FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Pro Palestinian activists broken into RAF airbase
Pro Palestinian activists broken into RAF airbase
Jump to: Newest in thread
Pro-Palestinian activists have broken into RAF Brize Norton and sprayed two military planes with red paint.
In a statement, a Palestine Action spokesperson said: "Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US and Israeli fighter jets."
The RAF has reportedly run 518 sortees identifying targets for the IDF to bomb in Gaza.
If we are refuelling Israeli war planes then UK has blood on its hands.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down"
I’m sure you will 🤣
I’ve been on quite a few military bases and was usually e a c o r t e d from the gate to where I was going by armed guards. I struggle to believe that base security was so lapse that people could get through a fence, get across the base to aircraft and have time to spray paint them before being spotted. They could so easily have been spraying petrol and setting the planes alight. These things cost millions and are not easily replaced.
If these are foreign nationals then it’s an act of terrorism or war. If they are British citizens then it’s tantamount to treason.
Shoot them if they don’t follow an order to halt/stop |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This seems rather like one of those episodes of the idiotic NCIS where extraneous people turn up at the desks unannounced by security.
I find it hard to believe that it wasn't actually staged, unless UK military security really is pathetically bad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The idiots think they got away undetected. Clearly a national security issue not to keep them on remand when they detain them. It's a long wait for court these days. Shame to see young folk tricked into ruining their lives but that's on them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down"
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
I'm rather surprised that I find myself on a sunny Friday late afternoon, having a few drinks with friends and we are all in agreement that the government are doing the right thing in proscribing the Palestine Action group, which will make them a terrorist organisation.
Well done Labour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bro24Man 7 weeks ago
Middlesbrough |
If that's how easy it is for "activists" to break into a base and escape, imagine how easy it would be for a Russian sleeper to sabotage the planes.
Anyone damaging military assets, that are there to protect the civilians, is a traitor and should be tried as such. If they are even "British" anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If that's how easy it is for "activists" to break into a base and escape, imagine how easy it would be for a Russian sleeper to sabotage the planes.
"
Yes, quite.
And unlike the agitators who went in loud and hot, on a moped allegedly, a dedicated infil agent is going to be as quiet and stealthy as a mouse.
.
Which essentially means Brize Norton at that moment in time was woefully insecure and pitifully guarded.
.
I'm sure heads are going to roll up the command chain, and I imagine more funding will be demanded to enhance security. "Lessons will be learned" will be the usual outcome.
.
I suppose due to the size however, it's virtually impossible to secure and that's the drawback of any large installation, be it ours or other hostile nations. Planes need a lot of space. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iseekingbiCouple 7 weeks ago
N ireland and West Midlands |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing. "
This seems to be the level of the argument. No words. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iseekingbiCouple 7 weeks ago
N ireland and West Midlands |
"Yvette Cooper is to make them terrorists, a bit over the top for some spray paint
RAF base security laughable.
No comment from government of the sortees RAF have run for Israel. "
But Britain First, a member of which actually killed an MP, are not on the proscribed list. Yep, that's how mad it is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I bet starmer and co dont class theme as far right."
They are far left and only a few months ago, Cooper said that far left ideology won’t be added to the extremist watch list, they’re focus will remain on Islamist and far right extremism only.
Own goal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I bet starmer and co dont class theme as far right.
They are far left and only a few months ago, Cooper said that far left ideology won’t be added to the extremist watch list, they’re focus will remain on Islamist and far right extremism only.
Own goal.
"
They are never gonna add their own ideology to a watch list. Wouldn’t surprise me if some Labour high ups actually support this action. Wouldn’t be the first time. I remember “barmy Bernie” supporting the rioters kicking the crap out of the police backing the 80s |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I bet starmer and co dont class theme as far right.
They are far left and only a few months ago, Cooper said that far left ideology won’t be added to the extremist watch list, they’re focus will remain on Islamist and far right extremism only.
Own goal.
"
Opposing genocide is "far left".
