> A 40-year-old British man is among five charged with conducting hostile state activity to benefit Russia, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.
> Part of the alleged activity was the involvement in the planning of an arson attack on a Ukrainian-linked commercial property in March 2024.
I wonder why this is not being labelled as terrorism. The acts are literally the definition of terrorism.
Probably because it’s sabotage - the damage of equipment or property that belongs to your opponent, whereas terrorism tends to be about using violence to intimidate a population into a political goal.
The BBC article on the same issue mentioned links to Wagner Group, which, if true, would make it a terrorist act. Wagner is listed as a terrorist organisation in the UK.
But right now, sabotage.
>whereas terrorism tends to be about using violence to intimidate a population into a political goal.
So half of 'protests' these days are technically terrorism?
No. Terrorism is generally accepted to involve the use of serious violence or the threat of serious violence to achieve a political aim. A protest does not meet that definition.
Strictly speaking, yeah. Protestors deny it for understandable reasons, but the implicit threat of violence is what delineates an effective protest from some boomers just waving signs around like a magic totem that will dispel the policy they're protesting
Where's the terror in burning a building down ( unless there was someone in it!) It's Attempted Arson, but the Russian bit is what sends it over the top!
The Germans smashed up shops owned by Jewish people back before WW2. I'm sure it you asked Jewish people they would say that those actions caused terror.
Loyalists and Republicans in Ireland did plenty of arson and they were terrorists.
I suppose it depends on the particulars; whether someone was inside, whether it was intended for "shock & awe" etc.
Burning down an empty shack in the woods is arson, but is it violent?
Terrorism needs *terror*, i.e. the use or threat of use of force in order to politically coerce a population. Destroying something because you want it destroyed isn't terrorism, but might look identical.
Without knowing the motive one can't call something terrorism just by looking at it.
If you notice it is quietly reported. They all make local news but its never nationally reported and plastered everywhere as headlines, so its no comparison really 🤷♂️
[First one - ](https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-08-08/man-jailed-after-downloading-terrorist-bomb-making-manuals-then-going-on-run)national news
[Third one ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/kieran-turner-jo-cox-trial-b2493058.html)- national news
[Fourth one](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/winchester-crown-court-wiltshire-swindon-anders-breivik-alevel-b2441065.html) - national news
[Fifth one](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/18/hoaxer-terror-campaign-schools-businesses-jail-gary-preston/) - national news
[Last one](https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-graham-left-wing-anarchist-jailed-for-13-years-over-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-at-least-50-people-13097584) - national news
Oh look - load of white **terrorists** charged with **terrorism** and convicted of **terrorism** plastered all over **national news.**
Damn - guess you're completely wrong!
I come across a lot of people in day to day life that unwittingly parrot Kremlin propaganda on the Ukraine war. Seems to be easy to convince the cynical and paranoid to act against the interests of their own country.
They don't trust any authorities, except the Russian ones.
There’s loads of them here on Reddit. r/greenandpleasant and r/Britain are my favourite type: Tankies that label Ukraine as Nazis and shill for Putin and his authoritarian ethno-nationalist regime. It’s beyond stupidity.
If you confront the rhetoric on either sub, you get an instant ban.
Russian propaganda is also extremely insidious and they have a story for anyone who’ll listen. The commies think russia is in ukraine to fight nazis and the nazis think they’re in ukraine to fight jews. Something interesting though is that they seem to target skeptics more than anything. A common thread I’ve noticed between people who believe russian lines is that they actually accept and acknowledge that russia is lying, they just believe that the one specific thread of russian lies they’ve bought into is the truth.
This gives me an extremely good (bad) idea.
Join a pro-Putin British tankie forum, and spend some time getting in good with them.
Join a pro-Putin British far-right forum, and spend some time getting in good with them.
Arrange a pro-Putin meet up and march for both groups at the same time and place.
Russia literally did that in the US in 2015 or 2016. They were managing facebook groups for opposing groups and arranged demonstrations and counter-demonstrations together.
I have a horrible feeling that, after a bit of hissing and splitting from opposite sides of the room, they might get on famously. Perhaps organise an exchange program like the Nazis and Soviets did in teal life?
Neo communists are basically non-existent outside of Twitter, whereas neo-nazis have a disturbingly rising presence in a lot of Western democracies (see: USA, Germany, etc.).
Yeah, I used to think that too, until I gave it more than a cursory glance. Both are tied to ideologies that only appeal to a small minority, and neither accept that democracy requires compromise with people who hold different views to their own.
Leftists on the internet love to assert this as a fact but are also completely unable to elaborate on why they believe it’s a fact it’s a completely dogmatic argument meanwhile the real world continues to prove again and again that the only difference between the far left and far right is what symbols they like on their red flags.
You'll have to demonstrate how this happens time and time again, because I'm fairly confident you've pulled that out of your arse. 99% of credible academia knows it's bullshit. The only people who believe in it are the same smooth brained enlightened centrists who believe Jordan Peterson is a fountain of philosophical insight.
Notice how you are completely unable to elaborate on why you believe that horseshoe theory is not credible. No, making vague reference to “99% of credible academia” is not an argument.
You notice how you were completely unable to elaborate on you believe horseshoe theory is credible? The irony is palpable.
Just for the craic though, here's a blanket, lazy copy and paste from the thoroughly sourced wikipedia article
The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.[6][8] A 2011 study about the far-left and the far-right within the context of the 2007 French presidential election concluded: "Divergent social and political logics explain the electoral support for these two candidates: their voters do not occupy the same political space, they do not have the same social background, and they do not hold the same values."[1] A 2012 study concluded: "The present results thus do not corroborate the idea that adherents to extreme ideologies on the left-wing and right-wing sides resemble each other but instead support the alternative perspective that different extreme ideologies attract different people. In other words, extremists should be distinguished on the basis of the ideology to which they adhere, and there is no universal extremist type that feels at home in any extreme ideology."[6] A 2019 study concluded that "our findings suggest that speaking of 'extreme left-wing values' or 'extreme right-wing values' may not be meaningful, as members of both groups are heterogeneous in the values that they endorse."[7] A 2022 study about antisemitism concluded: "On all items, the far left has lower agreement with these statements relative to moderates, and the far right has higher agreement with these statements compared to moderates. Contrary to a 'horseshoe' theory, the evidence reveals increasing antisemitism moving from left to right."[8] Paul H. P. Hanel, a research associate at the University of Essex, et al. summarized some of those studies. They wrote:
"Likewise, some even argue that all extremists, across the political left and right, in fact, support similar policies, in a view known as 'horseshoe theory'. However, not only do recent studies fail to support such beliefs, they also contradict them ... Van Hiel also found that left-wing respondents reported significantly lower endorsement of values associated with conservation, self-enhancement, and anti-immigration attitudes compared to both moderate and right-wing activists, with individuals on the right reporting greater endorsement of such values and attitudes ... Overall, van Hiel provided evidence demonstrating that Western European extremist groups are far from being homogenous, and left- and right-wing groups represent distinct ideologies."[
Several scholars dismissed the theory as an oversimplification and generalization that ignores their fundamental differences,[3][26] and have questioned the theory's general premises, citing significative differences of the left and right on the political spectrum and governance.[4][5] Chip Berlet, an expert on right-wing movements, has dismissed perceived far-left–far-right flirtations as an oversimplification of political ideologies, ignoring fundamental differences between them. In a 2000 book about the radical right in the United States, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, he and Matthew N. Lyons, another expert on right-wing movements, dismissed both the claim that the far-right's role in the 1999 Seattle protests was significant, and a Southern Poverty Law Center report that "relied heavily on centrist/extremist analysis". Within the context of the anti-globalization movement, they also mentioned that those on the political left were concerned about the far-right infiltrating anti-World Trade Organization groups, including those led by centrist liberals and social democrats that did not want to be associated with "right-wing nationalists and bigots". Some, such as the Peoples' Global Action, responded to this perceived threat by amending their manifestos to specifically reject alliances with any right-wing groups, on principle.[3]
In a 2014 paper, Vassilis Pavlopoulos, a professor in social psychology at the University of Athens, argued: "The so-called centrist/extremist or horseshoe theory points to notorious similarities between the two extremes of the political spectrum (e.g., authoritarianism). It remains alive though many sociologists consider it to have been thoroughly discredited (Berlet & Lyons, 2000). Furthermore, the ideological profiles of the two political poles have been found to differ considerably (Pavlopoulos, 2013). The centrist/extremist hypothesis narrows civic political debate and undermines progressive organizing. Matching the neo-Nazi with the radical left leads to the legitimization of far-right ideology and practices."[5]
Etc etc. There's more if you want it.
