They should be locked up, but not for terrorism. Terrorism is about frightening people to manipulate them. This is more like state level vandalism. Also their stuff should be seized to pay for the damage.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The UK agrees with you, they're treating climate protesters like terrorists.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

If they use violence.. but just sitting on an intersection can hardly be called violence.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago

Infrastructure sabotage is either espionage or an act of war

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

terrorism implies terror.

this is a mild yawning at best.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

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.

[–] astropenguin5@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 day ago

Indeed there needs to be a show of stenght since that is what small brain bully nations understand. There would be no constant border breaching planes if we shot down every single one. There would only be respectful and cooperative russia that doesn't start wars.