New anti-terrorism laws for Ireland to be introduced ‘within weeks’

Mr. G

bear1 wrote: »

Well, I think the first thing they should do is create an official intelligence agency which is tasked with searching out these types of individuals.
Also, our laws are already there for anti-terrorism, it's the judges that need to act accordingly on them.
Those who are found to be fighting abroad should have immediately their citizenship removed (if they have one) and also barred from returning.
I'm also curious as to which definition these laws will come under?

Our intelligence agency already exists - also known as G2. Part of the Defence Forces. Very secretive it seems and honestly that's the way it should be.

Peregrine

Mr. G wrote: »

Our intelligence agency already exists - also known as G2. Part of the Defence Forces. Very secretive it seems and honestly that's the way it should be.

He wants it merged with the Gardaí for some reason..

Sociopath2

Mr. G wrote: »

Our intelligence agency already exists - also known as G2. Part of the Defence Forces. Very secretive it seems and honestly that's the way it should be.

Not that secretive and not that large either. It is split into two sections; Defence and National Security. Defence prepare briefings on situations worldwide, such as areas where Irish troops are going to deploy abroad, Lebanon, Syria etc. National Security monitor threats to the state etc. They have very few operational personnel out on the ground and rely mainly on intelligence sent from outside agencies. The defence forces as a whole is understaffed and underfunded and certainly not in a position to effect any real intelligence gathering effort.

Herb Powell

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Most people support freedom of speech, expression and the victims of terrorism. Not just the magazine.



There are currently at least 3,000 European based Jihadis with ISIS. Some have already returned. More will do so. It's prudent to put plans in place on how to deal with them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/major-terrorist-attack-inevitable-isis-eu

I agree this should be monitored. But the government drawing up brand new legislation right in the wake of this highly publicised attack, as if terrorism is something completely new, comes off as populist **** to me. Seen to be doing something when it's convenient and in the mind of the public. IDK, I'm cynical about the whole thing to be quite honest. Bad bad times.

Sociopath2

Nim wrote: »

He wants it merged with the Gardaí for some reason..

Police officers are not intelligence officers. Most countries separate the two functions. The Gardai had that function since the civil war, initially to combat the IRA and it was never changed as we have traditionally not maintained a serious defence/intelligence structure in this country. Just because it's always been done this way doesn't mean it's a good idea.

the dark phantom

Herb Powell wrote: »

Memes are too easy to consume, they don't require any reflection.

Before anyone has a go, I will make it clear that I think what happened was disgusting. People should be allowed to publish whatever, especially if it's lampooning something dogmatic and silly. The people who carried out this attack are ****ing cowards, who only care about themselves.

HOWEVER, this comes at far too convenient a time. I feel like everyone is trying to capitalise on the atrocity. I have remained relatively silent here, because I don't feel like I'm familiar enough with Charlie Hebdo to make a fully valid contribution, but I will say I agree with the statment from Bernard Holtrop, on all the sudden support for the magazine.

How is this relevant to the thread, you might ask? Do you really think we'd have such rushed legislation being proposed if this wasn't such a fuccking popular issue to have an opinion on?

Its a reactionary response. Plain and simple. Theres always a story behind the story, Look at the Dublin Monaghan bombings and the collusion during the Troubles, Thats my two cents..

Its inevitable that Ireland will eventually be attacked but will our agencies and intelligence suddenly stop monitoring suspects/perpetrators 6 months before they attack??..

I smell a rat with the lot of it to be honest.

Our government may well have good intentions, But its realistically very hard to stop a random person committing an act of terror. If those terrorists have the best of military experience and training from the top they may well know to operate discreetly beyond the rader.

MadYaker

I think the main priority should be to identify individuals who have gone to fight with extremist groups abroad and ensure that they can never return.

realistically though Ireland isn't a target for any of these people. We've done nothing to piss them off. But I suppose considering the ease of movement between Ireland and the rest of the EU we sort of have a duty to ensure that terrorists don't decide to use Ireland as a gateway to the UK or Europe because they know we aren't looking out for them.

Desolation Of Smug

conorhal wrote: »

I suspect that ol Ben probably didn't concieve of asymetric urban warfare in which islamic terrorists targeted civilians any more then he considered the notion that an 8yr old might load 40mm armour peircing, caseless, teflon tipped rounds into her Hello Kitty assault rife, when the right to bare armes was discussed.

