Why not? Using violence against civilian (infrastructure) to achieve political goals… seems to fit.
Sure you could argue violence… my take would be if you are using an oil tanker to drag a few ton piece of metal with the intent to break stuff… it’s pretty violent.
because nobody is frightened and will change their political views or anything. there is no terror. it’s just pointless stupid vandalism by a moronic nation.
Downplay it all you want, I think it’s pretty serious what they are doing and I think all vessels going in and out of lake NATO should be boarded and inspected and detailed tracked. I’d even go so far to require them to have a black box installed that real time reads out and transmits ship info. Turning off your black box or tampering with it means the ship is sealed and the crew as a whole is charged with a crime of tampering with the box. The crime is added to the law in each of the surrounding NATO countries and carries a hefty fine and seizure of the ship and her cargo. How’s that for political change under threat of violence.
i’m not downplaying it and also think it’s serious, i just hate everything being called terrorism, when it’s clearly not.
IMO they should guard that equipment with submarines and just torpedo everything that drags its anchor near it to bits without warning. But that’s exactly why they don’t let ppl like me near the red buttons.
Guarding stuff at sea is actually pretty difficult. But in this case I feel terrorism is warranted. We can agree to disagree on the term used… since we seem to agree it cannot be ignored and stern action is needed.
Etymologically yes, but I’m not so sure on a legal basis. I’d have to go and read the specific laws that would apply to them, and different countries have slightly different legal meanings of terrorism.
Why not? Using violence against civilian (infrastructure) to achieve political goals… seems to fit.
Sure you could argue violence… my take would be if you are using an oil tanker to drag a few ton piece of metal with the intent to break stuff… it’s pretty violent.
The UK agrees with you, they’re treating climate protesters like terrorists.
If they use violence… but just sitting on an intersection can hardly be called violence.
because nobody is frightened and will change their political views or anything. there is no terror. it’s just pointless stupid vandalism by a moronic nation.
Infrastructure sabotage is either espionage or an act of war
People being frightened is not needed. If it aims to affect political change (which it does) through violence (which it is) it is therefore terrorism.
terrorism implies terror.
this is a mild yawning at best.
Downplay it all you want, I think it’s pretty serious what they are doing and I think all vessels going in and out of lake NATO should be boarded and inspected and detailed tracked. I’d even go so far to require them to have a black box installed that real time reads out and transmits ship info. Turning off your black box or tampering with it means the ship is sealed and the crew as a whole is charged with a crime of tampering with the box. The crime is added to the law in each of the surrounding NATO countries and carries a hefty fine and seizure of the ship and her cargo. How’s that for political change under threat of violence.
i’m not downplaying it and also think it’s serious, i just hate everything being called terrorism, when it’s clearly not.
IMO they should guard that equipment with submarines and just torpedo everything that drags its anchor near it to bits without warning. But that’s exactly why they don’t let ppl like me near the red buttons.
Guarding stuff at sea is actually pretty difficult. But in this case I feel terrorism is warranted. We can agree to disagree on the term used… since we seem to agree it cannot be ignored and stern action is needed.
Etymologically yes, but I’m not so sure on a legal basis. I’d have to go and read the specific laws that would apply to them, and different countries have slightly different legal meanings of terrorism.