| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... 20:01 - Jun 20 with 4676 views | Zx1988 |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn81g4e0nlyo
The sort of thing that even the Tories would probably think twice about. How the hell is throwing some paint at a stationary plane an act of terrorism?!
Kill thousands of civilians in a genocide, however... [Post edited 20 Jun 20:02]
|  |
| |  |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:19 - Jun 22 with 369 views | J2BLUE |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 11:04 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
That's a fair point, whilst they don't absolutely need to refuel with their 1400km range they do if they want to loiter in the area. I still contend though that in reality they don't really need to engage, it's a game the Russian's play and one that they enjoying doing to us.
Why have you change the context of the evacuation flights from the ME?
I think it's awful because I don't agree with a policy of shooting protestors. At the very least a non-lethal method should be used. I also don't think this is terrorism, it's a criminal protest as others have pointed out. I am also annoyed at some of your other opinions about ongoing issues which possibly colours my judgement.
The real issue you should be angry about here is how unarmed and inexperienced protestors managed to gain access to a military base. If that was someone who actually had knowledge and wanted to do harm then it would have been very dangerous.
I've already said it was a poor target for protest and not one I would have recommended but you should be directing much more ire and criticism towards the military security at our bases.
SB [Post edited 22 Jun 11:05]
|
These groups always proudly claim 'credit' for the protest and then seem shocked that there are consequences.
We only know they didn't want to do anyone physical harm because we have hindsight. At the time the people there would not have known. Surely they have to assume any unlawful access is hostile? This would have likely gone very differently at a US base. They really would have no one to blame bit themselves if they were shot. |  |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:54 - Jun 22 with 315 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:19 - Jun 22 by J2BLUE |
These groups always proudly claim 'credit' for the protest and then seem shocked that there are consequences.
We only know they didn't want to do anyone physical harm because we have hindsight. At the time the people there would not have known. Surely they have to assume any unlawful access is hostile? This would have likely gone very differently at a US base. They really would have no one to blame bit themselves if they were shot. |
As has been pointed out, the correct response would be a challenge from someone who is clearly armed and a response according to the reaction to that challenge. The biggest issue is that no challenge was made which suggests a distinct lack of effective security.
Despite learning some of the impact of the actions, I still contend this is criminal damage rather than terrorism. If it can be proven there was intent to endanger life then that is clearly more serious but it looks like there was no attempt to hide the damage caused.
I agree the US are far more trigger happy. I am glad our security forces are not but would like to have more confidence that important assets are better secured. |  |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:20 - Jun 22 with 267 views | redrickstuhaart |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:54 - Jun 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
As has been pointed out, the correct response would be a challenge from someone who is clearly armed and a response according to the reaction to that challenge. The biggest issue is that no challenge was made which suggests a distinct lack of effective security.
Despite learning some of the impact of the actions, I still contend this is criminal damage rather than terrorism. If it can be proven there was intent to endanger life then that is clearly more serious but it looks like there was no attempt to hide the damage caused.
I agree the US are far more trigger happy. I am glad our security forces are not but would like to have more confidence that important assets are better secured. |
Its aim is not to cause terror amongst society. Its not terrorism. | | | |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:23 - Jun 22 with 259 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:20 - Jun 22 by redrickstuhaart |
Its aim is not to cause terror amongst society. Its not terrorism. |
Neither does it fit the OED definition:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:" | |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:27 - Jun 22 with 256 views | NthQldITFC |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 11:16 - Jun 22 by mellowblue |
Don't know if you saw the photo but security can not have been taken too seriously as there was a section of 6 foot wooden fencing any one could shin over. Even Stansted would be more secure. |
Ooh! Parking! Now there's an idea. Which grounds is in near? |  |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:28 - Jun 22 with 254 views | Churchman |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:54 - Jun 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
As has been pointed out, the correct response would be a challenge from someone who is clearly armed and a response according to the reaction to that challenge. The biggest issue is that no challenge was made which suggests a distinct lack of effective security.
Despite learning some of the impact of the actions, I still contend this is criminal damage rather than terrorism. If it can be proven there was intent to endanger life then that is clearly more serious but it looks like there was no attempt to hide the damage caused.