You reckon the burqua is the answer? Or just long sleeved shirts?

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

Those who are found to be fighting abroad should have immediately their citizenship removed (if they have one) and also barred from returning.

That's a lot of lads in the British and US armed forces you've just locked out there. At least you're impartial about it.

Dan_Solo

BeerWolf wrote: »

Then they'll become stateless, and exiled... they can **** off to the Middle East if they love it's way of life and laws there.


And it's not hard to spot a radical with what they preach...

That's Opus Dei and Youth Defence on the plane out then. Yay.

who the fug

world_weary wrote: »

yes , liberals are just what we need to deal with those lads in ISIS

Funny enough in this day and age a Liberal is what we need, (Lets face it We are never going to do a Gengis Khan on these mutts) as repression just exacerbates the problem.

bear1

Nim wrote: »

He wants it merged with the Gardaí for some reason..

I've already given my reason for it. You have your opinion and that's fine by me so no need for a smart ass post.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a lot of lads in the British and US armed forces you've just locked out there. At least you're impartial about it.

Is this thread about joining the British/American army or is it about illegal terrorist groups which take people hostage, cut their heads off, shoot police officers dead, blow themselves up in crowds?
Are the British/American forces an illegal group?
There is nothing to be impartial about as we are talking about illegal groups, not legal groups.
But hey, don't let that stop you from twisting words and coming up with nonsensical posts.

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

Is this thread about joining the British/American army or is it about illegal terrorist groups which take people hostage, cut their heads off, shoot police officers dead, blow themselves up in crowds?
Are the British/American forces an illegal group?
There is nothing to be impartial about as we are talking about illegal groups, not legal groups.
But hey, don't let that stop you from twisting words and coming up with nonsensical posts.

Who decides if they are "illegal"? Illegal where? I'm sure it would be illegal for the US Army to operate here, but they are "legal" in the US.
Anybody you don't like today then is the criteria, yes?
Get back to us when you have a plan better than "get the bad guys!" OK?

bear1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who decides if they are "illegal"? Illegal where? I'm sure it would be illegal for the US Army to operate here, but they are "legal" in the US.
Anybody you don't like today then is the criteria, yes?
Get back to us when you have a plan better than "get the bad guys!" OK?

Ah here don't act the dick.
Who decides if they are legal then?
I didn't say once "let's get the bad guys" I said merely that those who choose to go to these groups which are terrorist groups should not be allowed back into the country.
And tell me how are they not illegal? ISIS forms a caliphate, invades certain parts of a group of countrys and then enforces their own laws upon those who are unfortunate enough to remain there.
And operate here in what way? Create a base? Or what they flat out invade us and then force their laws upon us? If the latter then yes it would be illegal.
You seem to enjoy twisting words but as I said go on ahead
But please get back to "us" when you actually know what you are talking about.

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

Ah here don't act the dick.
Who decides if they are legal then?
I didn't say once "let's get the bad guys" I said merely that those who choose to go to these groups which are terrorist groups should not be allowed back into the country.
And tell me how are they not illegal? ISIS forms a caliphate, invades certain parts of a group of countrys and then enforces their own laws upon those who are unfortunate enough to remain there.
And operate here in what way? Create a base? Or what they flat out invade us and then force their laws upon us? If the latter then yes it would be illegal.
You seem to enjoy twisting words but as I said go on ahead
But please get back to "us" when you actually know what you are talking about.

I don't need to twist anything. You're tying yourself in knots well enough on your own.
So, once more: illegal where? Big fan of Team America: World Police or The Man From Uncle, yeah?
Care to make a list of countries that have invaded other countries who are now banned from entry to Ireland? I've a book to write while I wait...

KomradeBishop

bear1 wrote: »

Ah here don't act the dick.
Who decides if they are legal then?
I didn't say once "let's get the bad guys" I said merely that those who choose to go to these groups which are terrorist groups should not be allowed back into the country.
And tell me how are they not illegal? ISIS forms a caliphate, invades certain parts of a group of countrys and then enforces their own laws upon those who are unfortunate enough to remain there.
And operate here in what way? Create a base? Or what they flat out invade us and then force their laws upon us? If the latter then yes it would be illegal.
You seem to enjoy twisting words but as I said go on ahead
But please get back to "us" when you actually know what you are talking about.

