Why weren't they shot ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Noaaat.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Now you are just complicating matters :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorBubbz

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

Yep they definitely should have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.