535 US Military planes land at Shannon since September 2001

by Joe McGellan Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:07

Six at Shannon...
How many at Knock's massive 18,000ft runway?
And how many refuelled in mid-air off the west coast by KC-135s?

by Tim Hourigan - RefuelingPeace Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:07

Congrats and thanks to all who came on the demo.
It was good that we showed our opposition. We same some of the travelling public aware of the campaign, as well as they danger they are in by sharing a poorly guarded runway with warplanes.

I cannot stress enough that we need a concerted effort to stop this, so please, everyone try to get some more friends involved.
What we did on Saturday was a good demo, but we have to build on it. If anyone can help with night-time monitoring of the airport it would be very useful. With all these aircraft coming in, and the media, (for the most-part) silent, it's up to us to inform people.

by Jacob Struben Mon Aug 19, 2002 13:56

Could you explain a bit further what you mean by the danger they (the travelling public) are in? Do you think these "warplanes" (the vast majority of which are unarmed transport aircraft, including commercial airliners chartered by the US Dept. of Defence) are going to explode on the "poorly guarded runway" as hundreds of holiday makers taxi past?

by MG Mon Aug 19, 2002 15:47

Mr Struben,

By allowing the US air force to use Shannon (a civilian airport), the Government has turned it into a legitimate target for all of America's enemies...

If Bush is justified in bombing Afghanistan in retaliation for September 11th, then Osama bin Laden is justified in bombing Shannon in retaliation for what the US has done to his "organisation" and the people of Afghanistan...

Under the rules of war, military facilities are legitimate targets - it wouldn't even be a war crime if al-Qa'ida bombed Shannon...

This clearly puts civilians at risk every time they pass through the airport.

by Tim Hourigan Mon Aug 19, 2002 16:12

Now, Jacob, you can't have it both ways.
Either there are lunatic terrorists around or there aren't (and we have been repeatedly told there are Al Qaeda in Ireland).

If there are no lunatic terrorists then there's no need for the military to be here.
If there ARE lunatic terrorists then the MILITARY should not park next to CIVILIAN planes.
They should park at a military airbase.
(like RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall etc)

If some loony with a grenade launcher / mortar (cheap and available in this country) takes out a military flight at the terminal, it will take out any civlian aircraft parked near it as well.
The C-130 which landed on Saturday afternoon was parked less than a 100 metres from a Ryanair B737. and a smaller Skyney aircraft.
If a terrorist blew up the C-130, then all the people on the Ryanair and Skynet flights would have been killed as well.

I know that airport like the back of my hand. apart from when a demo is announced, the security is little more than cosmetic at the perimiter.
Believe me it would be no problem for some armed suicidal loony to hop the fence at night and start blowing up planes.
That is the danger that the civilians are in.

When a US military plane lands at RAF Lakenheath or Mildenhall, then they have got armed guards watching the perimiter, just in case someone tries to get in.
At Shannon they have a few lads in a yellow van doing occassional patrols. And a limited CCTV system. The main runway is over 3 kilometres long and runs alongside a main road, with a pathetic fence.
what little CCTV there is is useless to deter suicide bombers. They don't care if there is video evidence, as they won't see the inside of a jail cell.

It is my belief that Aer Rianta and the Irish Government are putting civilian passengers at unwarranted risk.
Most of the passengers I spoke were unaware that they were sharing the airport with the military. most were rather shocked.

We are told Al Qaeda is a threat and yet we don't tell people that when going on holidays they are flying out of an airport which terrorists could target while trying to take out military personnel.

http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=16723

AIRPORT LANDINGS: BACKGROUND
Oct. 26, 2001: Letter to you from Brian Cowen, arising from PQ No. 148 ofOctober 16th.
September October
Overflights 169 (86 US) 141(69 US)
Landings 32 (AUG) 42 (30 US) 22 (21 US)

type of aircraft that had landed during September and October included the following:
C-130, C21, C20, C9, DC9, P-3, C20G,C38,CB9, C9B, B757, VP3A, C37A, C22, H461, C12, C137, A-10, UH 60, CH47, F16,C141,C40, C5A.

1) 5 C-130;
2) 4 C-141;
3) 6 C-9;
4) 3 C-38;
5) 4 VP3A;
6) 1 C-21;
7) 1 C-12;
8) 1 C-40;
9) 1C-37;
10) 2 C-32;
11) 10 C-20.

A-10 "Warthogs" are NOT cargo planes. They are ground attack craft that fire depleted uranium ammunition.

F-16s are NOT cargo planes. They are fighter-bombers. some are even tasked as 'delivery systems' for the nuclear arsenal.