Concentrating on the term 'illegal' doesn't make any sense - I'm sure that by Iraqi law, it was 'illegal' when the US started bombing the crap out of their country. Hell, it was illegal going by international laws the US itself has signed up to.

DulchieLaois

I think that all these events that are happening are just allowing Govements and EU/US total authority over society and freedom of speech etc etc

While these recent attacks are just dreadful and inhumane, i still think Governments are secretly rubbing their hands in delight as it has allowed to push through any law regarding privacy though law, citing such attacks as cause and Government popularity is always strong after such tragic circumstances, look at Bush in US after 9/11 and Hollande in France

bear1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't need to twist anything. You're tying yourself in knots well enough on your own.
So, once more: illegal where? Big fan of Team America: World Police or The Man From Uncle, yeah?
Care to make a list of countries that have invaded other countries who are now banned from entry to Ireland? I've a book to write while I wait...

Twisting what exactly?
I wasn't even the first one to bring up the whole America/Britain thing. Nor can I understand it's relevance to the original OP.
I am not a fan of American foreign policy either so no idea where you are getting that impression from.
Maybe I shouldn't use the term illegal then, but please tell me how you would define both ISIS and AQ?
I again have no idea what you are on about with regards to countries being banned from entering Ireland.
If you could care to re-read everything instead of focusing on one part then you may (I doubt it) see what it is I was actually commenting about.
I said people who have left Ireland to travel to those countries i.e. Syria and fight alongside ISIS performing barbaric acts or training with AQ should not be allowed to return to Ireland.
You then brought up the UK and US.... great comparison there :rolleyes:

bear1

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Concentrating on the term 'illegal' doesn't make any sense - I'm sure that by Iraqi law, it was 'illegal' when the US started bombing the crap out of their country. Hell, it was illegal going by international laws the US itself has signed up to.

And it should have been and still is illegal. A war with no foundations.

Maximus Alexander

riffmongous wrote: »

Fighting abroad? Or just terrorism/illegal groups abroad?

If it's fighting abroad, then none of the Irish in Perth will ever be allowed come home.

Amirite guys?

I'm right. :pac:

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

And it should have been and still is illegal. A war with no foundations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-2011
Considering a few of those countries have national service thereby including possibly all adults, you are saying we should ban everybody who has served in the armed forces of these countries?
Look, if you don't like your word "illegal" then just say you meant something else. You haven't a leg to stand on really continuing with it. You're just pretending everything you don't like is "illegal".

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

Maybe I shouldn't use the term illegal then, but please tell me how you would define both ISIS and AQ?

Bad guys.
Now, how does that function as a legal definition? Again, you seem to think a law can just say "bad guys will be deported", which is a bit laughable.

bear1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-2011
Considering a few of those countries have national service thereby including possibly all adults, you are saying we should ban everybody who has served in the armed forces of these countries?
Look, if you don't like your word "illegal" then just say you meant something else. You haven't a leg to stand on really continuing with it. You're just pretending everything you don't like is "illegal".

Jesus we are going in circles here.
You have completely misunderstood my point by either complete refusal to see the other side of the coin or you just plainly can't see it.
You are talking about troops from other countries fighting, not made -up caliphates.
A caliphate has no country status, no recognised capital, no economy.. nothing.
ISIS are a caliphate just like Boko Haram.
You can't compare the two. I already said that maybe the term Illegal was the wrong one so I see no reason to continue with this.
With regards to the banning everyone part, again you are twisting my words. What I said was that those who go from Ireland to fight alongside ISIS or AQ and then attempt to return to Ireland should not be allowed.
I stand by that. Those who fight and help terrorists should not be allowed to return to the countries they believe are against their religion and way of life.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Bad guys.
Now, how does that function as a legal definition? Again, you seem to think a law can just say "bad guys will be deported", which is a bit laughable.

Where have I said this?
I have not once said that there should be a law saying that all of them should be kicked out. They can go and do what they please but the consequence is that they should not be allowed back into a normal society.

