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

Do you consider the British government to be a terrorist organisation?

Careful now! I posted something similar on another thread making this exact point and was called in separate posts a terrorist sympathiser, that it was obvious what my agenda was, anti-Semitic and that one poster could report me for breaking the law supporting proscribed organisations.
I called all this out and asked for the evidence for their allegations.
Only two posters replied. One claimed they were not referring to me 🙄. The other started going on about how I had spoken about tyres being set afire peoples' necks and Mugabe, which I had never mentioned.

By the law of the land in which you live. The UK (if you live here) suggests you should not commit terrorist acts or support designated terrorist groups or incite it (or to use your example hit others). If you do these things which are illegal here then you might go to jail. You don't make the law here so you don't get to decide if you can hit someone or not.

I'm talking about laws here.

Other countries have their own laws. If in another country it is ok to support (insert group) and not illegal then there you go. However, if they bring that view to another country and attack others in another country, then they shouldn't be surprised if they are arrested etc.

Legally neither are Hamas. Or the present Israeli government.

I consider both absolutely abhorrent.

No. Any answer on Hamas?

Do you think it’s a terrorist organisation

But doesn’t the British government have an extensive history of trampling all over the laws, regulations and cultures of other countries around the world? What about the law of their lands?

Why do you not think the British government is a terrorist organisation?

Quite.

Umkhonto We Sizwe were classed as terrorists and if it wasn't for them, apartheid would probably still be a thing. Likewise ZIPRA in Zimbabwe. The UK's suffragettes carried out bombings.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and all that.

Just to extend my question: what in your view makes Hamas a terror organisation (if that is indeed your view)?

You first. I’ve answered one question I’m waiting for your answer.

I’m talking about laws here

And it has been stated multiple times that the people who live here and obviously don’t agree with those laws are prepared to break them and to potentially face the consequences. And the reason they are willing to break the law is because they view the country they live in, and its government, as the terrorists and oppressors.

If you are prepared to blow yourself and everyone around you to smithereens with a nail bomb, the fact that is against the law of the country you live in won’t cause much lost sleep.

Isn't the simple answer that laws are required / crimes are prosecuted because people commit illegal acts, and other aid/abet/support illegality. They do because they want to, are forced to, believe in what they are doing or just don't engage their brains.
For others (looking at some governments), they commit illegal acts for benefit or with malicious intent.

Maybe watch The Handmade's Tale OP, to try and understand a different perspective in simple terms.

Is that a real question? That’s concerning. What do you think about women’s rights in Iran?

Because I want to know the yardstick by which you measure before I respond.

Why is it concerning? The US has a lot of nuclear weapons - what do you think about women’s rights in the US?

That's not really true. The terrorism gets the headlines but the slow diplomacy behind the scenes and political will is what works in the end. You'll always get hot heads that like violence though.

Surely you have a view on Hamas separate to what mine is.

Do you see them as a terrorist org?

I think women’s rights are pretty shit all over, in different ways, not just in Iran.

This is all true

I am against violence except in necessary self defence, so I’m never going to support or cheer for those who use violence against civilians - whether those people represent the oppressed or the oppressor (or a bit of both).

But “wearing the colours of terrorists” is a bit of a sweeping statement- you could be showing support for a civilian population that those using violence claim to represent, because whilst they are wrongly using violence, they have a point.

I don’t think anyone now seriously thinks the Catholic minority weren’t being treated appallingly in NI over the decades following partition until GFA do they?

(Edit - not going into before that as would be here all day!)

And equally, I don’t think anyone can argue the same isn’t true of the Palestinian people, regardless of Israel’s equal right to exist or the fact that Hamas (who are terrorists and wouldn’t hold elections even when they could have) claim to represent them. Supporting Palestinians isn’t supporting Hamas (and caring about Israeli people isn’t supporting Netanyahu).

No my interest is not about Hamas per se, but how you come to a conclusion about what a terrorist organisation is. Because that is the fundamental question here. What makes one group a terrorist group as opposed to another?

Do you think Iran and the U.K. are about the same on this?

Surely we celebrate the outcome of their political endeavours and despise those of them that committed acts of violence?

OP why do you keep mentioning the Manchester Arena bombings? No one on this thread has said that they think that bomber wasn't a terrorist. Has Kneecap? Because if not, using the horror that was the Manchester Area bombing is a straw man and it's pretty disrespectful to the victims and their families to do that.

Personally I think the threshold for having nukes (if anyone can have them) should be proving you treat all your citizens equally and give them equal opportunity. Then you can have nukes if anyone must.

I realise that is pie in the sky and will never happen!

Ideally no one should have them, but if they do, this should (in the next best but equally impossible scenario) be the threshold.

And that means gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc all have equal opportunities at life. And freedom of religion only vests in the individual not a family.