In fact Hercules C-130s are not simply tranporters either.
the 15,000lb Daisy Cutter fuel-air-shrapnel bomb is delivered out the back of the C-130. That's a weapon of mass destruction and it is not a 'surgical strike weapon'. It's bigger than a car, and floats down on a massive parachute, before vaporising everything aroudn it.

The AC-130 Hercules gunships have destroyed houses and villages.

So tell me honestly Jacob, do you think that if the war in Afghanistan escalates or Iraq is attacked that there is NO DANGER to tourists at Shannon airport?
No risk of suicide bombers trying to stop the US Air Force attacking their homeland?

Is the Euro 553.80 landing charge really worth the risk?

by Tim Hourigan Mon Aug 19, 2002 16:26

On Saturday, Mary Kelly jumped the fence and got onto the main runway at Shannon.
This was the same day as the demo, so the airport was on higher security status, with extra police and detectives brought it.
And yet a nurse from Cork got onto the runway.

What if it wasn't Mary Kelly?
What if she was armed with more than a banner and a flag?

by Jacob Struben Tue Aug 20, 2002 11:46

The main thrust of the argument against U.S. military flights refuelling at Shannon now seems to be a safety one, as opposed to a neutrality one. I will assume that in fact the neutrality argument hasn't gone away, and address both the neutrality and the safety argument here.

Irish neutrality was defined before and during the Second World War, and refined during the Cold War. I need not detail here how the international situation has changed and how we have struggled to adapt our definition of neutrality. Should the geopolitical framework return to a Second World War/Cold War scenario, then the classic definition of Irish neutrality will undoubtedly serve us reasonably well.

More realistically, though, any short to medium term threat to our security is more likely to come from an anti-Western terrorist group or individual. I don't see how current notions of neutrality can answer the questions that such a threat poses. Such groups and individuals will not distinguish between civilian and military targets, nor between "neutral" (i.e. non-NATO member) and "aligned" (i.e. NATO member) targets.

Therefore, the safety argument against U.S. military aircraft refuelling at Shannon falls, as does the neutrality argument (because the likely aggressor is not neutral vis-a-vis Ireland).

Further to the subject of safety, I see there is a claim made that a protester walked onto the "main runway" during the protest at Shannon on 17 August. If this is true, and if the protesters' concerns included safety, I find it very odd that a protester should feel it was appropriate to endanger innocent lives, as well as her own.

by Tim Hourigan Tue Aug 20, 2002 12:13

If a protestor can get on the runway to higlight the poor security at the airport, then that is in the interest of safety. In the US they use infiltration teams to test security at airbases.
Shannon failed this one (and not for the first time).
As for endangering aircraft, the runway was empty at the time she chose to go in so she did not endanger a taxiing aircraft.
Again, Jacob, tell me how would Shannon security have stopped an intruder if they were armed with explosives and jumped onto a runway while the plane was taxiing on to it?

As for distinguishing between targets.
The concept of NATO is not lost on middle-eastern terror groups.

Those who have lost comrades or families to US bombing will naturally look at any USAF, NAVY or MARINE aircraft as a target.
Shannon provides ample opportunity to target these aircraft as it is regularly used by the airforce, navy, and marines.

One reason why terrorists hit civilian targets (besides being evil) is that the military ones are USUALLY too well guarded. Shannon, while the US military are refuelling can, by any rules of engagement be classed as a military target, but only a fool would consider it well guarded.

Answer me this : The US and Israel criticise terrorists for hiding in populated areas. In a lot of cases they then blame the terrorist for any civilians killed in the operation to blow up the terrorist. Many cold-hearted people here said "serves them right for harbouring terrorists"

Now, in Shannon, it is the US military that is parking itself between civilian planes and civilian buildings. If Al Qaeda blows up a C-130, MD-11, C-5 or whatever, and takes out the terminal, an Aer Lingus A-340, a Ryanair 737, and a whole bunch of ground crew,,,, what do we tell their families?

Sorry, Mike/Mary/ little Liam/Fiona were "collateral damage" of a military strike?
Will we wait for it to happen? Are YOU Jacob, happy to have those people used as guinea pigs?

US Airforce bases have heavy security, especially since 9/11. Why is this? Stupid question? Of course, it's because America has enemies, dangerous enemies so they take measures to stop the base being attacked.
Shannon on the other hand, dangles these targets out for all to see.
The media might keep quiet about the US in Shannon, but terrorists do not rely on the media for their information.

There are several arguments for why we should not let the US military use Shannon. the issue of safety is the most universal one though.
Most people using Shannon are unaware of the level of military use it has.
Some just don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
Some people just do not give a crap if the US fuels at Shannon and wipes out a village full of Afghan men women and children. It's a cruel world. The same cold-hearted people, however, will care if they realise that their own safety is at issue. And whether those people think I'm a crack-pot/ Bin-Laden sympathiser / lefty-pinko I am concerned at the complete lack of regard which our government and Aer Rianta has for their safety.

