So preposterous that the UK also labeled at least one of the organizations they provided material support to a proscribed terrorist organization?

You're appealing to another proscription decision that is extraordinarily controversial.

Controversial amongst those of particular political persuasion of supporting a terrorist state doesn’t mean preposterous.

We get it - everyone you disagree with is a terrorist. You can stop commenting now.

That's a deeply flawed reading of what I've written. For example, you've disagreed with me in a way that leads me to believe you're more than a little bit dense, but not a terrorist.

It doesn't mean preposterous or not preposterous. It does mean there is general dispute regarding the proscription.

Appealing to it is not really progressing your argument. Both decisions are controversial, you don't make a more convincing argument as to why one controversial decision should not be considered controversial, by pointing to a different, also controversial, decision.

The terrorist attacks by your comrades, for example?

The arson and bomb attacks against infrastructure causing a senior to freeze to death? The leftist thugs that smash dissidents' heads in with hammers? The kind that assassinated Charlie Kirk?

But you are too far gone. Terrorist scum.