Ireland under threat ?

lil-buttons · 15-11-2006 10:09am #1

Hi,

When watching the BBC news last night I saw how these radicals are recruiting more and more young people to do their dirty work, however when an undercover news reporter sat in on some meetings and telephone calls one of the Main streamers had said that Dublin was under threat because of our involvement with America - allowing the Americans to fuel up their jets or what ever else they are doing!

It Kinda got me thinkin then -
Is Ireland under threat from these Terrorists ?
Is there anything the Irish government can do to stop it ?
And if it does happen does Ireland have the balls sorry resources to go after these extremists ?
And seriously what would Bertie do ?

Is anybody else kinda worried?
After all we all know someone whos using the airport or a bus or a train ?
Are we really safe ?

Some might say Im lookin to much in to it ? But am I ?

Lemming · 15-11-2006 10:34am

Wrap yourself up in cotton wool and rock back and forth slowly. You'll survive anything ...

In all honesty, claiming that we're under thread for x, y, or z is a moot point. To the kind of people involved in this whole "war on (of) terror", everyone's a target. If you're not muslim well then it's all good and well since you're an infidel brutally oppressing muslims by breathing. if you're a muslim you're going to be a martyr simply because you're an innocent victim of a deranged religious nutjob.

Of course, the reverse is equally true of the religious fruitloops on the other side of the equation.

Stop living your life in fear of what may never come to pass. If it does, there wont be much you can do about it.

mike65 · 15-11-2006 10:36am

Is Ireland under threat from these Terrorists ? --YES
Is there anything the Irish government can do to stop it ? ---NOT MUCH ITSELF
And if it does happen does Ireland have the balls sorry resources to go after these extremists ? -- NO
And seriously what would Bertie do ? -- LOOK GLUM AND WAFFLE ON

Mike.

BuffyBot · 15-11-2006 10:46am

"Dublin" airport could have been substituted with the name of most other aiports and it probably would have got the same response.

J.S. Pill · 15-11-2006 11:21am

I was listening to the radio this morning and the carried that story about one Omar Bakri Mohammed who advocates attacking Dublin airport, where, according to one of his brethern "kuffar American forces fly to reach Iraq to kill our brothers" Check it out

Yes indeed. If they can't even do basic research on their target I doubt they could pull of a sophisticated terrorist attack. Even if they did they'd probably hit the wrong target. I'd be a little bit scared if I was working in Casement Aerodrome...

Sesshoumaru · 15-11-2006 12:05pm

Yes we are a target as is every other western country on the planet. There is nothing you can do to satisfy the terrorists. If it wasn't Shannon airport they would find some other excuse to target us. You could try converting to Islam though..... and growing a really big beard

Otherwise just get used to living under the threat of Islamic terrorism for the next few generations.

15-11-2006 12:24pm

Anyway if they're so stupid as to not know which airport U.S troops go through, I doubt they'd be clever enough to do much.

That said,these guys are mad.

Hobbes · 15-11-2006 12:42pm

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Yes we are a target as is every other western country on the planet.

Unlikely. Haven't seen the documentry yet but if it is the same idiot I saw before on TV they could of done a Brass Eye on him and asked him if lala land is also a target.

growing a really big beard

Actually growing a beard has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

Otherwise just get used to living under the threat of Islamic terrorism for the next few generations.

*shrug* we live under many threats on a day to day basis. At the moment dying of heart disease is a bigger threat then any terrorist.

Anyway if terrorists were to strike it is doubtful they would be stupid about and based on previous MO are more likely to hit Dublin airport not because it has troops going through it (it doesn't) but because it would offer a softer target then trying to hit a military one.

Frederico · 15-11-2006 12:55pm

Tristrame wrote:

Anyway if they're so stupid as to not know which airport U.S troops go through, I doubt they'd be clever enough to do much.

That said,these guys are mad.

The IRA would still be bombing if the Brits just kept dehumanising them, and killing them.. one day we're gonna have to talk to these human beings oh sorry I mean "lunatic crazed bearded deranged killers"..