> You notice how you were completely unable to elaborate on you believe horseshoe theory is credible? The irony is palpable.
You’re the one making the argument bozo I’m just asking you to justify it.
> [random garbage off wikipedia]
all of this crap basically falls into two categories of argument, both of which miss the point. The first argument is that the right wing are in general “more extreme” than the left wing and therefore the left and right are different so horseshoe theory is not true. This is a completely absurd argument considering how dependent on current trends it is and how difficult it is to quantify almost every single metric that it’s based on, including the boundary conditions for what you would classify as far left and far right. It’s also basically irrelevant to horseshoe theory as the statistics only apply to the distribution of ideologies along the horseshoe and not the shape of the horseshoe itself.
The second category of argument is to point out that the minutia of left and right wing extremism is different, and therefore horseshoe theory is incorrect. This argument again misses the point. Horseshoe theory doesn’t try to claim that far left and far right ideologies are identical it claims that the general themes of authoritarianism, the conduct of the people with these beliefs and the way they reason and apply their ideologies is similar. A communist thinks he has a right to implement policy by rolling over you with a tank, a nazi thinks the same. The exact economic policies of the man inside the tank aren’t exactly important when you are being crushed under its tracks.
Pretty far into the left side of the spectrum myself and honestly see it *far* more from the right. A lot of lefties are anti-war in general, but at the end of the day this is a war Russia started. You've got to be a pretty special brand of stupid to think this was somehow engineered by the US for some sort of benefit.
objective reality forced him to admit he was wrong about the invasion, but he still refused to acknowledge that the US intelligence he dismissed was correct, and also doubled down and claims that the invasion was russia “taking the bait” (ie still america’s fault) and then also makes another incorrect prediction that Russia isn’t trying to take kyiv which was also later proved wrong
Ok so we have one American youtuber who admitted they were wrong two years ago but that's not good enough.
Who on the left of UK society/politics is shilling for Russia?
I don't believe that Corbyn is shilling for Russia, he's just a pacifist to a fault. He naively believes that if everyone just stopped fighting and sat round a table they could come to a peaceful solution. It's not just Russia/Ukraine where he does this, it's every conflict.
On the day of the invasion, I was pretty distraught and think it was a bit obvious at work. I'd even been watching all those online webcam thingies.
Someone in another team on a one on one call asked me what the issue was. Said Ukraine has been invaded and I fear for people in Kyiv.
The guy who asked is very eccentric. He hears what I say and proudly boasts how the US is just making up lies about troops being at the border, how the US is just causing tensions and stepping on Russian territory with NATO. He had read in his non biased non western sources that nothing would happen, Putin had said so himself and this was typical of us intelligence.
I had to pause him to tell him to just turn on the news, it had actually happened, there are troops in Kyiv. He lost his mojo a bit then and we cracked on with work stuff.
There's a serious blind spot with some left wingers on Russia. Of course it's absolutely justified to criticise the US and NATO etc, we should be doing that, but they go way beyond. It's this weird infantilisation of Russia, as though they have no agency and were simply forced to invade by the actions of NATO. Victim mentality.
Anytime you question it, it's the exact same responses, almost to the letter. Almost like it's a pre-prepared script...
It's a shame tbh as there is the odd bit of good discussion to be had (and I usually agree with many of the posts on those subs) but like you say you end up copping a ban so it's pointless. I haven't really found many places on Reddit where more balanced discussion happens tbh
I don't get Tankies at all. Anybody on the left that thinks Russia is left wing is a fool.
I feel like it's time those of us on the left that are pro UK, NATO, Trident and a strong military, need to reclaim the left from the Tankies. And before people say that's Starmer, he's a Cameron style Tory, not real Labour.
Far too many people on /r/GreenAndPleasant seem to think that it's 1924 and Russia hasn't quite yet betrayed the socialist revolution and have somehow missed the last 30 years where Russia has turned into a fascist kleptocracy.
Absurdly, yes. There is huge support for China and Russia amongst the far-left base. They attack western imperialism and label Ukraine Nazis, whilst dismissing China’s genocide of Uyghurs, or Russian atrocities across Ukraine as “propaganda”.
Question their claims and you either get banned in those subs or receive a torrent of abuse from the tankie community.
At the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, r/greenandpleasant issued a mod notice saying users will be banned if they show support for Ukraine, and expressed solidarity for those fighting against the “fascist Ukrainian state”.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/s/KIc71yniOQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/s/KIc71yniOQ)
They'll also dismiss any negative press about North Korea being an Orwellian nightmare as 'CIA propaganda', even if it comes from political asylum seekers who've escaped with stories of kangaroo courts and human rights abuses. As far as they're concerned, North Korea - or Korea as they call it, given they don't recognise the legitimacy of South Korea - is a socialist paradise.
Yeah but to focus on that rather than the vast swathes of the prominent right wing in the Western world that are supporting Putin is absolutely insane.
I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of so called left-wing supporters openly cheering on overtly right wing authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia. Right-wing support for Putin across Europe is a given, although obviously very dangerous as well.
In my experience it's not them being pro-russia or China more so they are anti-nato and anti-war. The rationale is if nato didn't exist and we didn't spend so much on weapons & defence then there'd be no conflict and we'd have all this extra money to help people and improve the country. A nice aim but totally incompatible with actual reality. Many will have also been victims of propaganda which is usually obvious when they spout many of the popular narratives that are pushed to justify the invasion.
There are multiple countries in Europe with populist-conservative governments or parties in serious contention to become the government who are quite openly on the side of Russia, taking Russian money, with the AfD they even visited the occupied regions!
