Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ireland under threat ?
Options
Comments
-
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.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.
Not even close.0 -
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:
I'm growing a beard. What does that say about my relation to Islam?Growing a beard absolutely has something to do with being a Muslim,
Alternately, if I wasn't growing a beard...what would that say about my relation to Islam?
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.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 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.0 -
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.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.
Secondly, consider the statement again. Growing beards has
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.absolutely nothing
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.0 -
Define "under threat".lil-buttons wrote:Is Ireland under threat from these Terrorists ?
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.Is there anything the Irish government can do to stop it ?
Do you think, incidentally, the Irish government needs to do something about us all being under threat from being killed by lightning?
Lighning aside....Some might say Im lookin to much in to it ? But am I ?
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.0 -
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 put0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
That’s a very relevant point.banaman wrote:to talk about Muslims as a category is as stupid as talking about Christians as a homogenous group.
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:Western European nations and the US are largely to blame for the growth of radical Islam
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?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.0 -
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 street0 -
I don't know if anyone else noticed this article in the guardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1951824,00.htmlLast 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?0 -
Then you're already a victim.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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
Cop on ffs.Sesshoumaru wrote:I wouldn't feel safe using Dublin airport now
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.knowing that their are people out there thinking of ways to kill people who do fly from Dublin.
We were dealing with the most 'professional' terrorists in the world decades before countries like the US got the slightest clue about security.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
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, lollil-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 ?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36371
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement