Hezbollah say to Ireland "you're our friend or our enemy"

marco murphy

Iran? Iraq? Ironic.

Ill be a c-unt and say it was bush who bombed the world trade centre

oscarBravo

Not on this forum, you won't. Try Conspiracy Theories.

marco murphy

Has Hezbollah actually made a statement about targetting Irish troops?

InFront

UNIFIL maybe, I doubt if they singled out Ireland or Irish troops.

It's like the Omar Bakri Mohammed case where some journalist asked him if Shannon airport (though I think he said Dublin) was a legitimate target and he answered to the effect of 'any friend of our enemy is our enemy' or something like that.

The media were nearly falling over themselves with self importance. The guy clearly didn't know where the airport even was.

Archytas

The media were nearly falling over themselves with self importance. The guy clearly didn't know where the airport even was.

This quote (well said InFront) is exactly what I've been saying for years. Everytime there's an "event" somewhere - Its all headlines like "Heuston station is the next target..." or crap like that from the rag newspapers in Ireland. All this talk of Ireland being a target is really laughable... No-one cares who we are or what we think about them. And until a time when this changes the good people who work in or around Shannon airport can rest easy knowing their jobs are secure. Because in all fairness we need to look after the people at home before we go about trying to solve the worlds problems.

Zambia

Hezbollah i am sure have far more important things to do than worry about Shannon I am sure even Al-Queda have bigger fish to fry. The only people who are any real threat to Shannon is hippy types with spanners who interfere with aircarft parked there.

If worse came to worst and Ireland suffered a July 7th style attack , what would the reaction of the irish voter be to "Do a Spain" or react the opposite. I would have voted to let them launch full on bombing missons if such an event took place.

I am sure flight into Shannon contradict irish Neutrality. Then again Irelands Neutrality has always stuck me as simple Naivity, but thats another topic.

Gurgle

Zambia232 wrote:

I am sure flight into Shannon contradict irish Neutrality. Then again Irelands Neutrality has always stuck me as simple Naivity, but thats another topic.

I wonder if our glorious leaders would allow North Korea to use Shannon as a stopover to put an army in Cuba.

The crusades in the middle east are a difficult basis to judge as the enemy there are conveniently piss-poor and don't have any way of hitting back at the invaders.

As for this bollox about Hezbollah, heard it before and don't believe a word of it. They're probably vaguely aware that there are 2 big islands just off the northwest of the european mainland, and that a fair number of the foreign soldiers they see come from somewhere around here.

Neutral or otherwise, we're a part of the first world white christian west.

Next time Germany and France go to war we can judge our neutrality in a meaningful way.

Zambia

Gurgle wrote:

As for this bollox about Hezbollah, heard it before and don't believe a word of it. They're probably vaguely aware that there are 2 big islands just off the northwest of the european mainland, and that a fair number of the foreign soldiers they see come from somewhere around here.

I agree if Ireland was extremly unlucky they may possibly send evil looks in Irelands Direction due to a lack of History and some Action taken by the Royal Irish Regiment in Afganistan.

Gonzo_Reporter

I remember another person giving the same speech only a short while ago "Your either with us or against us". And they're meant to be the good guys.

Dontico

Gurgle wrote:

Next time Germany and France go to war we can judge our neutrality in a meaningful way.

if anyone invades an EU country, ireland is allowed to support the defending country. infact we are suppose to.

Judt

Terrorists will attack us for one reason: We're an opportune target. To Islamic terrorists we're a target because we let women drive cars... We're "Western". If I'm a British-born and bred terrorist and business is slow in Britain due to the security measures in place, what's to stop me from keeping an eye on Ireland and taking the ferry over when the election swings around to blow up a commuter train? If Spain is anything to go by then I'll have a chance to be putting the likes of Sinn Fein into power, at which point Britain, Ireland, the US and wider Europe have a big internal problem on their hands.

The aim of the Islamic terrorist is to terrorize and destabalise the west. It wouldn't matter if we were allowing troops through Shannon or not; they attack soft targets anywhere they can find them. They know that terrorizing Ireland has a knock-on effect in the west. Perhaps we might run scared, or we might lash out and send troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, for example, at which point it's a domino effect.

