Why Ireland needs a domestic Intelligence organisation immediately

Jawgap

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

That is par for the course, and should be expected as a matter of routine. The very nature of spying is to collect intelligence on everyone; friends, enemies, and neutrals alike. So take the obvious precautions to prevent infiltration. The reality is that many Intelligence services are already operating here, and in the North, and have been for decades. Some are permanent, others are temporary.

If "obvious precautions" worked no agency would ever be infiltrated......plus intelligence gathering isn't passive and any new agency is going to be prone to both being fed false and misleading information and/or being manipulated to taking (or not taking) proxy action.

Plus, what exactly are you advocating? An external service that gathers intelligence on threats etc situated outside the State or a security and counter-espionage service that deals with threats located within? It's unusual (not to say downright dangerous) to have both roles vested in one organisation.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The dissident threat is being very carefully and actively monitored, with the added advantage of speaking the same language. Also, the dissidents have a fear of being killed and captured, and can be influenced by public opinion and bad PR. Not so with Islamic extremism. Also, I'm happy to report that the CIRA appear to be have announced just this morning that they will disband, having been utterly penetrated and destroyed by MI5. An excellent operation, and very successful.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/continuity-ira-says-it-will-end-its-futile-campaign-35805826.html

Well, that kind of missed the point - which was such organisations, and their antecedents, represented more proximate threats to the State and its institutions and the justification for an independent agency didn't exist then, so its difficult to see why it should exist now, when we face no existential threat?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

I would agree about recruiting more Mandarin speaking Guards, there is a utter Intelligence blind spot there, and there are probably Chinese industrial spies, criminals,

you were doing well up to that point........then the wheels came off.....

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

....arms dealers, mafia types, and human traffickers operating here. Also, there is an Islamic threat from the Uighur Chinese also, not many people are aware of that. (Their language is more related to Turkish, so that's another aspect of things. But I assume there would be an element of bi-linguism.) Click here for further reading if you're interested.

But it's not an either/or decision when it comes to deciding who to recruit. You can recruit from all sectors including Arab speakers, if the budget is directed properly.

Put is this way, the Kiwis spend at least $180m per year on intelligence and security through their three civilian agencies - we're a similar sized country, facing a similar threat profile, can we really justify spending that (and probably more initially) to address a declining threat?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Jawgap wrote: »

If "obvious precautions" worked no agency would ever be infiltrated......plus intelligence gathering isn't passive and any new agency is going to be prone to both being fed false and misleading information and/or being manipulated to taking (or not taking) proxy action.

Every agency that has ever existed has been penetrated to some extent or other. The 'obvious precautions' is to conduct regular internal security monitoring, and rigorous vetting, compartmentalization of information etc. This doesn't eliminate the threats, but it does increase the chance of filtering most out. This is schoolboy stuff, tbh.

Plus, what exactly are you advocating? An external service that gathers intelligence on threats etc situated outside the State or a security and counter-espionage service that deals with threats located within? It's unusual (not to say downright dangerous) to have both roles vested in one organisation.

The headline clearly says 'domestic Intelligence Organisation'. This is a Agency dedicated to collecting information regarding threats or security on Irish soil. Our foreign policy is not hostile, so I don't see a need for an overseas Intelligence capacity. The extent of any foreign interest would be communicating with the Department of Foreign Affairs to advise of any potential security threats to Irish holidaymakers and ex-pats.

G2 maintains a monitoring capacity of any threats to Irish military interests abroad, which they would continue to do regardless.

Well, that kind of missed the point - which was such organisations, and their antecedents, represented more proximate threats to the State and its institutions and the justification for an independent agency didn't exist then, so its difficult to see why it should exist now, when we face no existential threat?

Well this is highly debatable. While the terrorist campaign was mostly conducted North of the border, there were plenty of deaths within Ireland too. This is getting into speculation somewhat, but it would probably be accurate to say that a dedicated and enhanced domestic Intelligence Agency would most likely have resulted in better intelligence, leading to more arms seizures, surveillance, infiltrations, and ultimately lives saved. It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis I guess. But it is important to remember that over 3,600 people died in the Troubles, and some of those plots were hatched and supplied from Irish territory. Many, many more suffered horrendous violence and mental trauma. So that should be taken into consideration.