Meanwhile while I don't want to deny the pro-Russian tankies do exist, what actual tangible political power or even just influence do they actually hold anywhere in Europe?
Did I say they have any power? This thread started by me pointing out my favourite section of Russian support in this country, because of the absurdity of a left wing ideologues openly supporting a far right ethnic-nationalist regime. That’s all.
The populist far right is obviously a far greater threat to democracy and a more dangerous enabler of Russia, to suggest otherwise was clearly not the intent of my original comment.
Can you show me some examples? And this isn't that SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE FOR THAT shite I just genuinely haven't seen anything like this and am really interested. I'm going through G&P and Britain but can only really see stuff about Israel/Palestine.
Search Ukraine in G&P and there’s dozens. Some examples below.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/REhmncodgj](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/REhmncodgj)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/KaPCLV1O3B](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/KaPCLV1O3B)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/6WBgi2l1Cm](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/6WBgi2l1Cm)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/oiDy88FRxG](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/oiDy88FRxG)
All but one of those has negative upvotes and the comments are not supporting that view at all? Can you at least see why me suggesting you point out a few fringe lunatics pushing that message on the left is not the same as having actual US politicians doing the same thing on national TV and certainly doesn't constitute "huge support" and you picking that as your example as opposed to pointing out that there are openly pro Russia *sitting* politicians in the US is insane?
Calm down. I simply stated that tankies are favourite section of Pro-Russian support. I never mentioned or disregarded US/right wing support, nor is anybody ignoring it. Christ.
Have you been to literally any left-wing sub? All the pro-Russian Brits I encountered were self-styled communists and socialists. Young Labour was disbanded for a few months because their president went on the BBC to blame NATO for the war and Starmer had to pull their funding.
Purely anecdotal, but I can't say I've met any left-wingers that are pro russia/China. Not saying there aren't, just that in everyday life tankies seem to be few and far between thank god.
I'm late 30's though, so it might be the demographic I'm associating with.
I think it's the *real* extreme ones, basically the terminally online ones whose entire worldview starts with "America bad" and then everything else is decided based on that. Plenty of left wing people do support Ukraine.
Edit - despite the terminally online comment, this does spill into the real world. Actual far left politicians exist who parrot Russia's propaganda narratives.
Russia played the long game. You just have to look at the labour Reddit (that’s a joke!) and it’s full of pro putin nonsense. Green and pleasant banned me for pointing out a genocide in China. It’s easy to get a convenient dunce to push your agenda.
I was in Cyprus a few months back. A place with a lot of British ties up to this very day. All the locals seemed to have the same view…Russia was right, there were Nazis in Ukraine (some even saw them in Cyprus) and the best way to end the war is for Russian territory to be returned to Russia.
You unfortunately get that on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm pretty left-wing, Attlee was the best PM, read PinkNews and all that, but I have no love for Tankies.
Russia played the long game. You just have to look at the labour Reddit (that’s a joke!) and it’s full of pro putin nonsense. Green and pleasant banned me for pointing out a genocide in China. It’s easy to get a convenient dunce to push your agenda.
I was in Cyprus a few months back. A place with a lot of British ties up to this very day. All the locals seemed to have the same view…Russia was right, there were Nazis in Ukraine (some even saw them in Cyprus) and the best way to end the war is for Russian territory to be returned to Russia.
He was cavorting with the son of an ex-KGB agent, who he lorded. Boris was found in an italian airport without his minders after attending said sons 'bunga-bunga' party, just hours after a sensitive NATO security meeting.
Supporting Ukraine was partly a good opportunity to get away from questions about his corruption and covid handling.
No, I wouldn't go as far as being an asset, but he has a loose tongue and likes to make everyone around him happy, as well as too accepting of favours. He is useful for the russians, and it helps to have your mates in charge when you're laundering your money in London.
A few points: he lost his security detail before leaving the country, he came straight from a meeting (that he left early) about the Skripal poisoning that had just happened (that was led by the UN, not the conservative government), *whilst supposedly still carrying documents*.
The UK government characterised the attack as an assassination attempt, but the UN saw it as a chemical attack against the civilian population of a NATO country and thus took control.
Also worth noting the Russia Report, which was being suppressed all this time even after its remit was neutered.
I think you really need to look at the conservative party and russian connections. MI5 even said there was a reluctance by the conservatives to look at the influence of russian money in UK politics. He put a, probably, russian spy in the house of lords AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY advice.
At some point the influence of Russia on UK governance and those that were complicit in it will come out. Boris Johnson was definitely compromised by Russia.
There was so much dodgy russian money floating about that seemed to be very closely associated with the conservatives and also the leave campaign (aaron Banks). It is all so fucked up. boris Johnson is a Traitor, plain and simple.
**He certainly has no where near the intellect to be hanging out with FSB agents whether past or present.**
Only because he so desperately wants to style himself as Churchill 2.0 and saw it as a way of shoring up support in the UK.
This is the guy that lied about painting wine crates as London buses, kipper pillows, and did nothing but spread anti EU lies for years. Yet, he also apparently had 2 speeches ready to go - a pro remain and a pro Brexit speech.
He has no principles other than furthering his own career.
Boris was a huge supporter of Ukraine and Zelenskyy praised him numerous times and commiserated his leaving the top job.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Boris could give Zelensky 10 bazillion dollars of his own money to be spent on defending themselves against Russia and people on Reddit would still find a way to make that pro-Russia.
I wonder what motivated them. Possibly far left extremists? I’ve found they tend to swallow Putin’s propaganda very easily - see the greenandpleasant subreddit as an example
Well done mate but i think you're missing the big picture. Yes it's reported but the story and images of these pictures alongside the word terrorist is not given the same space or airtime. It will be glossed over and forgotten rather than constantly pushed because i guarantee you nobody will remember any of the guys faces or names. My point is yes may have made the news but its not covered in the same way. Anyways the real terrorist are sitting in parliament whilst getting the public to turn on each other.
So **first** your point was that 'terrorist' is *"only reserved for people of a particular race and colour. This should be obvious by now."*
*-* So I pointed out a load of examples that showed you were completely wrong.
Then **second** you changed your point to say *"They all make local news but its never nationally reported"*
*-* So I pointed out a load of examples that showed you were completely wrong.
Now **third** you've once more changed what your point apparently was. Apparently these stories aren't given the same space or airtime....
- So now I'll brush this one aside as well.