Never sit here and pretend that if we kept every US soldier out of Ireland we wouldn't be a target. Next it'd be "American tourists find Ireland a popular tourism destination, therefore we will attack the Americans in Ireland." Cop on. These people don't care about reason.

Zambia

Judt wrote:

Perhaps we might run scared, or we might lash out and send troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, for example, at which point it's a domino effect.

Oh like we have never been bombed before ...:rolleyes:

By your rational there is sweet FA anyone in Ireland can do about it. So best we carry on regardless...

marco murphy

JUDT:

It wouldn't matter if we were allowing troops through Shannon or not; they attack soft targets anywhere they can find them.

I beg to differ. Why are'nt they attacking Nike sweatshops in asia?
Why are'nt they targetting Dubai or more effectively Saudi Arabia (They are but why not on a bigger scale)?
They would'nt attack Ireland for no reason.

Judt

Zambia232 wrote:

Oh like we have never been bombed before ...:rolleyes:

By your rational there is sweet FA anyone in Ireland can do about it. So best we carry on regardless...

Err, no. What I'm saying is that you invest in security apparatus rather than burying your head in the sand and leaving your arse sticking out for passerby's to kick. As it is anytime we have a scare it's the Royal Air Force which has to cover us. Royal as in belonging to the evil crown so many Irishmen spilled their blood to get out of Ireland. But ohh well, it's more cost effective down here in the sand...

I beg to differ. Why are'nt they attacking Nike sweatshops in asia?

Islamic militants are extremely active in SE Asia. So too are government security forces. Just because a bush war doesn't make it into the 9 O'Clock news unless some tourists get involved doesn't mean it isn't happening. Terrorism takes on different forms in different parts of the world - in parts of Asia it's more of a guerrilla war than bombs on a train. All depends on the situation.

Why are'nt they targetting Dubai or more effectively Saudi Arabia (They are but why not on a bigger scale)?

They are, but again their security forces are keeping the screws on. You may not have caught the 2-minute segments on the occasional running gun battles Saudi security forces have with Islamic militants. But I think there's a good movie coming up about that, so maybe the population will be better educated then...

They would'nt attack Ireland for no reason.

Think like an Islamic militent and you might cook up a few reasons. Remember, as Britain learned, many of these terrorists are home grown in the neighborhood. They're not all flying in from Saudi Arabia; a boy brought up in the UK is far more likely to pay attention to the Irish political and security situation, put two and two together and pull a Madrid on us.

Manic Moran

The Corinthian wrote:

Indeed, I don't think the Irish government can even legally use the term anymore in relation to Shannon after the Horgan case, which ruled that Ireland was in clear breach of the 1907 Hague Convention on neutrality.

http://www.gluaiseacht.net/projects/legal/courtreports/HorganvIreland/judgements/main/

Perhaps I'm going blind, but where does it say that in the judgement?

Gurgle wrote:

I wonder if our glorious leaders would allow North Korea to use Shannon as a stopover to put an army in Cuba.

Don't see why not. Nobody much complained that I'm aware of when US Air Force airplanes transporting troops to Germany to face off the Soviets were sharing the same tarmac in Shannon as Soviet aircraft transporting troops to Cuba to stare down the Americans.

As for the original topic, it does seem to be an example of 'we can claim to be neutral all we want, but if the belligerants don't recognise your neutrality, it doesn't help much.' This on the simple concept of 'either friend or enemy', as that doesn't allow an 'on-the-fence' option.

NTM

marco murphy

Err, no. What I'm saying is that you invest in security apparatus

No amount of security aparatus can defend against a handful of determined, Islamic fundamentalists.
Would'nt it be easier to just stick to neutrality. Our hospitals are a shame, spend money on that, not protecting Bushs war of terror.

Islamic militants are extremely active in SE Asia. So too are government security forces. Just because a bush war doesn't make it into the 9 O'Clock news unless some tourists get involved doesn't mean it isn't happening. Terrorism takes on different forms in different parts of the world - in parts of Asia it's more of a guerrilla war than bombs on a train. All depends on the situation.

Perhaps you missed my point. Read back.