If a dedicated Agency could prevent even 2% of that, I think it would be a reasonable price to pay. But that is neither here nor there now. It was deemed at the time not necessary to have an intel Agency, so that's all there is to it.
But, in the event of a future atrocity in Ireland, will you be prepared to accept the casualties because you were opposed to a domestic Intelligence Agency that might have caught or disrupted the potential attack?

you were doing well up to that point........then the wheels came off.....



Put is this way, the Kiwis spend at least $180m per year on intelligence and security through their three civilian agencies - we're a similar sized country, facing a similar threat profile, can we really justify spending that (and probably more initially) to address a declining threat?

Firstly, each country's assessment is based on multiple, highly specific local and international factors. Not just same size, with a similar threat profile etc. (Which I would dispute completely, BTW; geographically and politically, Ireland is more easily accessible due to it's EU membership and free travel agreements. Not to mention being on the border to the UK, which as we saw last week was exploited to launch a devastating attack in London by Islamic terrorists.)

Secondly, NZ is a member of the ANZUS security treaty, is a Commonwealth Country, and has a partnership accord with NATO, which means an entirely different Defence budget and approach to Military spending. It is also a member of the Five Eyes alliance, and runs the Waihopai Station communications listening post. So these factors would account for very large budgetary considerations, which you can't really compare with the Irish policy of neutrality.

Ultimately, I've no idea how much a domestic Intelligence Agency would cost to set up and run. But as we have seen, the Politicians have a habit of finding money when it suits them. Maybe the ludicrous overseas budget of €651 million euros in 2017 could be reviewed.

We have a domestic intelligence agency. It's run by AGS
I wouldn't see the point in spending millions setting up an agency to do what is already done.

Jawgap

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Every agency that has ever existed has been penetrated to some extent or other. The 'obvious precautions' is to conduct regular internal security monitoring, and rigorous vetting, compartmentalization of information etc. This doesn't eliminate the threats, but it does increase the chance of filtering most out. This is schoolboy stuff, tbh.



The headline clearly says 'domestic Intelligence Organisation'. This is a Agency dedicated to collecting information regarding threats or security on Irish soil. Our foreign policy is not hostile, so I don't see a need for an overseas Intelligence capacity. The extent of any foreign interest would be communicating with the Department of Foreign Affairs to advise of any potential security threats to Irish holidaymakers and ex-pats.

And yet you clearly said

The very nature of spying is to collect intelligence on everyone; friends, enemies, and neutrals alike

Which is espionage, not counter espionage. So would you expect this agency to have an internal as well as an external remit?

Do you not think, so close to the 50th anniversary of the killing of Cmdt Wickam, that our peacekeepers face an external threat? Should we be targeting the Syrians and their proxies?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

G2 maintains a monitoring capacity of any threats to Irish military interests abroad, which they would continue to do regardless.




Well this is highly debatable. While the terrorist campaign was mostly conducted North of the border, there were plenty of deaths within Ireland too. This is getting into speculation somewhat, but it would probably be accurate to say that a dedicated and enhanced domestic Intelligence Agency would most likely have resulted in better intelligence, leading to more arms seizures, surveillance, infiltrations, and ultimately lives saved. It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis I guess. But it is important to remember that over 3,600 people died in the Troubles, and some of those plots were hatched and supplied from Irish territory. Many, many more suffered horrendous violence and mental trauma. So that should be taken into consideration.

If a dedicated Agency could prevent even 2% of that, I think it would be a reasonable price to pay. But that is neither here nor there now. It was deemed at the time not necessary to have an intel Agency, so that's all there is to it.
But, in the event of a future atrocity in Ireland, will you be prepared to accept the casualties because you were opposed to a domestic Intelligence Agency that might have caught or disrupted the potential attack?