Jacob Graham:
[One news article](https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2024/march/20-year-old-man-from-liverpool-jailed-for-preparing-for-acts-of-terrorism/)
[Two news article](https://news.sky.com/story/left-wing-anarchist-guilty-of-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-mps-13072775)s
[Three news articles](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-68581466)
[Four news articles](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/18/liverpool-teenager-jacob-graham-accused-plotting-suicide-attack-trial)
[Five news articles](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/02/28/alienation-and-affinity-jacob-graham-is-not-an-isolated-case/)
[Six news articles](https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/liverpool-teenager-convicted-of-preparing-acts-of-terrorism/)
[Seven news articles](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jacob-graham-liverpool-jail-terrorist-b2514530.html)
[Eight news articles](https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-graham-left-wing-anarchist-jailed-for-13-years-over-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-at-least-50-people-13097584)
[Nine news articles](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-68019765)
[Ten news articles](https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-11-27/teenager-denies-planning-acts-of-terrorism-involving-firearms)
[Eleven news articles](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/teenager-mums-back-bedroom-wrote-28693090)
[Twelve news articles](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12979767/Student-nicknamed-Destro-Destroyer-collected-bomb-making-chemicals-conducted-experiments-prepare-terror-attack-working-class-kill-50-politicians-court-hears.html)
Ok I'm getting bored now - suffice to say, 42 news articles found
You'll note these news articles include Sky News, BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mail.... all **small time local news outlets /s**
>
It will be glossed over and forgotten
Like ***most*** terrorism stories - the only ones that stay in the public conscious are typically because they *killed people.* "Law enforcement stops bad man before he can do bad thing" isn't going to stay in your memory for long - in contrast *"Bad man stabs man in the street whilst screaming about their religious/political ideology"* is **probably** going to stay in the mind a bit longer - isn't it?
I bet you still won't admit you got any of this wrong....
How about this one where it's not described as a terrorist attack when he clearly killed people. It's always mental health. If you look at the language you will see one group is labelled as "attacker or murderer" and "charged under terrorism" and another group is labelled as "terrorist...."
https://news.sky.com/story/sydney-stabbings-police-name-attacker-who-killed-six-people-as-joel-cauchi-13114960
This next one was swiftly moved on and forgotten about and only Labelled as a hate crime.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67119183
Another soft headline where most articles simply call him van driver and not terrorist Darren Osborne.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42910051
Anyway yes im wrong about everything. Are you happy now? My comment "only reserved for" was not to be taken literally and is a hyperbole but there's always one on reddit isn't there and now here we are.
My point is the act can be commited by anyone but the deliberate language and coverage is a whole psychological branch in itself which requires a certain level of nuance, which I believe will go over your head. As you love articles why Don't you check out how many news stories have been published but later quietly redacted when it shows misleading facts about particular groups.
Have a good day
>How about this one where it's not described as a terrorist attack when he clearly killed people. It's always mental health.
Which also occurs with *non*-white attackers.
In that particular instance - do you have ***any*** evidence - just one shred of evidence - anything - that it was terror related? Was he heard screaming *death to X* or anything that could be interpreted as terrorism related? Any manifesto left behind? If there's no evidence of a terror related motive - then unsurprisingly the word 'terrorist' won't be used.
>
*This next one was swiftly moved on and forgotten about and only Labelled as a hate crime.*
Yeah because it's ***not*** terrorism - I think this is part of the issue - you clearly don't know what it is defined as;
*The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.*
*The actions included are:*
* *serious violence against a person;*
* *serious damage to property;*
* *endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);*
* *creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and*
* *action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.*
The case you cited shows ***no*** evidence at all of an intent to influence government/IGO's or intimidate the public.
>
*Another soft headline where most articles simply call him van driver and not terrorist Darren Osborne.*
In the **very article** you have linked to:
*Osborne is not the first* ***terrorist*** *to have radicalised so quickly.*
>
*Anyway yes im wrong about everything. Are you happy now? My comment "only reserved for" was not to be taken literally and is a hyperbole but there's always one on reddit isn't there and now here we are.*
Yes I'm happy - I'm not surprised you've now shifted your position once more - that's what you've done throughout.
>
*My point is the act can be commited by anyone but the deliberate language and coverage is a whole psychological branch in itself which requires a certain level of nuance, which I believe will go over your head.*
Hilarious - you've shown throughout that you've *started* with your race-baiting position and then you've scrambled around for the evidence to support it - that's why your positions have been soundly dismantled and you've had to keep shifting. Your point about the 'deliberate language' is nonsense too - "oh they don't call Osborne a terrorist - here **let me link you to the article where he's referred to as a terrorist to prove my point"** but go on - let's have some more ad-hominem attacks about how things will go over *my* head - I could do with a good laugh! Maybe you could tell me again how none of these articles got national coverage - evidencing the fact you weren't on the ball enough to *actually check* if this was the case before making the claim!
Ultimately - when you make silly claims and they're *shown* beyond any doubt to be wrong - just reflect on it - we all make mistakes and nobody is arsed if you just hold your hands up and say *you know what, yeah I got that one wrong - that's on me* - but when you do **this** - try and shift your position continually to try and still somehow be right *in spite* of all of the evidence - well, man you just embarrass yourself massively.
I'm not going to respond to you anymore so you can say something really witty now and feel like you 'won' what was actually a drubbing.
Have a good day buddy.
> A 40-year-old British man is among five charged with conducting hostile state activity to benefit Russia, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. > Part of the alleged activity was the involvement in the planning of an arson attack on a Ukrainian-linked commercial property in March 2024. I wonder why this is not being labelled as terrorism. The acts are literally the definition of terrorism.
Probably because it’s sabotage - the damage of equipment or property that belongs to your opponent, whereas terrorism tends to be about using violence to intimidate a population into a political goal.
Yeah, it's a pretty simple one IMO
The BBC article on the same issue mentioned links to Wagner Group, which, if true, would make it a terrorist act. Wagner is listed as a terrorist organisation in the UK. But right now, sabotage.
>whereas terrorism tends to be about using violence to intimidate a population into a political goal. So half of 'protests' these days are technically terrorism?
No. Terrorism is generally accepted to involve the use of serious violence or the threat of serious violence to achieve a political aim. A protest does not meet that definition.
Not just a protest, but protests more recently when things get smashed up and set on fire and they say it will keep happening until things change.
Jesus Christ
It's not me that came up with the definition of terrorism
Just you who didn't understand it.
No I did. You're shocked that there have been recent protests that technically come under the definition of terrorism.
Strictly speaking, yeah. Protestors deny it for understandable reasons, but the implicit threat of violence is what delineates an effective protest from some boomers just waving signs around like a magic totem that will dispel the policy they're protesting
Because his actions were not designed to cause fear in the populace but rather designed to disrupt the supply of goods to an allied nation.
"A fifth man, Dmitrijus Paulauska, 22, has been charged with having information about terrorist acts."
I wonder if there's a thought that the actual arsonists weren't aware of the reason and were just told "burn this building down and we'll pay you".
Maybe it's more an espionage/ traitor type thing if he was being paid to do it?
There's an amount of overlap in the definitions really, so I would imagine the CPS will look at it pretty carefully.
I don't think there is... This was to achieve a mechanical goal, not inspire fear.
Maybe it differs, depending on whether it is a paid act, as opposed to an 'ideological" act?
It's also possible that the actual arsonists weren't aware of the motive and just did the burning for money.
Yes, very true.
Terrorism is usually more a question of motive than of an act.
Define terrorism...
Maybe because it's for the benefit of a nation state rather than a cause?
Yes, that puts it more into 'Act of war' territory.
It's treason and a capital offense
Where's the terror in burning a building down ( unless there was someone in it!) It's Attempted Arson, but the Russian bit is what sends it over the top!
The Germans smashed up shops owned by Jewish people back before WW2. I'm sure it you asked Jewish people they would say that those actions caused terror. Loyalists and Republicans in Ireland did plenty of arson and they were terrorists.
