Terror Attack on Ireland.

Bottle_of_Smoke

My stand is that our taxes going toward improving armed security at airports is playing right into terrorist's plan. They scare us - we change the way we live.

At the moment I think our country has a very good chance of dealing with a Muslim immigration & integration without turning into a nation of paranoid racists.

If Joe public has to pay more taxes to ensure Muhammed McTerrorist doesn't bomb his country it's gonna breed resentment - I do not want that & we do not need it.

Terrorism doesn't warrant the attention it recieves - More people died on our roads between 1997-2005 than all the people killed by the Northern Ireland troubles since 1970

How many people have been killed by Islamic Terrorism in the British Isles in the last 5 years? Not trying to diminish their familiy's tragedies but I think you'll find there's much bigger things to worry about.

Hobbes

Diogenes wrote:

That was possibly the IRA's smartest move, by the end they didn't need to even fire the motars just threaten to and they shut down an international transport hub, costing the British millions

Thats not the goals or tactics of Al Qaeida though, and it still isn't justification for the increased cost of defence. The pro increased budget for security/airforce still haven't offered tangible evidence that

Wouldn't be too sure. All you need is a slight scare and look planes delayed in the UK and US. None of which had anything of a terrorist nature on them.

All AQ has to do is get 3-4 patsies and have them write up a Jerry Bruckheimer script and pretend its real. Heck even if they rang in a scare its guaranteed to bring the US/UK to a standstill.

SeanW wrote:

No. At the moment, the chances of Ireland having a land invasion or nuclear attack are probably about a million to one, or less.

So what are the chances in 10 years? 20 years? If they are a million to one (if even that) the chances of that raising dramatically with the current geopolitics is almost zero.

So why waste money? Why be forced to change our way of life for something that is so astronomically far off?

Diogenes

SeanW wrote:

No. At the moment, the chances of Ireland having a land invasion or nuclear attack are probably about a million to one, or less. Especially since the new tactic in warfare seems to be to immigrate into Western countries and kill some local civilians, a.k.a. terrorism. The present and future of warfare seems to be asymmetric warfare and that means new ideas are needed.

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of your argument for a stronger military. The only concievable threat Ireland might face is the possibility, the remote possibility of a terrorist threat. Soldiers and an expanded army dont stop terrorism. Therefore using terrorism as an argument to promote increased militarism doesn't make sense.

So the pro said has yet again failed to show that

A) Ireland faces a credible terrorist threat

Our security service, a security service that has been involved in the surveilance of dosmetic terrorists for nigh on 30years, is inadequate and not up to face the terrorist threar.

However, since Ireland does not have a big military, there should always be a Plan B because we don't know what's going to happen in the next 10, 20 or 50 years.

So on the off chance that someone at some point might get a bee in their bonnet and decide to invade a country on the edge of western europe, a country that was last invaded in the late 17th century, and when that happened, we invited the french in.

Geographicaly and Geo politically it is utterly unlikely we will ever be invaded, and I see no point or credible argument in the "we cannot take a chance argument" when there are dozens of far better things to spend the money on.

Any enemy could pop up anywhere at any time, including closer to home. Every crazy out there may not "respect our neutrality," and there's enough of them out there.

The only "plausible" way we are going to be invaded

A) The royal family is wiped out and a minor, barking mad, member of the royality becomes king, overjoyed and in a state of mass hysteria the population of england vote to rip up the magna carta, and restore the divine right of kings and his first edict is to propose the invasion of Ireland.

In a LaPen esque nightmare a strict Islamic law party sweeps to power in france, on a platform to enforce sharia law and invade ireland.

Noone builds a military or defense policy because of a specific threat (usually) but rather for preparedness.

We live on the edge of western europe after the most prosperous and peaceful half century in the history of the continent. I'm not saying some catalyism event cannot occur which might force an invasion etc, I'm just saying there are a near infinite amount of things the government could spend and even waste taxpayer money on than on an expanded military, because of "just in case".

This "just in case" seems to be the only argument the pro military side seem to have. Its not a real argument, unless someone can come with with a credible reason or actual event that shows we should be doing this or even that we are not doing enough I'd listen, 6 pages in I've not heard one.

SeanW

That's the whole point: I'm not advocating building a huge military.

What I AM doing though, is calling Ireland's neutrality into question. Because even though an attack is extremely unlikely, it's not impossible and if it happens will leave us relying on allies for a response - which is not neutral.

