Why weren't they shot ?

[manicgeek]

Climate protest on Heathrow plane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7262614.stm)

Where the bloody hell are the armed police who are supposed to protect all those people trapped in aircraft ?

These bloody stupid people could have been suicide bombers, they should have been shot!

It's about time someone held these bloody useless policemen to account.

[Skiz]

Did you even read the article? :unsure:

"It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked."

"BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible"."

Why would officials shoot 4 civilians who were taping a sign to an empty plane? :unsure:

[Barbarossa]

Climate protest on Heathrow plane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7262614.stm)

Where the bloody hell are the armed police who are supposed to protect all those people trapped in aircraft ?

These bloody stupid people could have been suicide bombers, they should have been shot!

It's about time someone held these bloody useless policemen to account.


It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked.

It says everyone had already got off the plane :blink:

[manicgeek]

It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked.

It says everyone had already got off the plane :blink:
Ah! So you think the airport police knew in advance that they were going to an empty plane do you ?

And you think that empty planes with fuel tanks full of fumes don't make a hell of a big bang do you ?

So come on then tell me how you think the police gained this foresight about the intentions of these people, enough foresight according to you to know that these people didn't pose a threat to people trapped in a tin can ?

[manicgeek]

Did you even read the article? :unsure:

"It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked."

"BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible"."

Why would officials shoot 4 civilians who were taping a sign to an empty plane? :unsure:

'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?

[Barbarossa]

The other report I read said they came out of the terminal building and walked over to the empty plane. Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that they had already been screened for explosives.

You can't stop people walking from terminal buildings to planes, otherwise no-one would be able to get on.

[manicgeek]

The other report I read said they came out of the terminal building and walked over to the empty plane. Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that they had already been screened for explosives.

You can't stop people walking from terminal buildings to planes, otherwise no-one would be able to get on.
So you're saying they're lying about breaching security then ? And that they'd been screened ?

Oh and I'm fairly sure that no one should be walking across the tarmac unless they are airport staff who have been cleared for and trained in airside procedures, or passengers being guided by trained staff.

[Barbarossa]

No, I'm saying your sensationalising what is actually a minor incident

[manicgeek]

No, I'm saying your sensationalising what is actually a minor incident

No I'm not!

I'm asking what the point of having armed police at airports is ?

If they're not going to actually shoot people who could well be a threat to the people using that facility what is the point of them being there ?

Why will they yet again not be held to account for not shooting these people ? They have failed in their primary mission surely ?

[Barbarossa]

You can't just shoot people because you don't like the look of them, or they may have taken a wrong turn. The Stockwell Tube incident proved that.

If they had shot them there would be all sorts of calls about police brutality, overreaction, bad intelligence, and there would have been calls for resignations, etc.

We don't really know the full facts yet, but I'm pretty sure that the police were more aware of what's going on than you seem to believe. I can only hope that as soon as they made it to the tarmac they were under surveillance, and options about how to handle them were being weighed up.

It was probably quickly apparent that the only danger they posed was to themselves.

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever tried to blow up a plane on the ground. :idunno:

The armed police are usually there to stop terrorists boarding planes about to take off, or causing mayhem in the terminal buildings themselves.

[Skiz]

Ah! So you think the airport police knew in advance that they were going to an empty plane do you ?

And you think that empty planes with fuel tanks full of fumes don't make a hell of a big bang do you ?

So come on then tell me how you think the police gained this foresight about the intentions of these people, enough foresight according to you to know that these people didn't pose a threat to people trapped in a tin can ?


Perhaps. Maybe the police didn't even arrive on the scene until after the banner had been hung, making the situation easy to size up and not that of a violent nature. I don't see any police in any of the pictures the Greenpeace activists took (which shows the ground directly below and a large distance outward) so I would think that to be true for now.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Even if not, I would think it reasonable to assume that the police had been informed as to whether the plane had passengers on-board or not.