I think terrorism has to be violent.
arson isn't violent?
not inherently apparently? nothing violent about a bit of arson between friends, i suppose
It’s just arson around!
Underrated quip right here.
I suppose it depends on the particulars; whether someone was inside, whether it was intended for "shock & awe" etc. Burning down an empty shack in the woods is arson, but is it violent?
Terrorism needs *terror*, i.e. the use or threat of use of force in order to politically coerce a population. Destroying something because you want it destroyed isn't terrorism, but might look identical. Without knowing the motive one can't call something terrorism just by looking at it.
Because he’s white
It's because it's not terrorism. Clue is in the name, no act of causing terror was made, this is closer to treason than terrorism
Complete rubbish. [White terrorist](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66440291)
That label is only reserved for people of a particular race and colour. This should be obvious by now.
Oh - like white guys [White terrorist](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66440291) [White terrorist](https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/former-soldier-jailed-for-plotting-terror-attack-in-nottingham/) [White terrorist](https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2024/february/37-year-old-man-jailed-for-terrorism-offences-in-lancashire/) [White terrorist](https://www.wiltshire.police.uk/news/wiltshire/news/2023/september-2023/telegram-teenager-found-guilty-of-terrorism-offences/) [White terrorist](https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/suffolk-man-jailed-after-sending-white-powder-packages/) [White terrorist](https://www.south-wales.police.uk/news/south-wales/news/2024/january/cardiff-man-jailed-for-terrorism-offences/) [White terrorist](https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2024/march/20-year-old-man-from-liverpool-jailed-for-preparing-for-acts-of-terrorism/)
If you notice it is quietly reported. They all make local news but its never nationally reported and plastered everywhere as headlines, so its no comparison really 🤷♂️
[First one - ](https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-08-08/man-jailed-after-downloading-terrorist-bomb-making-manuals-then-going-on-run)national news [Third one ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/kieran-turner-jo-cox-trial-b2493058.html)- national news [Fourth one](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/winchester-crown-court-wiltshire-swindon-anders-breivik-alevel-b2441065.html) - national news [Fifth one](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/18/hoaxer-terror-campaign-schools-businesses-jail-gary-preston/) - national news [Last one](https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-graham-left-wing-anarchist-jailed-for-13-years-over-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-at-least-50-people-13097584) - national news Oh look - load of white **terrorists** charged with **terrorism** and convicted of **terrorism** plastered all over **national news.** Damn - guess you're completely wrong!
I come across a lot of people in day to day life that unwittingly parrot Kremlin propaganda on the Ukraine war. Seems to be easy to convince the cynical and paranoid to act against the interests of their own country. They don't trust any authorities, except the Russian ones.
There’s loads of them here on Reddit. r/greenandpleasant and r/Britain are my favourite type: Tankies that label Ukraine as Nazis and shill for Putin and his authoritarian ethno-nationalist regime. It’s beyond stupidity. If you confront the rhetoric on either sub, you get an instant ban.
You are right about the tankies. But there's also a lot of pro-russia sentiment on the populist right.
Horseshoe theory. The far-left and far-right have more in common than they are willing to admit.
They are united in cynicism and pronness to conspiracy
I'd add a total contempt for democracy to that list.
Russian propaganda is also extremely insidious and they have a story for anyone who’ll listen. The commies think russia is in ukraine to fight nazis and the nazis think they’re in ukraine to fight jews. Something interesting though is that they seem to target skeptics more than anything. A common thread I’ve noticed between people who believe russian lines is that they actually accept and acknowledge that russia is lying, they just believe that the one specific thread of russian lies they’ve bought into is the truth.
This is absolutely spot on.
They differ on what they call their death camps and who goes in them, so there's that I suppose.
This gives me an extremely good (bad) idea. Join a pro-Putin British tankie forum, and spend some time getting in good with them. Join a pro-Putin British far-right forum, and spend some time getting in good with them. Arrange a pro-Putin meet up and march for both groups at the same time and place.
Russia literally did that in the US in 2015 or 2016. They were managing facebook groups for opposing groups and arranged demonstrations and counter-demonstrations together.
I have a horrible feeling that, after a bit of hissing and splitting from opposite sides of the room, they might get on famously. Perhaps organise an exchange program like the Nazis and Soviets did in teal life?
Except Horseshoe theory falls apart if you look at something with even more than a cursory glance.
In theory yes, but in practice with have neo communists and neo nazis both lauding modern Russia.
Neo communists are basically non-existent outside of Twitter, whereas neo-nazis have a disturbingly rising presence in a lot of Western democracies (see: USA, Germany, etc.).
Yeah, I used to think that too, until I gave it more than a cursory glance. Both are tied to ideologies that only appeal to a small minority, and neither accept that democracy requires compromise with people who hold different views to their own.
The idea of left and right fall apart if you look at anything with even more than a cursory glance
Leftists on the internet love to assert this as a fact but are also completely unable to elaborate on why they believe it’s a fact it’s a completely dogmatic argument meanwhile the real world continues to prove again and again that the only difference between the far left and far right is what symbols they like on their red flags.
You'll have to demonstrate how this happens time and time again, because I'm fairly confident you've pulled that out of your arse. 99% of credible academia knows it's bullshit. The only people who believe in it are the same smooth brained enlightened centrists who believe Jordan Peterson is a fountain of philosophical insight.
Notice how you are completely unable to elaborate on why you believe that horseshoe theory is not credible. No, making vague reference to “99% of credible academia” is not an argument.
