Showing support for terrorism is illegal so why do people do it?

[Nowayyousure]

Well we all know it's illegal, don't we?

It happens though. The flags, the signs, the slogans, the chants, what is said etc.

Kneecap was charged on supporting terrorism. I understand that the charges relate to things like waving the Hezbollah flag and shouting in support of terrorist organisations.

He has been bailed pending trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4k4xnlj8qo

It certainly is pathetic and laughable. Once again, those who call for tolerance are the least tolerant - of other's opinions.

A plant for what?

😈

Apparently, I'm 'a plant' because I don't agree with another's opinion. 😂

They have no reply for my response to their ridiculous comparison and so shout 'a plant'. Is that what it's like on X and other sites where people are unable to understand that many others might have differing or opposing views?

Who was I planted by? For what purpose? Very interested to see poster's ideas on who I 'work for'. 🙄

Your OP is about support for terrorism.

Do you now understand that some people may see those defined by some people as terrorists as freedom fighters?

And vice versa

There is more to terrorism than what is happening in the Middle East.

Freedom fighters - ffs. Sickening comment.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

People living on the mainland of the UK are lucky in relatively recent modern history to not have been occupied and to have experienced all that comes with it.

So you don't think any person who is called a terrorist by some could be called a freedom fighter by others?

The IRA
The French Resistance
The Jewish Reistance Movement

Only yesterday, I caught a history podcast about the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Jersey. Moving beyond words. And chilling to hear stories of British citizens sent to the concentration camps. And inspiring to hear the tales of people who risked their lives to resist the Nazis and aid some of the thousands of slave workers that had been imported.

The British deliberately - and publicly - left the islands undefended in order to prevent the wholesale slaughter any armed engagement would result in.

"All waves are unique, but the tide still rises and falls", as Gandhi said.

Do you think Hamas are freedom fighters?

I'm talking about several references to English privilege. Although, as I said yesterday, I'm unsure of the relevance to this thread.

maybe it's because the people with the privilege write the dictionaries ?

That was a very predictable response

I am not talking about Hamas.

In general -can you think of any examples of groups who some people call terrorists whilst others call the same group freedom fighters?

In general -can you think of any examples of groups who some people call terrorists whilst others call the same group freedom fighters?

Amusingly enough, the podcast I listened to before the one about Jersey was about Boudica. And there was a very interesting discussion about her place in history, depending on the period. Empire-resisting rebels wasn't really what Victorian Britain wanted to see when India was starting to rebel despite the powerful idea of a warrior Queen.

And Boudica and her daughters were no stranger to the tactics of the oppressor.

Did you forget the title of the thread and its context? I think I've got my answer.

The thread police are here ....

Why do people show support for terrorism when it's illegal.

That's the question

And the response on this thread has been to poiint out the MANY examples of groups who are called terrorists by some and freedom fighters by others.

I am capable of thinking of many groups who some people would call terrorists and others would call freedom fighters.

Do you think that is sickening?

I mean if the OP wanted to make it about Hamas, then she should have been much more specific in her OP and her thread title.

There is also the more nuanced question of "if you disagree with the tactics, do you disagree with the cause ?". Obviously if the answer is "yes" then you can forget about the cause. Save some precious brainpower.

However if the answer is "There is a cause, but it should not be advanced by violence" then the question arises why one side should have a monopoly of violence.

Legal and illegal are mere human constructs. Like pop tarts. They don't exist in nature.

How far would someone go to bring about change - to resist or to bring about freedom?

I posted a while ago about a Dutch teenager who would lure Germans into the woods and then they were shot by her comrades.

But she refused to kidnap the baby of a German officer because she knew they would have to kill the baby if the ransom wasn't paid.

I think I've got my answer.

Wtf am i reading.

Surely it's not a difficult question to answer.

Do you think some groups described as terrorists can also be described as freedom fighters?

Yes the OP is about terrorism.

Yes people have different ideas and then there is the law which supersedes the belief that what people 'think' eg breaking into a military base and causing millions of pounds worth of damage is terrorism.

However, what's that got to do will calling someone a 'plant'. That's the ridiculous bit.

Maybe it's reference to Triffids ? Admittedly fictional , but quite terrifying.