TempestSabre

We're neutral in name only, nothing new about that. Soft target? Well if you can bomb the US or their direct allies, whats the point of bombing us? Theres no motive. There has to be easier targets, of higher value. What kinda response you thinking off?

Diogenes

SeanW wrote:

That's the whole point: I'm not advocating building a huge military.

What I AM doing though, is calling Ireland's neutrality into question. Because even though an attack is extremely unlikely, it's not impossible and if it happens will leave us relying on allies for a response - which is not neutral.

So what you're suggesting we just join nato or beef up our military to protect our neutrality?

I really don't understand your point. The likelyhood of us getting any attack is remote, and we're already members of a wider european community, in the likelyhood of a disaster or an invasion it's probably that we'd assist other members of the community.

Seriously I don't understand what you are saying.

democrates

The greatest risk to Ireland I can think of is a jumbo slamming into sellafield. I don't have a major problem with good airport security, or an effective intelligence service with judicial and civilian oversight, but that is far from salivating for a military build-up.

I'm in favour of an Irish military. Backup in the event of civil service strikes, assistance for emergency services, and UN peace-keeping troops, all good. What's missing in my book is an active international peace-broking service and living up to our aid commitment of 0.7% of GDP instead of welching on it. I think we are well placed to specialise in extending this hand of friendship, and given that we prosper under a blanket of freedom provided by others I think we are morally obliged.

jank

Ill believe it when i see it.

lostexpectation

so with these 'irish muslims' arrested in wales?

Chakar

An Islamic lawyer claimed Thursday that Ireland is a “legitimate” target for a terrorist attack.Speaking at a debate at Dublin’s Trinity College, Islamic lawyer Mr. Anjem Choudary claimed that Ireland has become a target because of the government’s decision to allow U.S. troops refuel at Shannon Airport.
“If you are going to allow your country to be used to refuel a U.S. plane which is going on a bombing raid, what do you expect our reaction to be? This is not neutrality,” said Mr. Choudary.

“A U.S. pilot is no different from the Irish person who allows the plane to land. They are collaborators,” he said.

Mr. Choudary also said that “it is better for the Muslim to tell you this reality so we can change this and to make sure what is taking place in other countries will not happen in Ireland.” Another speaker at the debate, Umran Javed, said that he didn’t see an attack on Ireland as likely.

He said however that if Ireland increased its support for the United States then retaliation would come “swiftly”.The comments come just hours after Sir Ian Blair, the head of Scotland Yard, warned that Dublin is at risk of a major terrorist attack.

Mr. Choudary’s comments are being scrutinized by senior Garda officials to see if they violate laws related to the incitement of hatred.The Justice Minister is to wait for the Garda report before issuing a statement on the remarks.

Opposition politicians have responded to Choudary’s remarks by calling for him to be banned from public platforms in Ireland.

According to the Irish Independent, Labour Justice spokesman Joe Costello described his comments “dangerous and provocative.”

“This is a form of incitement to hatred.

It is highly irresponsible to state that Ireland is a legitimate target for attack, especially given what happened in Jordan last week.

“There is a serious question mark about somebody coming into this country and justifying an attack on this country.”

Mr. Choudary was speaking in favour of a motion that the 9/11 US attacks in 2001 were justified.

President of the Islamic Forum of Europe, Musleh Faradhi, said that “Any terrorism act perpetrated by Muslims is condemnable… it goes against the teaching of Islam, the Koran and the teachings of the prophet. “There is no justification whatever for these acts. That is the view of the main body of Muslims worldwide.”

Anjem Choudary is an Islam extremist and this taken from Wikipedia shows that he is not to be underestimated.

Anjem Choudary is 39 years of age and from Ilford, Essex. He is a solicitor and the chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers. Choudary is not currently (July 2006) practicing law, and is going through divorce proceedings.[1]

Choudary, along with Omar Bakri Muhammad, was a leader of Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist group operating in the United Kingdom, until its dissolution in 2004. He now speaks for Bakri, who was banned from Britain on 12 August 2005 by Home Secretary Charles Clarke on the grounds that his presence in Britain was "not conducive to the public good"[2][3]. Choudary is also a spokesman for Al-Ghurabaa, an extremist group widely believed to be a successor to Al-Muhajiroun.