[Skiz]

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever tried to blow up a plane on the ground. :idunno:



... while standing atop it with reflective safety vests to boot.

Remember, "Safety First" when blowing up an airplane.

[manicgeek]

You can't just shoot people because you don't like the look of them, or they may have taken a wrong turn. The Stockwell Tube incident proved that.

If they had shot them there would be all sorts of calls about police brutality, overreaction, bad intelligence, and there would have been calls for resignations, etc.

We don't really know the full facts yet, but I'm pretty sure that the police were more aware of what's going on than you seem to believe. I can only hope that as soon as they made it to the tarmac they were under surveillance, and options about how to handle them were being weighed up.

It was probably quickly apparent that the only danger they posed was to themselves.

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever tried to blow up a plane on the ground. :idunno:

The armed police are usually there to stop terrorists boarding planes about to take off, or causing mayhem in the terminal buildings themselves.
Sorry!!

It's nothing to do with how they looked. It's about where they were. They were in a place where they (for all anyone knew) could have killed a couple of hundred people.

Oh and you need to go look at some history, blowing up planes on the ground is something that has been done since 1941, it's a standard military practice, and if you extend it to terrorism it would be most effective if you could blow up a plane full of people, and if you think the only plane these people could get to airside at Heathrow was an empty one from Manchester you are mistaken.

I'd imagine that a suicide bomber could probably blow up a wing fuel tank of a arriving plane quite easily, lets face it arriving planes have tanks that are full of fumes, so a big bang under the wing would make for a fantastic fireball.

[manicgeek]

... while standing atop it with reflective safety vests to boot.

Remember, "Safety First" when blowing up an airplane.

Right and so the point of having armed police at airports is what precisely, they can't even stop people reaching targets ?

[manicgeek]

Ah! So you think the airport police knew in advance that they were going to an empty plane do you ?

And you think that empty planes with fuel tanks full of fumes don't make a hell of a big bang do you ?

So come on then tell me how you think the police gained this foresight about the intentions of these people, enough foresight according to you to know that these people didn't pose a threat to people trapped in a tin can ?


Perhaps. Maybe the police didn't even arrive on the scene until after the banner had been hung, making the situation easy to size up and not that of a violent nature. I don't see any police in any of the pictures the Greenpeace activists took (which shows the ground directly below and a large distance outward) so I would think that to be true for now.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Even if not, I would think it reasonable to assume that the police had been informed as to whether the plane had passengers on-board or not.
Like I said where were the police ? How did these people ever get near a plane without being shot ?

[Cheese]

As they didn't disrupt any flights I don't mind much that they weren't shot. If, however, they had delayed one of my flights and thus caused me to have to answer further complaint letters I would have shot them myself.

[Skiz]

Like I said where were the police ? How did these people ever get near a plane without being shot ?

Oh c'mon...I don't think anyone is debating that there was a gap in security.

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe the group of 4 had tickets to a flight which was boarding on the tarmac and broke off to put up a sign. The whole thing may have taken just a few quick minutes and may have been all over by the time the police showed up.

You need to get the facts first.

Point being, perhaps shooting the four was never even an option if the act was complete upon the arrival of the police.

No matter what unfolded, I'd bet that the proper officials are looking into how the event occurred and what can be done to stop a possible harmful situation in the future.

You're making a mountains out of a molehill though...

[100%]

They were in a place where they could have killed a couple of hundred people.

A Rod Stewart concert perhaps?
:huh:

[manicgeek]

Oh c'mon...I don't think anyone is debating that there was a gap in security.

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe the group of 4 had tickets to a flight which was boarding on the tarmac and broke off to put up a sign. The whole thing may have taken just a few quick minutes and may have been all over by the time the police showed up.

You need to get the facts first.

Point being, perhaps shooting the four was never even an option if the act was complete upon the arrival of the police.

No matter what unfolded, I'd bet that the proper officials are looking into how the event occurred and what can be done to stop a possible harmful situation in the future.

You're making a mountains out of a molehill though...