Hobbes · 15-11-2006 12:58pm

Frederico wrote:

The IRA would still be bombing if the Brits just kept dehumanizing them, and killing them.. one day we're gonna have to talk to these human beings oh sorry I mean "lunatic crazed bearded deranged killers"..

Partly true I believe. The problem isn't the dehumanizing of the terrorists but the dehumanizing of the people who share the same demographic.

In Irelands case it had less to do with the dehumanizing of the IRA and more of anyone who was Irish.

Macker · 15-11-2006 2:40pm

Slightly OT but it's interesting reading the opinions here compared to AH where we're all going to die apparently

Sesshoumaru · 15-11-2006 2:56pm

Frederico wrote:

The IRA would still be bombing if the Brits just kept dehumanising them, and killing them.. one day we're gonna have to talk to these human beings oh sorry I mean "lunatic crazed bearded deranged killers"..

Good luck talking to them. They won't be happy till you and everyone you know are living under sharia law and bowing down towards Mecca everyday or I suppose you could become a dhimmi and pay the jizya tax.

sovtek · 15-11-2006 3:30pm

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Good luck talking to them. They won't be happy till you and everyone you know are living under sharia law and bowing down towards Mecca everyday or I suppose you could become a dhimmi and pay the jizya tax.

Actually not even Bin Laden has said this.

15-11-2006 3:49pm

Frederico wrote:

The IRA would still be bombing if the Brits just kept dehumanising them, and killing them.. one day we're gonna have to talk to these human beings oh sorry I mean "lunatic crazed bearded deranged killers"..

Complete Rubbish.
Such an ignorant post doen't merit much response.

sovtek · 15-11-2006 4:19pm

Tristrame wrote:

Complete Rubbish.
Such an ignorant post doen't merit much response.

Maybe you'd care to explain how it's "rubbish" or "ignorant" with reason and fact rather than "just cause I say so".

Frederico · 15-11-2006 4:27pm

Tristrame wrote:

Complete Rubbish.
Such an ignorant post doen't merit much response.

Okkaayy..

Maybe you think that communication between the Brits and the IRA increased the bombing and the violence?

The 'dehumanise and kill' strategy by the US is not working and is actually increasing the threat of terrorism.

Sesshoumaru · 15-11-2006 4:53pm

sovtek wrote:

Actually not even Bin Laden has said this.

Its what all these terorists are working towards. They don't try to hide it either. They know they've got the upper hand for now.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50020
Welcome to Eurabia 2030

Of course its not just the terrorists. You've got plenty of Saudi oil money flowing in to fund mosques everywhere in Europe like this monstrosity.

15-11-2006 4:54pm

Frederico wrote:

Okkaayy..

Maybe you think that communication between the Brits and the IRA increased the bombing and the violence?

The 'dehumanise and kill' strategy by the US is not working and is actually increasing the threat of terrorism.

If you knew anything about NI,the main players realised that the carry on up there was becoming futile which is not a realisation that's going to come too quick to suicide bombers (there were very few of that ilk involved in the North if any,in fact there was none of that type of fanaticism up north only a few mistakes where bombers blew themselves up).

Talking to Alqueda and talking to the IRA is so so so different.

Theres no point in having a discussion on comparing the two types of terrorist if you think they are so equal that the same strategy will work with both.
They are completely different,ones a tiny mouse and the others a big fat rat in terms of their extremism.

Frederico · 15-11-2006 5:11pm

Tristrame wrote:

If you knew anything about NI,the main players realised that the carry on up there was becoming futile which is not a realisation that's going to come too quick to suicide bombers (there were very few of that ilk involved in the North if any,in fact there was none of that type of fanaticism up north only a few mistakes where bombers blew themselves up).

Talking to Alqueda and talking to the IRA is so so so different.

Theres no point in having a discussion on comparing the two types of terrorist if you think they are so equal that the same strategy will work with both.
They are completely different,ones a tiny mouse and the others a big fat rat in terms of their extremism.

