Coming soon to an airport near you: Activists attacking planes

Salty said:
I agree. I also think some of the reactions here are overboard. Spray paint is not terrorism. Physically harming these morons is not called for. They should be held responsible for repairing the damage they caused however.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The only question should be whether or not a second clip is needed.
 
I've never been the guy to bring up the clip/magazine thing before, because it seems silly to me. But I will now, because dry humor. A second clip would not be a question, because a "double tap" with a Garand is just be silly.

More seriously, deportation back to France or wherever? Sure. Violence? I really don't think so. I say that because I don't think you can fix ideological stupid that way. Make them clean all the paint off with TCE, and repaint with solvent based paint? Absolutely. That said, French special forces blowing up the Greenpeace boat was both hilarious and justified. Also the first time the French had a naval victory since 1884.
 
Salty said:
I agree. I also think some of the reactions here are overboard. Spray paint is not terrorism. Physically harming these morons is not called for. They should be held responsible for repairing the damage they caused however.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is activity which uses fear to get people to agree with you. Surely you or they aren’t saying “Look, we damaged an airplane, aren’t we the good guys? Agree with us”.

It’s weak terrorism, but broken window theory applies. Greenpeace started out protesting tidal waves produced by nuclear explosions, now they’re borderline pirates trying to sink ships.

and a second clip for an M1 depends on how many targets you put up at the range.
 
bflynn said:
Terrorism is activity which uses fear to get people to agree with you. Surely you or they aren’t saying “Look, we damaged an airplane, aren’t we the good guys? Agree with us”.

It’s weak terrorism, but broken window theory applies. Greenpeace started out protesting tidal waves produced by nuclear explosions, now they’re borderline pirates trying to sink ships.

and a second clip for an M1 depends on how many targets you put up at the range.
Click to expand...
Ok, good argument. I agree. I still think the reactions suggesting physical harm to be overboard, but I'll go along with "light terrorism".
 
Salty said:
Ok, good argument. I agree. I still think the reactions suggesting physical harm to be overboard, but I'll go along with "light terrorism".
Click to expand...
So how would you stop future similar actions?
 
Morgan3820 said:
So how would you stop future similar actions?
Click to expand...

Put the babies back in daycare where they belong. Make sure they're wearing velcro suits too so that they can be easily restrained.

If they want to act like toddlers, they should be treated as such.
 
We have too many nutjobs in this world on both sides. There's the crazies who want to vandalize airplanes, famous paintings, etc just so they can get clicks on YouTube and become an Instafamous activist leader -- and the people who want to shoot you for stepping onto their property or causing them any sense of fear, inconvenience or discomfort. Both those people are symptoms of the same disease: a sense of righteous entitlement to do whatever they want at the expense of anyone else. Neither one is right IMHO.

For the people who vandalize planes? Put the people in jail and garnish their wages until the repairs are paid for in full. It might take a decade to recuperate the cost (with interest) of painting a twin engine airplane if they earn a meager income, but it can be repaid. Shooting someone sounds tough and in some sick sense immediately gratifying but it's obviously a terrible solution that is totally out of proportion to the crime.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
We have too many nutjobs in this world on both sides. There's the crazies who want to vandalize airplanes, famous paintings, etc just so they can get clicks on YouTube and become an Instafamous activist leader -- and the people who want to shoot you for stepping onto their property or causing them any sense of fear, inconvenience or discomfort. Both those people are symptoms of the same disease: a sense of righteous entitlement to do whatever they want at the expense of anyone else. Neither one is right IMHO.

For the people who vandalize planes? Put the people in jail and garnish their wages until the repairs are paid for in full. It might take a decade to recuperate the cost (with interest) of painting a twin engine airplane if they earn a meager income, but it can be repaid. Shooting someone sounds tough and in some sick sense immediately gratifying but it's obviously a terrible solution that is totally out of proportion to the crime.
Click to expand...


Out of proportion sure. But until some out of proportion action is taken, the pendulum will not reverse course for these nut jobs.


Was it out of proportion for the NYPD to do stop and frisk for every kid that seemed out of place in Manhattan when Gulliani was Mayor? Yup. But it cleaned up the city and the thugs that ruled Times Square knew their days of running things were over.

if a few of these nutballs painting planes or attaching themselves to works of art were punished in a non proportional way, the next group would think twice about doing it.

you get the society you allow to happen. Making them pay restitution isn't the answer.
 
cowtowner said:
Out of proportion sure. But until some out of proportion action is taken, the pendulum will not reverse course for these nut jobs.


