Mick Wallace and Clare Daly reportedly arrested at Shannon airport.

shruikan2553

Judgement Day wrote: »

No, the place needs proper security and then there wouldn't be any security breaches.

Snipers are quite decent security, can have them looking at the fences around the runways.

smurfjed

can we shoot them?

Shoot them, as in point a gun at them and shoot them. If they run towards our aircraft and appear to be intent on approaching the aircraft or entering the aircraft without permission, can we shoot them?

darkpagandeath

smurfjed wrote: »

Shoot them, as in point a gun at them and shoot them. If they run towards our aircraft and appear to be intent on approaching the aircraft or entering the aircraft without permission, can we shoot them?

I'm sure they would in America for breaching security of an international airport, trying to access military aircraft.

My name is URL

Judgement Day wrote: »

Not sure what you mean, but if airport security was being properly implemented, OAP's, students and hippy TDs shouldn't be able to get near planes unless they are boarding for a flight.

Seriously.. I wonder if anyone will be sacked this time round. Security at the airport obviously isn't fit for purpose. An 80 year old woman managed to scale a fence and the only reason security became aware of her presence is because another protester called them and told them. Useless bunch of ****s

Tail Docker

smurfjed wrote: »

Shoot them, as in point a gun at them and shoot them. If they run towards our aircraft and appear to be intent on approaching the aircraft or entering the aircraft without permission, can we shoot them?

Is that you, Barack?

Even if they did search them, I wonder what could they do?

"Well lads, that brown chap tied up and hooded down the back, what's the story, eh?"


"He's my cousin, he's an escapologist, practising."



"Right...., grand so, have a good trip Sir."

What's the other option? Four state employees shot and killed in Shannon Airport when they "fell" onto a loaded gun and it went off accidentally.. Lol.

What could they do, implement sanctions against the US? Cut off the flow of Baileys? No more Kerrygold for ye, ye naughty Yanks..

smurfjed

I routinely have a lot of people around me with guns, their role is to protect the aircraft and the occupants. Trust me, they will shoot first and ask questions later, so these two idiots should have considered their actions before climbing fences!

Judgement Day

My name is URL wrote: »

Seriously.. I wonder if anyone will be sacked this time round. Security at the airport obviously isn't fit for purpose. An 80 year old woman managed to scale a fence and the only reason security became aware of her presence is because another protester called them and told them. Useless bunch of ****s

I've not kept a record of incidents at Shannon but here's another memorable one: http://www.shannonwatch.org/story/mary-kelly-conviction-overturned-court-appeal

God forbid that some day some Islamic nutjob turns up there with a Stinger or something similar and it will probably be a non US plane that gets hit. All the bs about snipers - some people would need to cop on and realise that life isn't one big 'Tour of Duty' game, you only get one life.

Tail Docker

smurfjed wrote: »

I routinely have a lot of people around me with guns, their role is to protect the aircraft and the occupants. Trust me, they will shoot first and ask questions later, so these two idiots should have considered their actions before climbing fences!

Jasus, and there's me thinking the other lad was Barack, and here you are. Shows how wrong I can be.

shruikan2553

Judgement Day wrote: »

I've not kept a record of incidents at Shannon but here's another memorable one: http://www.shannonwatch.org/story/mary-kelly-conviction-overturned-court-appeal

God forbid that some day some Islamic nutjob turns up there with a Stinger or something similar and it will probably be a non US plane that gets hit. All the bs about snipers - some people would need to cop on and realise that life isn't one big 'Tour of Duty' game, you only get one life.

Probably shouldnt waste their lives getting arrested then. You wanted more security, the threat of being shot is a pretty big deterrent. Although one of the idiots would probably shoot themselves and pretend that the group was shot at.

Arthur Beesley

Just saw Mick 'Scarecrow' Wallace on the news.

He was lucky they didn't turn the powerhose on him. A good wash wouldn't go astray. Especially if himself and Clare were 'making whoopie'.

Muahahaha

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Neither do you so what's your point, hearsay some report that was never ever corroborated. Here is an idea Joe over there is not doing anything wrong. Can we just come into your house Joe you know to confirm your not doing anything wrong. You know for transparency.

