deleted by creator

So let’s look at these requirements:

• violence: not really. Vandalism and destruction of equipment aren’t violence, to my knowledge PA has not harmed or attacked anyone.

• non combatants: they targeted weapon shipments and military equipment. While I suppose you could argue the UK military aren’t combatants as they aren’t part of the war directly, but honestly that point is entirely moot given that they didn’t target people.

• political and ideological aims: sure, they are a political activist organization. Obviously that alone doesn’t make them terrorists.

So, even by what Wikipedia defines as the “broadest” definition, not terrorists.

I mean, at an absolute minimum, terrorism requires violence against people, which they did not do. They targeted planes and other military equipment. That’s not terrorism no matter how much damage they caused.

Im not saying what they did isn’t illegal. I’m saying it’s not terrorism. This is like if someone was charged with murder and punished for it only to turn out all they did was rob a store and you’re like “well akshually ☝️🤓 they’re a criminal so it’s fine”

Then the UK’s legal definition is fucking stupid. Terrorism is when a group attempts to strike fear and terror into a populace to coerce them. It definitionally requires violence and fear.

So they vandalized some planes and snipped some cables? And this got them declared as terrorists?

I’ve noticed a pattern where “terrorist” is often used as a stand in for any group that opposes the government.

Sure they did something highly illegal, but anyone who thinks that illegally trying to stop a weapons shipment is terrorism is insane. If “using force to achieve a political goal” is terrorism, then nearly every country on the planet is a terrorist organization. Idk if thats like actually the UK’s definition or something but that is a ludicrous definition for terrorism.

Terrorists use terror. Its why they are called that. Not the use of force, but specifically attempting to strike deep fear into a civilian populace. At no point was PA trying to make people fearful. They were trying to stop people from dying.

What’s acts of terror has Palestine action committed for it to be classified as a terrorist organization?

To some people “seeing through western propaganda” means deciding what to believe by whatever the opposite of western forces want

Hate to break it to you but that’s not thinking for yourself, in fact it takes no more self reflection and thought than it would to just blindly believe it all

Sure, but it still seems to be like a simply stupid move on their part. They’re gonna turn one of the most influential activists of this generation from an outside observer to an eye witness

Ah yes, because as everyone knows the best way to stop determined activists from talking about your human rights abuses is to show them first hand your human rights abuses. I’m sure they’ll just shut up after that.

I know a pilot and he mentioned a similar proposal he saw, he thought that the only reason anyone wanted them was so that they would have one less pilot to pay per flight.

I’m sure the people getting deported to concentration camps and losing their healthcare will understand that you not voting was just to save the children in gaza (oh wait, they’re dying anyway)

Edit: also are you genuinely claiming that Harris would have done all of those things that I listed? Every single one of them? Be so for real. If that’s actually where your head is at you are so unbelievably out of touch I think you’re beyond saving.

I’d say its more complicated than that but yeah absolutely that administration didn’t try to stop it, it clearly wasn’t their goal in the slightest. They did very little (though even that very little was more than the trump administration has ever done or tried to) but I’m not gonna act like Kamala Harris would have been like the fuckin savior of Gaza cause that’s just false.

However, if Harris had won the election, we would:

• not have people sent to concentration camps in El Salvador
• not have a concentration camp in the Everglades
• not have the mass militarization of ICE
• not hace the total loss of due process for immigration cases and people being kidnapped by federal officers off the street
• not have millions of people losing Medicaid
• not have the national guard marching on the streets of DC
• not have Texas gerrymandering 5 seats in the middle of the term at the president’s request
• not have the CDC, HHS, and millions of dollars in funding for research gutted
• not have environmental programs and research gutted
• not have a convicted rapist in the oval office
• not have students deported for protesting
• there’s like dozens more things that I could list tbh
• still have a genocide in gaza

I totally understand why people were really upset about that last point. I was/am too. But I have a few thoughts:

1. If you thought Trump would have been better for gazans than Harris, you’re a fucking idiot.
2. If you think those two were equally bad because of that single issue, then you’re a fucking idiot.
3. If you didn’t vote to make a point about how we need something better than those two options, you contributed far more towards Trump’s victory than you did to making that point, especially since the democratic party is full of imbeciles who will see your missing vote and interpret it as meaning they need to become more “moderate.”

No, but less is better than more

They’re being deployed to defend a sovereign nation from invasion, I don’t know what else you would consider “peacekeeping”

But we can’t increase the workers’ wages, that would drive up prices!

Just ignore the prices constantly going up anyway while these guys conveniently get million dollar raises