• HakFoo ( HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if they were trying to use this sort of rule with wholesome intentions, I’m not sure how targeting groups by name instead of deed makes sense. It’s like doing a healthy diet by giving up Coca-Cola by name even though Pepsi and RC have the same nutritional profile and availability. Enjoy the Whack-a-mole game!

    Taken to its logical conclusion, someone should start a pro-Palestinian squad and call it the Reform Party.

      • acargitz ( theacharnian@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh boy wait till you hear what the suffragettes were willing to do for another righteous cause, a bit over a century ago. I don’t know man, maybe the government should start reexamining its policies if ordinary people among its citizens are willing to start breaking into airbase and damaging their own planes.

        • ohulancutash ( ohulancutash@feddit.uk ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They were willing to commit mass murder in London and Dublin, and to assassinate the Prime Minister. Also deeply keen on removing all Jews from the House of Commons. Things that today would indeed mark them as a terrorist organisation.

          Later, Emmeline Pankhurst would found a political party with the aim of requiring all civil servants to prove their racial purity back at least 3 generations, and many of the more prominent members of the WSPU became prominent members of the British fascist movement, several being detained as a precaution during the second European fuss.

          As a campaign, the WSPU was an abject failure. It put women’s votes back a decade, and Pankhurst failed to ensure that working class women were excluded from the franchise (she also wanted working class men excluded).

          It was only a cataclysm the scale of WWI, and the groundwork of the suffragists working in opposition to the suffragettes, which brought votes for all.

        • 3dcadmin ( 3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They caused £7 million pounds damage. Now if someone damaged YOUR property and the police did nothing how would you feel? As the £7 million will now have to be found from tax payers money can you not see why the government is pissed… regardless of the cause this sort of action has consequences.

          • Morlark ( Morlark@feddit.uk ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If someone damaged my property, I’d feel pretty aggrieved… and it still wouldn’t make them a terrorist. And the police wouldn’t do nothing, because damaging property is a crime. That property being a few planes doesn’t magically change the equation. Just like the government wouldn’t be doing nothing if they hadn’t designated PA as a terrorist organisation, because a whole raft of criminal charges would still apply.

            Literally, and I want to stress this, literally nobody has suggested that PA should not face appropriate and proportionate consequences for their actions. And you knew that. You knew damed well that people have no problem with the government taking action, as long as that action is legal and democratically responsible. Yet you deliberately chose to dishonestly equate opposition to terrorist designation with support for them getting off scot free, even though that’s an obviously false and mendacious equivalence.

            You are not very skilled at this dishonesty malarkey. Consider yourself called out.

            • 3dcadmin ( 3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Eh? I never said that, I just said there are consequences and people are up in arms… You took what I said and ran with it. Should they do nothing about damage that tax payers will have to pay? Really should they? I never said it wasn’t terrorism either or in fact never said it wasn’t… I’m way more aggrieved they took the winter fuel payment away from my 82 yr old mother because it directly affects me. I was pointing out, simply, that it was £7 million pounds plus damages. 7 million. Tax payers will have to pay that somehow because that is how the military is funded, directly or indirectly. Now consider yourself being called out for trying to shame me when I was just saying it is a large figure - nothing more, nothing less. Whether I feel it is proportional or not is not what I meant and you damn well know it as well, you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of. Go try and shame someone else

            • 3dcadmin ( 3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              And… I never said anything about that. If you do something, there are consequences. Those consequences vary but when it is a large sum of money quite often the consequences are disproportionate to the crime (and we can all agree it is a crime, in the literal sense)

        • ohulancutash ( ohulancutash@feddit.uk ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah “liar”. They were tankers, not fighter jets. And paint thrown in an engine requires the engine to be completely stripped down for parts to be inspected and cleaned because it’s a plane not a lawnmower. They also went at the planes with a crowbar.