I agree with you generally but the RAF are part of the state and not meaningfully "capital". If you attack the military then yes obviously you are going to get the book thrown at you. That does _not_ justify going after the people with signs.

▲

cassianoleal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They painted the aircraft.

▲

pjc50 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not just that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o

"Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid."

But again, let's be clear: that justifies the conviction of the person with the hammer. Not the people with signs.

	▲	cassianoleal 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ugh, thank you - I was not aware of this. I agree with you - this should have got that person prosecuted. People with signs is perhaps a tad exaggerated.

▲

cryo32 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They actually hacked holes in the things with a crowbar too. That didn't do as much damage as expected though.

And they videoed themselves doing it and published that.

And the aircraft weren't usable in the Israel-Palestine conflict but were in the Ukraine one. You have to wonder considering the Russian connections of the principal sponsor of Palestine Action: Fergie Chambers. Worth reading up on him.

▲

bluescrn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Vandalised military assets on a miltary site.

Actions of a traitor or enemy saboteur. Lucky they didn't get shot.

Some of these protesters seem to think they're invincible these days because they support a popular cause (Palestine or climate, usually). They need to get a grip on what reasonable 'direct action' is. Obstructive protests are generally OK, Destructive protests aren't.