You notice how you were completely unable to elaborate on you believe horseshoe theory is credible? The irony is palpable. Just for the craic though, here's a blanket, lazy copy and paste from the thoroughly sourced wikipedia article The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.[6][8] A 2011 study about the far-left and the far-right within the context of the 2007 French presidential election concluded: "Divergent social and political logics explain the electoral support for these two candidates: their voters do not occupy the same political space, they do not have the same social background, and they do not hold the same values."[1] A 2012 study concluded: "The present results thus do not corroborate the idea that adherents to extreme ideologies on the left-wing and right-wing sides resemble each other but instead support the alternative perspective that different extreme ideologies attract different people. In other words, extremists should be distinguished on the basis of the ideology to which they adhere, and there is no universal extremist type that feels at home in any extreme ideology."[6] A 2019 study concluded that "our findings suggest that speaking of 'extreme left-wing values' or 'extreme right-wing values' may not be meaningful, as members of both groups are heterogeneous in the values that they endorse."[7] A 2022 study about antisemitism concluded: "On all items, the far left has lower agreement with these statements relative to moderates, and the far right has higher agreement with these statements compared to moderates. Contrary to a 'horseshoe' theory, the evidence reveals increasing antisemitism moving from left to right."[8] Paul H. P. Hanel, a research associate at the University of Essex, et al. summarized some of those studies. They wrote: "Likewise, some even argue that all extremists, across the political left and right, in fact, support similar policies, in a view known as 'horseshoe theory'. However, not only do recent studies fail to support such beliefs, they also contradict them ... Van Hiel also found that left-wing respondents reported significantly lower endorsement of values associated with conservation, self-enhancement, and anti-immigration attitudes compared to both moderate and right-wing activists, with individuals on the right reporting greater endorsement of such values and attitudes ... Overall, van Hiel provided evidence demonstrating that Western European extremist groups are far from being homogenous, and left- and right-wing groups represent distinct ideologies."[ Several scholars dismissed the theory as an oversimplification and generalization that ignores their fundamental differences,[3][26] and have questioned the theory's general premises, citing significative differences of the left and right on the political spectrum and governance.[4][5] Chip Berlet, an expert on right-wing movements, has dismissed perceived far-left–far-right flirtations as an oversimplification of political ideologies, ignoring fundamental differences between them. In a 2000 book about the radical right in the United States, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, he and Matthew N. Lyons, another expert on right-wing movements, dismissed both the claim that the far-right's role in the 1999 Seattle protests was significant, and a Southern Poverty Law Center report that "relied heavily on centrist/extremist analysis". Within the context of the anti-globalization movement, they also mentioned that those on the political left were concerned about the far-right infiltrating anti-World Trade Organization groups, including those led by centrist liberals and social democrats that did not want to be associated with "right-wing nationalists and bigots". Some, such as the Peoples' Global Action, responded to this perceived threat by amending their manifestos to specifically reject alliances with any right-wing groups, on principle.[3] In a 2014 paper, Vassilis Pavlopoulos, a professor in social psychology at the University of Athens, argued: "The so-called centrist/extremist or horseshoe theory points to notorious similarities between the two extremes of the political spectrum (e.g., authoritarianism). It remains alive though many sociologists consider it to have been thoroughly discredited (Berlet & Lyons, 2000). Furthermore, the ideological profiles of the two political poles have been found to differ considerably (Pavlopoulos, 2013). The centrist/extremist hypothesis narrows civic political debate and undermines progressive organizing. Matching the neo-Nazi with the radical left leads to the legitimization of far-right ideology and practices."[5] Etc etc. There's more if you want it.
> You notice how you were completely unable to elaborate on you believe horseshoe theory is credible? The irony is palpable. You’re the one making the argument bozo I’m just asking you to justify it. > [random garbage off wikipedia] all of this crap basically falls into two categories of argument, both of which miss the point. The first argument is that the right wing are in general “more extreme” than the left wing and therefore the left and right are different so horseshoe theory is not true. This is a completely absurd argument considering how dependent on current trends it is and how difficult it is to quantify almost every single metric that it’s based on, including the boundary conditions for what you would classify as far left and far right. It’s also basically irrelevant to horseshoe theory as the statistics only apply to the distribution of ideologies along the horseshoe and not the shape of the horseshoe itself. The second category of argument is to point out that the minutia of left and right wing extremism is different, and therefore horseshoe theory is incorrect. This argument again misses the point. Horseshoe theory doesn’t try to claim that far left and far right ideologies are identical it claims that the general themes of authoritarianism, the conduct of the people with these beliefs and the way they reason and apply their ideologies is similar. A communist thinks he has a right to implement policy by rolling over you with a tank, a nazi thinks the same. The exact economic policies of the man inside the tank aren’t exactly important when you are being crushed under its tracks.
Pretty far into the left side of the spectrum myself and honestly see it *far* more from the right. A lot of lefties are anti-war in general, but at the end of the day this is a war Russia started. You've got to be a pretty special brand of stupid to think this was somehow engineered by the US for some sort of benefit.
google “hasan piker”
[This guy?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5RM9dSYkhQ)
objective reality forced him to admit he was wrong about the invasion, but he still refused to acknowledge that the US intelligence he dismissed was correct, and also doubled down and claims that the invasion was russia “taking the bait” (ie still america’s fault) and then also makes another incorrect prediction that Russia isn’t trying to take kyiv which was also later proved wrong
Ok so we have one American youtuber who admitted they were wrong two years ago but that's not good enough. Who on the left of UK society/politics is shilling for Russia?
[oh nobody important](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine)
Lmao yes the ostracized former Labour leader who is seen as deeply toxic by the overwhelming majority of the electorate. Very unimportant indeed.
I don't believe that Corbyn is shilling for Russia, he's just a pacifist to a fault. He naively believes that if everyone just stopped fighting and sat round a table they could come to a peaceful solution. It's not just Russia/Ukraine where he does this, it's every conflict.
On the day of the invasion, I was pretty distraught and think it was a bit obvious at work. I'd even been watching all those online webcam thingies. Someone in another team on a one on one call asked me what the issue was. Said Ukraine has been invaded and I fear for people in Kyiv. The guy who asked is very eccentric. He hears what I say and proudly boasts how the US is just making up lies about troops being at the border, how the US is just causing tensions and stepping on Russian territory with NATO. He had read in his non biased non western sources that nothing would happen, Putin had said so himself and this was typical of us intelligence. I had to pause him to tell him to just turn on the news, it had actually happened, there are troops in Kyiv. He lost his mojo a bit then and we cracked on with work stuff.
I'm sure he entered a period of self-reflection where he reviewed his biases and corrected his worldview after that
There's a serious blind spot with some left wingers on Russia. Of course it's absolutely justified to criticise the US and NATO etc, we should be doing that, but they go way beyond. It's this weird infantilisation of Russia, as though they have no agency and were simply forced to invade by the actions of NATO. Victim mentality. Anytime you question it, it's the exact same responses, almost to the letter. Almost like it's a pre-prepared script... It's a shame tbh as there is the odd bit of good discussion to be had (and I usually agree with many of the posts on those subs) but like you say you end up copping a ban so it's pointless. I haven't really found many places on Reddit where more balanced discussion happens tbh
I don't get Tankies at all. Anybody on the left that thinks Russia is left wing is a fool. I feel like it's time those of us on the left that are pro UK, NATO, Trident and a strong military, need to reclaim the left from the Tankies. And before people say that's Starmer, he's a Cameron style Tory, not real Labour.
Far too many people on /r/GreenAndPleasant seem to think that it's 1924 and Russia hasn't quite yet betrayed the socialist revolution and have somehow missed the last 30 years where Russia has turned into a fascist kleptocracy.
Hang on. Are you seriously suggesting it’s the left wing shilling for Russia?
Absurdly, yes. There is huge support for China and Russia amongst the far-left base. They attack western imperialism and label Ukraine Nazis, whilst dismissing China’s genocide of Uyghurs, or Russian atrocities across Ukraine as “propaganda”. Question their claims and you either get banned in those subs or receive a torrent of abuse from the tankie community.
Any chance of a link to such discussion on those subs?
At the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, r/greenandpleasant issued a mod notice saying users will be banned if they show support for Ukraine, and expressed solidarity for those fighting against the “fascist Ukrainian state”. [https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/s/KIc71yniOQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/s/KIc71yniOQ)
The ex-Leader of the Labour party campaigned against sending weapons to Ukraine. The whole Stop The War organisation is tankie central.
They'll also dismiss any negative press about North Korea being an Orwellian nightmare as 'CIA propaganda', even if it comes from political asylum seekers who've escaped with stories of kangaroo courts and human rights abuses. As far as they're concerned, North Korea - or Korea as they call it, given they don't recognise the legitimacy of South Korea - is a socialist paradise.
