How would Ireland cope with a '7/7' style attack?

osarusan

biscuithead wrote: »

Would i prefer if the police responding were armed?

Now you're just drifting into "should the police be armed territory". Your hypothetical knife attack could happen at any time on any giv3n day or night anywhere and simply be a criminal matter. Are the 3 soldiers only to spring into action when it has been determined that your attack is in fact a terrorist attack and not some thug knifing a bloke?

You are avoiding the question though.

You said you wondered how armed forces would shorten an attack, and gave a scenario of a bomb attack as an example of how they wouldn't be able to shorten it.

I gave an example of scenarios (knife attack, attack with vehicle) in which I think having armed police or security forces would probably shorten an attack in comparison with unarmed forces.

Would you agree that in the scenarios I gave, it's more likely that armed police or security forces would be able to shorten an attack, or would you not agree?

bear1

osarusan wrote: »

Sure, I agree, the lack of armed police would definitely make any immediate response less effective, and mean that an attacker is less likely to be stopped (in comparison to most other countries, where police are routinely armed).

I wonder, for example, if there was an attack in the centre of Ennis, just how long it would take for any armed police to arrive. The ERU has a number of bases, the locations of which are secret. Are there any police weapons anywhere in the county?

Re your last sentence.
I'm probably wrong but I remember something about there being small arms caches in certain garda stations. Not rural ones but larger more urban ones.

bear1

Grandeeod wrote: »

What are we actually talking about here?

If a terrorist attack took place in the likes of Dublin, it would be just like the UK, France, Germany etc. It would happen.

Are we talking about our security reaction? If we are, then it should be well handled, because despite the usual jokes about the Gardai and Army, the ERU and ARW have loads of guns, vehicles and more than two Garda helicopters available to them.

Do they have more helicopters available to them? Or would this be simply a case that they could take control over the army's helicopters?

Boaty

The army fly the helicopters with the Garda livery, so in the event of an attack, other army helicopters could be used.

On the subject of 7/7, I know and have met someone that was on one of the trains that were bombed - just one carriage down. One of the only things that saved her life was a last second decision to get on a different carriage because the first was too packed.

Anyway - I would imagine we're already prepared for attacks like that, given that we have had an active terrorist organisation already acting in our country for the past few decades.

osarusan

bear1 wrote: »

Re your last sentence.
I'm probably wrong but I remember something about there being small arms caches in certain garda stations. Not rural ones but larger more urban ones.

You are probably right. Certain 'big' stations will have them, Ennis might be one.

But it's not hard to imagine parts of the country where the nearest police gun might be 20 or 30 minutes away, door to door.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

You are probably right. Certain 'big' stations will have them, Ennis might be one.

But it's not hard to imagine parts of the country where the nearest police gun might be 20 or 30 minutes away, door to door.

Then again it would be hard to think that those part of the country would be the subject of a terrorist attack.

bear1

osarusan wrote: »

You are probably right. Certain 'big' stations will have them, Ennis might be one.

But it's not hard to imagine parts of the country where the nearest police gun might be 20 or 30 minutes away, door to door.

I believe loughrea has some as there are one or two detectives there.
Then you've ballinasloe, tuam, galway. So at least in galway guns wouldn't be an issue.
More rural places would be well ****ed but can't see a place like Clifden being attacked.

fxotoole

osarusan wrote: »

If somebody with allegiance to ISIS wants to rent/hijack/etc a car or truck and plough into a load of people, that is easily done, and there is very very little than could be done to stop it.

A few such incidents on busy shopping streets in major towns cities, or at sports venues, or outside nightclubs late at night, could bring the country to a standstill.

But they don't happen - which makes me think that the number of ISIS members/operatives in Ireland and Europe is probably dramatically overstated.

And the Special Branch are more than likely keeping tabs on the small number of jihadist operatives in Ireland

biscuithead

osarusan wrote: »

You are avoiding the question though.

You said you wondered how armed forces would shorten an attack, and gave a scenario of a bomb attack as an example of how they wouldn't be able to shorten it.

I gave an example of scenarios (knife attack, attack with vehicle) in which I think having armed police or security forces would probably shorten an attack in comparison with unarmed forces.

Would you agree that in the scenarios I gave, it's more likely that armed police or security forces would be able to shorten an attack, or would you not agree?

