RuamRudy

Palestinian action are clowns who should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. To classify them as terrorists is, however, a gross and obscene distortion of what true terrorism actually is.

Also, these clowns have made themselves the headlines. They claim to be acting in support of the Palestinian cause but all they do is further enable those who want to see the eradication of it by distracting  attention and furthering the suggestion that the cause itself is not a just one. 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

In this case, who in particular was terrorised by the acts carried out by this group?

 

Which act and case are you talking about, there have been dozens this soon to be terrorist group have taken part in.

 

In addition to the seven individuals who appeared in court, two other men remain in custody under suspicion of terrorism-related offences. A 45-year-old man from Warwickshire and a 33-year-old man from Manchester are both being held under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Pick any of them. Who did they set out to terrorise? 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The Terrorism Act 2000 is there for a reason. But hey, got it, you are now arguing against the Terrorism act 2000 and have joined Diane Abbot in her isolated rambles. 

Of course it's there for multiple reasons, including as a deterent against dissent. 

In this case, who in particular was terrorised by the acts carried out by this group?

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

What you feel has nothing to do with terrorism & UK Law.

What they did had nothing to do with terrorism - just because the law says otherwise doesn't make it so; just another bad law written by weak politicians.

17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"significant damage" is the bar and along with a reason/cause for the damage to change gov decisions or influence, 7 million and way over that passes that easily and falls well within the UK Terrorism Act 2000, check up on it.

 

In the UK, significant damage to property motivated by a political cause can be considered an act of terrorism if it's intended to influence the government or intimidate the public. The UK's definition of terrorism includes actions or threats that are designed to influence the government or intimidate the public, and are made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. 

 

https://www.educateagainsthate.com/terrorism-definition/

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

 

As for what other acts of violence they have carried out, just look at the OP and related topics........

 

 

Thank you, I am now better informed. 

It does feel, however, that equating the actions of a pressure group with those who set out to deliberately kill innocent people is an abuse of the term. 

4 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

 

''Serious damage to property'.

Is that the name of an English law or just a phrase you cobbled together? 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Over 7 million in damages carried out at Brize Norton for a political cause makes them terrorists, that's without all the other acts of violence they carried out. Their whole mission clearly stated is violence for their cause.  Significant damage can be considered a terrorist act. They are certainly doing that.

Which law defines the escalation of a charge from vandalism to terrorism based upon the financial cost of the attack? 

What other acts of violence have they carried out? 

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

Do you think we should legalise Al Qaeda and Islamic State too? Why label them terrorists? 

If this protest group begins to plant bombs, behead people and commit other such atrocities then certainly. 

By the same token, should all people who commit acts of vandalism on public property be labelled terrorists? 

41 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Doesn't make sense that these people vote against proscribing 'Palestine Action' a terrorist organization?

What possible reasons could they have?

We already have laws in place to prosecute them for their actions. Why do we need to label them terrorists? 

7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Shhhh...to many here, Ukrainians are gods of angelic heroism

Then provide a credible source to dispute it. 

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

As long as US citizens living on the streets, needing govt assistance to feed their kids and also dying because they can't afford healthcare, then screw the rest of the world. 

And your corrupt president and his pathetically weak hangers-on have just gutted medicaid. Screw them too? 

Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' will leave millions uninsured, threaten rural hospitals

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/07/01/how-trump-bill-medicaid-cuts-will-impact-us-health-care.html

1 minute ago, DezLez said:

Anyone can make an allegation about anyone about anything but where are the FACTS to back them up?

You do understand that he wasn't a mere mortal, don't you? For reasons even more important to the integrity of the state than the lack of challenge of Jimmy Saville, Mountbatten was unassailable. 

3 minutes ago, DezLez said:

NO!

We are asking you to prove your unfounded allegations here and now!.

Not my argument but if you are unaware of the allegations about Mountbatten you must have been living in a cave for the past 40 years.

17 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

The Moscow times ., hahaha, a foreign agent.

 

Foreign to whom? I spent a lot of time in Moscow in the 2000s and the Moscow Times was freely available across the city; it made much more interesting reading than Аргументы и Факты or Правда, the only newspapers available in the city I lived in in the east. 

The Bhutan entry makes it seem like each day you need to hand over another $100 to continue your tour; not the case. When I visited, all visitors needed to part of organised tours, and the Sustainable Development Fee was rolled up into the overall cost of the tour. Other than being a bit pricey, there was no indication of a quirky entry requirement. If anyone is tempted, Bhutan is a beautiful country with a fascinating culture and very friendly people but the food is a bit of a let-down. 

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Britain also has some unusual rules.

 

Turn up undocumented in a dinghy and you get a 4 star hotel, 50 quid a week, a phone, free healthcare and a tax free job at Deliveroo. 

I think you are confusing Britain with Lalaland, a place you seem to be spending an increasing amount of time in. 

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

It was a comment on the state of LA.

 

Not this particular taxi driver.

 

Read it again when you're sober. 

So totally unrelated to the thread or even your own post, just an inconsequential non sequitor. It's not me who's on the sauce. 

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't.

 

I never mentioned his politics. 

But you wrote this, "Like most of California, ruined by "Progressives". "

What did you mean with that line of not a comment on his politics?