Can anyone explain in simple terms why Palestine action is getting added to the terror list

For spray painting something in protest but just stop oil and extinction rebellion aren't despite doing the exact same thing many times?

 

I'd imagine breaking into a military base might just have raised eyebrows.

 

So it isn't the actual itself or the reason behind it that gets you considered a terrorist, it's where you choose to do it.

Really the government should be lucky that it was a peaceful protest group who "broke in" and only sprayed some paint without harming any life

 

I woukd think so too.

 

They sabotaged two military assets that's terrorism possibly a treasonous act. They also are spreading lies by saying these aircraft are used to refuel Israeli planes they aren't because they physically can't due to the in flight refueling systems of UK and Israeli military aircraft being incompatible.

 

Probably due to it being military property. A better way for these people to protest would be to fly to Israel and make their feelings known rather than damage property in a country that Israel doesn’t listen to.

 

Because the military are deeply embarrassed by their appalling lack of security and need to save face....

 

So the Greenham Common protestors were terrorists too?

They cut up fences and trespassed on an RAF site. And generally from time to time made nuisances of themselves with their civil disobedience.

Surely "terrorism" should be related to what you do, rather than where you do it.

 

'terrorism' is always an easy charge for a government to use when it suits. America unilaterally dropping bombs on a sovereign state could be classed as terrorism just as the attack on the twin towers could. Governments spin things to fit their narrative, sometimes genuinely and, in my opinion, sometimes not.

 

Don't know, Mr G. I think any allegation of terrorism in regard to this action would rest on the protagonists being alleged to have undertaken action to influence the government, and that action having consisted of serious damage to property (see section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000). I would agree that this case would look a bit thin in terms of 'serious damage' having been caused. All I'm saying is: that's what brought them to the attention of the authorities. It would be for a court to decide, wouldn't it?

There are other considerations that apply when a decision is made to proscribe an organisation. I think this group have come to the attention of the authorities before.

 

I would imagine that the same legal definition of "terrorism" must be used when applying criteria to a group for possible proscribing.

Damaging beyond repair The Fighting Temeraire in The National Gallery ? Would that lead to a group being proscribed?

(Anyone who did such damage ought to get life imprisonment anyway, along with anyone who came up with the idea, or supplied the materials, or made a cup of tea for them before they set off etc.).

 

Agreed. Even worse if it was 'Whistlejacket'!

 

Israel kills innocent Palestinians. Activists spray-paint a plane. Guess which the UK government calls terrorism | Sally Rooney https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-action-uk-government-terrorism-sally-rooney

 

Breaking into RAF Base = Very bad, should get done treason

 

...same government supporting genocide of Palestinian people? Meh.