Firstly, each country's assessment is based on multiple, highly specific local and international factors. Not just same size, with a similar threat profile etc. (Which I would dispute completely, BTW; geographically and politically, Ireland is more easily accessible due to it's EU membership and free travel agreements. Not to mention being on the border to the UK, which as we saw last week was exploited to launch a devastating attack in London by Islamic terrorists.)

Secondly, NZ is a member of the ANZUS security treaty, is a Commonwealth Country, and has a partnership accord with NATO, which means an entirely different Defence budget and approach to Military spending. It is also a member of the Five Eyes alliance, and runs the Waihopai Station communications listening post. So these factors would account for very large budgetary considerations, which you can't really compare with the Irish policy of neutrality.

Ultimately, I've no idea how much a domestic Intelligence Agency would cost to set up and run. But as we have seen, the Politicians have a habit of finding money when it suits them. Maybe the ludicrous overseas budget of €651 million euros in 2017 could be reviewed.

How do you know AGS didn't prevent attacks, or disrupt ASUs and save dozens, maybe hundreds of lives?

Personally, I think expanding our security arrangements would be reactionary in the extreme and would also represent a fundamental mis-appreciation of the threat.

Better to take the €150m or do it would cost and invest it in initiatives to prevent or counter radicalisation (here and abroad) rather than spending it trying to catch the genie once it's out of the bottle.......

.......but yes, a secret, domestic, foreign espionage, counter-espionage, security service is a lot sexier

Bit like buying jets......it looks great, sounds great but realistically it's a fur coat with no knickers

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Put is this way, the Kiwis spend at least $180m per year on intelligence and security through their three civilian agencies - we're a similar sized country, facing a similar threat profile, can we really justify spending that (and probably more initially) to address a declining threat?

What makes you think Islamic extremism is declining? The Muslim population here grew by 30% at the last census, and if we're following the trend of other European countries, the larger it gets the more likely it is to become extremist.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

What makes you think Islamic extremism is declining? The Muslim population here grew by 30% at the last census, and if we're following the trend of other European countries, the larger it gets the more likely it is to become extremist.

Again that is to fundamentally mis-understand the nature of the threat. You speak of 'Muslims' as if they are some homogeneous group......plus we had no role in the crusades or Sykes-Picquot which the "Management of Savagery" makes clear is the pre-text for a lot of the violence directed against the "West."

Danzy

AnGaelach wrote: »

What makes you think Islamic extremism is declining? The Muslim population here grew by 30% at the last census, and if we're following the trend of other European countries, the larger it gets the more likely it is to become extremist.

Islamic extremism is increasing year on year, decade on decade.

There was a retreat from pure Islam in the last 140 years as Western Influence and more secular views pushed forward, or in the case of ending sex slave markets in the Ottoman Empire, were forced at the barrel of a gun.

The Islamic World is undergoing a wage of religious fervour and return to roots, I consider it as having being building slowly since the 1920s but really growing in the last 30 years.

The up and coming generation are much stricter than their parents or Grandparents were.

Ballstein

bubblypop wrote: »

We have a domestic intelligence agency. It's run by AGS
I wouldn't see the point in spending millions setting up an agency to do what is already done.

Why do people point to this uniqueness in Ireland with the police force controlling counter intelligence as being a good thing. That's saying that every other country in the world is wrong and we're right. The dogs in the street know the Gardai have zero Arabic speakers, have 1 forensic accountant in the fraud bureau and 4/5 graduate level computer experts max in the computer crimes unit. It's a police force, it recruits based on the requirements of being a policeman or woman. It's reliant on said person showing an interest in said field, having the rope to get into the unit to start with and then starting their education in said field.
Domestic Intel agencies recruit primarily from universities, target people with linguistic, technological or whatever particular field they need at the present time. That's the beauty of a stand alone agency, you have the flexibility to hire as needed.
The Met police have started hiring detective constables directly, it's open to 3rd level graduates only and recognises the growing need for specialist skills. It's easier to recruit a masters level linguist and spend 6 months teaching him to be a policeman than to hire a leaving cert educated policeman and hope he becomes a graduate level linguist, cheaper too.
If I wanted a native speaking Pashtun female to work in my organization would I place a sign saying "native speaking Pashtun female wanted" or would I say "all males and females between 18-35 please apply for a position" and hope a native speaking Pashtun female is amoung that group?