Well I don't think you can compare searching someone's house to this scenario but even if you were and the Gardai suspected Joe was doing something wrong then they'd get a warrant and search the house. So here we have a situation where we know the US has special rendition programs and we know they torture people. So why not search their planes to make sure they aren't breaking any Irish laws on Irish soil ?

And if you're so convinced that they are doing nothing wrong why are you then against the planes being searched ? Surely you should be calling for the planes to be searched to prove that you are right ? You're not doing that I notice :rolleyes:

christy c

Hopefully it was a rendition flight and they bring those two with them to sample the experience

ProfessorPlum

Judgement Day wrote: »

Not sure what you mean, but if airport security was being properly implemented, OAP's, students and hippy TDs shouldn't be able to get near planes unless they are boarding for a flight.

They didn't get near the plane. They'd have no chance of getting near the US aircraft at Shannon - they're very well protected.

Judgement Day wrote: »

God forbid that some day some Islamic nutjob turns up there with a Stinger or something similar and it will probably be a non US plane that gets hit. All the bs about snipers - some people would need to cop on and realise that life isn't one big 'Tour of Duty' game, you only get one life.

It's very easy to take out an aircraft on approach or shortly after take off. You don't have to be on the airfield or anywhere particularly near it. Most airports will have plenty of decent spots nearby where the vulnerable, slow, flying in a straight line commercial (and the types of 'military' aircraft we see at Shannon) aircraft would be easy pickings.
Keeping would be snippers from hitting aircraft is not what perimeter fences are for.

curioser

comongethappy wrote: »

The sexual tension is driving them to do crazy things!

Mick has been warned that he faces prosecution for having an offensive person on his weapon!

Judgement Day

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

They didn't get near the plane. They'd have no chance of getting near the US aircraft at Shannon - they're very well protected.



It's very easy to take out an aircraft on approach or shortly after take off. You don't have to be on the airfield or anywhere particularly near it. Most airports will have plenty of decent spots nearby where the vulnerable, slow, flying in a straight line commercial (and the types of 'military' aircraft we see at Shannon) aircraft would be easy pickings.
Keeping would be snippers from hitting aircraft is not what perimeter fences are for.

Thanks for multi quoting me but not bothering to read what I wrote. Incidentally, what are perimeter fences for - keeping stray sheep off the runways?

kowloon

gramar wrote: »

Ming is probably still hiding in the landing gear.

Supposedly he got side-tracked by some confiscated herb in the customs office.

ProfessorPlum

Judgement Day wrote: »

Thanks for multi quoting me but not bothering to read what I wrote. Incidentally, what are perimeter fences for - keeping stray sheep off the runways?

I read what you wrote. You have a problem with airfield security at Shannon. In today's incident, the two were apprehended within minutes. Keeping sheep (and humans) safe from the dangerous activities that go on on airfield is in fact one very good reason for perimeter fencing. Incidentally, there are airfields with public right of ways through them. I think you misunderstand the reasons for the fence.

bajer101

smurfjed wrote: »

So if we land in Shannon and a couple of nutters start running towards the aircraft, can we shoot them?

smurfjed wrote: »

I routinely have a lot of people around me with guns, their role is to protect the aircraft and the occupants. Trust me, they will shoot first and ask questions later, so these two idiots should have considered their actions before climbing fences!

Well, if you suddenly change career and start flying CIA planes that are involved in illegal renditions, then the people with guns on those planes are quite welcome to start shooting at elected Irish representatives who are highlighting the international laws that they are breaking. But, if you continue piloting private individuals with armed bodyguards - I reckon, you and your Pax will never be subject to such a demonstration.

bajer101

To summarise, the arguments against and for what Wallace and Daly did are:


Against:
Wallace's company didn't fulfill its VAT obligations
They trespassed
Wallace doesn't wear a suit
Daly is Ugly
Wallace has a bad haircut
No one gives a toss

For:
In the recent past there were proven rendition flights that used Shannon
There are still possible illegal activities happening on Irish soil and Irish law enforcement agencies have no power to investigate
Elected Representatives tried to investigate those activities
Ireland's neutrality is in question
The majority of Irish people do give a toss

And any gobsh1te has access to a computer.

