I ask you again. Why did they choose this plane? If your answer is, “lol, IDK, I guess they’re just dumb.” Then you’re probably missing something very critical. You haven’t even bothered to answer why they chose these planes. You just whine about it.

Again then, please illuminate us. This is a pretty well organized group. They don’t just pick targets randomly. If you have all the answers, illuminate us on why these planes were targeted instead of just whining.

Well don’t leave us in the dark. Why didn’t you bother explaining what the planes were actually used for? You’re clearly trying to portray the Palestine activists as cliche violent anarchists who destroyed government property for no rational reason. That is really the only reason you wouldn’t explain why you think they did what they did. Likely it’s something that’s still clearly genocidal, but you didn’t want to mention that so you could get that “moving the goalpost” zinger in.

So let’s actually look into this, as you failed to do so in order to muddy the waters.

Oh hey, they’re mid-air refuelers.

So we’re not talking bombers carrying out bombing runs, we’re talking about flying gas stations that top off the tanks of the fighters and bombers carrying out bombing runs. These war planes directly used to enable genocide.

Any sane person would call this “a distinction without a difference.” You didn’t bother explaining what they actually vandalized (really just painted) because you wanted to make it seem like they torched a random civilian airliner or something equally irrational.

But I guess this is just “moving the goalposts” in your warped reality. And in reality, I’m not even moving the goalposts. I said these planes were used to bomb Palestinians. And that’s exactly what these mid-air refuelers have been used for, even if they didn’t carry any bombs themselves. This is like arguing a loading truck that carries bombs from storage to the tarmac aren’t involved in bombing. Sure, it doesn’t directly drop a bomb, but it’s still used for bombing.

You just have myopia and think that only bombers are involved in bombing.

Palestine Action are heroes. We should be singing songs about them, not prosecuting them.

Remember, legality and morality are only vaguely related. Beyond the natural crimes of murder, rape, etc. laws are just politics by another name. And the wealthy and powerful write laws to advance their own corrupt interests. Many moral obligations are criminalized, and many things that if there is a Hell will surely get you sent there are perfectly legal.

Those planes deserved to be vandalized. Hell, they deserved to be set on fire. It’s a shame they weren’t destroyed completely. If those planes are being used to carry out a genocide, then they should be destroyed. That is the simple absolute moral truth. If the law says otherwise, then the law is wrong. Anyone violating it still needs to keep the consequences in mind. But outside observers should not be afraid to speak truth to power. What Palestine Action did was not wrong; it was an act of heroism. The UK should be electing these people to parliament, not prosecuting them. Want courageous leaders who will actually stand up to powerful interests and do the right thing, even when it’s hard? Well it seems you just found that exact rare kind of person right here.

Destroying planes that are bound to assist in bombing in Gaza is simply the morally right thing to do, regardless of the law. It’s no different than a Jewish resistance fighter in the 1940s setting fire to a cattle train about to go collect prisoners for transport to Dachau. Sometimes destruction of government property is the only morally correct choice available to people.

And we shouldn’t be afraid to say this. People in the UK should be contacting their politicians demanding a full pardon for these heroes.

You would have said the exact same thing about the Holocaust.

Doesn’t mean it’s not the morally right thing to do. Aircraft that are being used to bomb innocent civilians should be vandalized. Hell that’s the minimum. The morally right thing to do is to set them on fire. Legality and morality are only weakly correlated. Obviously the law says what the powerful want it to say, but that doesn’t mean it’s right or just. Setting fire to a UK plane that is being used to genocide people is no different than setting fire to an empty train in 1944 that’s about to be sent out on a run to gather up people to take them to a concentration camp. Sorry, but that’s just the simple truth of it. You can cite evil laws you want, but you might as well be citing the laws of Nazi Germany. Everything they did was legal as well.

Some things are just wrong. And enabling them is wrong. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say that. The people who vandalized those planes did nothing wrong. They’re victorious heroes. We should be memorializing them in song and story. The laws of evil men are not even worthy of consideration, beyond the practical choices of those choosing to engage in such acts of bravery and heroism.

How about this? On the front, an image of Charles signing a decree condemning trans women as pedophiles. On the back, a painting of an obese King Charles furiously masturbating to child pornography while an anti-genocide protester is chained naked in the same bed. That’s the truest representation of the UK I can think of right now.

How about renditions of the movie Threads? That seems the most optimistic projection for the UK’s future on its current path.

I didn’t realize sounding could be done from space, let a lone from geostationary orbit. You would think that’s the sort of thing that pretty much has to be done at point-blank range.

Except when it comes to trans people. Judicial review doesn’t apply to trans people.

The Democrats don’t care about the Constitution either. Their platform certainly isn’t filled with promises to say, repeal the post 9/11 mass surveillance laws. They have zero interest in curtailing the powers of an out-of-control presidency; they just want those powers for themselves.

I mean, half of the British population was living in a state of slavery. That is worth killing people over.

The PAC are heroes. We should be building statues of them. No one a hundred years from now will think Labor is on the right side of history here. We should be nominating these people for sainthood, not criminalizing them.

AKA, they’re a group of heroes and the villainous government wants to keep doing evil.

100 years from now, who would possibly doubt that PAC are the heroes here and labor are the villains? Genociders are never on the right side of history. These people are heroes.

Sounds like a classic case of both the moderates and the radicals being essential for any real change. The moderates are the hammer and the extremists are the anvil.

Society is like a bar of iron. It’s stuck in its shape and resists change. Non-violent moderate protest alone is like a hammer without an anvil. You strike the iron, but the iron ignores the blow. With moderate protest alone, the established powers simply ignore the protests. They bend and duck out of the way and nothing changes. But violent groups serve as the anvil. They hold the powers that be in place and prevent them from ducking away from the hammer blow of the moderates.

Both hammer and anvil are needed. Without the violent extremists, the moderates are simply painted as extremists and ignored. With them, the moderates can actually gain traction. Moderate protest movements don’t succeed unless there is also a violent wing. Moderates are only moderate if there is something to moderate against. Without the violent extremists, the moderates will be the ones labeled criminals and arrested, regardless of how extreme their tactics actually are.