Glad to see the politics forum remains as sensible as ever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yvette Cooper is to make them terrorists, a bit over the top for some spray paint
RAF base security laughable.
No comment from government of the sortees RAF have run for Israel.
But Britain First, a member of which actually killed an MP, are not on the proscribed list. Yep, that's how mad it is "
Britain First don't do anything that brings attention to important issues or possibly endangers profits of the arms industry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The RAF have run at least 518 sorteees for the IDF resulting in the deaths of thousands of women and children.
At home a peaceful unlawful protest via trespass and minor criminal damage is met with being labelled by our government as a terrorist.
Struggling with this one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I bet starmer and co dont class theme as far right.
They are far left and only a few months ago, Cooper said that far left ideology won’t be added to the extremist watch list, they’re focus will remain on Islamist and far right extremism only.
Own goal.
Opposing genocide is "far left".
Glad to see the politics forum remains as sensible as ever."
The activist group is far left, you have conflated a situation "genocide" with a political activist group.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I bet starmer and co dont class theme as far right.
They are far left and only a few months ago, Cooper said that far left ideology won’t be added to the extremist watch list, they’re focus will remain on Islamist and far right extremism only.
Own goal.
Opposing genocide is "far left".
Glad to see the politics forum remains as sensible as ever.
The activist group is far left, you have conflated a situation "genocide" with a political activist group.
"
A political activist group with a "far left" anti-genocide agenda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I bet starmer and co dont class theme as far right.
They are far left and only a few months ago, Cooper said that far left ideology won’t be added to the extremist watch list, they’re focus will remain on Islamist and far right extremism only.
Own goal.
Opposing genocide is "far left".
Glad to see the politics forum remains as sensible as ever.
The activist group is far left, you have conflated a situation "genocide" with a political activist group.
A political activist group with a "far left" anti-genocide agenda."
A potential far left terrorist group. More of that will emerge next week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If Yvette Cooper gets Parliament to support her move then merely expressing an opinion on fab that supports the vandals could result in you being imprisoned for six months.
Should you raise funds for them you could be looking at 14 years.
I remember Greenham Common. Even under Thatcher nobody was looking at 14 years behind bars for supporting those ladies. I think the most extreme Maggie got was calling them eccentric and advising them to instead protest at the Berlin wall against the Soviets.
There are already laws against what these people did and other laws should anyone go beyond trespass and spraying paint in an engine.
Has the UK become so scared of and so intolerant of political protest that new laws are required?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Yvette Cooper gets Parliament to support her move then merely expressing an opinion on fab that supports the vandals could result in you being imprisoned for six months.
Should you raise funds for them you could be looking at 14 years.
I remember Greenham Common. Even under Thatcher nobody was looking at 14 years behind bars for supporting those ladies. I think the most extreme Maggie got was calling them eccentric and advising them to instead protest at the Berlin wall against the Soviets.
There are already laws against what these people did and other laws should anyone go beyond trespass and spraying paint in an engine.
Has the UK become so scared of and so intolerant of political protest that new laws are required?
"
The uk is about fair play and this has gone to far, and the tolerance for the intolerant has created this. They should of come down on these mugs along time ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Yvette Cooper gets Parliament to support her move then merely expressing an opinion on fab that supports the vandals could result in you being imprisoned for six months.
Should you raise funds for them you could be looking at 14 years.
I remember Greenham Common. Even under Thatcher nobody was looking at 14 years behind bars for supporting those ladies. I think the most extreme Maggie got was calling them eccentric and advising them to instead protest at the Berlin wall against the Soviets.
There are already laws against what these people did and other laws should anyone go beyond trespass and spraying paint in an engine.
Has the UK become so scared of and so intolerant of political protest that new laws are required?
The uk is about fair play and this has gone to far, and the tolerance for the intolerant has created this. They should have come down on these mugs along time ago."
Can’t be fair play if uk is assisting bombing of civilians in a war we are not officially party too, and then label protestors as terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Yvette Cooper gets Parliament to support her move then merely expressing an opinion on fab that supports the vandals could result in you being imprisoned for six months.