Then you should be grateful that it's only a molehill, it could so easily have been a mountain of dead bodies, a mountain that would have happened because of the inability of the armed police who are supposed to be deployed to prevent such a possibility from happening.... mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.

Lets all be grateful that those wonderful greenpeace people have demonstrated another attack vector to the terrorists shall we.

[Barbarossa]

Then you should be grateful that it's only a molehill, it could so easily have been a mountain of dead bodies, a mountain that would have happened because of the inability of the armed police who are supposed to be deployed to prevent such a possibility from happening.... mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.

...except that it wasn't a real threat :frusty:

[manicgeek]

...except that it wasn't a real threat :frusty:

No it was a real threat, saying it wasn't a real threat with hindsight is how people get blown up. The police had no way of knowing if it was a threat before the fact and have to react to it as a threat until they know otherwise... if they're not doing this they might as well all go home.

[Barbarossa]

By your logic the police should treat everyone as a threat until proved otherwise. This is not a way to run a society, unless you'd like to live in a totalitarian society.

Personally, I wouldn't.


mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.

Make your mind up, do you want them to shoot suspicious people on sight or don't you?

[manicgeek]

By your logic the police should treat everyone as a threat until proved otherwise. This is not a way to run a society, unless you'd like to live in a totalitarian society.

Personally, I wouldn't.

Make your mind up, do you want them to shoot suspicious people on sight or don't you?

No that's not true either.

By my logic the police should treat anyone who is in a position whereby they pose a threat as a threat until proven otherwise. That is how you run a society, at least it is if you don't want dead bodies littering the streets.

I want them to shoot people who pose a credible threat, not a bloke who they've followed and had ample opportunity to challenge before he ever became a threat of any kind, or a bloke with a wooden table leg in his hand.

What's so difficult about that ?

[100%]

Please define the word "threat".

[Barbarossa]

Anyone who is in a public space is posing a threat, or do you think it is only airports where we are vulnerable to attack?

I think the families of 55 people who were killed in the tubes or on that bus in London in 2005 would beg to differ.

[100%]

Don't you think that Greenpeace, was aware of the fact that if they did one of their protests in an airport, in post 911 hype, that it would be highly dangerous for them.
They probably made sure, that they did not look like "credible threateristas".

Manicgeek, it is at this moment that it is ok to say "damn hippies".

[manicgeek]

Anyone who is in a public space is posing a threat, or do you think it is only airports where we are vulnerable to attack?

I think the families of 55 people who were killed in the tubes or on that bus in London in 2005 would beg to differ.

Well if you want to live in a totalitarian state you could define "posing a threat" that way, I don't so I'll stick with people who have deliberately put themselves into a position where they could do harm as my definition.

So you agree then that people who are identifiable as a threat should be shot ? Because if that's not what you're saying why are you suggesting that the families of past victims would disagree with me ? Or do you think that the families of past victims wouldn't want future attacks stopped ?

[manicgeek]

Don't you think that Greenpeace, was aware of the fact that if they did one of their protests in an airport, in post 911 hype, that it would be highly dangerous for them.
They probably made sure, that they did not look like "credible threateristas".

Manicgeek, it is at this moment that it is ok to say "damn hippies".

Actually I didn't have a problem with what they are protesting about, they may have a valid point, however any group that uses idiot stunts like this will never get my support for anything that it argues for. All stupid stunts like this do is make me want them to lose their argument and for whatever it is they're trying to stop to happen.

[100%]

Hence, anyone who acts out of the ordinary should be shot.

Move to norway, nothing humane happens here.

[manicgeek]

Hence, anyone who acts out of the ordinary should be shot.

Move to norway, nothing humane happens here.

You may have something there :lol:

[100%]

are you expecting a baby by any chance?
(your avatar)

[manicgeek]

are you expecting a baby by any chance?
(your avatar)

A baby! Not in my condition :lol: I'm male.

