lemmydividebyzero

I mean, it may not match how you use that word, because you might think about bin Laden when hearing that word "terrorism", but let's see how the word is actually defined:

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Probably not, but is that even necessary? No, it is not.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Well, that was one of their actions. I mean, it might be daily business for you.... But for me, getting access to fighter jets, sabotaging them and doing whatever else they did there does not sound like usual activity that some other organization would do. I have never head of someone from an LGBT organization seen sabotaging fighter jets... During BLM, there was also no organization sabotaging fighter jets or anything remotely similar to it.

for any group that opposes the government.

Organizing a protest on the streets is the base form of "opposing". Sabotaging stuff by breaking the law is for sure also "opposing", but I don't think, we should put that on the same level.

Thanks for your arguments without any insults.

I get your point, although from my view, it's not a random organization that is just like any other, as the intensity of the crimes is.... exceptional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Action#Legal_actions

rancid bullshit

Great base for a dialog...

why do you imply that media attention in this case is bad

Did I?? I said "I get it" above... I just spoke out what others here don't want to speak out... I guess, people will be surprised again, when Greta will successfully fail to enter Gaza the next time (according to plan).

you support an org that spray painted a few jets

Read the Wikipedia article... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Action

BTW: Jets don't park at the side of the road... You usually need to break into military related areas to do so, which is not what average people do.

I guess they’ve successfully removed all meaning from the word “terrorist” now.

And we have successfully replaced the debate about people starving in Gaza with a debate about a British group that continuously breaks the law.

I kind of get what you are writing, but why are people focussing on the group that obviously broke the law (the law there sees it as terrorism) - and not just one time, but multiple times, the Wikipedia article is not short... - instead of the actual goal?

Why not forgetting the criminal (if you don't want to call is terroristic) group, creating a new group that does not commit crime and protest for the actual thing???

With that logic, we can not talk about Mexico, Sweden, Finland and Kazakhstan. I don't know anyone from their governments and I don't care about their names at all... "Genocidal mentality", I guess...

Good that you know all of their names!!!111 A win for humanity!!!111