Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?

[Mort7]

I'm intrigued to know other opinions on this.

A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.

They are certainly causing disruption which is the equivalent of that caused by traditional terrorism. Their aim is to disrupt our society to achieve their goals. One of their leaders is quoted as saying that XR “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”.

It seems likely that people may eventually die as a result of the disruption that they are causing, and I don't believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that someone acting in their name might decide to take this to the next stage.

So, should they be treated as terrorists? If not what would it take for them to be regarded as such. Should anarchist groups be allowed to continue to disrupt our society in this way, no matter how "noble" the cause, or is it time to restore order to our streets?

Over to you.

[Mort7]

Gadgetmac said:

Only in NP&E could you get a question as ridiculous as this but asked in all seriousness.

It's not a ridiculous question at all, although you're clearly having trouble identifying it as such. I'm genuinely interested to know, in the opinion of others, when that particular line will have been crossed.

XR's campaign is getting increasingly disruptive, and is attracting followers with extreme views. At the moment it's (sort of) under control, but what happens when that control is lost, and splinter groups decide to follow their own agenda? That's not beyond reason, and has been seen in the extreme actions of zealots within countless religious and political groups. XR's beliefs are followed with religious fervour by some, so is it really beyond the bounds of possibility that we might find ourselves faced with fundamentalist environmentalism?

Under those circumstances where would the line be drawn? Bombs and bullets, obviously, but what about bomb threats? What about disruption which has the intent of causing the loss of life in order to further the cause, or which causes the loss of life as an unintended consequence? How about vandalism, damage to corporate or government property, threats to our elected representatives?

History can provide plenty of previous examples of extremism in other spheres, so why should this particular belief system be exempt? You'd have to be pretty naive to dismiss that as being beyond all possibility.

[Mort7]

Just to be clear, and to put the discussion back to my original question, I haven't stated that XR are terrorists. At the moment, by my definition at least, they are not. What I'm interested to know is just how far it's felt they can push things before they've crossed the line from anarchism to terrorism?

[Mort7]

booboise blueboys said:

Mort7 said:

I'm intrigued to know other opinions on this.

A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.

They are certainly causing disruption which is the equivalent of that caused by traditional terrorism. Their aim is to disrupt our society to achieve their goals. One of their leaders is quoted as saying that XR “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”.

It seems likely that people may eventually die as a result of the disruption that they are causing, and I don't believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that someone acting in their name might decide to take this to the next stage.

So, should they be treated as terrorists? If not what would it take for them to be regarded as such. Should anarchist groups be allowed to continue to disrupt our society in this way, no matter how "noble" the cause, or is it time to restore order to our streets?

Over to you.

How insulting to those who have been affected by real terrorism. It's as bad as calling everyone a racist because you don't agree with them.

What an embarrassment of a post.

What utter rubbish! I haven't insulted anyone, I've simply asked a perfectly reasonable question.

[Mort7]

booboise blueboys said:

Mort7 said:

What utter rubbish! I haven't insulted anyone, I've simply asked a perfectly reasonable question.

It's one of the thickest questions I've seen in a long time.

You're equating hippies sitting in the road to people who blow British citizens up. Seriously? How insulting to Brits who have been killed by terrorists.

Where is your respect?

Err... I'm doing nothing of the sort. If you could take the trouble to read everything that I have written that would become clear. There's a handy management summary on page 4 if you have a problem with large volumes of text......

[Mort7]

booboise blueboys said:

kev1974 said:

It's not a stupid question. The hippies in the road are just the gullible sheep junior cult members who are easily led and so who still believe ER is about climate change. It's quite clear that the ER cult leaders are capable of much more and I'd say it's a perfectly valid question to wonder whether they will soon stray from simple inconvenience to the public, to something much worse, I don't see it as that much of a stretch that they might do that, at all. They're already happy to destroy property, witness hammer muppet this morning, the dhead clambering on top of an airplane who could have kicked a sensor, or the clowns on the fire engine the week before last. Not much of a leap from damaging to destroying property to destroying lives as well.

It's not much of a stretch that they'll start killing people? Hahahaha. Listen to yourself for a second. You've outdone Mort with that post.

Priceless! You are a trolling member of Extinction Rebellion, and I claim my £5.

[Mort7]

And finally

booboise blueboys said:

It's one of the thickest questions I've seen in a long time.

You're equating hippies sitting in the road to people who blow British citizens up. Seriously? How insulting to Brits who have been killed by terrorists.

Where is your respect?

And yet, a quote from you from the "Multiple stabbings at shopping centre in Manchester" thread here https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

booboise blueboys said:

Oh dear. How much money on it being a Brexiter embarrassing us all again? What is wrong with the right wing in this country?

What a nasty little hypocrite you are!

[Mort7]

So, the worm has finally turned. I wouldn't be surprised if seeing this emboldened others to react in the same way.

From this BBC report:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50079...

"Extinction Rebellion later said it would "take stock" of the reaction to the latest action for future protests.
Spokesman Howard Rees said: "Was it the right thing to do? I am not sure.
"I think we will have to have a period of reflection. It is too early to say.""

Translation: "Those beastly people interfered with our right to disrupt their lives with our protests. We will therefore be looking for softer targets where we can cause disruption without coming into contact with actual members of the public who might exercise their right to disagree with us."

[Mort7]

Interview with XR spokesperson on BBC London earlier. She confirmed that there was no central control within XR, and no strategy. XR members are autonomous, and do what they want in XR's name..........

[Mort7]

i4got said:

I miss the SPG.

[Mort7]

techiedave said:

XR are very active and use social media.
Don't be surprised that some will be on here deflecting casting doubts, seeming to be reasoned and plausible.

Not too difficult to spot who they might be. Phrases such as "gammon" might give a clue..

[Mort7]

Gandahar said:

23 pages of extinction rebellion being a terrorist threat?

23 pages discussing whether they've crossed the line, and what it would take for them to be considered to have done so, to be precise - which is quite different.

[Mort7]

Gadgetmac said:

The point is they’ve come nowhere near to crossing the line, the whole premise of the question is nonsense.

Only on PH could this be seen as an actual possibility.

In fact the only violence shown has been done TO them not BY them.

I disagree that the premise of the question is nonsense. If you read my first post in its correct context it's a perfectly reasonable question.

My current view, which you'll find on page 4, is ".......I haven't stated that XR are terrorists. At the moment, by my definition at least, they are not. What I'm interested to know is just how far it's felt they can push things before they've crossed the line from anarchism to terrorism? I'm interested to know the opinions of others. How can I get that if I don't ask the question?

[Mort7]

jonmiles said:

The amount of times I'm seeing this kind of violent comment on a thread that is supposedly about ER being terrorists is amazing.

For (hopefully, but doubtfully) the last time, this thread is not about XR being terrorists, it is asking how far their actions will have to go for them to make the transition from anarchism to terrorism.

[Mort7]

ATG said:

If people stuck rigidly to that question there wouldn't be much to say. (a) they're not anarchists and (b) they'd have to start behaving like terrorists. Thread closed, or maybe let the conversation develop from its unpromising starting point?

Yep. Good point, well made. I just find it a bit galling that some posters (not JonMiles) have made the assumption that there is an inherent assumption within the thread title that XR are terrorists, when that's not the case.