[Barbarossa]

Anyone who is in a public space is posing a threat, or do you think it is only airports where we are vulnerable to attack?

I think the families of 55 people who were killed in the tubes or on that bus in London in 2005 would beg to differ.

Well if you want to live in a totalitarian state you could define "posing a threat" that way, I don't so I'll stick with people who have deliberately put themselves into a position where they could do harm as my definition.

So you agree then that people who are identifiable as a threat should be shot ? Because if that's not what you're saying why are you suggesting that the families of past victims would disagree with me ? Or do you think that the families of past victims wouldn't want future attacks stopped ?

No you see what I've done there is pointed out how flawed and narrow your definition of a "position where they could do harm" is, and what you've done there is interpreted that as being what my opinion is. :dry:

Also, you haven't addressed the logical conclusion of your way of thinking. Namely that we would be living in a totalitarian state in much more of a perpetual state of fear that we may inadvertantly blunder into the wrong place and be shot for it by the authorities, than we currently are about being the victims of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I'm not against shooting suspected terrorists if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would prevent a terrorist act which would result in the loss of innocent lives. However we must not lose the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's much too important.

[manicgeek]

No you see what I've done there is pointed out how flawed and narrow your definition of a "position where they could do harm" is, and what you've done there is interpreted that as being what my opinion is. :dry:

Also, you haven't addressed the logical conclusion of your way of thinking. Namely that we would be living in a totalitarian state in much more of a perpetual state of fear that we may inadvertantly blunder into the wrong place and be shot for it by the authorities, than we currently are about being the victims of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I'm not against shooting suspected terrorists if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would prevent a terrorist act which would result in the loss of innocent lives. However we must not lose the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's much too important.

No you haven't. I can only assume you are confused about what you have said. You said that anyone in a public place poses a threat and that by my logic he should be treated as such until proven otherwise. So you are saying that the bloke sat in his shirt sleeves in Hyde park eating his sandwiches in the middle of summer should be treated as a threat.

I dispute that and say that if someone deliberately puts themselves in a position of being able to do harm then they should be treated as such until they are proven otherwise, as is the case with motorcyclists who wear helmets into banks.

And to imply that it is possible to 'inadvertently' wander airside in an airport is very misleading, and also fails to account for greenpeaces own claims to have breached security.

These people deliberately set about obtaining access to somewhere they shouldn't have, and our wonderful airport security apparatus completely failed in their primary missions, to ensure that security was maintained and to prevent any attack on the general public.

So what is the point of having them ? They are unable to prevent major security breaches of the kind that could cost hundreds of lives. They are unable to shoot people who deliberately put themselves in positions where shooting them would be a valid response to their presence.

[devilsadvocate]

The sign of a good law enforcement officer, especially armed, above knowing when to shoot, is knowing when not to. Dealy force is not the default action and never should be, it's the last resort.
The fact that this was resolved without anyone being shot shows the professionalism of the officers involved.

[manicgeek]

The sign of a good law enforcement officer, especially armed, above knowing when to shoot, is knowing when not to. Dealy force is not the default action and never should be, it's the last resort.
The fact that this was resolved without anyone being shot shows the professionalism of the officers involved.
No it doesn't. If they'd have been in a position to shoot then these people would never have managed to make it to the plane to hang their banner, because they would have been arrested or shot before making it to the plane!

What it probably shows is that they are so unaware of what is going on the the area that they have been tasked to control that it was all over bar the photos by the time they arrived.

So if they're not capable of protecting the public, why are they there at all ?

[devilsadvocate]

You seem to be under the impression that armed police should be standing guard at every gate and have a shooting solution at any time any area. They patrol general areas and have standby rapid response. Unlike you I wasn't there to asses the situation as it happened. I am glad however that you were not one of the armed police stationed at the airport at the time the incident occurred. The professionals assessed the situation, correctly determined it to not be a danger to the public and the proper outcome was achieved.