It's a silly question. In fact it's pointless. You have as much chance of being struck by lightning as you have of being killed in a terrorist attack. If I was to recommend that everyone stay indoors to avoid being struck by lightning and then demanded to know if you agreed or not then it would be the same type of thing.

Planting a few soldiers on O'Connell Street and have them sit their on their arses, day in, day out, month in, month out would simply be a waste of time and money. Even if a hapless and incompetent terrorist DID conduct an attack close enough for them to intervene so that he only killed one or two before they shot him his job is still done. He's still spread terror. But any terrorist with half a brain would simply say "right, few soldiers sitting in a jeep drinking tea by the Parnell monument. Idiots. I'll get my mate Abdul to distract them with a bogus hostage situation in Beshoff's while I saunter into the Olympia Theatre and spray the audience with lead, killing dozens."

And wouldn't bomb attacks be much easier and more effective than a gun or knife attack?

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

chocksaway wrote: »

Croke park on all ireland sunday would be a prime target I'm sure

it's been done

osarusan

biscuithead wrote: »

It's a silly question. In fact it's pointless. You have as much chance of being struck by lightning as you have of being killed in a terrorist attack. If I was to recommend that everyone stay indoors to avoid being struck by lightning and then demanded to know if you agreed or not then it would be the same type of thing.

Planting a few soldiers on O'Connell Street and have them sit their on their arses, day in, day out, month in, month out would simply be a waste of time and money. Even if a hapless and incompetent terrorist DID conduct an attack close enough for them to intervene so that he only killed one or two before they shot him his job is still done. He's still spread terror. But any terrorist with half a brain would simply say "right, few soldiers sitting in a jeep drinking tea by the Parnell monument. Idiots. I'll get my mate Abdul to distract them with a bogus hostage situation in Beshoff's while I saunter into the Olympia Theatre and spray the audience with lead, killing dozens."

And wouldn't bomb attacks be much easier and more effective than a gun or knife attack?

You are still avoiding the question ffs.

I'm not asking you whether putting armed soldiers on the street is a worthwhile activity based on the level of risk - I'm asking if you agree that armed forces are going to respond better to certain kinds of attack than unarmed forces. That was what you seemed to be wondering about when you asked about 'shortening an attack.'

Bomb attacks would be more effective than guns (maybe) or knives, yes.

But not easier. It's much easier (and quicker, and attracting less attention in preparation, therefore harder to stop) to drive a car at a load of pedestrians on a crowded street.

To go back to the goalposts you must be tired from moving, I've already said that i think the threat of attack is overstated. If we really did have operative in our midst hellbent on spreading terror, and that terror is so easily spread, then we should be seeing attacks already - but we're not.

But that wasn't the question asked, and I think you know it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Yea, if we could stop giving ISIS ideas on how they could attack us effectively, that would be great. Thanks.

There's a lot of walter mitty types on here.

biscuithead

osarusan wrote: »

You are still avoiding the question ffs.

I'm not asking you whether putting armed soldiers on the street is a worthwhile activity based on the level of risk - I'm asking if you agree that armed forces are going to respond better to certain kinds of attack than unarmed forces. That was what you seemed to be wondering about when you asked about 'shortening an attack.'

Bomb attacks would be more effective than guns (maybe) or knives, yes.

But not easier. It's much easier (and quicker, and attracting less attention in preparation, therefore harder to stop) to drive a car at a load of pedestrians on a crowded street.

To go back to the goalposts you must be tired from moving, I've already said that i think the threat of attack is overstated. If we really did have operative in our midst hellbent on spreading terror, and that terror is so easily spread, then we should be seeing attacks already - but we're not.

But that wasn't the question asked, and I think you know it.

I'm not avoiding the question. I'm simply choosing not to be drawn on it because it's a stupid question. A point-scoring exercise. Someone thinks that putting soldiers and armoured cars at a few locations around the city would be a good thing and I say it would be pointless. If you insist on getting an answer to the question of whether a few armed soldiers could bring an attack to a speedy conclusion, I would say "I haven't got a clue". It all depends on the type of attack, the location of the attack. The attacker could be a skilled marksman who could pick off the 3 soldiers in quick succession and then go back to his business of shooting civilians. You can ask the question all you want but it's a "piece of string" question.