I agree the US are far more trigger happy. I am glad our security forces are not but would like to have more confidence that important assets are better secured. |
There was an intent to endanger life. They damaged an aeroplane with paint and crowbars. If it comes down because a protestor damaged something that isn’t picked up when the aeroplane is fixed, that’s on the protestors as much as the maintenance crews.
It’s the same as when those individuals who climbed the Dartford bridge caused miles of delays, if somebody died in an ambulance in the queues, that sits with the protestors. You have to take accountability for your actions.
Where I agree is the lack of effective security. I guess we will never know why. Cuts? Incompetence? But as you rightly say, this is a big issue.
Military bases are not public places. The clue is in the name. As long as people know up front they could be killed venturing into an area they are not allowed, they’ve had their warning. A security person will not necessarily know if somebody is a muppet with a moped or a terrorist/enemy. Why should they put themselves at any risk if they perceive it?
Tbh I’m staggered that we are now going to have to defend what’s left of our military against our own people. What a world we live in. Instead of terrorists which is wrong terminology, what about the term ‘traitors’? Ok, OTT, but they’d probably have been hanged if they’d have done that in WW2. |  | | |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:34 - Jun 22 with 237 views | redrickstuhaart |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:28 - Jun 22 by Churchman |
There was an intent to endanger life. They damaged an aeroplane with paint and crowbars. If it comes down because a protestor damaged something that isn’t picked up when the aeroplane is fixed, that’s on the protestors as much as the maintenance crews.
It’s the same as when those individuals who climbed the Dartford bridge caused miles of delays, if somebody died in an ambulance in the queues, that sits with the protestors. You have to take accountability for your actions.
Where I agree is the lack of effective security. I guess we will never know why. Cuts? Incompetence? But as you rightly say, this is a big issue.
Military bases are not public places. The clue is in the name. As long as people know up front they could be killed venturing into an area they are not allowed, they’ve had their warning. A security person will not necessarily know if somebody is a muppet with a moped or a terrorist/enemy. Why should they put themselves at any risk if they perceive it?
Tbh I’m staggered that we are now going to have to defend what’s left of our military against our own people. What a world we live in. Instead of terrorists which is wrong terminology, what about the term ‘traitors’? Ok, OTT, but they’d probably have been hanged if they’d have done that in WW2. |
The intent was clearly not to cause harm to people. | | | |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 16:16 - Jun 22 with 177 views | flykickingbybgunn |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:19 - Jun 22 by J2BLUE |
These groups always proudly claim 'credit' for the protest and then seem shocked that there are consequences.
We only know they didn't want to do anyone physical harm because we have hindsight. At the time the people there would not have known. Surely they have to assume any unlawful access is hostile? This would have likely gone very differently at a US base. They really would have no one to blame bit themselves if they were shot. |
Of course US airbases are properly funded, unlike ours. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 16:19 - Jun 22 with 176 views | Churchman |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:34 - Jun 22 by redrickstuhaart |
The intent was clearly not to cause harm to people. |
What is the difference between that and damaging a railway line or sticking chemicals down the engine of a bus and battering unknown parts of it with a crowbar? Apart from the danger to the crew of the aeroplane is potentially terminal.
Sorry, I know I’m a bit ‘binary’ on stuff like this and sometimes OTT. But aircraft are not to be messed about with. | | | |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 16:47 - Jun 22 with 146 views | itfcjoe |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:28 - Jun 22 by Churchman |
There was an intent to endanger life. They damaged an aeroplane with paint and crowbars. If it comes down because a protestor damaged something that isn’t picked up when the aeroplane is fixed, that’s on the protestors as much as the maintenance crews.
It’s the same as when those individuals who climbed the Dartford bridge caused miles of delays, if somebody died in an ambulance in the queues, that sits with the protestors. You have to take accountability for your actions.
Where I agree is the lack of effective security. I guess we will never know why. Cuts? Incompetence? But as you rightly say, this is a big issue.
Military bases are not public places. The clue is in the name. As long as people know up front they could be killed venturing into an area they are not allowed, they’ve had their warning. A security person will not necessarily know if somebody is a muppet with a moped or a terrorist/enemy. Why should they put themselves at any risk if they perceive it?