[manicgeek]

You seem to be under the impression that armed police should be standing guard at every gate and have a shooting solution at any time any area. They patrol general areas and have standby rapid response. Unlike you I wasn't there to asses the situation as it happened. I am glad however that you were not one of the armed police stationed at the airport at the time the incident occurred. The professionals assessed the situation, correctly determined it to not be a danger to the public and the proper outcome was achieved.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah right they did... OMG are you seriously expecting us to believe that they had a clue that someone had breached security and they just stood back and never deployed some policemen to intercept them ? Good god you'll be asking us to believe in fairies next :lol:

The truth as is plain for all to see is that they knew nothing about it until someone told them about the greenpeace protesters who had just unfurled a banner on an aircraft that was parked on the tarmac.

So I assume you'll support those professionals you spoke of being sacked, as they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress, by four people (who could have been god knows whom, with god knows what intent) that they knew about. They made no attempts to intercept these four unidentified people or to prevent them reaching anything that could make an almighty bang ? And if they did that as you claim with knowledge before the protesters reached their target they have been grossly negligent, wouldn't you say ?

[devilsadvocate]

Where did I say they knew of the breach until the protesters were on the aircraft? I said they assessed the situation and dealt with it correctly.
I stated that they patrol general areas with rapid reponse and not have a man every gate to provide firecover for every inch. Do you know how many personel it would require?
No I would not support them being sacked, they did their job. I take it you were there and you saw these police watching the protesters approaching the aircraft and totally ignore them.

[manicgeek]

Where did I say they knew of the breach until the protesters were on the aircraft? I said they assessed the situation and dealt with it correctly.
I stated that they patrol general areas with rapid reponse and not have a man every gate to provide firecover for every inch. Do you know how many personel it would require?
No I would not support them being sacked, they did their job. I take it you were there and you saw these police watching the protesters approaching the aircraft and totally ignore them.

Why do you think it's necessary to actually see the protesters reach the aircraft ? Do you not trust the news media ?

So if the news media and greenpeace themselves aren't lying then it's safe to assume that the protesters reached the aircraft, yes ? and by doing so they showed that the police didn't have a clue that they were doing it until after the fact, yes ? So I'll ask again...

What is the point of having armed police officers in airports ? They obviously can't protect the public, you have admitted as much yourself when you said they only have a few designated patrols areas, meaning that they don't patrol large areas of the airport, and their reaction force would take some time to deploy in an area the size of Heathrow, in which time large numbers of people would be dead. They obviously can't maintain security of the airport, you have again admitted as much yourself when you said that they cannot deploy enough officers to cover the entire airport. So what purpose do they serve ?

[devilsadvocate]

You said they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress not me. The media were not there so it's nothing more than a report of an event not a statement of the police ignoring the breach. Also Where did I say the protestors didn't reach the aircraft?
I never said they only patrol a few designated areas, I said they patrol designated areas, just so you know this means that the officers are designated a patrol area so that the entire airport has a partrol. There would be more officers per square foot in public areas and less on areas not not open to the public and less on the vast amount of open ground airside.

I'm unable to figure out (apart from your love of strawman argument) what it is that you feel should be done. Unless it's put one armed officer with an itchy trigger finger every ten square feet, or you want to do away with armed response officers altogether and let everyone take their chances.

[manicgeek]

You said they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress not me. The media were not there so it's nothing more than a report of an event not a statement of the police ignoring the breach. Also Where did I say the protestors didn't reach the aircraft?
I never said they only patrol a few designated areas, I said they patrol designated areas, just so you know this means that the officers are designated a patrol area so that the entire airport has a partrol. There would be more officers per square foot in public areas and less on areas not not open to the public and less on the vast amount of open ground airside.

I'm unable to figure out (apart from your love of strawman argument) what it is that you feel should be done. Unless it's put one armed officer with an itchy trigger finger every ten square feet, or you want to do away with armed response officers altogether and let everyone take their chances.

No you implied it, when you stated that the professionals had chosen the correct action, in not intervening and stopping these four individuals.