Should you raise funds for them you could be looking at 14 years.
I remember Greenham Common. Even under Thatcher nobody was looking at 14 years behind bars for supporting those ladies. I think the most extreme Maggie got was calling them eccentric and advising them to instead protest at the Berlin wall against the Soviets.
There are already laws against what these people did and other laws should anyone go beyond trespass and spraying paint in an engine.
Has the UK become so scared of and so intolerant of political protest that new laws are required?
"
The government (whomever it is), won't allow any form of protest to endanger profits (directly or indirectly) for multinationals, profits for the arms industry, the fossil fuels industry and the pharmaceutical industry are all that matter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Yvette Cooper gets Parliament to support her move then merely expressing an opinion on fab that supports the vandals could result in you being imprisoned for six months.
Should you raise funds for them you could be looking at 14 years.
I remember Greenham Common. Even under Thatcher nobody was looking at 14 years behind bars for supporting those ladies. I think the most extreme Maggie got was calling them eccentric and advising them to instead protest at the Berlin wall against the Soviets.
There are already laws against what these people did and other laws should anyone go beyond trespass and spraying paint in an engine.
Has the UK become so scared of and so intolerant of political protest that new laws are required?
The uk is about fair play and this has gone to far, and the tolerance for the intolerant has created this. They should have come down on these mugs along time ago.
Can’t be fair play if uk is assisting bombing of civilians in a war we are not officially party too, and then label protestors as terrorists. "
You do understand Iran enabled assisted hamas with the 7th oct unprovoked attack, they call themselves an activists group the uk government call them a terrorist group.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yvette Cooper is to make them terrorists, a bit over the top for some spray paint "
They've been smashing up Jewish businesses and using intimidation tactics for quite some time.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism has been pressuring the government to proscribe them for a while now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They've been smashing up Jewish businesses and using intimidation tactics for quite some time.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism has been pressuring the government to proscribe them for a while now."
Their main target has been the Israeli military company Elbit Systems. Other targets have been Elbit subsidaries or companies working with Elbit - UAV Tactical Systems, Instro Precision, APPH, Leonardo, Kuehne + Nagel, ACPO, Teledyne and Thales.
Kuehne + Nagel were deeply involved in the looting of Jewish property in WWIII so the idea that the protest group is motivated by antisemitism is hard to understand.
Could you provide any further information about which Jewish businesses they have been smashing up?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"They've been smashing up Jewish businesses and using intimidation tactics for quite some time.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism has been pressuring the government to proscribe them for a while now.
Their main target has been the Israeli military company Elbit Systems. Other targets have been Elbit subsidaries or companies working with Elbit - UAV Tactical Systems, Instro Precision, APPH, Leonardo, Kuehne + Nagel, ACPO, Teledyne and Thales.
Kuehne + Nagel were deeply involved in the looting of Jewish property in WWIII so the idea that the protest group is motivated by antisemitism is hard to understand.
Could you provide any further information about which Jewish businesses they have been smashing up?
"
Once again, you’re being highly selective in how you frame this, highlighting one specific company that you must feel is a legitimate target and any other that does business with them, whilst ignoring the soon to be terrorist group's wider reach of aggression and disruption.
Anything other than Israel.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Could you provide any further information about which Jewish businesses they have been smashing up?
"
I think they have over 500 incidents on record. I know a couple of these are documented on the CAA Facebook page.
This forum is primitive and doesnt allow posting of links or photos, but I'll see what I can find when I'm back on a PC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once again, you’re being highly selective in how you frame this, highlighting one specific company that you must feel is a legitimate target and any other that does business with them, whilst ignoring the soon to be terrorist group's wider reach of aggression and disruption.
Anything other than Israel...."
I'm not actually condoning the group's vandalism and I believe that those who break laws should face the appropriate legal consequences.
There could be a moral argument that they are opposing a greater evil but they should still be considered to have committed offences if this is proven in court.
