[TheOtherHobbes]

And those reasons would be... what?

These are people with political views the government disapproves of. They are not bomb-throwing anarchists or people with a history of violence. They are not organising or threatening acts of public violence.

This is entirely a free speech issue.

[gpvos]

Yes, the police can be in the wrong. But that's not reason (yet) to drag in conspiracy theories.

[richmarr]

Internal politics, personal ambition, hammer-nail syndrome if an team or department has run out of other people to investigate, personal vendettas, jilted lovers, sexual obsession, regular obsession. No idea... but it doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to think of some, and doesn't require us to believe in conspiracies.

[DanBC]

Environmental groups had plans to shut down nuclear reactors by blocking water cooling pipes in the sea.

Animal rights protestors have firebombed[1] several UK department stores (for selling fur), and abattoirs and milk distribution depots; dug up a corpse from a grave and held the body hostage; rescued animals from labs and caused damage to the labs;

Far right groups have rallies that attract considerable violence; an English politician was murdered by a far right extremist.

Illegal surveillance is obviously, unambiguously, wrong. The people who did it need to face both disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.

[cies]

I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism (or otherwise a danger to the public). Potential property damage is not something that I consider a reason for surveillance. We can wait till the damage happens and the go look for the perpetrators.

There's real "people harming" evil all over our societies. Evil towards rather innocent people that destroys lives and kills, often benefiting the perpetrators (financially, or by pushing their agenda). These, to me, are the only crimes that need tough surveillance.

[richmarr]

> I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism...

So under your definition of terrorism someone needs to be injured? You're diverging from the dictionary a little there.

[_delirium]

I don't find it useful to use the term beyond attacks aimed at actually terrorizing people. Stuff like suicide bombs in crowded public squares or metros, sarin gas releases, etc. A particular attack doesn't have to actually have any victims to qualify (it could be unsuccessful, or the outcome could be lucky), but it at least has to have that goal, or else how is it in any way "terror"?

Some kinds of animal-rights attacks on shops or universities could qualify, especially ones using indiscriminate methods like car bombs. But I don't see how it makes sense, apart from wanting to use pejorative hyperbole, to use "terrorism" to describe sabotage that damages equipment on a lab or farm, things like throwing paint or glue on things, short-circuiting electronics, etc. We already have the perfectly good words "sabotage" and "saboteur" to describe those acts and the people who carry them out. If these all start being grouped under "terrorism", then we end up with absurdities like describing the Boston Tea Party as an 18th-century terrorist attack, which I've actually seen people do, but I don't think is useful.

[DanBC]

For clarity: the examples I gave were of organisations using fire to destroy property in order to persuade those businesses to stop trading, or to make it economically impossible for them to keep going.

I mentioned a group that stole a corpse from a grave.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.top...

> The militants, including a vicar's son and a psychiatric nurse, led what they called a "holocaust" against a farm which bred guinea pigs for medical research. Jon Ablewhite, John Smith and Kerry Whitburn pursued a six-year hate campaign against Darley Oaks farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire. Whitburn's girlfriend, Josephine Mayo, was sentenced to four years for a lesser part in the campaign.

> Almost 100 people connected to the farm were targeted. Explosive devices were sent to some, mail threatening to kill and maim to others. There were attacks on homes, cars and businesses. The relentless campaign culminated in the theft of the body of Gladys Hammond, a close relative of the Hall family who ran the farm, from her grave in October 2004.

> For months, activists taunted the Halls, telling them the body would be returned if they closed the farm. The body was found only last week in woodland after Smith told the authorities where it was.

This is a campaign of violence, against people, for political reasons.

[richmarr]

Sure. I don't think throwing paint is terrorism either.

The comment I replied to generalised the work of these activists as "potential property damage"... which in the case of the Animal Liberation Front's firebombing campaign, or the plan to interfere with the safe operation of a nuclear power station is incorrect. They're both acts that put lives at risk and clearly intend to cause fear beyond the event.

[ionised]

That is not terrorism, it's criminal damage.

[DanBC]

"noun: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Firebombing department stores to stop them selling fur is terrorism by most definitions of the word.

Don't forget that arson is a particular type of criminal damage and carries much heavier sentences because it's so dangerous.