Where did I say you said the protesters didn't reach the aircraft ?

Ah! So you're now admitting that there were officers designated to patrol that area and that they failed to prevent a security breach, that's a different story to the one you were saying earlier when you were saying that it isn't possible to cover the entire area because of resources. So which is it ? Were there officers designated to cover that area ? If so they failed in their assignment didn't they ? If not then they can't protect the public because they're not able to cover the ground are they ? You need to make your mind up, you can't use contradictory arguments and expect them both to hold up!

Ooo there's that phrase again "strawman argument" I've seen that crap posted at me before, it was crap then and it's crap now.

What chances do you think everyone would be taking then ? The chance that an armed officer wouldn't be able to intervene... like they didn't today ? The chance that a 'professional' would make a decision (using your earlier statement about them making the right decisions, and assuming they knew, just as it seems you did) to not intervene ? The chance that the police would even know anything about it until it was too late ?

What position is it that you are struggling with ? My position is simple why do we have armed officers wandering around airports when they are unable to protect the public or enforce security ? As they have proved so well today!

Now were you at some point going to answer the question that I have been asking from the beginning, and that I have actually posted directly to you, or do you intend to keep avoiding it ?

[Biggles]

I fly fairly frequently on a work basis and while there are armed police in the terminals I have never seen one on the tarmac when I have been boarding a plane. Leaving the crocodile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard - usually there are about two ground staff directing people (often young women). The general view being that by the time one gets on to the tarmac you don't have anything more dangerous than a toothbrush (and then only one with medium bristles not the scratchy firm ones).

So they stuck a banner on a plane. By the time the police arrived at the scene from the terminal the banner would be up and the hippies having a love in. It is not hard to see that they would have decided a shooting might be unnecessary. No big deal. Now if they had got on the tarmac with dummy Stinger missile launchers that would have been a security breach to talk about.

Actually having bullets flying around parked planes would not be a desperately good idea.

[manicgeek]

I fly fairly frequently on a work basis and while there are armed police in the terminals I have never seen one on the tarmac when I have been boarding a plane. Leaving the crocidile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard - usually there are about two ground staff directing people (often young women). The general view being that by the time one gets on to the tarmac you don't have anything more dangerous than a toothbrush (and then only one with medium bristles not the scratchy firm ones).

So they stuck a banner on a plane. By the time the police arrived at the scene from the terminal the banner would be up and the hippies having a love in. It is not hard to see that they would have decided a shooting might be unnecessary. No big deal. Now if they had got on the tarmac with dummy Stinger missile launchers that would have been a security breach to talk about.

Actually having bullets fling around parked planes would not be a desperately good idea.
That's precisely my point, thanks Les :)

They should all be sacked because they are obviously not up to the job, and we should do away with armed police officers in airports.

[devilsadvocate]

I say you love the strawman because you projecting arguments onto others that they are not making. I have answered the question. "Why were they not shot" Because they didn't have to be shot. I have also explained that to give anything close to 100% infailibilty there would need to be an armed offecier every 10 square feet. But I will add that there should be four officers stood together facing the four main compass directions without turning their gaze away for one moment. Or better still one armed guard walking behind each person with his gun trained on their head "just in case". Of course that is riduculous

You said they ignored the breach, So I have to assume you were there to see these officers being told of or noticing the breach and just shrugging it off. Perhaps the situtation had ended by the time they were made aware and the ordinary security had dealt with it. Either way no shooting was needed.
Why do we have police at all? they don't prevent crime. Why do we have doctors? people still die from treatable illnesses, which brings me to what I can't figure out about your point.
I said I can't figure out what you feel should be done. You want to remove armed police because they weren't on the scene as it happened so didn't shoot the protesters before they got to the aircraft. How would that solve the problem?


The armed police are there to patrol and deal with anything the see and respond to incidents they are called to. In the UK BAA supplies security to check for bombs etc. and to escort the public around their premisses not the police.