On 15 March 2006 he was arrested in connection with the 3 February protest march, organised by Al Ghurabaa in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[4][5]. He was arrested again on 4 May at Stansted Airport for an alleged breach of bail, and charged with organising the protest without notifying police[6]. On 4 July 2006 he was convicted and fined £500 with £300 court costs.[7]

The film Obsession by Honest Reporting briefly exposes his Islamist hypocrisy, by documenting a simultaneous moderate view to the Western Media while supporting the Magnificent Nineteen behind closed doors. The Magnificent Nineteen is the English Islamist term for the nineteen terrorists that Hijacked American jetliners and flew them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers in New York on September 11.

InFront

Isn't Anjem Choudray the guy who appeared on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman and set off a minor panic when he suggested that Britain would soon become a muslim state.

He's good at talking, anyway. All words.

Chakar where did that come from? In particular the Scotland Yard source?

Chakar

InFront wrote:

Isn't Anjem Choudray the guy who appeared on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman and set off a minor panic when he suggested that Britain would soon become a muslim state.

He's good at talking, anyway. All words.

Chakar where did that come from? In particular the Scotland Yard source?

The link is here-> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-11-10/34635.html

Actually the membership of Turkey to the EU is a issue at the moment as it is at the periphery of Europe and the majority of the population are Muslims.It would mean gross change and Europe is mentally and physically unprepared for that change.

Turkey might be a member in the so distant future when everything and more has been done to fulfil its membership requirements such as the strengthening of the control over Turkish borders and territorial seas by the authorities.

Turkey have pulled out all stops in its reforms to gain membership and negotiation status by abolishing state security courts, reforming the penal code, scrapping the death penalty and allowing Kurdish to be taught and spoken in schools. There is still much more that needs to be done in terms of political reform, improving human rights, protecting minorities, recognizing Cyprus and acknowledging the Armenian genocide.

SeanW

democrates wrote:

The greatest risk to Ireland I can think of is a jumbo slamming into sellafield.

Oh dear, sounds like you've been reading a little to much Greenpeace FUD. Please do some research.

1. They probably have Surface to Air Missile (SAM) batteries near the Sellafield site. If they don't they should.
2. There are no nuclear reactors on the Sellafield site.
3. The intellegence services do seem to be getting better than they were in 2001.
4. Even if they did manage to hit something critical in Sellafield, the consequences would not be like a Chernobyl, for example the devastation in what is now the Ukraine and Belarus was mainly caused by a 10 day graphite fire. Is there any graphite in Sellafield?
5. Most winds via Ireland are moving in a Northwesterly direction. That means even if there was a catastrophic release (which I don't think is going to happen), the most likley victims would be Scotland and the North Sea.
6. Nuclear Power is a strategic ally in the War On Terror - giving Western countries an opportunity to get away from Middle Eastern Oil and all the geopolitical and terrorism issues that go with it. Less need for wars like Iraq and less dependency on sectarian psychpaths like the Saudis and Iran's president Ahmedinajihad. A Uranium economy would be safer than today's fossil fuel addicted ones.
7. Reprocessing facilities like Sellafield enable Nuclear Power Plants to make roughly 20 times better use of Uranium. That's why I for one support the continued operation of Sellafield. :eek:
8. Our biggest concern about nuclear disaster should be what happens when/if Iran's president Ahmewhackojihad gets his hands on some nuclear weapons? What about Kim Jong Ils financially and morally bankrupt but nuclear armed North Korean communist regime? How do we know he hasn't already sold nukes to terrorists? Or that he's mentally stable enough to know not to 'press the red button' when NK gets some decent missile technology?

If you're worried about Nuclear destruction, democrates, look at actual nuclear WEAPONS as opposed to civilian, peaceful, safe and clean Nuclear power.

I'm in favour of an Irish military. Backup in the event of civil service strikes, assistance for emergency services, and UN peace-keeping troops, all good. What's missing in my book is an active international peace-broking service and living up to our aid commitment of 0.7% of GDP instead of welching on it. I think we are well placed to specialise in extending this hand of friendship, and given that we prosper under a blanket of freedom provided by others I think we are morally obliged.

Agree 100% there.

Victor

SeanW wrote:

[*]There are no nuclear reactors on the Sellafield site.

Yeah, but how many have been on neighbouring sites? Calder Hall, Windscale (2)?

SeanW

My understanding is that there's a lot of nuclear activity in the Cumbria area.

The locals don't seem to concerned about the nuclear operations nearby and there seems to be support there for a renewal of nuke plants in the area.