The suicide bombers, the financiers, the brainwashers, the ideologies, the society surrounding the bombers and these people, the general public feeling..
Its very complex..

The same strategy? what strategy do the Americans have now.. is it currently working? the answer is no. Will it ever work? the answer is no. The US strategy is barely containing Islamic terrorism at best.

We need to talk and we need to drive a rift between muslims and extremists, not muslims and ourselves. We need to hit the extremists hard, but surgically, not with a giant blunt object like the Americans have done. You don't drag a net through Afghanistan picking up shop vendors and taxi drivers hoping to catch a few terrorists and somehow think its gonna make the problem any better.

15-11-2006 5:15pm

Frederico,I'm really only taking issue with the direct comparison with the IRA,I dont think it's a valid one as the mindset of an Alqueda terrorist is so much different.

I wouldnt argue with the merit of your later points.

Frederico · 15-11-2006 5:41pm

Tristrame wrote:

Frederico,I'm really only taking issue with the direct comparison with the IRA,I dont think it's a valid one as the mindset of an Alqueda terrorist is so much different.

I wouldnt argue with the merit of your later points.

Fair enough

I just wouldn't rule out dialogue ever, whether it be the IRA, North Korea, the LRA in Uganda, Farc, Hutu's, drug lords, Islamic suicide bombers.. sometimes its just alot easier to draw lines than it is to swallow pride.

philologos · 15-11-2006 5:58pm

This is merely scaremongering, I really don't think there is any potential threat, and if there was a threat it is due to the fact that our so called "neutrality" isn't all that neutral in the case of the "War on Terror"

Schuhart · 15-11-2006 6:14pm

Hobbes wrote:

The problem isn't the dehumanizing of the terrorists but the dehumanizing of the people who share the same demographic.

That’s a sensible comment.

Hobbes wrote:

Actually growing a beard has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

Beards are not exactly crucial to this whole agenda. So I don’t see the need to pretend they’ve nothing to do with Islam.

"Growing a beard is considered a great Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is also one of the great legacies inherited from all of the previous prophets and messengers of Allah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered us: “Grow your beards and trim or clip the moustaches.” In light of such precedents, most of the past scholars and Imams go as far as declaring that growing a beard is obligatory on males.

What we stated above makes it clear that no Muslim should take the issue of the beard lightly. At the same time, we must also state categorically that one should not conclude from what has been said earlier that growing a beard in Islam has the same religious significance as that of the other prescribed rituals. This is definitely not the case. Thus it is important for us to recognize that we are not allowed to ostracize men who do not have beards nor are we to question their basic faith.

sovtek · 15-11-2006 6:48pm

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Its what all these terorists are working towards. They don't try to hide it either. They know they've got the upper hand for now.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50020
Welcome to Eurabia 2030 Of course its not just the terrorists. You've got plenty of Saudi oil money flowing in to fund mosques everywhere in Europe like this monstrosity.

And bin laden offered a truce

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4743768/

Hobbes · 15-11-2006 6:57pm

Sesshoumaru wrote:

They won't be happy till you and everyone you know are living under sharia law and bowing down towards Mecca everyday or I suppose you could become a dhimmi and pay the jizya tax.

Actually thats not what they have said their aims are at all.

As I understand it AQ aims are...
1. Remove Americans out of all Muslim nations.
2. Remove American influence also.
3. Destroy Israel
4. Topple pro-western dictatorships in the middle east.

Although OBL himself has said he would unite all muslims and establish by force an Islamic nation ruled as the first Caliphs.But thats not the same as taking over every country in the world.

Sorry but we aren't that important enough. I am sure they will get around to what you are saying sometime.

Hobbes · 15-11-2006 7:01pm

Schuhart wrote:

Beards are not exactly crucial to this whole agenda. So I don’t see the need to pretend they’ve nothing to do with Islam.

As I said you pointed out in what you quoted you don't need a beard to be a muslim, nor is it required.

