agree almost fully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back