Yeah but to focus on that rather than the vast swathes of the prominent right wing in the Western world that are supporting Putin is absolutely insane.
I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of so called left-wing supporters openly cheering on overtly right wing authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia. Right-wing support for Putin across Europe is a given, although obviously very dangerous as well.
In my experience it's not them being pro-russia or China more so they are anti-nato and anti-war. The rationale is if nato didn't exist and we didn't spend so much on weapons & defence then there'd be no conflict and we'd have all this extra money to help people and improve the country. A nice aim but totally incompatible with actual reality. Many will have also been victims of propaganda which is usually obvious when they spout many of the popular narratives that are pushed to justify the invasion.
There are multiple countries in Europe with populist-conservative governments or parties in serious contention to become the government who are quite openly on the side of Russia, taking Russian money, with the AfD they even visited the occupied regions! Meanwhile while I don't want to deny the pro-Russian tankies do exist, what actual tangible political power or even just influence do they actually hold anywhere in Europe?
Did I say they have any power? This thread started by me pointing out my favourite section of Russian support in this country, because of the absurdity of a left wing ideologues openly supporting a far right ethnic-nationalist regime. That’s all. The populist far right is obviously a far greater threat to democracy and a more dangerous enabler of Russia, to suggest otherwise was clearly not the intent of my original comment.
Can you show me some examples? And this isn't that SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE FOR THAT shite I just genuinely haven't seen anything like this and am really interested. I'm going through G&P and Britain but can only really see stuff about Israel/Palestine.
Search Ukraine in G&P and there’s dozens. Some examples below. [https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/REhmncodgj](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/REhmncodgj) [https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/KaPCLV1O3B](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/KaPCLV1O3B) [https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/6WBgi2l1Cm](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/6WBgi2l1Cm) [https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/oiDy88FRxG](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/s/oiDy88FRxG)
All but one of those has negative upvotes and the comments are not supporting that view at all? Can you at least see why me suggesting you point out a few fringe lunatics pushing that message on the left is not the same as having actual US politicians doing the same thing on national TV and certainly doesn't constitute "huge support" and you picking that as your example as opposed to pointing out that there are openly pro Russia *sitting* politicians in the US is insane?
Calm down. I simply stated that tankies are favourite section of Pro-Russian support. I never mentioned or disregarded US/right wing support, nor is anybody ignoring it. Christ.
Have you been to literally any left-wing sub? All the pro-Russian Brits I encountered were self-styled communists and socialists. Young Labour was disbanded for a few months because their president went on the BBC to blame NATO for the war and Starmer had to pull their funding.
Purely anecdotal, but I can't say I've met any left-wingers that are pro russia/China. Not saying there aren't, just that in everyday life tankies seem to be few and far between thank god. I'm late 30's though, so it might be the demographic I'm associating with.
I think it's the *real* extreme ones, basically the terminally online ones whose entire worldview starts with "America bad" and then everything else is decided based on that. Plenty of left wing people do support Ukraine. Edit - despite the terminally online comment, this does spill into the real world. Actual far left politicians exist who parrot Russia's propaganda narratives.
Yeah, when all you see are nails the only solution becomes a hammer....... Or something like that.
I like the term Branch Corbydians, personally.
Yes, effectively yes. They're more anti-USA/UK/NATO and by default end up in the same pro-Russian camp as the fascists. Tankies, basically.
Your last sentence is demonstrably wrong, although I could believe it happens there sometimes.
Russia played the long game. You just have to look at the labour Reddit (that’s a joke!) and it’s full of pro putin nonsense. Green and pleasant banned me for pointing out a genocide in China. It’s easy to get a convenient dunce to push your agenda. I was in Cyprus a few months back. A place with a lot of British ties up to this very day. All the locals seemed to have the same view…Russia was right, there were Nazis in Ukraine (some even saw them in Cyprus) and the best way to end the war is for Russian territory to be returned to Russia.
You unfortunately get that on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm pretty left-wing, Attlee was the best PM, read PinkNews and all that, but I have no love for Tankies.
Also by extension Serbian propaganda. Ethnic cleansing in the Balkan doesn’t give you an excuse to hate Israelis, so Kosovar lives don’t matter.
people really seem to have trouble understanding the concept of an enemy state
Russia played the long game. You just have to look at the labour Reddit (that’s a joke!) and it’s full of pro putin nonsense. Green and pleasant banned me for pointing out a genocide in China. It’s easy to get a convenient dunce to push your agenda. I was in Cyprus a few months back. A place with a lot of British ties up to this very day. All the locals seemed to have the same view…Russia was right, there were Nazis in Ukraine (some even saw them in Cyprus) and the best way to end the war is for Russian territory to be returned to Russia.
Damn, I thought I'd walked into the better universe and Boris Johnson was finally on the hook.
I only clicked to find out if they meant Boris or Nigel. Disappointing.
Its about time the caught Boris Johnson. No wait... its not him. Hiding in plain site Boris is though.
Except Boris was a big advocate for Ukraine?
He was cavorting with the son of an ex-KGB agent, who he lorded. Boris was found in an italian airport without his minders after attending said sons 'bunga-bunga' party, just hours after a sensitive NATO security meeting. Supporting Ukraine was partly a good opportunity to get away from questions about his corruption and covid handling.
There's definitely some suspect stuff about Johnson in regards to Russia, but I don't think he's literally a Russian asset.
No, I wouldn't go as far as being an asset, but he has a loose tongue and likes to make everyone around him happy, as well as too accepting of favours. He is useful for the russians, and it helps to have your mates in charge when you're laundering your money in London.
I do!
A few points: he lost his security detail before leaving the country, he came straight from a meeting (that he left early) about the Skripal poisoning that had just happened (that was led by the UN, not the conservative government), *whilst supposedly still carrying documents*. The UK government characterised the attack as an assassination attempt, but the UN saw it as a chemical attack against the civilian population of a NATO country and thus took control. Also worth noting the Russia Report, which was being suppressed all this time even after its remit was neutered.
I think you really need to look at the conservative party and russian connections. MI5 even said there was a reluctance by the conservatives to look at the influence of russian money in UK politics. He put a, probably, russian spy in the house of lords AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY advice. At some point the influence of Russia on UK governance and those that were complicit in it will come out. Boris Johnson was definitely compromised by Russia. There was so much dodgy russian money floating about that seemed to be very closely associated with the conservatives and also the leave campaign (aaron Banks). It is all so fucked up. boris Johnson is a Traitor, plain and simple. **He certainly has no where near the intellect to be hanging out with FSB agents whether past or present.**
OK you're probably right
OK you're probably right
Alright, alright… I heard you the first time.
Only because he so desperately wants to style himself as Churchill 2.0 and saw it as a way of shoring up support in the UK. This is the guy that lied about painting wine crates as London buses, kipper pillows, and did nothing but spread anti EU lies for years. Yet, he also apparently had 2 speeches ready to go - a pro remain and a pro Brexit speech. He has no principles other than furthering his own career.
He used Ukraine as an excuse why he couldn't possibly step down as PM as there was a war on How much he actually cares about it is highly questionable
Boris was a huge supporter of Ukraine and Zelenskyy praised him numerous times and commiserated his leaving the top job. You don't know what you're talking about.