15-11-2006 8:20pm

Frederico wrote:

Fair enough

I just wouldn't rule out dialogue ever, whether it be the IRA, North Korea, the LRA in Uganda, Farc, Hutu's, drug lords, Islamic suicide bombers.. sometimes its just alot easier to draw lines than it is to swallow pride.

Well I think something might be happening in terms of talking to countries such as Iran and Syria rather than just dismissing them as an axis.
I dont think any talking to suicide bombers would do any good, they are too fanatical in their outlook whatever hope there is in talking to governments.

As for Osama Bin Laden and his ilk,I wouldnt take their word as far as I could throw it if it was wrote on Granite.

Now MODERATOR HAT on (Directed at all posters) : The next person that comments adversly on mainstream Islamic religions,their church sizes or anything like that will get a one week ban.
You can take those kind of discussions elsewhere,I'll leave it up to those that want to talk about that kind of thing as to where ye want to talk about it, but you are not to do it here.
There will be no further warning.

Schuhart · 15-11-2006 8:57pm

Hobbes wrote:

As I said you pointed out in what you quoted you don't need a beard to be a muslim, nor is it required.

This is going to be harder than it has to be.

What you said was

Hobbes wrote:

Actually growing a beard has absolutely nothing to do with Islam

"Absolutely nothing to do with" is quite different to saying that Muslims are not required to have a beard. Growing a beard absolutely has something to do with being a Muslim, as it is seen as a good thing to do.

The quote I have posted is saying the equivalent of “many Roman Catholics say the Rosary regularly, but it’s not a requirement”. You are saying the equivalent of “the Rosary has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism”.

This means what you are saying is just plain wrong.

I know some people get unnecessarily apocalyptic about Islam. Oversteer in the opposite direction will not cure that.

Sesshoumaru · 15-11-2006 9:46pm

Hobbes wrote:

Actually thats not what they have said their aims are at all.

As I understand it AQ aims are...
1. Remove Americans out of all Muslim nations.
2. Remove American influence also.
3. Destroy Israel
4. Topple pro-western dictatorships in the middle east.

Although OBL himself has said he would unite all muslims and establish by force an Islamic nation ruled as the first Caliphs.But thats not the same as taking over every country in the world.

Sorry but we aren't that important enough. I am sure they will get around to what you are saying sometime.

What pro western dictatorships would these be? Saudi Arabia? Don't make me laugh. There is nothing pro western about that regime. Sure they'll send over prince XYZ to tell us all the soothing words we want to hear. But back home what they teach in their schools about Europe and America is completely different.

RedPlanet · 15-11-2006 9:58pm

Ireland is not under threat (imo).
What we are hearing is at most, just a rant by some pathetic, spiteful religious zealots whom instead of ignoring, the media have decided to bandy there comments about in order to sell news.

Little doubt Republican dissidents, Loyalist terrorists, and criminal gangs pose a greater risk to our safety.

pete · 15-11-2006 10:06pm

Hobbes wrote:

Unlikely. Haven't seen the documentry yet but if it is the same idiot I saw before on TV they could of done a Brass Eye on him and asked him if lala land is also a target.

If you're thinking Jon Ronson's documentary 'Tottenham Ayatollah'*, then yep it's the same guy (if in fact it was him speaking). I just watched it a couple of weeks ago and in general, Ronson made him look like a self-aggrandising buffoon.

Anyways, Bakri was responding to a question from someone from "Vigil" (whoever they might be), so if we're going to accuse anyone of being too stupid to know which airport the US troops go through.....

Newsnight wrote:

A chatroom has been infiltrated by a group called Vigil, which aims to disrupt radical groups and report back to police and security services.

During an online question and answer session a Vigil member asked Omar Bakri Mohammed if Dublin Airport should be a terrorist target because US troops transit there on the way to Iraq.

The cleric replied: "Hit the target and hit it very hard, that issue should be understood. Your situation there is quite difficult therefore the answer lies in your question."