Am I missing anything here?

geeksauce

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Pity Wallace wasn't as worried about his tax affairs and decisions regarding buying of property, but sure what does he care, like the other developers he will never have to pay it back.

Exactly he couldn't care less about any of that instead he is running around Shannon airport wasting some more taxpayers money. And some here think that's a good thing.

loh_oro

What the f**k is wrong with those two ? Should spend their time doing something useful instead of breaking into an airport

Banjo String

loh_oro wrote: »

What the f**k is wrong with those two ? Should spend their time doing something useful instead of breaking into an airport

They didn't break into an airport.

smurfjed

elected Irish representatives who are highlighting the international laws that they are breaking

And they are doing this by climbing over airport fences?

Coat22

Muahahaha wrote: »

So your argument is that the vast majority (82%) of Irish people are ignorant and should instead be educated around to your point of view :rolleyes:

I would argue that about 40-50% of the Irish population are ignorant yes. How else would we have election results like we do where muppets like Wallace, Daly and Flanagan are actualy elected? (I can actually see the logic in people from inner city Dublin electing Daly but the other two????) Where footballers who manage to fail their leaving cert not once but twice come close to being elected and where we reject referedums on european integration on the basis of some sort of "threat to our neutrality" etc. Where a party led by a convicted terrorist who is currently under investigation for murder of a mother of 10 can be the most popular in eurpopean and local elections. There is no doubt a good portion of Irish people should be made do an IQ test before being given a ballot paper.

I don't believe eveyone shold think like me (God help us if they did) but it would be nice if they could THINK.

suicide_circus

bajer101 wrote: »

To summarise, the arguments ....And any gobsh1te has access to a computer.....

Which is the whole reason why this site exists, don't start pulling at that thread!

Banjo String

Coat22 wrote: »

I would argue that about 40-50% of the Irish population are ignorant yes. How else would we have election results like we do where muppets like Wallace, Daly and Flanagan are actualy elected? (I can actually see the logic in people from inner city Dublin electing Daly but the other two????) Where footballers who manage to fail their leaving cert not once but twice come close to being elected and where we reject referedums on european integration on the basis of some sort of "threat to our neutrality" etc. Where a party led by a convicted terrorist who is currently under investigation for murder of a mother of 10 can be the most popular in eurpopean and local elections. There is no doubt a good portion of Irish people should be made do an IQ test before being given a ballot paper.

I don't believe eveyone shold think like me (God help us if they did) but it would be nice if they could THINK.

Who would this be

suicide_circus

Banjo String wrote: »

Who would this be

He meant to say unconvicted

Banjo String

suicide_circus wrote: »

He meant to say unconvicted

So not convicted of any terrorism offences would mean..........

Why you answering on their behalf?

loh_oro

smurfjed wrote: »

And they are doing this by climbing over airport fences?

You do realise how important the integrity of an airports security is right ? ... Not much of an airport if you can climb over then fence.

suicide_circus

Banjo String wrote: »

So not convicted of any terrorism offences would mean..........

Why you answering on their behalf?

Just fcukin with ye

geeksauce

Muahahaha wrote: »

So your argument is that the vast majority (82%) of Irish people are ignorant and should instead be educated around to your point of view :rolleyes:

Vast majority of Irish people (82%)?

I assume all Irish people took part in that survey then? Or is it a case that 82% of the people surveyed thought that?

In other words you should have said the vast majority of the people that took the survey, and not the vast majority of Irish people.

smurfjed

You do realise how important the integrity of an airports security is right ?

Yep, thats why i fully expect anyone rushing towards my aircraft to be shot!

chrysagon

Shame wallace didnt look after his business afairs with the same eagerness!

Judgement Day

chrysagon wrote: »

Shame wallace didnt look after his business afairs with the same eagerness!