Ballstein

Probably makes more sense to allow direct recruitment to SDU for suitably qualified individuals as opposed to setting up a separate agency. The Garda band has direct recruitment so there's precedent. When the Americans started the space program they figured that navy seals would be good candidates as they'd be good swimmers when they splashed down in the ocean. However, they quickly realised it was easier to train highly qualified test pilots to swim than teaching frogmen to be pilots...

TheAnalyst_

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

The EU does have one.

You're gonna have to expand on these minimalist answer dude...

I say as much as I need to say on a public forum.

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Again that is to fundamentally mis-understand the nature of the threat. You speak of 'Muslims' as if they are some homogeneous group

They have a common denominator. Islam.

Jawgap wrote: »

......plus we had no role in the crusades or Sykes-Picquot which the "Management of Savagery" makes clear is the pre-text for a lot of the violence directed against the "West."

Neither Germany, Belgium, or Denmark were involved in them but that hasn't stopped attacks in Berlin, Brussels, or Copenhagen.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

They have a common denominator. Islam.



Neither Germany, Belgium, or Denmark were involved in them but that hasn't stopped attacks in Berlin, Brussels, or Copenhagen.

Again, you speak of Islam as if an homogeneous religion, which it clearly isn't.

Secondly, the countries you mentioned were all involved in operating colonies so, in ISIS' view they are subject to attack because they are countries involved in the "...administrations of savagery which they established in Europe, Africa, and the remaining continents in past ages."

If anything they regard us as victims of a colonial imperialism rather than propagators of it.

Ballstein

Very good article in today's Irish Times by Peter Murtagh. Pretty much reaffirms what most people here are saying. One very striking line in the article refers to a security conference being given by an overseas expert and attended by Garda and Military intelligence personnel and the lecturer said it was obvious both groups had never met each other.
The other salient point made is, given the fact that the last two Garda Commissoners have "lost" their official issue mobile phone, are they really the people suitable for our national security?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Jawgap wrote: »

And yet you clearly said

Which is espionage, not counter espionage. So would you expect this agency to have an internal as well as an external remit?

You are deliberately taking what I said out of context.

Do you not think, so close to the 50th anniversary of the killing of Cmdt Wickam, that our peacekeepers face an external threat? Should we be targeting the Syrians and their proxies?

Cmdt Wickham was killed by Syrian troops at the start of the six day war in 1967, not during a terrorist attack. Details on the incident are sparse, but I understand the soldier who fired was later convicted over the incident. So I can't say if increased intelligence would have prevented his death. It is likely that an itchy trigger finger in a tense war zone was a contributing factor, not a planned, deliberate attack.

As I said, G2 already focus on threats to Irish soldiers in the region. The last soldier to die under fire was Pte Billy Kedian in 1999, almost 20 years ago. So it would be reasonable to say that the Defence Forces take their Intelligence very seriously. However, if it was deemed necessary to increase their capacity, I certainly wouldn't object.

How do you know AGS didn't prevent attacks, or disrupt ASUs and save dozens, maybe hundreds of lives?

I will very clearly state here that AGS did a very, very good job during the Troubles, against some extremely vicious organisations. Media reports and court appearances testify to that. And they paid a high price, as did the Defence Forces, with some being murdered in cold blood in the line of duty. Having said that...there were failures, and weapons/attacks did get through, maybe more than they should. (But as I said, you can't stop them all. At the same time, every bullet taken out of terrorist's hands is potentially a life saved.)

So the overall grade would roughly be a 'B minus'. The focus should always be on getting an 'A plus'. Prevention is better than cure.