If there is a terrorist attack on Shannon, and if civlians are killed then the survivors, or families of the bereaved could easily sue Aer Rianta and the government for negligence.

by Joe Tue Aug 20, 2002 12:20

More realistically, though, any short to medium term threat to our security is more likely to come from an anti-Western terrorist group or individual. I don't see how current notions of neutrality can answer the questions that such a threat poses. Such groups and individuals will not distinguish between civilian and military targets, nor between "neutral" (i.e. non-NATO member) and "aligned" (i.e. NATO member) targets.

OBVIOUS YOU CAN'T SEE. YOU DON'T SEE HOW NOT HAVING WARPLANES AT SHANNON WOULD STOP BEING WANTING TO ATTACK SHANNON TO GET THE WARPLANES?
WOW, ARE YOU DENSE....

"Therefore, the safety argument against U.S. military aircraft refuelling at Shannon falls, as does the neutrality argument (because the likely aggressor is not neutral vis-a-vis Ireland)."

THAT'S TWISTED LOGIC STRUBY.
IF IRELAND IS AIDING THE US WAR ON THE MIDDLE EAST THEN WE ARE NOT BEING NEUTRAL.
THAT *IS* THE NEUTRALITY ARGUMENT.
AGAIN, YOU NEED TO PERFORM A REALITY CHECK...

by Jacob Struben Tue Aug 20, 2002 15:32

We seem to be going round in circles here.

By the logic I read in this discussion we should ban all U.S. registered civilian airliners from using Irish airports, because they are parking next to Irish (and other) airliners. I seem to remember it was civilian airliners belonging to American and United Airlines (both U.S. companies) that were hijacked on 11 September last year. These people do not make any distinction between civilian and military targets: they targetted the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Should Irish people refuse to work in the USA, refuse to travel on U.S. airliners, not take up jobs with U.S.-owned companies?

There are elements of U.S. foreign policy I don't agree with. None of these lead me to believe that we should not allow U.S. military aircraft to pass through Irish airports. And that is my last word on the matter (for now anyway!).

by Tim Hourigan Tue Aug 20, 2002 16:04

You have any interesting view of logic Mr. Struben.

The 9/11 terrorists used genuinely civilian planes. The US uses military planes and chartered flights packed with troops.

Nobody (other than you) argued to stop US commercial airlines, (Continental, Delta etc) or to stop getting on with our lives like the terrorists would like. No one came out with a knee-jerk statement saying stop drinking coca-cola, or going on US holidays.

If we can get past your fairly empty rhetoric, we should look at the situation objectively. (although ignoring for now the illegality of the flights and Irish complicity in the thousands of pointless murders by US armed forces in Afghanistan)

If the terrorists do decide to try to hijack or target ordinary commuter planes then they could try any airport. For this reason, all airports have taken extra security in screening passengers boarding flights. it would be impossible to predict which airport would be the target if the terrorists simply wanted a US airliner.
Crucially, the travelling public are all aware of the risks invloved.
If, on the other hand, the terrorists decide to target the US military, who have been bombing Afghanistan and threatening Iraq, then they would narrow their targets to Air Bases or other facilities used by the military.

In Europe the major airbases used by the US military are RAF (USAF) Lakenheath, RAF(USAF) Mildenhall, RAF (USAF) Feltwell in the UK, Ramstein AFB in Germany, Aviano AFB in Italy.
All of these facilities have hundreds of trained personnel with M-16 assault rifles waiting to dispense lethal doses of lead poisoning to any attacker. No member of the public is at risk because of these flights.

Now let's look at the other refueling spot for the US military. - Shannon. (and reportedly Knock airport as well)
Remembering that they had advance notice of the demo, and extra police backup, they still could not keep the runway clear of intruders.

Put yourself in the terrorist's shoes for a minute. Are you going to try jump the fence at Lakenheath where you're guaranteed to be blown away before you get near a plane? Or are you going to pick Shannon - where the cops need prior notice just to be able to delay a demo?

How can you justify letting people fly in and out of an airport without telling them that it is being used by the military?
If they're prepared to take the risk, then that's fine. It doesn't seem to weigh on your mind for instance.
But I have spoken to passengers who were alarmed at the presence of the military. They feared for their personal safety.
What justification does Aer Rianta have for not telling people that the US military is using the airport on a daily basis?

Tell the truth, and let people make up their own minds.
The media cover-up about Shannon is a disgrace and an insult to the democracy we pretend to have in this country.