Oh dear - again!

darkpagandeath

bajer101 wrote: »

To summarise, the arguments against and for what Wallace and Daly did are:


Against:
Wallace's company didn't fulfill its VAT obligations
They trespassed
Wallace doesn't wear a suit
Daly is Ugly
Wallace has a bad haircut
No one gives a toss

For:
In the recent past there were proven rendition flights that used Shannon
There are still possible illegal activities happening on Irish soil and Irish law enforcement agencies have no power to investigate
Elected Representatives tried to investigate those activities
Ireland's neutrality is in question
The majority of Irish people do give a toss

And any gobsh1te has access to a computer.

Am I missing anything here?

Proof ? People saying the same stuff over and over and over again does not = proof. But refuelling here is not an issue when they are returning to the US as they are empty. And Irish agencies can inspect the planes or do you think the USA has jurisdiction here ?

And I agree with your 3rd point.

JillyQ

chrysagon wrote: »

Shame wallace didnt look after his business afairs with the same eagerness!

Couldn't agree more.

geeksauce

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oh dear - again!

Yes again, see some people see a problem with stealing from others, not paying bills and leaving honest hard working people out of pocket unable to provide for their families while he swans around Italy and Brazil.

The pro Mick gang seem to think this is ok though.

darkpagandeath

geeksauce wrote: »

Yes again, see some people see a problem with stealing from others, not paying bills and leaving honest hard working people out of pocket unable to provide for their families while he swans around Italy and Brazil.

The pro Mick gang seem to think this is ok though.

Tax is only for poor people and the Rich, that's what them lot say.

JillyQ

geeksauce wrote: »

Yes again, see some people see a problem with stealing from others, not paying bills and leaving honest hard working people out of pocket unable to provide for their families while he swans around Italy and Brazil.

The pro Mick gang seem to think this is ok though.

The vast majority of working people in this country would think the same be they self employed or employees.

JonEBGud

We were neutral in the second world war.
Or were we?

Manic Moran

You don't think facilitating military logistics (weaponry) in someway de-bases that status?

No. The principles in treaty go back to at least the Hague Conventions of 1907 with the rules on the use of neutral sea ports. Indeed, it was incumbent upon neutral parties to ensure proper separation of combatant warships as they left port.

bajer101 wrote: »

"the policy or status of a nation that does not participate in a war between other nations: the continuous neutrality of Switzerland."

By allowing one side in a conflict to use your airfields, you are participating. You won't see Switzerland allowing its airports be used for military stopovers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neutrality

I suggest using something a little more definitive than the dictionary. Perhaps some international treaties on the matter?
For example, an aforementioned Hague Convention, most specifically relating to "The Rights And Duties Of Neutral Powers and Persons"

Case in point, Convention XIII Art. 7.

"A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet. "

I have seen no indication that the Irish government have treated requests by Iraq, Afghanistan or the Taliban air forces to use Shannon any differently than they treat US requests.

bajer101 wrote: »

How does allowing Shannon be used a military hub affect out neutrality?? Seriously? I suppose if we also allowed any military aircraft from any country, carrying whatever, we could retain our neutrality that way!

Erm... we do.

Just the US is the largest and most high-profile user of Shannon these days.
And, there is legal proof that such need -not- affect neutrality. Hague XIII, Art 9:

"A neutral Power must apply impartially to the two belligerents the conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions made by it in regard to the admission into its ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters, of belligerent war-ships or of their prizes"

For the record, Ireland's not neutral, it's non-aligned.

The whole thing is kindof convoluted, and probably many lawyers have spent many hours looking through the fine details. For example, I suspect upon cursory reading (though cannot confirm) that if the troops carried by Omni Air International were, in fact, carried in US Military aircraft, it may trigger a violation.

Manic Moran

bajer101 wrote: »

Irish troops are serving under a UN mandated peacekeeping mission and as such are not serving alongside US troops who are involved in a NATO conflict (which Ireland are not part of) in the Afghan Civil War.

The Irish troops are part of ISAF, the NATO-run UN-mandated security mission. Although there is a legal separation with the parallel "Operation Enduring Freedom", the separation is in practical terms irrelevant as only some minor forces (Mainly special forces, who don't normally fly commercial air) are OEF. When I stopped at Shannon, I had an ISAF badge on my shoulder, for example.