Personally, I think expanding our security arrangements would be reactionary in the extreme and would also represent a fundamental mis-appreciation of the threat.

You don't think there should be one change to our arrangements, even after an Islamic terrorist launched an attack from Ireland, and was unknown to Irish authorities? Or that the fundraisers in Waterford were also unknown to us here, but we got a tip off from MI5? Or that we are now getting direct reports from high grade intelligence sources that there are around 150 Islamic extremists here, and not the 40-50 as suggested by authorities?
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/radicals-laugh-at-ireland-they-know-we-underestimate-the-terror-threat-deradicalised-muslim-35809771.html

Better to take the €150m or do it would cost and invest it in initiatives to prevent or counter radicalisation (here and abroad) rather than spending it trying to catch the genie once it's out of the bottle.......

Tell me how a counter radicalisation strategy would work, because I have yet to see a working programme that could convince the likes of the Manchester bomber not to blow up children at a music concert. I'll be waiting a while I think..

Authorities took nearly 15 years to prosecute Anjem Choudary, he radicalised a lot of people in the meantime. And that's just one preacher. So the Genie is already out of the bottle, as you say. This problem is going to continue indefinitely and get worse until the problem is fully addressed.
And good luck spending money overseas in radical places like Afghanistan and Pakistan where tribal mentalities are the sole authority. They won't even allow you to talk to women, so how do you plan on de-radicalising there?

Again that is to fundamentally mis-understand the nature of the threat. You speak of 'Muslims' as if they are some homogeneous group......plus we had no role in the crusades or Sykes-Picquot which the "Management of Savagery" makes clear is the pre-text for a lot of the violence directed against the "West."

Ok, this nonsense has been totally discredited from pretty much everybody at this point. ISIS have clearly stated that we are on their list of targets. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

ISIS, ISIL, AQAP, Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, Jemaah Islamiyah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, take your pick from the very long and growing list. All have hostile intent to the West. The cause is ideological, not political or territorial.

You've already been schooled by An Gaelach, but you can add Sweden, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Algeria, Australia, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Cameroon, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bosnia, Chad, Mali, Niger, and Bangladesh to that list of Islamic terror attack locations. Tell me again how many of them were involved in the crusades or Sykes-Picquot?


Don't forget ISIS have taken over an entire Philipino town and are fighting with govt troops at the moment, where a state of martial law has been declared.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/rodrigo-duterte-orders-philippine-troops-to-crush-islamic-extremists-20170607-gwm28o.html

Scarlet for you, bro. Scarlet.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

I say as much as I need to say on a public forum.

Not being smart with you, I appreciate the obvious concerns with PERSEC and OPSEC. But there's no harm in adding to any discussion where information is freely available in the public domain. It wouldn't have cost you anything to expand the sentence to 'there is already one, it is called EU INTCEN. Here is a link and description of their roles etc...'

Jawgap

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

So the overall grade would roughly be a 'B minus'. The focus should always be on getting an 'A plus'. Prevention is better than cure.

.....

ISIS, ISIL, AQAP, Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, Jemaah Islamiyah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, take your pick from the very long and growing list. All have hostile intent to the West. The cause is ideological, not political or territorial.

Honestly, when people start talking like this you just know they should be posting here

.....you, me and most people don't have - and will likely never have - the faintest inkling of how successful or not the Guards were during the Troubles (or indeed how effective or not they are in their current efforts) - so how you could 'grade' them is beyond me.

.....and again someone or some organisation saying they are part of or affiliated to a wider network doesn't make it so......and even if they are surely their cause is theological not ideological? Aren't they looking to impose a theocracy?

TheAnalyst_

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

I say as much as I need to say on a public forum.

Not being smart with you, I appreciate the obvious concerns with PERSEC and OPSEC. But there's no harm in adding to any discussion where information is freely available in the public domain. It wouldn't have cost you anything to expand the sentence to 'there is already one, it is called EU INTCEN. Here is a link and description of their roles etc...'