There's possibly also a separate legal argument if it's found that the government has been knowingly enabling a company based in the UK to assist in committing war crimes. In which case government ministers would be in legal jeopardy.
But I don't know enough to make a proper judgement on any of these matters. Which is why I'm asking for further information.
You appear to be confident that these people are terrorists so presumably you know of some incident where they have killed or injured someone or have threatened to do so. If you have such evidence then I'd like to hear it because if it's from a credible source then I will join you in condemning this group and calling for it to be proscribed.
If all you are basing your judgement on is them damaging property or causing disruption then I'm afraid I won't be joining you, as I don't think this is sufficient to make them terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing. "
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?"
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 6 weeks ago
near enough |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive. "
Didn't mention boats or shoplifters, but yes, anyone on a restricted military base should be challenged and if necessary shot, if it's fatal then tough shit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive. "
What next? Forbidding the army from killing anyone?
If you are in the military on an operation and some nutjob Islamist comes running at you with his finger on the button of the suicide belt you can either:
1. Put the animal down
2. Say “come along old bean let’s have a cup of tea and discuss climate change we are both victims of the Capitalists” and hope for the best. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
Didn't mention boats or shoplifters, but yes, anyone on a restricted military base should be challenged and if necessary shot, if it's fatal then tough shit.
"
You didn't. But someone further up shoehorned in a call for executing foreigners on boats.
Anyway, so if someone is in fixing the vending machine. Boom shot in the head, ask questions later.
Personally, although imperfect, I prefer the court system. More reliable than just shooting people on a whim. Also, I'm against the death sentence in general. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise?"
If there's someone on a military base that isn't recognised, I would expect them to be challenged and questioned. If they run away when challenged, then I don't think it's over-reacting to shoot then. Preferably to incapacitate, but if they die, I'm not overly worried about that.
Terrorists need to be stopped before they can do damage. Non-terrorists will stand still and identify themselves.
"And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting."
You remember that. The rest of us remember a bloke that thought the law should be changed so that anyone inflicting harm in self-defence should be protected from prosecution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise?
If there's someone on a military base that isn't recognised, I would expect them to be challenged and questioned. If they run away when challenged, then I don't think it's over-reacting to shoot then. Preferably to incapacitate, but if they die, I'm not overly worried about that.
Terrorists need to be stopped before they can do damage. Non-terrorists will stand still and identify themselves.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
You remember that. The rest of us remember a bloke that thought the law should be changed so that anyone inflicting harm in self-defence should be protected from prosecution."
Okay so someone you don't recognise on an army base that's running, shot, maybe to death, maybe not. No big deal.
Again I would prefer them to be processed, take to court. I should state I am personally against corporal punishment as well as capital punishment, especially without any form of trial.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive. "
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 6 weeks ago
near enough |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
Didn't mention boats or shoplifters, but yes, anyone on a restricted military base should be challenged and if necessary shot, if it's fatal then tough shit.
You didn't. But someone further up shoehorned in a call for executing foreigners on boats.
Anyway, so if someone is in fixing the vending machine. Boom shot in the head, ask questions later.
Personally, although imperfect, I prefer the court system. More reliable than just shooting people on a whim. Also, I'm against the death sentence in general."
Someone fixing the vending machine won't just walk into a military base unes.corted and have a walk round the aeroplanes 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there.."
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there..
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far."
I'm not talking about that, and I didn't mention using lethal force on someone 'running away'..
In a real time situation where the people who put themselves on the line and are faced with a potential threat to themselves, whatever is their duty to protect and others including members of the public they don't want or need to be thinking about anything other than what's in front or behind them.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there..
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far.
I'm not talking about that, and I didn't mention using lethal force on someone 'running away'..
In a real time situation where the people who put themselves on the line and are faced with a potential threat to themselves, whatever is their duty to protect and others including members of the public they don't want or need to be thinking about anything other than what's in front or behind them.."
You didn't say that, but that's the conversation I was replying to. Various people advocating for anyone on an army base not recognised and/or running should be shot on sight. No process, no court case, boom shot dead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there..
