this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
1165 points (97.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12921 readers
890 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't this the group that broke into a military airbase and damage several aircraft resulting in million of pounds worth of damages? I mean the security breach and the intent to maliciously damage the equipment is more than enough grounds to label the group as a terrorist group. If a right wing group or any other groups did this, everybody here would be calling them terrorists, and rightfully so. It makes sense for the UK to label this group as such, especially since they didn't disavow the attack that happened.
The people who are trying to frame this as an attack on free speech are either full of shit and intentionally spreading misinformation or they're ignorant enough to get their information from people who are full of shit and intentionally spreading misinformation. This is something that clearly has nothing to do with free speech.
No, damaging property doesn't amount to terrorism. What world do you live in?
What most people understand as terrorism is the spreading of terror in the general population. Last time I checked, no one felt terrorized because some planes got spray painted.
Yes it does. In the UK, terrorism is defined more broadly, and the actions of this groups fall firmly within their legal definitions, hence why they were so swift with this designation.
https://justice.org.uk/counter-terrorism-human-rights/
You sure seem to be right about the broader definition! But legal or not, it still seems absolutely crazy to classify this type of property damage as terrorism to me... I have a hard time to see how to justify that beyond, of course, the technicalities of the definition in the UK
I think it has less to do with the property damage and more to do with the implications of the incident and the intent behind it.
You have a group of people who premeditated a plan to sneak into a highly secured RAF airbase without proper authorization with the intention to damage military equipment owned by the state. This is a major breach of national security, it is an act of sabotage, and it causes direct harm to the British state as it's a direct attempt to undermine the country's military capabilities for political purposes.
That's very good grounds to label the organization responsible as terrorist group. Keep in mind, agreeing or disagreeing with the cause of the activists is irrelevant here. You have to think about things from the point of the view of the state. If an attack like this doesn't get properly punished, then what kind of precedent would that set? Does any self righteous group get a free pass to damage public property and undermine national security? The state cannot allow such avenues of instability to take hold. A red line has to be firmly set, and those who cross it have to face consquences.
Oh trust me, I get that the state wants to punish this and set a red line, no doubt about that. That doesn't make the label of terrorist appropriate, there is plenty of things other than terrorism that are illegal. My idea of terrorism doesn't include this form of property damage, and labeling it as such seems to be what sets a dangerous precedent here.
But this is your personal opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. Your only point of contention here is not the act itself, just the terrorism label. Personally, I think you're focusing on the wrong things. The UK is a democratic country and the people voted in politicians that established their terrorism laws. These laws have been established law for decades, and thus, these laws are reflection of what terrorism mean to the British people. It's their definition, their laws, their punishments. This groups intentionally violated them for a political cause, they know they were going to face consequences for doing so, and they are.
The only way this becomes an issue if this standard is not applied universally or equally, which doesn't appear to be the case. The UK is not using terrorism laws to wrongly accuse other groups who didn't do anything of terrorism, they're not censoring people who advocate for the Palestinian cause because of this incident, and both the punishment this group is facing fits the crime in accordance with their laws. I don't see an issue here tbh
Oh I can tell you disagree with it! I'm quite happy with what I'm focusing on, I can see that you want to have a different conversation than whether it is crazy or not to classify this as terrorism, but I'm afraid I'm not interested in that. I feel like I've made my point clear enough, hopefully you feel the same.
military target not civilians.
The UK isn't at war dingus.
Then you might have a tyrannical government. In that case, definitions should be the least of your concerns.
There's literally nothing tyrannical about this situation.
On one hand, you have a democratic country, the UK, that has voted in a set of well defined laws that clearly outline what terrorism means, what can be considered as terrorism, and what the consequences are for terrorist acts. These legal parameters have been established law for decades.
On the other hand, you have an activist group, Palestinian Action, that knowing and intentionally chose to violate these laws by illegally sneaking into an RAF base and intentionally damaging military equipment for political purposes.
Considering how this is a malicious act of sabotage, a breach of national security, and an attempt to undermine the British state, this organization fits the criteria to be designated as a terrorist group. Because of this British politicians, quickly employed the established terrorism laws to give them the designation. Not only because what they did is considered terrorism in the country, but also because they don't want to set a precedent that this type of action gets a pass. They wanted to make it clear that such actions are an unacceptable red line, and those who cross will be swiftly punished.
So in essence. There were laws established democratically, a group intentionally violated them, and they're now facing the consequences of doing so. The UK is not censoring their activism cause, they're going after other groups that didn't do anything wrong, and this group is not being punished over any free speech grounds. Calling this tyranny is ignorance.
The Nazis also came to power democratically. The US regime is also hunting down immigrants in a gestapo like fashion democratically. Just because something is a law doesn't mean anything. It's also quite telling if your national security is tied to genociding children.
That's not how it works. You can't scream Nazis any time any government does anything. That's not what fascism is nor is it what tyranny is. You're just devaluing the meaning of these terms and showcasing your ignorance.
On the contrary, it matters a lot. The very foundation of liberal democracies is based on the idea that laws are everything. Nobody is above the law, everybody is equal in the eyes of the law, and the law is the public's will. You can agree or disagree with individual laws, however, that doesn't change the facts that laws are the source of legitimacy.
The UK here isn't ignoring it's laws, it's not creating new laws to target specific groups, nor is it using these laws to wrongly punish people who did nothing wrong. Their terrorism laws have been created by democratically elected politicians who reflect the will of their people, the laws they created and voted upon are universal and well defined, and these laws have been established law for decades.
This groups intentionally violated these laws, they knew what they were doing, and now they're facing the consequences of their actions. This isn't tyranny, this is a normal society punishing criminals for breaking the law. This also law isn't immoral because it seeks to ban harmful behavior in a fair and universal manner, and the punishments for these violations are all reasonable.
You don't seem to get it. Being self righteous doesn't give a free pass to be a terrorist no matter how you noble you think your cause is. If you excuse terrorism based on your ideological biases, then you don't even have any ground to stand on because your position isn't a principled one. No country is dumb enough to excuse group seeking to undermine their authority, damage public property, threaten national security, violate their laws, and sabotage public property, and rightfully so because they'll be inviting chaos, violence, and instability into their societies.
If they gave this group a pass then they'll be setting a precedent that other self righteous groups can get away with terrorism if they act like their cause is noble enough to be above the law. What kind of disastrous future would that bring? Are Russian Sympathizers now excused to go bomb the parliament when it's out session because they don't like the UK supporting Ukraine? Are Chinese sympathizers now excused to damage the London Bridge because the UK supports Taiwan and Tibet? Are a far right groups excused to sabotage the PJHQ because the UK supports immigration? Of course not, because that would be really, really stupid. If you do something wrong, you're going face the consequences for it, simple as.