Listening to the coverage on Morning Ireland today they made it sound like a full-fledged plot had been uncovered.

* had a hilarious scene of him waiting for his fliers in the copy shop with the hasidic dude beside him, both of them eyeing each other up. Bakri turns to the camera, smiles and sheepishly says "A very sensitive moment......".

Gurgle · 16-11-2006 9:28am

Tristrame wrote:

I'm really only taking issue with the direct comparison with the IRA,I dont think it's a valid one as the mindset of an Alqueda terrorist is so much different.

Of course the mindset is different, we were never oppressed, dehumanised and degraded by the British in the way the Arab world has been treated by the US.

Not even close.

bonkey · 16-11-2006 11:00am

Schuhart wrote:

What you said was"Absolutely nothing to do with" is quite different to saying that Muslims are not required to have a beard.

I'd argue that Hobbes' perspective is more correct. For the following reason:

Growing a beard absolutely has something to do with being a Muslim,

I'm growing a beard. What does that say about my relation to Islam?

Alternately, if I wasn't growing a beard...what would that say about my relation to Islam?

The quote I have posted is saying the equivalent of “many Roman Catholics say the Rosary regularly, but it’s not a requirement”. You are saying the equivalent of “the Rosary has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism”.

I am willing to wager any sum of money you like that there are more bearded non-Muslims in the world than there are non-Christians reciting the rosary at any given point in time.

I know some people get unnecessarily apocalyptic about Islam. Oversteer in the opposite direction will not cure that.

Saying that my beard or lack thereof is no comment on my religious leanings is not oversteer. Its rationality.

Aside : Santa also has a beard. If beards, in your view, definitely have something to do with Islam, then what has Santa's beard got to do Islam?

Being pedantic, what you probably meant is that it would not be corrct to say that the Islamic faith has nothing to do with beards....but thats an entirely different statement.

Schuhart · 16-11-2006 11:34am

bonkey wrote:

Being pedantic, what you probably meant is that it would not be corrct to say that the Islamic faith has nothing to do with beards....but thats an entirely different statement.

I know what you are getting at, and some correction of what I’ve said is necessary along the lines you say. But I think you need to consider two things. Firstly, the context of Hobbes’ response is someone referring to beard growing as an Islamic practice. He seems to intend (although, in fairness, he can clarify if this is not the intention) his statement to refute that idea. So the statement is misleading in that context.

Secondly, consider the statement again. Growing beards has

absolutely nothing

to do with Islam. Now, I could accept a statement like ‘usually growing a beard has absolutely nothing to do with Islam’. I’d even take that on trust without requiring any links to statistics on beard growers and their religious affiliations. That gets Santa off the hook. But a statement that growing beards has ‘absolutely nothing’ to do with Islam, when sometimes people grow them specifically because of their practice of that religion, is clearly wrong. In the context in this thread, it’s clearly misleading.

What Hobbes should have said is ‘it is not a requirement for a Muslim to grow a beard’. He could even add ‘although some Muslims do for religious reasons’. Why it’s so difficult to simply have that point acknowledged is beyond me, and I do suspect that it’s a symptom of the general level of overprotectiveness that some adopt in response to the more outlandish claims made about Islam. That’s what all that ‘oversteer’ stuff is about. I don’t see that oversteer as a rational process.

Finally I think we’ve also correctly assessed the level of threat to be assigned to remarks made in a chat room by devoting our minds entirely to the beard growing implications that fall out of this.

bonkey · 16-11-2006 12:39pm

lil-buttons wrote:

Is Ireland under threat from these Terrorists ?

Define "under threat".

Do you mean "is it possible that they may choose Ireland to attack"? If so, then sure we're under threat. By the same logic, however, each and every one of us is under threat from being killed by lightning. Indeed, statistically, I believe lightning is the more likely of the two to be the cause of your downfall.

If, however, you mean "is it likely that they will choose Ireland to attack in a near-to-medium timeframe", I'd say that the answer is no and that lightning still poses a bigger threat.