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far.
I'm not talking about that, and I didn't mention using lethal force on someone 'running away'..
In a real time situation where the people who put themselves on the line and are faced with a potential threat to themselves, whatever is their duty to protect and others including members of the public they don't want or need to be thinking about anything other than what's in front or behind them..
You didn't say that, but that's the conversation I was replying to. Various people advocating for anyone on an army base not recognised and/or running should be shot on sight. No process, no court case, boom shot dead."
I replied to your post above and I've replied to what you've subsequently said in relation to that, which in my actual real time experience I know to be the case..
Your response to others isn't part of what I responded to..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The guys who done this ate clearly working fir the Israelis because now the government which is run by tge Israelis has an excuse to ban the movement....they sprayed planes red does not make any sense |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The guys who done this ate clearly working fir the Israelis because now the government which is run by tge Israelis has an excuse to ban the movement....they sprayed planes red does not make any sense"
The Israelis are running out government?
How and whom? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there..
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far.
I'm not talking about that, and I didn't mention using lethal force on someone 'running away'..
In a real time situation where the people who put themselves on the line and are faced with a potential threat to themselves, whatever is their duty to protect and others including members of the public they don't want or need to be thinking about anything other than what's in front or behind them..
You didn't say that, but that's the conversation I was replying to. Various people advocating for anyone on an army base not recognised and/or running should be shot on sight. No process, no court case, boom shot dead.
I replied to your post above and I've replied to what you've subsequently said in relation to that, which in my actual real time experience I know to be the case..
Your response to others isn't part of what I responded to..
"
I'm lost.
The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there..
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far.
I'm not talking about that, and I didn't mention using lethal force on someone 'running away'..
In a real time situation where the people who put themselves on the line and are faced with a potential threat to themselves, whatever is their duty to protect and others including members of the public they don't want or need to be thinking about anything other than what's in front or behind them..
You didn't say that, but that's the conversation I was replying to. Various people advocating for anyone on an army base not recognised and/or running should be shot on sight. No process, no court case, boom shot dead.
I replied to your post above and I've replied to what you've subsequently said in relation to that, which in my actual real time experience I know to be the case..
Your response to others isn't part of what I responded to..
I'm lost.
The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea."
And I don't see how anyone can consider defence of the country can be classed as "execution" it's a military base not a shopping center.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How were they not shot?
Same reason as why we dont shoot these invaders coming over on boats...because we are soft as shite..just my opinion before i get shot down
Your opinion is that we should execute foreigners and people who are suspected of B&E without trial?
Amazing.
Hardly "suspected B&E" if they're shot dead inside a restricted military base though, is it ?
Should any army person automatically shoot dead anyone on the base they don't recognise? Or should there be some kind of process to find out if they're meant to be there. And/or a court case.
Lots of people on fab have a boner for the execution of anyone suspected of a crime. It's a trend amongst the fab political forum.
Breaking into an army based. Execution without trial.
Being foreign and being on a boat. Execution without trial.
And some of us may remember the guy who wanted the law changed so he could stab and kill anyone he suspected of shoplifting.
What a time to be alive.
We often agree on many things but if you enter a military unlawfully with intent then any subsequent consequences are upon your own head..
A guard doesn't know you are 'only there' to spray paint to make a statement not do they know whom else is there with you and what actions such people might take..
So if someone is challenged and refuses to stop in their approach or doing what they are trying to do then so be it..
First option is an attack dog then go from there..
The current consequences are sufficient in my view. Shooting and killing people who aren't recognised and/or might be running. Seems too far.
I'm not talking about that, and I didn't mention using lethal force on someone 'running away'..
In a real time situation where the people who put themselves on the line and are faced with a potential threat to themselves, whatever is their duty to protect and others including members of the public they don't want or need to be thinking about anything other than what's in front or behind them..
You didn't say that, but that's the conversation I was replying to. Various people advocating for anyone on an army base not recognised and/or running should be shot on sight. No process, no court case, boom shot dead.