Was it out of proportion for the NYPD to do stop and frisk for every kid that seemed out of place in Manhattan when Gulliani was Mayor? Yup. But it cleaned up the city and the thugs that ruled Times Square knew their days of running things were over.

if a few of these nutballs painting planes or attaching themselves to works of art were punished in a non proportional way, the next group would think twice about doing it.

you get the society you allow to happen. Making them pay restitution isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
I'm totally fine with "upping the ante" of doing these crimes, so to speak. Make it more painful for them so they don't want to do it again: longer jail terms, more severe financial penalties etc. But yeah, those penalties actually have to be enforced. Right now, to the best of my knowledge, they're not enforced.
But the idea of pulling out a 12 gauge and blasting them in the face because they took a spray can to my airplane? That's just crazy town. If I wanted a society like that I'd move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where they could bash your skull in with a rock for trivial offenses. I'd like to believe most of the civilized world has sort of transcended the desire to do that.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
We have too many nutjobs in this world on both sides. There's the crazies who want to vandalize airplanes, famous paintings, etc just so they can get clicks on YouTube and become an Instafamous activist leader -- and the people who want to shoot you for stepping onto their property or causing them any sense of fear, inconvenience or discomfort. Both those people are symptoms of the same disease: a sense of righteous entitlement to do whatever they want at the expense of anyone else. Neither one is right IMHO.

For the people who vandalize planes? Put the people in jail and garnish their wages until the repairs are paid for in full. It might take a decade to recuperate the cost (with interest) of painting a twin engine airplane if they earn a meager income, but it can be repaid. Shooting someone sounds tough and in some sick sense immediately gratifying but it's obviously a terrible solution that is totally out of proportion to the crime.
Click to expand...
Unrealistic. My guess is that they are on 100% government assistance or proceeds from a trust. So. Can’t get blood out of a stone.
 
cowtowner said:
Was it out of proportion for the NYPD to do stop and frisk for every kid that seemed out of place in Manhattan when Gulliani was Mayor? Yup. But it cleaned up the city and the thugs that ruled Times Square knew their days of running things were over.
Click to expand...
Yes, especially because stop and frisk likely did not contribute to the decline in crime rate.
Giuliani getting credit for the decrease in crime is pretty overblown since virtually every US city experienced the same decline in crime rate between the beginning and end of the 90s. Meaning that there were greater societal causes country-wide.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
I'm totally fine with "upping the ante" of doing these crimes, so to speak. Make it more painful for them so they don't want to do it again:
Click to expand...

I agree as long as we're talking about the Singapore method ...
 
Daleandee said:
I agree as long as we're talking about the Singapore method ...
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm not familiar with them... I'm guessing it's pretty harsh as I recently read about the death sentence for some drug traffickers...
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Hmm, I'm not familiar with them... I'm guessing it's pretty harsh as I recently read about the death sentence for some drug traffickers...
Click to expand...

Certainly no death penalty for low level stupidity. Salty has it right, just a good old time spanking like many of us got "back in the day" ... :yikes:
 
Baked Potato said:
Yes, especially because stop and frisk likely did not contribute to the decline in crime rate.
Giuliani getting credit for the decrease in crime is pretty overblown since virtually every US city experienced the same decline in crime rate between the beginning and end of the 90s. Meaning that there were greater societal causes country-wide.
Click to expand...

I really wasn't paying much attention to those things then, but the general understanding here is that the crime moved north, particularly to Newburgh. No idea if it's cause/effect, but that city did NOT have a decrease in crime. If I had to guess, it was a change in LE from being generally friendly to somewhat militant. And a shift from regular people being afraid to walk around because of crime, to many people being afraid of LE. Personally I do think a shift was required, but like so many things I think it shifted too far...just a generalization, not anything specific.

Back to the idiots with the spray paint, I'd love to know how to help lobby for increased use of coal for electrical production, to quickly meet the demand for all of these high tech electrical vehicles and to support some areas move to heat via electric. Probably not realistic, but I'm not being sarcastic. I'd love to see some coal plants pop up in PA to help support NY.

On a positive note, the Chinese are actually making some gains in this area: https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN

They've apparently figured out how to reduce the demand on oil by converting to coal to suitable liquid fuels. Hoping it catches on at a wider scale, as it'll overall reduce the problems of scarcity of oil. I know...in the US and Europe there will be all sorts of bans in the future on use of hydrocarbon fuels, but those aren't going to have a dent in the overall world consumption, they're just going to continue to move manufacturing to lesser developed countries, for an overall increase in pollution, among other problems.

Short term, local thinking often leads to making problems way worse. But people, overall, will continue to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top