Think like an Islamic militent and you might cook up a few reasons. Remember, as Britain learned, many of these terrorists are home grown in the neighborhood. They're not all flying in from Saudi Arabia; a boy brought up in the UK is far more likely to pay attention to the Irish political and security situation, put two and two together and pull a Madrid on us.

NOT for no reason.

Judt

No amount of security aparatus can defend against a handful of determined, Islamic fundamentalists.

Unfortunately you're right. But the security apparatus makes the difference between one attack in a blue moon and a sustained campaign.

Would'nt it be easier to just stick to neutrality. Our hospitals are a shame, spend money on that, not protecting Bushs war of terror.

You mean, protect ourselves? As a neutral nation we are obliged under the Geneva Convention, and others to boot, to be capable of defending our neutrality, given that a neutral nation can still be used as a staging point for an attack on another one - Ala Belgium or the Netherlands, for example. The Swiss take their neutrality quite seriously. They have a navy. Tell me what's odd about that and I'll give you my hat.

Now in the modern age of terrorism the threats are slightly different to the Sovs trying to grab Ireland to cut off the UK and Europe from the US. Terrorist acts can breach our neutrality, however, and affect the security of other nations. Therefore if we want to be neutral then we are obliged to be able to defend that neutrality.

"Let's just be neutral" does not say that we need invest no money into security. I'm not talking about regiments of tanks - I'm talking about police intelligence, disaster contingency planning and so forth. We have very, very little of that.

Ireland needs to have security apparatus, whether we have American troops in Shannon or not.

NOT for no reason.

Don't you get it? The fact that we're a western democracy is enough reason for them to attack us. They can think of any excuse. The most obvious one is that we have a lot of American tourists and company's working out of Ireland. Should we expel them all? When do we stop bending over backwards to please our new fascist masters?

Victor

The way I heard the interview, Hezbollah were saying that if UNIFIL didn't stop an Israeli attack into Lebanon, but did stop Hebollah, then UNIFIL was siding with Israel.

Manic Moran wrote:

Don't see why not. Nobody much complained that I'm aware of when US Air Force airplanes transporting troops to Germany to face off the Soviets were sharing the same tarmac in Shannon as Soviet aircraft transporting troops to Cuba to stare down the Americans.

Surely there is a difference between leaving military aircraft pass through and leaving military aircraft pass through on their way to war. But why are we discussing Shannon? I thought this thread was about Hezbollah.

marco murphy

Can you quote the Geneva convention exactly. Sounds like a rule from cloud cuckoo land.

Don't you get it? The fact that we're a western democracy is enough reason for them to attack us. They can think of any excuse. The most obvious one is that we have a lot of American tourists and company's working out of Ireland. Should we expel them all? When do we stop bending over backwards to please our new fascist masters?

My god.
Give one example of a country being suicide bombed that HAD no involvement in the the American war of terror.

Manic Moran

Poblachtach wrote:

My god.
Give one example of a country being suicide bombed that HAD no involvement in the the American war of terror.

Indonesia and Jordan are two that come to mind. I don't believe either is particularly involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now (Or were at the times of the bombings). I'm not entirely sure offhand if the Egyptian resort bombings were anti-Israeli or Anti-something-else.

NTM

Judt

Can you quote the Geneva convention exactly. Sounds like a rule from cloud cuckoo land.

It's been integrated into a few, as part of the overall "rules of war". The first basis comes from Section V of the 1907 Hague Convention, The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers.

Article 5:

A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

You can read articles 2 - 4 Here

Basically they're about the enemy using your land. But, mores be to the point, it requires a neutral nation to be able to defend itself. For example if Islamic terrorists attacked the UK using Ireland as their base of operations, we would be responsible for not stopping that attack. Similarly, we should be able to defend ourselves from these attacks, as they can affect other nations.

As it is, the Royal Air Force provides air protection to Ireland when needed. September 12th 2001 was a notable day, when our skies were owned by the UK, at our request (and also because the UK wanted to shoot down any jets coming from them before they got over "neutral" Ireland, which couldn't shoot down a flock of seagulls.)

Our neutrality is a sham from two points of view: One, yes we allow foreign troops to travel through the country. Two, even if we didn't do that, we cannot defend our neutrality.

Give one example of a country being suicide bombed that HAD no involvement in the the American war of terror.