I replied to your post above and I've replied to what you've subsequently said in relation to that, which in my actual real time experience I know to be the case..
Your response to others isn't part of what I responded to..
I'm lost.
The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea."
Emotive language..
We don't have a system of execution although I would accept some will differ, use of lethal force as per the law in the execution of ones duties isn't the same..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea."
Does that mean that you would like to see firearms taken away from the police? If no person can be killed without a fair trial, what do the police need lethal force for? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea.
Does that mean that you would like to see firearms taken away from the police? If no person can be killed without a fair trial, what do the police need lethal force for?"
Thankfully we don't have our normal rozzers armed. And I'm happy we aren't like American where the police just shoot and kill their own citizens.
The current system we have here with the armed response units is fit for purpose.
Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Shooting people without trial is obviously not the norm in this country which is good in my opinion but to rule it out completely is not good either, as circumstances might dictate, that it is required to save the lives of others. In such a situation the perpetrator might not get a trial and due process but the lives of others could be saved. Also not all shots are lethal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea."
"Does that mean that you would like to see firearms taken away from the police? If no person can be killed without a fair trial, what do the police need lethal force for?"
"Thankfully we don't have our normal rozzers armed. And I'm happy we aren't like American where the police just shoot and kill their own citizens.
The current system we have here with the armed response units is fit for purpose."
So how is it acceptable to you that the police have and use lethal force to save other lives, but not for the military?
"Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight."
No one is making that claim. That was just you exaggerating other people's viewpoints. What everyone is saying is that people sneaking around a military base run the risk of being shot if they get found and don't comply with instructions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight. "
I was one of the people who mentioned shooting them. My first post was asking how they managed to not get shot if I remember correctly. And I stand by my later comment saying if they fail to adhere to a “halt, halt, halt or I’ll shoot” command then they should be shot.
This isn’t the same as a couple of teenagers breaking into a school during the holidays to try and get a couple of laptops. This is unknown assailants inside a military facility under martial law that could be trying blow up military assets.
Nobody has any business being on a military base without permission. There is no innocent reason for doing so. If you don’t wanna get shot, don’t break into an airbase.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight.
I was one of the people who mentioned shooting them. My first post was asking how they managed to not get shot if I remember correctly. And I stand by my later comment saying if they fail to adhere to a “halt, halt, halt or I’ll shoot” command then they should be shot.
This isn’t the same as a couple of teenagers breaking into a school during the holidays to try and get a couple of laptops. This is unknown assailants inside a military facility under martial law that could be trying blow up military assets.
Nobody has any business being on a military base without permission. There is no innocent reason for doing so. If you don’t wanna get shot, don’t break into an airbase.
"
Must admit to a rather scary (and stupid) moment many many years ago (late 70's early 80's)
We were fishing on Loch Long (Clyde) and had got over a small fence to get to the spot we wanted.
Within a few minutes we were confronted by US military police and given a VERY stern lecture. At first they didn't want to believe that we were just fishing and threatened us with arrest.
They eventually let us go and followed us all the way out. Hands firmly on their (thankfully still holstered) side arms. 
They were in no mood for arguing and we were in no position to.
Heard later that some other guys had done the same thing a few weeks earlier and had all their gear confiscated and finished up in the guard house. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight.
I was one of the people who mentioned shooting them. My first post was asking how they managed to not get shot if I remember correctly. And I stand by my later comment saying if they fail to adhere to a “halt, halt, halt or I’ll shoot” command then they should be shot.
This isn’t the same as a couple of teenagers breaking into a school during the holidays to try and get a couple of laptops. This is unknown assailants inside a military facility under martial law that could be trying blow up military assets.
Nobody has any business being on a military base without permission. There is no innocent reason for doing so. If you don’t wanna get shot, don’t break into an airbase.
Must admit to a rather scary (and stupid) moment many many years ago (late 70's early 80's)
We were fishing on Loch Long (Clyde) and had got over a small fence to get to the spot we wanted.