There are a million ways we could experience a nuclear based disaster, and to my mind, peaceful nuclear installations don't even rank in the top 10. My biggest concern would be whether or not North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is selling nukes to terrorists.

Oh and as for "there's no point in attacking Ireland" well I'm sure the Germans thought the same thing: but they were wrong: Train bombing plot surprises Germans. See? You be all understanding and sensitive and opposing the Iraqi war and whatnot, but that's an academic distinction, because these crazies just hate the 'infidels' in the decadent West and anyone seen to be living a Western lifestyle and is not completely hostile the US, in my view is not 100% safe.

Diogenes

SeanW wrote:

Oh and as for "there's no point in attacking Ireland" well I'm sure the Germans thought the same thing: but they were wrong: Train bombing plot surprises Germans. See? You be all understanding and sensitive and opposing the Iraqi war and whatnot, but that's an academic distinction, because these crazies just hate the 'infidels' in the decadent West and anyone seen to be living a Western lifestyle and is not completely hostile the US, in my view is not 100% safe.

Thats nice n all Sean but you've yet to explain what you think we need; you don't think ground troops or an airforce; you've muttered about security and intelligence, but failed to demostrate that our security forces arent up the job.

Secondly as Windscale and Sellafield are so desperate forjobs in such a deprived rural area you can see how residents are indifferent to the dangers, meanwhile the cancer nodes in dundalk bloom.

You keep claiming we need enchanced security. Would you please stop being so vague and explain what we need, to even the remotest level of detail, enchanced internal surrveilance? With an increase on our already dracoian prevention of terrorism legislation? Increased foreign spying?

This is getting fantastically tedious, put up a solution or a credible threat. There will always been a terrorist threat however suggesting that ireland is on a par with say germany is like saying knock is similair to heathrow.

Sparks

SeanW wrote:

Oh and as for "there's no point in attacking Ireland" well I'm sure the Germans thought the same thing

Not with US bases on their soil they didn't.

See? You be all understanding and sensitive and opposing the Iraqi war and whatnot, but that's an academic distinction, because these crazies just hate the 'infidels' in the decadent West and anyone seen to be living a Western lifestyle and is not completely hostile the US, in my view is not 100% safe.

Paranoia. In case you missed it, the Irish foreign policy in the middle east has always been pro-arab; and we have no targets worth attacking on our soil.

TempestSabre

SeanW wrote:

...Oh and as for "there's no point in attacking Ireland" well I'm sure the Germans thought the same thing: but they were wrong: Train bombing plot surprises Germans. See? You be all understanding and sensitive and opposing the Iraqi war and whatnot, but that's an academic distinction, because these crazies just hate the 'infidels' in the decadent West and anyone seen to be living a Western lifestyle and is not completely hostile the US, in my view is not 100% safe.

Yes but then German is heavily involved in Afghanistan with about 2000 troops there. Which is a bit different isn't it? You're trying to draw parallels that don't exist. http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/terror/mil.html

Not that I don't think allowing the US to land in Shannon and those CIA flights wouldn't make us a target thats probably the only thing that would. But we've always had close links to the US because of the generations of Irish that are there and the history thats between us. But improved security is the best defense against terror, not fighter planes.

SeanW

I'm primarily arguing against complacency. For the moment I believe that a slight military improvement, and extra security plus K9 sniffers at the main train, bus stations and air/seaports would be adequate.

I did 'rumble' about Ireland's lack of ability to respond to a conventional attack - I don't believe there's an immediate or urgent need to fix this but rather that it's a strategic weakness, one that can be solved by either a military build up, in line with a policy of neutrality, or join some kind of mutual European defense pact. Essentially this is something that IMO should be looked at, I agree there are higher priorities ATM.

SeanW

OT, but BTW I never understood this:

Secondly as Windscale and Sellafield are so desperate forjobs in such a deprived rural area you can see how residents are indifferent to the dangers, meanwhile the cancer nodes in dundalk bloom.

There a lot of places as close or closer to Sellafield, such as the Isle of Man, and whole load of land in Britain itself. Not to mention Northern Ireland.

I don't understand how none of these areas have these huge cancer problems but a few pop up in Dundalk and suddenly it's automatically caused by Sellafield? Does anyone actually have any proof that Sellafield is causing cancers in Ireland?

