One of these days, I’m going to cut you into little pieces!
But, to be clear, he did a bit more than express support for Palestinians. As I said upthread, he lost me at JAQing over whether the 7OCT attacks were a false flag. That’s straight up batshit and might well betray some genuine antisemitism.
Mother do you think they’ll try to break my balls?
To which we may now answer with an emphatic yes.
If I go insane, will you still let me join in with the game?
No, Roger. No.
All that you whine
All that you rant
All that you spew
All you blurt
And all that you yell
All that you cry
All that you spiel
All you grunt
And all that you brag
All that you boast
All that you gloat
All you fingerpoint
And all that you snarl
All that you bark
All that you shout
All you pontificate
And all that you shout
All that you scream
All that you snap
All you self-martyr
And all that you shriek
All that you rave
All that you storm
All you barf
And everything under the sun is MEEEEE
But the sun is eclipsed also by MEEEE
Send that to him!
Update: he could be facing criminal charges for support of Palestine Action, which takes direct action against insufficiently pro-palestinian organizations, including attacking airplanes on an RAF base:
The person in charge of security on that base is probably also going to have a bad time.
Reading up on Palestine Action, I’m not quite sure that they’re the best example of a terrorist outfit but, that said, the only solution to them would be for Elbit (or other targets) to start shooting or otherwise harming people that try breaking in to their property.
It’s probably better for Palestine Action to be shut down than to have their target move to the stage of starting to defend itself.
G Roger Waters is eight-freaking-one years old. If they put him in the dungeon for a decade, he will almost certain not be going home.
fagettabouit!.
I don’t know squat about Palestinian Action. And am not particuarly fond of what I hear about Waters politics, but his law seems a straight up catch 22.
They can designate an organization (lets say the Tory party) to be a terrorist organization, and then if anybody says, “No you got it wrong the Tories are not in fact terrorists”, they can be prosecuted and jailed for supporting a terrorist organization. There doesn’t appear to be any valid recourse once you’re on the list.
Prosecuting those who send the organization money, provide material support, and recruit on their behalf seems reasonable, but from the article it appears that all Waters has done is make public his disagreement with the UK putting them on the list.
According to Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000, Palestine Action appears to qualify as a terrorist group.
Their "direct action’ has involved not just serious damage to property, but also attacking police with deadly weapons.
Whether the law should punish people who just say the group is nifty but don’t send them money and weapons is another issue.
Laws against terrorism are themselves highly problematic. Once an organization is designated as terroristical, it becomes like calling them treasonous, in terms of traditional monarchic rules. They lose all their rights, being enemies of the state, and become equivalent to that mountain lion that killed someone and thus needs to be hunted down and eliminated.
The specific individuals known to be part of a terrorist-designated organization at that point have basically nothing to lose, which makes them even more dangerous. You cannot have discourse with them at all, you just have kill them – before they kill you (or your family). And so the state has closed the issue to debate, at least as far as that group is concerned.
Sympathizers not identified as belonging to the terrorist organization are free (and likely) to start some other organization that may express similar but sufficiently divergent ideals, to continue to speak to the issue. Because, invoking “Terrorists!” does not resolve an issue or somehow make it not matter. In some cases it can make the situation worse. Imagine where we would be, in the US, if anti-choice activism had been designated terrorism (for which there could be a fair argument).
…it absolutely needs to be pointed out that the sort of direct action that Palestine Action takes were debated extensively at the time and the crafters of the act assured that it wouldn’t include them. Also Starmer defended activists that have done the very same thing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/palestine-action-gaza-zarah-sultana-challenges-starmer-b2781375.html
And in the past activists who broke into RAF bases and caused damages to disrupt and prevent war crimes received either slaps on the wrists or outright acquittals because “their actions were reasonable in the context of trying to prevent war crimes.”
And its important to note these happened 3 years after the Terrorism Act 2000.
Attacking someone with a sledgehammer, even a policeman, is hardly a terrorist act. It’s something in this particular context would be more likely to have happened in the heat of the moment. The sledgehammers, as can be seen in the image used to illustrate the article, were there to cause damage.
The more important thing here is exactly how many Palestinian children Elbit Systems Ltd are responsible for killing. And how complicit the government of the UK are in those killings.
(Side note: I couldn’t care less about Roger Waters. Whether or not he supports Palestine Action is utterly irrelevant to the proscription of Palestine Action. )
“the heat of the moment” 
Uh, what? I’m just responding to this bit, but you could absolutely commit a terrorist attack by bashing people’s heads in with a sledgehammer.
Who hasn’t swung a 20 lbs weight at the head of a police officer? Boys will be boys. (/s, no-so-obviously)
…“17,000 dead Palestinian children”
I’m glad you could keep focused on the important things here.
The types of injuries suggest what would happen as a result of a skirmish where there was some resistance. It doesn’t suggest deliberate intent. If you’ve got a sledgehammer and intended to use it as a weapon with terroristic intent, you’d be dead. Or at least severely injured. Not “treated at the scene.” Not “discharged” after staying overnight.
I’d stop worrying about a bit of damage to a few planes and start thinking about what those planes were actually doing.
I think it depends on context. If you bash a guy’s head wuth a sledgehammer while declaring publicly in some manner that all cops who show their face in an area will be similarly attacked, that seems like an act of terror.
The act on its own without any other messaging seems like battery on law enforcement. Otherwise every violent action is terrorism and the term has no meaning.
But certainly, the fact that it’s a sledgehammer and not a gun or bomb doesn’t mean it’s not terrorism. You could even assault someone with your bare hands and it could be terrorism. The relevant part is that you’re trying to enforce change through terror backed by violence.