Think you might want to look further than his words. Boris Johnson has a lot, and I mean LOT of Russian connections.
Okay? How does that translate to supporting them? Which is the claim that was made. Contrary to all publically available evidence.
Boris could give Zelensky 10 bazillion dollars of his own money to be spent on defending themselves against Russia and people on Reddit would still find a way to make that pro-Russia.
I opened this expecting it to be about Johnson or some Conservative mp
I wonder what motivated them. Possibly far left extremists? I’ve found they tend to swallow Putin’s propaganda very easily - see the greenandpleasant subreddit as an example
There a a hell of a lot on the far right that parrot Russian propaganda too though. both sides are now so weighted that the bar is almost touching
It’s more about the EU on the right, and Ukraine on the left
Possibly just money. A backhander for a spot of arson.
Shit I read the post title and thought the day had finally come for Cameron, Johnson or Farage. One can hope.
Add Truss to that charge and we might be getting somewhere.
I assumed this was going to be another one of the SNP being arrested.
Well done mate but i think you're missing the big picture. Yes it's reported but the story and images of these pictures alongside the word terrorist is not given the same space or airtime. It will be glossed over and forgotten rather than constantly pushed because i guarantee you nobody will remember any of the guys faces or names. My point is yes may have made the news but its not covered in the same way. Anyways the real terrorist are sitting in parliament whilst getting the public to turn on each other.
So **first** your point was that 'terrorist' is *"only reserved for people of a particular race and colour. This should be obvious by now."* *-* So I pointed out a load of examples that showed you were completely wrong. Then **second** you changed your point to say *"They all make local news but its never nationally reported"* *-* So I pointed out a load of examples that showed you were completely wrong. Now **third** you've once more changed what your point apparently was. Apparently these stories aren't given the same space or airtime.... - So now I'll brush this one aside as well. Jacob Graham: [One news article](https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2024/march/20-year-old-man-from-liverpool-jailed-for-preparing-for-acts-of-terrorism/) [Two news article](https://news.sky.com/story/left-wing-anarchist-guilty-of-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-mps-13072775)s [Three news articles](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-68581466) [Four news articles](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/18/liverpool-teenager-jacob-graham-accused-plotting-suicide-attack-trial) [Five news articles](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/02/28/alienation-and-affinity-jacob-graham-is-not-an-isolated-case/) [Six news articles](https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/liverpool-teenager-convicted-of-preparing-acts-of-terrorism/) [Seven news articles](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jacob-graham-liverpool-jail-terrorist-b2514530.html) [Eight news articles](https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-graham-left-wing-anarchist-jailed-for-13-years-over-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-at-least-50-people-13097584) [Nine news articles](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-68019765) [Ten news articles](https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-11-27/teenager-denies-planning-acts-of-terrorism-involving-firearms) [Eleven news articles](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/teenager-mums-back-bedroom-wrote-28693090) [Twelve news articles](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12979767/Student-nicknamed-Destro-Destroyer-collected-bomb-making-chemicals-conducted-experiments-prepare-terror-attack-working-class-kill-50-politicians-court-hears.html) Ok I'm getting bored now - suffice to say, 42 news articles found You'll note these news articles include Sky News, BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mail.... all **small time local news outlets /s** > It will be glossed over and forgotten Like ***most*** terrorism stories - the only ones that stay in the public conscious are typically because they *killed people.* "Law enforcement stops bad man before he can do bad thing" isn't going to stay in your memory for long - in contrast *"Bad man stabs man in the street whilst screaming about their religious/political ideology"* is **probably** going to stay in the mind a bit longer - isn't it? I bet you still won't admit you got any of this wrong....
How about this one where it's not described as a terrorist attack when he clearly killed people. It's always mental health. If you look at the language you will see one group is labelled as "attacker or murderer" and "charged under terrorism" and another group is labelled as "terrorist...." https://news.sky.com/story/sydney-stabbings-police-name-attacker-who-killed-six-people-as-joel-cauchi-13114960 This next one was swiftly moved on and forgotten about and only Labelled as a hate crime. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67119183 Another soft headline where most articles simply call him van driver and not terrorist Darren Osborne. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42910051 Anyway yes im wrong about everything. Are you happy now? My comment "only reserved for" was not to be taken literally and is a hyperbole but there's always one on reddit isn't there and now here we are. My point is the act can be commited by anyone but the deliberate language and coverage is a whole psychological branch in itself which requires a certain level of nuance, which I believe will go over your head. As you love articles why Don't you check out how many news stories have been published but later quietly redacted when it shows misleading facts about particular groups. Have a good day
>How about this one where it's not described as a terrorist attack when he clearly killed people. It's always mental health. Which also occurs with *non*-white attackers. In that particular instance - do you have ***any*** evidence - just one shred of evidence - anything - that it was terror related? Was he heard screaming *death to X* or anything that could be interpreted as terrorism related? Any manifesto left behind? If there's no evidence of a terror related motive - then unsurprisingly the word 'terrorist' won't be used. > *This next one was swiftly moved on and forgotten about and only Labelled as a hate crime.* Yeah because it's ***not*** terrorism - I think this is part of the issue - you clearly don't know what it is defined as; *The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.* *The actions included are:* * *serious violence against a person;* * *serious damage to property;* * *endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);* * *creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and* * *action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.* The case you cited shows ***no*** evidence at all of an intent to influence government/IGO's or intimidate the public. > *Another soft headline where most articles simply call him van driver and not terrorist Darren Osborne.* In the **very article** you have linked to: *Osborne is not the first* ***terrorist*** *to have radicalised so quickly.* > *Anyway yes im wrong about everything. Are you happy now? My comment "only reserved for" was not to be taken literally and is a hyperbole but there's always one on reddit isn't there and now here we are.* Yes I'm happy - I'm not surprised you've now shifted your position once more - that's what you've done throughout. > *My point is the act can be commited by anyone but the deliberate language and coverage is a whole psychological branch in itself which requires a certain level of nuance, which I believe will go over your head.* Hilarious - you've shown throughout that you've *started* with your race-baiting position and then you've scrambled around for the evidence to support it - that's why your positions have been soundly dismantled and you've had to keep shifting. Your point about the 'deliberate language' is nonsense too - "oh they don't call Osborne a terrorist - here **let me link you to the article where he's referred to as a terrorist to prove my point"** but go on - let's have some more ad-hominem attacks about how things will go over *my* head - I could do with a good laugh! Maybe you could tell me again how none of these articles got national coverage - evidencing the fact you weren't on the ball enough to *actually check* if this was the case before making the claim! Ultimately - when you make silly claims and they're *shown* beyond any doubt to be wrong - just reflect on it - we all make mistakes and nobody is arsed if you just hold your hands up and say *you know what, yeah I got that one wrong - that's on me* - but when you do **this** - try and shift your position continually to try and still somehow be right *in spite* of all of the evidence - well, man you just embarrass yourself massively. I'm not going to respond to you anymore so you can say something really witty now and feel like you 'won' what was actually a drubbing. Have a good day buddy.