Muahahaha

geeksauce wrote: »

Vast majority of Irish people (82%)?

I assume all Irish people took part in that survey then? Or is it a case that 82% of the people surveyed thought that?

In other words you should have said the vast majority of the people that took the survey, and not the vast majority of Irish people.

I'm not here to give you a lesson in stats because you've displayed a clear ignorance of how polls work and what can be drawn from them. Of course they didn't ask every Irish person the same Yes or No question on neutrality, that would be just a stupid thing to do when you can ask 1,000 people who are representative of the entire population and control for demographics to produce a poll result that can be said to be within a +3/-3% certainty. Not only that when you ask a Yes/No question in polling your levels of certainty go up due to there only being two choices, rather than multiple answers.

So sorry to inform you geeksauce but in a representative sample of the Irish population 82% of us want our position of neutrality maintained. 50+1% is a simple majority, 66.66% is an overall majority so I think I'm bang on the money here to say that 82% is the vast majority.

Arthur Beesley

chrysagon wrote: »

Shame wallace didnt look after his business afairs with the same eagerness!

Or his hair.

Arthur Beesley

I hope they won't be claiming expenses for their trip to Shannon.

geeksauce

Muahahaha wrote: »

I'm not here to give you a lesson in stats because you've displayed a clear ignorance of how polls work and what can be drawn from them. Of course they didn't ask every Irish person the same Yes or No question on neutrality, that would be just a stupid thing to do when you can ask 1,000 people who are representative of the entire population and control for demographics to produce a poll result that can be said to be within a +3/-3% certainty. Not only that when you ask a Yes/No question in polling your levels of certainty go up due to there only being two choices, rather than multiple answers.

So sorry to inform you geeksauce but in a representative sample of the Irish population 82% of us want our position of neutrality maintained. 50+1% is a simple majority, 66.66% is an overall majority so I think I'm bang on the money here to say that 82% is the vast majority.

Right so its not a majority of Irish people then glad that's cleared up. Maybe you could stop saying it is now.

chrysagon

Maybe he thought thats how gold circle members avoid the queues!

Little CuChulainn

bajer101 wrote: »

To summarise, the arguments against and for what Wallace and Daly did are:


Against:
Wallace's company didn't fulfill its VAT obligations
They trespassed
Wallace doesn't wear a suit
Daly is Ugly
Wallace has a bad haircut
No one gives a toss

For:
In the recent past there were proven rendition flights that used Shannon
There are still possible illegal activities happening on Irish soil and Irish law enforcement agencies have no power to investigate
Elected Representatives tried to investigate those activities
Ireland's neutrality is in question
The majority of Irish people do give a toss

And any gobsh1te has access to a computer.

Am I missing anything here?

Yeah, your summation appears a little biased. The main argument against would be that they broke the law by entering an active airfield in order to illegally search a military plane from another country. The hypocrisy alone is mind boggling. These are the same people that kicked up an almighty fuss when they found out that some people got off on speeding tickets. The law must apply equally to all remember. Obviously the don't apply that to themselves.

And I'd be interested in seeing the proof you saw of rendition flights.

Duck's hoop

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Or his hair.

He should have nice hair. Like that Vradkar chap. Very well turned out. I believe all that he says for he is coiffed just so.

And of course GW Bush assured Bertie Ahern "to be sure to be sure" there were definitely no weapons transiting through Shannon. No sir.

They both had lovely hair. And suits. Not like that nasty Wallace man.

And Bertie, like all other respectable politicians deserving of our complete trust, never had any financial 'irregularities'.

Arrra shur 'tis only a few oul' guns and other yokes. Shur isn't there a few poun' in it for the locals. Where's the harm in it?

Bollix in a pink tshirt with his long hair looking for attention. Wakner.

Muahahaha

geeksauce wrote: »

Right so its not a majority of Irish people then glad that's cleared up. Maybe you could stop saying it is now.

The only thing is clear is that 82% of Irish people want our position of neutrality to remain as it is. That means your opinion is not only in the minority, it's the extreme minority. The vast majority of Irish people hold an opposite opinion to you and if our neutrality was put to a vote tomorrow morning you would be on the losing side, every time