@ Biggles. You may not have seen them, but they are about.

[Barbarossa]

Leaving the crocodile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard

An excellent idea. If they got crocodiles to patrol the tarmac between the terminal building and the planes then this sort of thing wouldn't be a problem :smilie4:

[SenorBubbz]

Did you even read the article? :unsure:

"It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked."

"BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible"."

Why would officials shoot 4 civilians who were taping a sign to an empty plane? :unsure:

'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?

Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.

Not to be racist and bring race into this though.

[chalice]

'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?

Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.

Not to be racist and bring race into this though.

There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.

Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.

Cartesian logic ftw.

[100%]

I sort of like the idea of always having a gun pushing into the back of your head.
It would ensure that i make more precise decisions in life.

[ilw]

Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.

Not to be racist and bring race into this though.

There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.

Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.

Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.

[chalice]

There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.

Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.

Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.

As opposed to whom, Ian?

[100%]

Noaaat.

[ilw]

they were protesting about cheap flights and stuff, but if any of them had been to sunnier climes recently, then they might not have been so pasty white and the armed police would naturally have thought they were terrorists and blammo...

[Biggles]

There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.

Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.

Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.

Now you are just complicating matters :shifty:

[Barbarossa]

Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.

Not to be racist and bring race into this though.

There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.

Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.

Cartesian logic ftw.

Proved, by the gift of the Venn Diagram...

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6062/vennso0.jpg

[Barbarossa]

Five people have now scaled the roof of the Houses of Parliament and unfurled banners protesting about the Heathrow Airport expansion plans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm

They probably should have shot them too, eh. :dabs:

[manicgeek]

Five people have now scaled the roof of the Houses of Parliament and unfurled banners protesting about the Heathrow Airport expansion plans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm

They probably should have shot them too, eh. :dabs:
Yep they definitely should have.

[j2k4]

There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.

Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.

Cartesian logic ftw.

Proved, by the gift of the Venn Diagram...

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6062/vennso0.jpg

Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?

I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.

Problem solved.

As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:

What if they were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?

To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.

You see where I'm going with this, of course...:whistling

[Biggles]

Proved, by the gift of the Venn Diagram...

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6062/vennso0.jpg

Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?

I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.

Problem solved.

As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:

What if they were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?

To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.

You see where I'm going with this, of course...:whistling

eerrrr... we shouldn't let them put planes on the tarmac as that is where terrorists would be most likely to get on board? :unsure:

[j2k4]

Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?

I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.

Problem solved.

As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:

What if they were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?

To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.

You see where I'm going with this, of course...:whistling

eerrrr... we shouldn't let them put planes on the tarmac as that is where terrorists would be most likely to get on board? :unsure:

No, no.

They were not authorized to be on the tarmac, and the wearing of safety colors doesn't mitigate their trespass.

Had they actually been shot (which could have very easily happened) before their intent became clear, I doubt negligence could be proven...given today's atmosphere.

Do we then blame Al Qaeda for causing undue paranoia.

[manicgeek]

No, no.

They were not authorized to be on the tarmac, and the wearing of safety colors doesn't mitigate their trespass.

Had they actually been shot (which could have very easily happened) before their intent became clear, I doubt negligence could be proven...given today's atmosphere.

Do we then blame Al Qaeda for causing undue paranoia.
Rather difficult to blame people you can't find, for anything really. Let alone blaming some elusive organisation for something.

No I think we should just accept that we are a paranoid species, and that we should attempt our best to live with that... by shooting all the odd people, starting with those who volunteer to be shot by doing stupid things like these volunteers did.

[lynx]

Unlike Al Qaeda, we know who these Greenpeace people are. We can go and shoot them any time we want. :shifty:

[j2k4]

Unlike Al Qaeda, we know who these Greenpeace people are. We can go and shoot them any time we want. :shifty:

Yes; that circumstance goes hand-in-hand with legitimacy, however idiotic it may be.

Perhaps we should pursue Al Qaeda for operating without proper license. :whistling