• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Israel-Palestine

It had a paint job.

There has to be a distinction between direct action that is criminal activity and terrorism otherwise the definition of terrorism creeps ever closer to restrictions on the right to protest (arguably already there)
 
The Saturday Boy said:
It had a paint job.

There has to be a distinction between direct action that is criminal activity and terrorism otherwise the definition of terrorism creeps ever closer to restrictions on the right to protest (arguably already there)
Click to expand...
We are i would say. We lost a lot of liberties under Blair during the 'war on terror' and none of it has been rowed back.
 
Tbh, Butlins Skegness is harder to get into than a frontline RAF base, Butlins at least has security and they look in the back of the van.
When I lived in Lincoln one of my jobs was taking temp staff to work, we had a chef on the QRA ( quick reaction alert, fast jets sent to intercept Russian planes or civilian planes in trouble) most times arriving at Coningsby where the typhoon jets are, the gate would be up, so we’d just drive on camp, and make our own way to the QRA, and end up parked next to the jets, get out and walk about trying to find someone, they’re supposed to be in the QRA huts, sometimes they were, sometimes not.
 
Trump saying he will give some thought to getting involved with Iran ovet the next 2 weeks just makes me think that gives Israel 2 weeks to come up with a false flag attack.

Iran don't want the US involved.
 
I don’t think we really want to be involved. I think a lot of Trump’s international military posturing is just that. I think he’s totally disinterested in actually deploying troops for that sort of conflict.

Only thing that would change that would be getting offered something by Israel in exchange. I don’t think Iran can actually bring anything valuable to the table in the interim (at least, not valuable to the toupee’d orange rind).
 
2 weeks is his standard response when he has no clue what to do or hasn't been told what to do then we all forget about as he does something else fucking ridiculous and gives us all a 2 week warning about doing something the does something else that is fucking ridiculous etc etc etc
 
Alan said:
I don’t think we really want to be involved. I think a lot of Trump’s international military posturing is just that. I think he’s totally disinterested in actually deploying troops for that sort of conflict.

Only thing that would change that would be getting offered something by Israel in exchange. I don’t think Iran can actually bring anything valuable to the table in the interim (at least, not valuable to the toupee’d orange rind).
Click to expand...
His dilemma is if he deploys the MOP US troops based in the Middle East will almost certainly be attacked and as you say he really won’t want that. It’s a game of bluff and he’s hoping Iran fold and take some meaningful action to end their pursuit of a nuclear bomb. The hope is Iran blink first because if not I think his ego is such that he will deploy it to save face, he already hates the TACO label he’s got over tariffs and he knows the whole world is watching.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
It had a paint job.

There has to be a distinction between direct action that is criminal activity and terrorism otherwise the definition of terrorism creeps ever closer to restrictions on the right to protest (arguably already there)
Click to expand...
They apparently sprayed paint into the engines of two fuckin expensive planes, as a taxpayer now footin the repair bill, or a pilot taking off not knowing your engines might be fucked, surely you would have sent them to their room at least.
 
If Iran had nukes, non of this would be happening, I don’t believe any of the if they had nukes they’d use them, they wouldn’t, because the outcome is well known.
They’ve complied with all the international checks, allowed the international nuclear agency access on site meanwhile the only nuclear armed Middle Eastern country has done non of that.
I know Iran sponsors and supplies terrorist groups, North Korea does as well, and gets none of the trouble Iran gets, wonder why that is, oh yea, Kim’s got nukes.
 
pavlosmacwolf said:
They apparently sprayed paint into the engines of two fuckin expensive planes, as a taxpayer now footin the repair bill, or a pilot taking off not knowing your engines might be fucked, surely you would have sent them to their room at least.
Click to expand...
The paint wad red. They posted a video of it being done. If a pilot took off not knowng if the engines worked, we have bigger problems.

I said direct action should be dealt with using the criminal justice system which, I believe, can indeed send them to their rooms of that is deemed the appropriate punishment. Defining them as terrorist should give people cause for concern.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
The paint wad red. They posted a video of it being done. If a pilot took off not knowng if the engines worked, we have bigger problems.