It's difficult to find anyone in the civilized world who has not been involved, or who if you asked Osama wouldn't be considered a target anyways. This isn't a traditional war in which the President of the US sends a letter to Hitler to ask him to not attack the following countries. Anyone who is not an Islamic state following the guidance of these fascists - and that includes many "Muslim" countries - is a target. They didn't ask if there were any people onboard the aircraft flying towards the World Trade Center who might have been from a totally neutral country.

marco murphy

Indonesia and Jordan are two that come to mind. I don't believe either is particularly involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now (Or were at the times of the bombings). I'm not entirely sure offhand if the Egyptian resort bombings were anti-Israeli or Anti-something-else.

Well I cant answer fully, given that I dont know the dates of the attacks.
For the same reason as Ireland may be a target. Jordan is a stop shop for the US war machine.
The question I should have asked Judt was, name one country that HAS been attacked for ''being western''.

Victor

Poblachtach wrote:

Give one example of a country being suicide bombed that HAD no involvement in the the American war of terror.

Sri Lanka, but it was Buddhists and Hindus doing the suicide bombings.

Manic Moran wrote:

Indonesia and Jordan are two that come to mind.

Jordan is a major player in rebuilding the Iraqi army.

marco murphy

Victor wrote:

Sri Lanka, but it was Buddhists and Hindus doing the suicide bombings.

Well I don't think extremeist Hindus and Buddhists will attack Ireland, over the use of Shannon by the US Military. But. . could be wrong.

Jordan is a major player in rebuilding the Iraqi army.

That is a reason however. Not as Judt claimed, for just being western.
The 'Iraqi Army' is seen as illegitimate by some Iraqis, therefore puts Jordan in the firing line.

Manic Moran

I strongly doubt that Khadr Abu Hoshar, and the other members of Al Qaeda had anything to do with the Iraqi Army in mind when they were arrested and executed for plotting attacks in Amman 1999. The difference is that Jordanian intelligence got to them first.

What connection does Indonesia have to the WoT that Ireland doesn't, that merited a bombing?

After looking up the Egypt bombings, 2004 Sinai was more Anti-Israeli, whilst 2005 (Sharm el Sheikh) and 2006 (Dohab) were more anti-Western. Though not a bombing, Luxor 1997 was pretty blatantly 'We don't like you Western people' either, and killed 60 foreigners, half of whom were Swiss, and I don't think they're even remotely involved in even the Israeli issue.

NTM

marco murphy

Well based on Victors post, absolutely nothing, however, lets put this into context.

I am referring to Judt claims that Islamic Extremeists (namely al qieda) attack countries for merely being western.

What Victor posted is a different kettle of fish.

Victor

Eh, by Indonesia, are we talking about the Bali bombings? Bali is a major tourist destination for "westerners", especially Australians.

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

Eh, by Indonesia, are we talking about the Bali bombings? Bali is a major tourist destination for "westerners", especially Australians.

Indeed. But unless someone plans to isolate Ireland from the rest of the world, it's something which is going to affect the country as well. Unless you're OK with the concept of a bomb going off in Temple Bar as long as 88 American tourists and British Hen/Stag partyers who get killed were the targets, regardless of the effect on the locals.

NTM

spanner

Bertie really does have a free hand on this issue because the average voter on the street really doesnt care about it and he knows it. None of the TDs are coming up from the country giving out about american imperalism.

The fact of the matter is rightly or wrongly issues such as when will they bypass the town, when will the hospital be upgraded, when do we get affordable housing and will the local school be done up.

Voters barely look pass local issues to national ones in influencing their vote, so its unlikely they will be bringing up this issue on the doorstep.

Gurgle

Judt wrote:

Terrorists will attack us for one reason: We're an opportune target. To Islamic terrorists we're a target because we let women drive cars... We're "Western".

How quickly we forget.

Terrorist has become synonymous with Islamic fundamentalists.

You don't have to go to the middle east to find hundreds if not thousands of people who would love to see the Republic of Ireland burn from coast to coast.

Travel north of our capital for a hundred miles and you will find them there, barely held in check by their 'leaders' political ambitions, distracted by their own feuds.

tbh, if I hear on the news that Heuston station has been bombed, I will be looking north first for answers.