British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Gotta agree with you on this one it seems a rather glaring double standard. Ridiculous anyway arresting people for holding signs supporting Palestinian Action and seems like a serious waste of police resources.
it's not a double standard because supporting a terrorist organization isn't the same as just showing generic hatred toward a non-defined group of people.
They would probably have been arrested if they used a banner with "kill all the asylum seekers", but they didn't.
That's kinda corrrect in part and it's why yvette cooper's job is likely to come under extreme pressure.
proscribing a group is a very serious matter and it appears she has shown a staggering lack of judgement (or worse) which is both deeply unjust in itself and undermines the seriousness of laws against terrorists.
That's kinda corrrect in part and it's why yvette cooper's job is likely to come under extreme pressure.
proscribing a group is a very serious matter and it appears she has shown a staggering lack of judgement (or worse) which is both deeply unjust in itself and undermines the seriousness of laws against terrorists.
If a group that attacks a military base to destroy military equipment for political purposes isn't a terrorist group, in a very clear and uncontroversial way, then words have truly lost meaning.
What's terrifying is to know millions of british people do agree with targeting *military bases and military equipment* with acts of terrors just because they disagree with the government on some policy choice. Those people are utterly incompatible with society and it's a nightmare to know so many are.
it's not a double standard because supporting a terrorist organization isn't the same as just showing generic hatred toward a non-defined group of people.
They would probably have been arrested if they used a banner with "kill all the asylum seekers", but they didn't.
Yes it is as if saying "I oppose genocide, support Palestinian action"" is an actual terror offence (lol) then Kill 'em all" in the same context is very arguably a dog whistle for incitement, so yeah it's absolutely a double standard.
If a group that attacks a military base to destroy military equipment for political purposes isn't a terrorist group, in a very clear and uncontroversial way, then words have truly lost meaning.What's terrifying is to know millions of british people do agree with targeting *military bases and military equipment* with acts of terrors just because they disagree with the governmen
Spray painting a plane is vandalism. Not actual terrorism and we've had this convo before and I'm not rinse repeating due to your apparent megalomania. You're like a younger version of Mr Burns.
That's kinda corrrect in part and it's why yvette cooper's job is likely to come under extreme pressure.
proscribing a group is a very serious matter and it appears she has shown a staggering lack of judgement (or worse) which is both deeply unjust in itself and undermines the seriousness of laws against terrorists.
What you’re hinting at there is the real picture. It’s not incompetence. Have a look at who her and the cabinets donors are.
She should be in jail.
No, they damaged the engines of strategically important British military aircraft, which is actual terrorism (and potentially treason). Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb-ut-Tahrir have never killed anyone in the UK, and nor have Hamas or Hezbollah, but they're all still banned. Banning gives the police an extra lever against dangerous anti-social groups -- they don't have to catch you holding a bomb or a gun -- and it helps to intimidate and cap off the support for such groups, which might otherwise swell due to the mass-hysterical effect, a particular consideration in the social-media age.
The Romans had some West African ancestry. Wouldn't the most reasonable explanation be they brought some West African ancestry with them during their invasions?
That is not unlikely. And the Roman Empire practised slavery and it included North Africa, where the ancient slave trade did involve sub-Saharan West Africans.
OMFG!! Send 'em off to an alt right version of a gulag and then shoot 'em!!. No wait, that's still vandalism.
If detected and convicted, the individuals responsible won't be sent to gulag or shot, because we don't have any gulags and we don't have the death penalty. Though it would be quite amusing if they were made to pay for the damage, the cost being likely to exceed the amount that such feeble recreational wasters could earn in several lifetimes.
No, they damaged the engines of strategically important British military aircraft, which is actual terrorism (and potentially treason). Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb-ut-Tahrir have never killed anyone in the UK, and nor have Hamas or Hezbollah, but they're all still banned. Banning gives the police an extra lever against dangerous anti-social groups -- they don't have to catch you hol
Still sounds like vandalism not terrorism.
Terrorism is the use or threat of violence against non-combatants.
I don't think the RAF qualifies as a non-combatant or that damaging an engine qualifies as violence.
Terrorism is the use or threat of violence against non-combatants.
I don't think the RAF qualifies as a non-combatant or that damaging an engine qualifies as violence.
terrorism is the use of violence for political goals.
damaging property is violence definitionally, but even in a bizzarro leftist world where you disregard as unimportant some type of violence against some types of property, damaging military equipment is clearly a very grave form of violence.
and the political goal was explicit, elaborate, and successful: they and their agenda got known and people took them seriously enough to risk arrest to support them (which means supporting their illegal violence against the state).
that's 101 , basic terrorism
No, terrorism is specifically against non-combatants. Violence between combatants is called war.