To listen to some of this hysteria, you'd be forgiven for thinking we didn't have an ongoing ecological disaster like Moneypoint.

meepins

SeanW wrote:

Who'd want to attack us? How many crazies are there in the world today leading 3rd world ****holes (some with nukes)?

Remember that to a person with no education, and/or religious fanatics, "The West," "infidels" are more of a large conceptual enemy, and national borders and idelogical alignments might sometimes be an academic distinction.

If any of these crazies wanted to get a foothold into Europe, Ireland might be a good place to start given our virtually nonexistant military.

And as for why the U.S. would get involved, well, virtually every other American household name company has major interests in Ireland, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Intel (heavily invested here) Proctor and Gamble, CocaCola etc.

None of these companies would be very happy if some nutter moved in and took over here = US response.

There is no large arab (you call them crazies) network trying to get a foothold in Europe.The whole thing is a myth.
If you really want to understand what is going on I'd suggest you go to google video and look at documentaries like the BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' 3 part series.

TempestSabre

meepins wrote:

There is no large arab (you call them crazies) network trying to get a foothold in Europe.The whole thing is a myth.
If you really want to understand what is going on I'd suggest you go to google video and look at documentaries like the BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' 3 part series.

Care to summarise "BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' 3 part" thoughts on the subject?

Hobbes

TempestSabre wrote:

Care to summarise "BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' 3 part" thoughts on the subject?

It goes over how the administration goes from "What is" to "what if" policy to allow them to basically do any sh!t they want.

To give you a simple example: What if someone who was caught for shoplifting was to do it in the future? Prehaps we should lock them up for life to be on the safe side.

Same application of logic.

its a long documentry. But it also shows you how the Radical islamists and neocons are basically same. As well as showing how fear is helping to keep people in power and not actions to help the community.

democrates

Hobbes wrote:

It goes over how the administration goes from "What is" to "what if" policy to allow them to basically do any sh!t they want.

To give you a simple example: What if someone who was caught for shoplifting was to do it in the future? Prehaps we should lock them up for life to be on the safe side.

Same application of logic.

its a long documentry. But it also shows you how the Radical islamists and neocons are basically same. As well as showing how fear is helping to keep people in power and not actions to help the community.

Spot on imho, Hume et al sidelined up the north while Sinn Fein and the DUP decide the future.

TempestSabre

Hobbes wrote:

It goes over how the administration goes from "What is" to "what if" policy to allow them to basically do any sh!t they want.

To give you a simple example: What if someone who was caught for shoplifting was to do it in the future? Prehaps we should lock them up for life to be on the safe side.

Same application of logic.

its a long documentry. But it also shows you how the Radical islamists and neocons are basically same. As well as showing how fear is helping to keep people in power and not actions to help the community.

Which would prefer to live under, the Radical islamists or the neocons?

Lemming

TempestSabre wrote:

Which would prefer to live under, the Radical islamists or the neocons?

Why must we choose one bunch of right-wing nutcases or the other? Why should we settle for anything less than what we've achived already? Why surrender our freedom to anyone who wants us to surrender our freedom?

TempestSabre

Lemming wrote:

Why must we choose one bunch of right-wing nutcases or the other? Why should we settle for anything less than what we've achived already? Why surrender our freedom to anyone who wants us to surrender our freedom?

Because of the previous comment in context "Radical islamists and neocons are basically same". There wasn't a third choice of the middle ground.

meepins

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=road+to+tyranny

enjoy

Diogenes

TempestSabre wrote:

Which would prefer to live under, the Radical islamists or the neocons?

I always find it funny the people who are general opposed to the demonisation of Islam are generally secular left wing types, opposed to at the same time a right wing christian state, and the argument is put to the by the anti side is usually "Don't come crying to us if you start living under Sharia law" Look we're just as opposed to living under a muslim theocracy as we would be living under a christian theocracy, if there was a rise in fundamental Islam we'd oppose that as well.

I've had two previous dealings with Anjem Choudray and he's slime, slime of the highest order, but he's a leader of fringe minority, he's a less significant but more dangerous flip side to Nick Griffin.

meepins

I'd be more worried if some british or us officials started warning us of terrorist attacks. There's not much chance of that since this country doesn't have much if any political clout and pretty much goes along with what the U.S wants. They use the shannon airport even though public opinion is opposed to it. Was just thinking today how it was a smart move to allow them to or we would be on the end of one of these 'terrorist' attacks.