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

Jesus we are going in circles here.
You have completely misunderstood my point by either complete refusal to see the other side of the coin or you just plainly can't see it.
You are talking about troops from other countries fighting, not made -up caliphates.
A caliphate has no country status, no recognised capital, no economy.. nothing.
ISIS are a caliphate just like Boko Haram.
You can't compare the two. I already said that maybe the term Illegal was the wrong one so I see no reason to continue with this.
With regards to the banning everyone part, again you are twisting my words. What I said was that those who go from Ireland to fight alongside ISIS or AQ and then attempt to return to Ireland should not be allowed.
I stand by that. Those who fight and help terrorists should not be allowed to return to the countries they believe are against their religion and way of life.



Where have I said this?
I have not once said that there should be a law saying that all of them should be kicked out. They can go and do what they please but the consequence is that they should not be allowed back into a normal society.

Loud and clear.
ISIS and AQ are in an illegal war and should be banned from Ireland. The US, UK and about 30 other countries were involved in an illegal war and countless other countries are still involved in illegal wars and shouldn't be banned from Ireland.
What could be more straightforward...

bear1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Loud and clear.
ISIS and AQ are in an illegal war and should be banned from Ireland. The US, UK and about 30 other countries were involved in an illegal war and shouldn't be banned from Ireland.
What could be more straightforward...

I haven't said they shouldn't but I also said you can't compare the two.
You are taking what I say and turning into your own version which isn't exactly the best way to have a debate.
We are completely derailing the thread from it's original point and as you can probably see no one else has taken much part in it.
The thread is about Ireland adopting new anti-terrorism laws and I gave my viewpoint on it and I've had to repeat it constantly. You haven't provided any sort of opinion on the topic on hand but rather deviate to a point which ends up with us arguing the toss about semantics.
By your logic I should therefore say that you think ISIS and AQ should be allowed to roam free around the place.
If you want to discuss the US, UK and other foreign policies then start up a thread and I'll be more than happy to participate in it.

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

I haven't said they shouldn't but I also said you can't compare the two.
You are taking what I say and turning into your own version which isn't exactly the best way to have a debate.
We are completely derailing the thread from it's original point and as you can probably see no one else has taken much part in it.
The thread is about Ireland adopting new anti-terrorism laws and I gave my viewpoint on it and I've had to repeat it constantly. You haven't provided any sort of opinion on the topic on hand but rather deviate to a point which ends up with us arguing the toss about semantics.
By your logic I should therefore say that you think ISIS and AQ should be allowed to roam free around the place.
If you want to discuss the US, UK and other foreign policies then start up a thread and I'll be more than happy to participate in it.

The difference between "illegal" and "legal" is a matter of semantics? Oh dear.
The reason you are so perplexed is that what you proposed was so simplistic it was of no possible use. If you want to define what makes somebody a "terrorist" then fire away. You'll soon see, as many including Fox news have before you, that there is no definition of "illegal" or "terrorist" that won't include vast swathes of the guys you think should be let into Ireland.
If you're so upset that your criteria for exclusion from Ireland are worthless, why don't you change your criteria?

bear1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The difference between "illegal" and "legal" is a matter of semantics? Oh dear.
The reason you are so perplexed is that what you proposed was so simplistic it was of no possible use. If you want to define what makes somebody a "terrorist" then fire away. You'll soon see, as many including Fox news have before you, that there is no definition of "illegal" or "terrorist" that won't include vast swathes of the guys you think should be let into Ireland.
If you're so upset that your criteria for exclusion from Ireland are worthless, why don't you change your criteria?

Keep on believing what you write. I have already said my part on the illegal bit but you keep going back to it...
Perplexed LOL.
I haven't attempted to define anything but fire away with your posts
I made it clear already what I think. So I won't engage anymore.
It is your opinion that my idea is worthless, I couldn't really care if you do or not.

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

I haven't attempted to define anything but fire away with your posts
I made it clear already what I think.

Refuses to define anything but assures everything he says is clear...
mmmmk

bear1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Refuses to define anything but assures everything he says is clear...
mmmmk

Yep. As opposed to someone who hasn't defined anything and provided no original thought on what the thread is actually about.
Mmmmk

Dan_Solo

bear1 wrote: »

Yep. As opposed to someone who hasn't defined anything and provided no original thought on what the thread is actually about.
Mmmmk

I have defined your "ban illegal terrorist" theory as utter pants.
Excuse me, but I didn't see there was any stipulation at boards.ie that you had to provide an "original thought" in every post? Is that the way you normally conduct a discussion, as a series of unrelated monologues? Lord bear1 has decreed that none may question his posts, so watch out you peasants!