As for a bomb being "difficult"......well if we are to believe the authorities, one can cobble together a bomb with a tube of toothpaste, a can of shaving gel and a bottle of Lucozade (as long as all 3 are over 100 ml), a bomb that could take down a passenger plane, so I'm sure the same combination of bathroom products could be combined to level a cinema.

biscuithead

biscuithead wrote: »

I agree with you about the usual jokes about the Garda. They are a fine police force. People talk about how they are useless and incompetent.

Just take one example of many. Lansdowne Road 1995. This could have been another Heysel or Hillsbourough or Charleroi or Bradford. The Garda emptied that stadium like a bathtub, keeping Combat 18 scumbags in place. A fine contingent of Dub and culchie gardai then proceeded to beat the tar out of these **** all the way to the ferries. I even witnessed gardai in their shirts, sleeves rolled up, dishing out a clubbing to the hooligans. No need for belgian or italian guns and tear gas.

They were warned ahead of time and did nothing. Landsdowne Road was all-seater and there was nothing in the design of the stadium to lead to another Hillsborough or Heysel or, as you laughably bring up, Bradford. The Gardai showed that night what a crap police force they were. They showed that they can hit people after the fact, which ain't exactly fine police work in most of the world.

biscuithead

Deleted User wrote: »

They were warned ahead of time and did nothing. Landsdowne Road was all-seater and there was nothing in the design of the stadium to lead to another Hillsborough or Heysel or, as you laughably bring up, Bradford. The Gardai showed that night what a crap police force they were. They showed that they can hit people after the fact, which ain't exactly fine police work in most of the world.

What do you propose should have been done in light of the warning that known hooligans and right-wing extremists were suspected of travelling to the game? What exactly? Cancel the match? You'd have some derogatory thing to say in this case as well. You'd probably say "Oh, crappy, gutless, gardai can't even handle a few skinheads. They cancel the game a run for the safety of the station-house".

I brought up other disasters because they were avoidable and poorly handled. That there were terraces rather than seats at Hillsbourough is irrelevant but don't let that stop you from splitting hairs. The Sth. Yorkshire police made a bollox of the situation at Hillsbourough. The Gardai at Lansdowne didn't.

And you sneer at the Gardai saying that it doesn't take a genius to crack a few heads. Go ahead and trivialise all you want. The job of the Gardai is to protect the public. At Lansdowne 1995 they didn't just protect a few individuals. They ensured the safety of ten of thousands by getting them out of the stadium in an orderly manner and away from the ground. They then turned their attention to the troublemakers and gave them a decent thrashing. They ensured the ongoing safety of the general public by marching these thugs to the ferries making sure that they didn't cause any more aggro in Dublin and those who tried to peel away got another battering. If that's crappy policing, i'll take it.

biscuithead

biscuithead wrote: »

What do you propose should have been done in light of the warning that known hooligans and right-wing extremists were suspected of travelling to the game? What exactly? Cancel the match? You'd have some derogatory thing to say in this case as well. You'd probably say "Oh, crappy, gutless, gardai can't even handle a few skinheads. They cancel the game a run for the safety of the station-house".

Proper security before the game, proper checks at the border. It's not rocket science.

I brought up other disasters because they were avoidable and poorly handled.That there were terraces rather than seats at Hillsbourough is irrelevant but don't let that stop you from splitting hairs. The Sth. Yorkshire police made a bollox of the situation at Hillsbourough. The Gardai at Lansdowne didn't.

It's completely relevant. The design and lack of knowledge (followed by disgusting cover-up) at Hillsborough was completely different to x number of seats having x number of people there. Hillsborough is completely irrelevant.

And you sneer at the Gardai saying that it doesn't take a genius to crack a few heads. Go ahead and trivialise all you want. The job of the Gardai is to protect the public. At Lansdowne 1995 they didn't just protect a few individuals. They ensured the safety of ten of thousands by getting them out of the stadium in an orderly manner and away from the ground. They then turned their attention to the troublemakers and gave them a decent thrashing. They ensured the ongoing safety of the general public by marching these thugs to the ferries making sure that they didn't cause any more aggro in Dublin and those who tried to peel away got another battering. If that's crappy policing, i'll take it.

Well if everyone thinks like you (and a lot do) then it explains why we'll always have an under-prepared "police" force.
Does it take a genius to crack heads? No. That's not trivialising, that's stating a fact.

Rebelkid

bear1 wrote: »

Do they have more helicopters available to them? Or would this be simply a case that they could take control over the army's helicopters?

The ERU can be deployed via aer corps helicopter to a incident. Has happened before