Is there anything the Irish government can do to stop it ?

Until you define "under threat" and establish that we are indeed "under threat", then there is no "it" for the irish government to do anything about.

Do you think, incidentally, the Irish government needs to do something about us all being under threat from being killed by lightning?

Some might say Im lookin to much in to it ? But am I ?

Lighning aside....

Assuming you're old enough (and I mean that in the sense that I've no idea what age you are) to remember....did you lose sleep about Ireland being Under Threat from Unionist extremist "retaliation" to IRA acts?

Now, its easy for someone to point out that historically, there wasn't really ever such a threat, and that we wouldn't ever have really been a target of such groups. I'd probably agree with them, history being mostly on their side 'n all. But here's the thing....I would argue that these groups would have been more likely to choose Ireland as a target than those you worry about now.

A sense of perspective seems to be an increasingly rare commodity these days. I guess its a bit like when all of Europe was quaking in its boots about the Red Army sweeping from the good ol' USSR, conquering all of Western Europe and turning us all into commies. Only they weren't really quaking, and it wasn't really likely.

On (or shortly after) September 11, 2001, President Bush addressed not just America, but the world. He told us all that we should not allow the terrorists to change our way of life, because to do so would mean they had won.

He apparently didn't mean it at teh time, or rapidly changed his mind, because since then its been one litany after another about why we need to change our way of life to stop them from winning. The terror that we weren't supposed to give in to....its being sold to us supersized by governments who realise how potent a weapon terror is, and who are determined that the terrorists aren't going to be the only ones benefiting from how people react to being scared.

Rather than protecting us from terror and allowing us to live our lives, they're making sure we're as scared as possible so they can use it to serve their own agendas.

If you live in Baghdad, then sure....you've a right to be scared of terrorism on a daily basis. If you live in Dublin...someone is selling you paranoia to serve their own agenda.

Frederico · 16-11-2006 12:58pm

bonkey wrote:

Define "under threat".

Do you mean "is it possible that they may choose Ireland to attack"? If so, then sure we're under threat. By the same logic, however, each and every one of us is under threat from being killed by lightning. Indeed, statistically, I believe lightning is the more likely of the two to be the cause of your downfall.

If, however, you mean "is it likely that they will choose Ireland to attack in a near-to-medium timeframe", I'd say that the answer is no and that lightning still poses a bigger threat.

Until you define "under threat" and establish that we are indeed "under threat", then there is no "it" for the irish government to do anything about.

Do you think, incidentally, the Irish government needs to do something about us all being under threat from being killed by lightning?

Lighning aside....

Assuming you're old enough (and I mean that in the sense that I've no idea what age you are) to remember....did you lose sleep about Ireland being Under Threat from Unionist extremist "retaliation" to IRA acts?

Now, its easy for someone to point out that historically, there wasn't really ever such a threat, and that we wouldn't ever have really been a target of such groups. I'd probably agree with them, history being mostly on their side 'n all. But here's the thing....I would argue that these groups would have been more likely to choose Ireland as a target than those you worry about now.

A sense of perspective seems to be an increasingly rare commodity these days. I guess its a bit like when all of Europe was quaking in its boots about the Red Army sweeping from the good ol' USSR, conquering all of Western Europe and turning us all into commies. Only they weren't really quaking, and it wasn't really likely.

On (or shortly after) September 11, 2001, President Bush addressed not just America, but the world. He told us all that we should not allow the terrorists to change our way of life, because to do so would mean they had won.

He apparently didn't mean it at teh time, or rapidly changed his mind, because since then its been one litany after another about why we need to change our way of life to stop them from winning. The terror that we weren't supposed to give in to....its being sold to us supersized by governments who realise how potent a weapon terror is, and who are determined that the terrorists aren't going to be the only ones benefiting from how people react to being scared.

Rather than protecting us from terror and allowing us to live our lives, they're making sure we're as scared as possible so they can use it to serve their own agendas.