I said direct action should be dealt with using the criminal justice system which, I believe, can indeed send them to their rooms of that is deemed the appropriate punishment. Defining them as terrorist should give people cause for concern.
Click to expand...
Sorry, i see what you're saying, but i don't buy it.
They weren't robbing a sweet shop, or daubing stonhenge.
They broke into a military base, and in doing so, seriously shifted the playing field.
They chose to play with the big boys, invade a military base, attempt to possibly damage equipment used in the defence of the uk. They moved the goalposts themselves, and were so stupid they then posted the footage online, and whilst they might be stupid, they aren't the only members of the group behind it.
Not a slapped wrist crime in my book.
If they had been seen and shot while carrying out these incursions, would you want the guards/soldiers who shot them arrested?
 
pavlosmacwolf said:
Sorry, i see what you're saying, but i don't buy it.
They weren't robbing a sweet shop, or daubing stonhenge.
They broke into a military base, and in doing so, seriously shifted the playing field.
They chose to play with the big boys, invade a military base, attempt to possibly damage equipment used in the defence of the uk. They moved the goalposts themselves, and were so stupid they then posted the footage online, and whilst they might be stupid, they aren't the only members of the group behind it.
Not a slapped wrist crime in my book.
If they had been seen and shot while carrying out these incursions, would you want the guards/soldiers who shot them arrested?
Click to expand...
To your last question. Depends. If there was genuinely held belief that there was an imminent risk to life and shooting them was justifiable then no, they shouldn't be arrested.

They entered a military base, unauthorised, to commit an act of vandalism. By all accounts, there was not much "breaking in" that needed to be done. The "big boys" had a gaping hole in their defences that would unlikely to happen, for example, at a Primary School...where little boys (and girls) play.

Protest takes many forms and military infrastructure had long been a legitimate target. Would you class the Greenham Common Women' as terrorists? Israel and its allies.have killed more people in the Middle East than all the nuclear weapons at Greenham Common combined.

My argument is not based on whether I agree or disagree with their actions, but whether it was a legitimate form of protest...or an act.of terrorism.

Legitimate forms of protest can also be illegal. See any totalitarian regime.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
To your last question. Depends. If there was genuinely held belief that there was an imminent risk to life and shooting them was justifiable then no, they shouldn't be arrested.

They entered a military base, unauthorised, to commit an act of vandalism. By all accounts, there was not much "breaking in" that needed to be done. The "big boys" had a gaping hole in their defences that would unlikely to happen, for example, at a Primary School...where little boys (and girls) play.

Protest takes many forms and military infrastructure had long been a legitimate target. Would you class the Greenham Common Women' as terrorists? Israel and its allies.have killed more people in the Middle East than all the nuclear weapons at Greenham Common combined.

My argument is not based on whether I agree or disagree with their actions, but whether it was a legitimate form of protest...or an act.of terrorism.

Legitimate forms of protest can also be illegal. See any totalitarian regime.
Click to expand...
I agree totally with you that netanyahu's actions in gaza should see him locked up and the key thrown away, at least.
Thus i agree with the point the culprits were trying to make.
But, they weren't hanging off motorway bridges or painting stonehenge, they broke into a military establishment, however easy that was.
They sprayed paint into the engines of military airplanes, owned by DOF, paid for by the taxpayer.
0 And that they sprayed red paint into the engines, as opposed to WD40, they weren't trying to assure perfect performance during the next flight,
As i am assuming they didn't break in carrying a tin of dulux and a roller, there is a possibility that all the paint sprayed into the engine may not have been totally visible, thus, albeit through freak circumcstances, the pilots took off with some paint still in the engine, it could have caused a problem during the flight, thus endangering the crew.
This was not an ordinary run of the mill protest,
they, representing an organisation, broke in and did the damage, to MOD property, attacking the Uk, so in my book, terrorists.
None of this is meant to be at all flippant, and i am not against protestors, just their methods and in many cases their total lack of interest in how this affects others.
 
It was red paint. I am pretty sure a competent engineer would have been able to see it.

But as you didn't answer the question, directly you do appear to think the women at Greenham Common Peace Camp were terrorists because they did damage to MOD property too.

Those bridges..paid for by the taxpayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top