Can anyone explain in simple terms why Palestine action is getting added to the terror list

Because our government is owned by Israeli lobbyists like Trevor chinn and they have far too much influence in our government and our media. The ministers on both sides of the house recieve large donations in exchange for their unwavering support of Israel. How can you seriously call these people terrorists while sitting back and watching children being starved to death and people being shot whilst queueing for food to feed their families.its extremely worrying the road that our country is going down' its like humanity is a thing of the past.

 

Terrorism doesn't mean spray painting planes does it?

At least be consistent Mr orsenkaht

Would you not agree that damaging the casing of the magna carta is considered serious damage? I would
Would you not say that damaging petrol pumps is serious damage to property? I would
Would you not say that preventing an ambulance from getting to an emergency is endangering a person's life? I would
Would you not say that spray painting computer monitors in order to stop an e-gaming competition is interfering or disrupting an electronic system? I would
Would you not say that spray painting an historic building like Oxford university is serious damage to property? I would

And would you not say that doing all of the above, and much more, with the intent of forcing the British government to end the use of fossil fuels was an attempt to influence the government? I certainly would.

You can't have it both ways. Either vandalism and spray painting things to influence the government is terrorism or it isn't. It doesn't matter if it's a plane or a nearly 300 year old, grade 1 listed building.

 

Serious damage to property is one of the requirements that suffice to substantiate terrorism for the purposes of the act, if allied with an intention to influence the government. I heard one report today that suggested that serious damage was caused to one of the engines of the plane, in addition to (or maybe as part of) the spray painting. Additionally, it seems that this group has been involved in other serious incidents, the details some of which are not in the public domain. Given Yvette Cooper's integrity and long experience, I'm quite happy - as a citizen - to accept that there are valid grounds for her to proscribe this organisation.

As for the other incidents and groups you cite, I haven't considered them. You may well be right. But I haven't considered them. It's not my job. I'm simply responding with a personal opinion to the question posed in your original post. I don't think I've given an opinion on the other matters you list (apologies if my memory fails me). Assuming I'm right on that, I'm not sure how I'm trying to "have it both ways".