If detected and convicted, the individuals responsible won't be sent to gulag or shot, because we don't have any gulags and we don't have the death penalty. Though it would be quite amusing if they were made to pay for the damage, the cost being likely to exceed the amount that such feeble recreational wasters could earn in several lifetimes.
I'm suggesting that based on what their punishment would be in the Republic of Luciomtopia 😃
No, terrorism is specifically against non-combatants. Violence between combatants is called war.
violence by non state actors against the state is 101 terrorism, of done for political purposes.
quite absurd to claim that if a subversive group plants bombs in barracks or parliament that's not terrorism ffs
No, they damaged the engines of strategically important British military aircraft, which is actual terrorism (and potentially treason). Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb-ut-Tahrir have never killed anyone in the UK, and nor have Hamas or Hezbollah, but they're all still banned. Banning gives the police an extra lever against dangerous anti-social groups -- they don't have to catch you hol
Sorry, gotta respectfully disagree with you mate, I really don't think you can compare Palestinian action to the likes of Hamas. It doesn't matter if they never killed anyone in the UK- Oct 07 was clearly terrorism. If damaging a plane engine is terrorism then pretty much any damage is terrorism. The Black Block or wombles damaging a McDonalds at a G8 riot is terrorism and why stop there- chucking an egg or cream pie at the likes of Nigel Farage can potentially be terrorism based on such mindsets.
My point is that the definition seems to be getting broadened and that's potentially quite dangerous in terms of allowing state power to classify whoever they wish as terrorism. Planes were damaged in Shannon airport years ago by anti Iraq war protesters for example, and I wouldn't regard that as terrorism. Actually arresting people for holding up non incitement signs, such as the police are currently doing, has a disturbing dystopian quality to it that just doesn't sit right with me at all, even if I disagree with the likes of Palestinian action.
I especially can't agree with this provision from your link:
wearing clothing or displaying articles in public which arouse suspicion of membership or support of a proscribed organisation
There's straight up Thought Crime aspects to that. That's anti freedom to me and I couldn't possibly condone such things, again even if I disagree with the ethos of such groups. You can't arrest people for freedom of expression.
Any form of violence waged for political purposes by organized people should be treated as terrorism yes.
but even if you disagree with that, unless you want to accept all violence against property, damaging military equipment has to be treated harshly than most other forms of violence against property.
maybe you don't like the word , call it criminal attempt at subversion, change the word / expression, but it shouldn't be tolerated and penalties should be extreme.
basically you don't want a society where anyone does that at all, as no normal, civil people should even think they can ever gain politically by waging violence.
political violence is incompatible with a civil society simple as that and it should be one of the most punishment organized behavior, at the very least punished as much as organized crime is
violence by non state actors against the state is 101 terrorism, of done for political purposes.
quite absurd to claim that if a subversive group plants bombs in barracks or parliament that's not terrorism ffs
That doesn't violate what I wrote.
political violence is incompatible with a civil society simple as that and it should be one of the most punishment organized behavior, at the very least punished as much as organized crime is
Political violence is unacceptable but I want the state, a political body, to execute dissenters, political people.
Political violence is unacceptable but I want the state, a political body, to execute dissenters, political people.
are you like 10? monopoly of violence and so on, the state exists primarily exactly to have an entity, and only that, allowed to use violence to achieve societal goals (because that is often necessary), instead of letting anyone else use violence at will.
other people can use violence in self defense or defense of others and that's it. not to try to have society talk about a policy preference they have, or to make society change its mind and so on
Any form of violence waged for political purposes by organized people should be treated as terrorism yes.but even if you disagree with that, unless you want to accept all violence against property, damaging military equipment has to be treated harshly than most other forms of violence against property.maybe you don't like the word , call it criminal attempt at subversion, chang
Jasus you have such a hard on for extreme penalties. You're like Judge Death from the 2000AD comics. Now I know how you lot spawned the likes of Caligula.
are you like 10? monopoly of violence and so on, the state exists primarily exactly to have an entity, and only that, allowed to use violence to achieve societal goals (because that is often necessary), instead of letting anyone else use violence at will.other people can use violence in self defense or defense of others and that's it. not to try to have society talk about a pol
I'm neither 10 nor dishonest like you, someone who has previously posted about how people who protest against the current government should be put to death.
That, my toxic little Italian fart, is political violence.