Within a few minutes we were confronted by US military police and given a VERY stern lecture. At first they didn't want to believe that we were just fishing and threatened us with arrest.
They eventually let us go and followed us all the way out. Hands firmly on their (thankfully still holstered) side arms.
They were in no mood for arguing and we were in no position to.
Heard later that some other guys had done the same thing a few weeks earlier and had all their gear confiscated and finished up in the guard house."
We had something similar when guarding a nuclear weapons depot in Germany in the late 70s with two bird watchers who thought it ok to step over the outer perimeter at 1000 metres but clearly marked and then they were spotted as they got closer..
It was very early as they wanted to get to one particular place and one was carrying a tripod..
We were behind the immediate response guys and clearly heard the unmistakable sound of a 7.62 being chambered..
We did hear later after the politzei took them away that their houses were searched by anti terrorism and they copped a heavy fine..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We did hear later after the politzei took them away that their houses were searched by anti terrorism and they copped a heavy fine..
"
Spies and saboteurs are much more likely to look like innocent members of the public than a Hollywood Navy SEAL team... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We did hear later after the politzei took them away that their houses were searched by anti terrorism and they copped a heavy fine..
Spies and saboteurs are much more likely to look like innocent members of the public than a Hollywood Navy SEAL team..."
Yes..
At the time Baader Meinhoff and the other red something or other group where a very real threat and apparently it was standard protocols for certain transgressions etc that doors would go in whilst the suspects were in custody.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only point I was making was that I don't think execution without trial is a very good idea.
Does that mean that you would like to see firearms taken away from the police? If no person can be killed without a fair trial, what do the police need lethal force for?
Thankfully we don't have our normal rozzers armed. And I'm happy we aren't like American where the police just shoot and kill their own citizens.
The current system we have here with the armed response units is fit for purpose.
So how is it acceptable to you that the police have and use lethal force to save other lives, but not for the military?"
No idea why you think I've said this, or how it's related to forum posters calling for people to be shot.
"
Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight.
No one is making that claim. That was just you exaggerating other people's viewpoints. What everyone is saying is that people sneaking around a military base run the risk of being shot if they get found and don't comply with instructions. "
Have they? Someone said the only reason we're not shooting these people or foreign people is because we're "soft". That seems pretty clear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight.
I was one of the people who mentioned shooting them. My first post was asking how they managed to not get shot if I remember correctly. And I stand by my later comment saying if they fail to adhere to a “halt, halt, halt or I’ll shoot” command then they should be shot.
This isn’t the same as a couple of teenagers breaking into a school during the holidays to try and get a couple of laptops. This is unknown assailants inside a military facility under martial law that could be trying blow up military assets.
Nobody has any business being on a military base without permission. There is no innocent reason for doing so. If you don’t wanna get shot, don’t break into an airbase.
"
I think what you mentioned about challenging them first is important. Just finding them and shooting is in most cases wrong. If others are in imminent danger or there is threat to the assets on the base then I can understand a need to shoot first. If they are correctly challenged but refuse to adhere to that challenge then again they could be in danger but that is from their own actions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how is it acceptable to you that the police have and use lethal force to save other lives, but not for the military?"
"No idea why you think I've said this, or how it's related to forum posters calling for people to be shot."
You've spent most of this thread saying that you don't think the military should be allowed to kill intruders. Indeed you said "I should state I am personally against corporal punishment as well as capital punishment, especially without any form of trial". Then you said about the police "The current system we have here with the armed response units is fit for purpose". That's why I think you've said that - because you have said it.
"Not sure how your question is related to the points that people are making that unidentified people on an army based should just be shot on sight."
"No one is making that claim. That was just you exaggerating other people's viewpoints. What everyone is saying is that people sneaking around a military base run the risk of being shot if they get found and don't comply with instructions."
"Have they? Someone said the only reason we're not shooting these people or foreign people is because we're "soft". That seems pretty clear."
Ah, so it was "people", but now it's just one person. And that person isn't calling for people to be shot on sight. He's explaining why he feels that isn't happening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