If you live in Baghdad, then sure....you've a right to be scared of terrorism on a daily basis. If you live in Dublin...someone is selling you paranoia to serve their own agenda.

well put

banaman · 16-11-2006 1:20pm

Having lived in London I can attest to the fact that to talk about Muslims as a category is as stupid as talking about Christians as a homogenous group.

Talking, and vilifying, young Muslims as gullible or brainwashed is likewise crap and purely racial stereotyping.
Would you listen to someone who labelled ALL christain youth under one banner?

As to reaching peace and understanding with Islamic governments and religious leaders we already have good links with many and if we (the West) want to help dampen down Islamic radicalism then perhaps we should stop stoking it quite so much.

E.G. we came to Iraq after decades of lies and callous indifference and have brought chaos and a particular agenda (i.e. why is the only reconstruction project that is on time the new US embassy fortress?) then there is Afghanistan and most crucially Israel (what image of democracy does Israel show to its Arab neighbours?) In answer to that question I suggest you read this article http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=11397

Until we accept our responsibility for the creation of the situation "on the ground" we will never be able to engage in any meaningful dialogue with those Islamists who denigrate our much trumpetted, but seldom adhered to, values.

Western European nations and the US are largely to blame for the growth of radical Islam in much the same way that British Colonialism was responsible for the growth of Irish Nationalism as we know it today. Unless and until there is a true recognition of the injustices, oppression and wilful neglect of indigenous rights we were (and still are) prepared to tolerate and abett in the Middle East (and beyond) we will never be able to address the fundamental grievances at the heart of radical Islam and other anti-Western movements.

Schuhart · 16-11-2006 3:32pm

banaman wrote:

to talk about Muslims as a category is as stupid as talking about Christians as a homogenous group.

That’s a very relevant point.

banaman wrote:

Western European nations and the US are largely to blame for the growth of radical Islam

I think comparisons to something meaningful in our own history is useful. But I’d query the idea that radical Islam is something the West is largely creating, as presumably local factors are more important. Just as Republicans and Loyalists are more interested in having a go at each other than anyone outside their little world, so too factions in Iraq, say, probably see their local conflicts as more immediate and important.

banaman wrote:

Unless and until there is a true recognition of the injustices, oppression and wilful neglect of indigenous rights we were (and still are) prepared to tolerate and abett in the Middle East (and beyond) we will never be able to address the fundamental grievances at the heart of radical Islam and other anti-Western movements.

But does this not put the West into conflict with power groups in those regions in much the same way as at present? All that might change is who exactly the conflict is with. For example, does this mean the US should demand that Saudi Arabia lifts its prohibitions on religious freedom?

sinbadfury · 20-11-2006 12:09am

The 'dehumanise and kill' strategy by the US is not working and is actually increasing the threat of terrorism.

Would I be roasted in suggesting that the majority of terrorism in this world today is at the hand of the united states? Ask anyone trying to live and work in a city in the middle east that is being bombed because they are seen as a 'threat to future way of life of us angelic Westerners.'

Never mind the fact that the groups involved are firing US/western weapons with US/Western military training, that have become either a nuisance or no longer required for what is quick becoming a world domination by one war-mogering nation!

Take the rise of terrorism from say a hundred years ago to present day seriously and objectively and you will not find anything that they did not have some hand in.

'Terrorism' creates fear and fear can control nations. Security measures to 'protect' nations are excuses to infringe more restrictions on the nations people themsleves.

Just for the record I am NOT islamic, NOT extremist in any way, do NOT agree with 'voilant acts' of one group against another in the same way that I do NOT agree with bombing a whole country of innocent people to get rid of a 'threat' that was planted by the US at some stage in the past. Saddam and Iraq comes to mind.

The main point here is if you have taken a side in this argument about world power, terrorism etc then your vision is clouded to the 'real and underlying truth of it all'
You have to step back before you can really comment on this and be actually prepared to accept that the problem will not always be on one side, both sides can be right or wrong with regard to the whole issue of world security.