Tbh I’m staggered that we are now going to have to defend what’s left of our military against our own people. What a world we live in. Instead of terrorists which is wrong terminology, what about the term ‘traitors’? Ok, OTT, but they’d probably have been hanged if they’d have done that in WW2. |
I don’t think traitors is OTT, we are beginning to get on a war footing and these people are hurting our efforts |  |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 16:58 - Jun 22 with 126 views | flykickingbybgunn |
I just feel sorry for the poor officer left in charge of the inadequately protected airfield.
Not their fault. Look to higher ups and the ones with their hands on the purse strings for the faults.
This is not terrorism. This is stupid people making a bad mistake. Lock 'em up to discourage others. | | | |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 17:41 - Jun 22 with 69 views | Nutkins_Return |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:34 - Jun 22 by redrickstuhaart |
The intent was clearly not to cause harm to people. |
Not a primary intent I imagine but they have endangered lives. Why the hell did they not simply spray a message on the plane. They have deliberately sabotaged planes engines. That isn't a light protest. That puts lives at risk. If course it's been identified and efforts will be made to fully fix it. But deliberately damaging an aircraft compromises it. [Post edited 22 Jun 17:49]
| |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 17:50 - Jun 22 with 41 views | positivity |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 15:28 - Jun 22 by Churchman |
There was an intent to endanger life. They damaged an aeroplane with paint and crowbars. If it comes down because a protestor damaged something that isn’t picked up when the aeroplane is fixed, that’s on the protestors as much as the maintenance crews.
It’s the same as when those individuals who climbed the Dartford bridge caused miles of delays, if somebody died in an ambulance in the queues, that sits with the protestors. You have to take accountability for your actions.
Where I agree is the lack of effective security. I guess we will never know why. Cuts? Incompetence? But as you rightly say, this is a big issue.
Military bases are not public places. The clue is in the name. As long as people know up front they could be killed venturing into an area they are not allowed, they’ve had their warning. A security person will not necessarily know if somebody is a muppet with a moped or a terrorist/enemy. Why should they put themselves at any risk if they perceive it?
Tbh I’m staggered that we are now going to have to defend what’s left of our military against our own people. What a world we live in. Instead of terrorists which is wrong terminology, what about the term ‘traitors’? Ok, OTT, but they’d probably have been hanged if they’d have done that in WW2. |
leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this type of protest, they may've done the country a huge favour by pointing out the security flaws.
a more malign actor would've done much more than paint a plane, maybe this will prevent that happening | |
| |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 17:52 - Jun 22 with 40 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| If you support Palestine, you're a terrorist... on 14:54 - Jun 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
As has been pointed out, the correct response would be a challenge from someone who is clearly armed and a response according to the reaction to that challenge. The biggest issue is that no challenge was made which suggests a distinct lack of effective security.
Despite learning some of the impact of the actions, I still contend this is criminal damage rather than terrorism. If it can be proven there was intent to endanger life then that is clearly more serious but it looks like there was no attempt to hide the damage caused.
I agree the US are far more trigger happy. I am glad our security forces are not but would like to have more confidence that important assets are better secured. |
I take a slightly middle ground approach.
It is deliberate sabotage of a strategic military asset.
Had they simply painted "Free Gaza" or similar on the runway then it would be simple Criminal damage, and most people would now be saying that a) that would fall within the bounds of reasonable (though illegal) non-violent resistance and b) be grateful that such a shocking security failing had been pinpointed so that it could be rectified.
But this was a calculated action, designed to sabotage a strategic asset and take it out of use. Their subsequent statements have celebrated this fact.
So those involved need to be prepared for the punishment to reflect that intent and result.
That doesn't meet my understanding of what terrorism is, but it isn't simple "Criminal Damage". Is deliberate sabotage of UK military strategic equipment, and therefore undermining the UK's ability to defend itself, Treason?
Given that Hamas are a proscribed organisation, and that this action may be interpreted as "aiding and giving comfort to" Hamas "in this realm", and given that the target was a plane of "His Majesty's Royal Air Force", the question surely arises, doesn't it?
I would be interested in the thoughts of any legal minds on this.
Here is an article discussing the problems with the (still largely ancient) Law around Treason in the UK, and the reasons why those proposing reform haven't succeeded:
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/treason-law-reform-and-the-lord-haw-haw-case-
You can largely ignore the Lord Haw-Haw stuff, other than to note that there is precedent for the UK establishment bending this law to fit something that it thought looked like Treason. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