Terrorism is not a one way street

Sesshoumaru · 22-11-2006 10:21am

I don't know if anyone else noticed this article in the guardian

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1951824,00.html

Last Tuesday the expelled Islamist cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed was seen exhorting young British Muslims in an online broadcast from Beirut to target Dublin because he incorrectly believed US troops used the airport as a transit centre on the way to Iraq and Afghanistan. Now it has emerged that key al-Qaeda bomb-making expert Abbas Boutrab visited both Dublin and Knock airports. Information on the airports was found at his north Belfast flat three years ago, according to evidence at his trial in Belfast Crown Court last November.

Boutrab lived in the Irish Republic for four years after successfully applying for political asylum using a fake identity. He left Lucan, Dublin, in 2002 after becoming the main suspect in a knife attack on an asylum seeker and moved to Belfast, where he lived under another false ID.

Al-Qaeda's presence in Ireland became apparent last August when the Garda seized a DVD with lectures on how to construct detonators and bombs while it was on its way to Britain. One senior officer in the Garda Siochana described the content of the training DVD as 'brilliant and terrifying'.

I have to wonder are we doing enough to stop these terorists using/attacking Ireland? I wouldn't feel safe using Dublin airport now, knowing that their are people out there thinking of ways to kill people who do fly from Dublin. I mean I never thought Dublin airport did a good job on basic stuff like getting people to their destinations on time. How competent can they be when it comes to security?

Gurgle · 22-11-2006 11:54am

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I wouldn't feel safe using Dublin airport now, knowing that their are people out there thinking of ways to kill people who do fly from Dublin.

Then you're already a victim.

tbh, when I see a Bin Laden video referring to Dublin I might start to worry.

Omar Bakri Mohammed is just a self-publicising prat who is determined to have his name mentioned somewhere in a history book.

HelterSkelter · 22-11-2006 12:07pm

Almost 400 people are killed and 10,000 injured on our roads every year. Does that stop anybody driving? No! Yet people are getting all worked up about a possible terrorist attack in which you have more chance of being killed by lightening as a pervious poster said.

This is all just scare mongering. Mostly by the media to sell papers imo.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-11-2006 1:37am

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I wouldn't feel safe using Dublin airport now

Cop on ffs.

knowing that their are people out there thinking of ways to kill people who do fly from Dublin.

As a Westerner there will be people out there thinking of ways to kill you all the time. You'll have to deal with it. Just remember your chances of winning the Euro Millions jackpot are many times higher than your chances of being killed in a (non-Northern Ireland-related) terrorist attack.
We were dealing with the most 'professional' terrorists in the world decades before countries like the US got the slightest clue about security.

dead one · 20-06-2012 5:34am

lil-buttons wrote: »

Hi,

When watching the BBC news last night I saw how these radicals are recruiting more and more young people to do their dirty work, however when an undercover news reporter sat in on some meetings and telephone calls one of the Main streamers had said that Dublin was under threat because of our involvement with America - allowing the Americans to fuel up their jets or what ever else they are doing!

It Kinda got me thinkin then -
Is Ireland under threat from these Terrorists ?
Is there anything the Irish government can do to stop it ?
And if it does happen does Ireland have the balls sorry resources to go after these extremists ?
And seriously what would Bertie do ?

Is anybody else kinda worried?
After all we all know someone whos using the airport or a bus or a train ?
Are we really safe ?

Some might say Im lookin to much in to it ? But am I ?

Exactly six years have been passed since the thread was made. But it's amazing to see now, how BBC was brainwashing common people about Islam at that time and Now , the people, who learnt islam from such a bigoted media, are fully grown, who could change their mind. Ireland under threat, lol

Black Swan · 20-06-2012 8:12am

dead one wrote: »

Exactly six years have been passed since the thread was made.

MOD COMMENT:
Resurrecting a thread this old is problematic in that many of its contributors have moved on and long since forgotten it.

LOCKED.

Ireland under threat ?

Comments