I'm not talking about EU INTCEN and I don't want to go into the capabilities of this other agency. I will correct misinformation when I see it.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Jawgap wrote: »

Honestly, when people start talking like this you just know they should be posting here

.....you, me and most people don't have - and will likely never have - the faintest inkling of how successful or not the Guards were during the Troubles (or indeed how effective or not they are in their current efforts) - so how you could 'grade' them is beyond me.

.....and again someone or some organisation saying they are part of or affiliated to a wider network doesn't make it so......and even if they are surely their cause is theological not ideological? Aren't they looking to impose a theocracy?

I resent being called a Walter Mitty for analysing the data that is available to us. I am basing my assessment on freely available knowledge that is in the public domain. I of course accept that there are clandestine operations that might never/will never become known. (For comparison, the UK intelligence services have been criticised recently too; their entire operations are not disclosed either.) At the other end of the scale, I would say that MI5's operation in WW2 was outstanding, a full A plus with honours owing to the success of their Double Cross System. And yet I don't know the minutiae of each operation, clandestine operation, and covert successes. Would that be considered a 'Walter Mitty' opinion?

Whatever about the ideoligical vs theological debate (there are probably elements of both overlapping with the various terror groups), one thing that can be categorically stated is that modern Islamic Extremists targeting the West are not acting because of the Crusades, Colonialism, or Sykes-Picquot.

Nor would they be 'justified' in any way or excused, for those who might feel like they may have some legitimate grievance. What's done is done, the people who were alive then are dead now (mostly). We all have a sob story if we go back far enough. It still wouldn't justify blowing up innocent kids listening to some music.

Anyway, I think we're done here. You have your opinions, I have mine. Time will tell which one of us was right. And I hope it isn't me.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

I'm not talking about EU INTCEN and I don't want to go into the capabilities of this other agency. I will correct misinformation when I see it.

Well I hope there is, whether it's an official organisation (but relatively unknown), or something a bit more covert, such as a front organisation quietly working away to continue the fight away from prying eyes, snooping journalists, and nosy nerds like myself.

I suspect CENTCOM/USEUCOM might engage in some covert operations against terror suspects when the need arises. That is pure speculation on my part I should add, but the global strategy post-9/11 cleared stated that borders would no longer be a hindrance when it comes to actively pursuing threats.

We also saw there was CIA activity in Europe, such as the rendition case of Abu Omar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Ballstein wrote: »

While I think that a dedicated organisation would take too long to set up and develop, I think the article in the IT sums it up better. We need a national director of intelligence that coordinates the two existing units. We also need direct entry to J2 or SDU for suitably qualified individuals. The chances of luring a highly qualified third level graduate in linguistics or computer technology to join as a regular Garda is slim, the chances of recruiting them directly into a Intel unit as a DGarda or into J2 with a direct commission is much more likely. The FBI or MI5 don't recruit from the same pool as the NYPD or the Met.

Is there a link for that article in the IT? I've checked their site and I don't see it...

Jawgap

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

I resent being called a Walter Mitty for analysing the data that is available to us. I am basing my assessment on freely available knowledge that is in the public domain. I of course accept that there are clandestine operations that might never/will never become known. (For comparison, the UK intelligence services have been criticised recently too; their entire operations are not disclosed either.) At the other end of the scale, I would say that MI5's operation in WW2 was outstanding, a full A plus with honours owing to the success of their Double Cross System. And yet I don't know the minutiae of each operation, clandestine operation, and covert successes. Would that be considered a 'Walter Mitty' opinion?

Whatever about the ideoligical vs theological debate (there are probably elements of both overlapping with the various terror groups), one thing that can be categorically stated is that modern Islamic Extremists targeting the West are not acting because of the Crusades, Colonialism, or Sykes-Picquot.

Nor would they be 'justified' in any way or excused, for those who might feel like they may have some legitimate grievance. What's done is done, the people who were alive then are dead now (mostly). We all have a sob story if we go back far enough. It still wouldn't justify blowing up innocent kids listening to some music.

Anyway, I think we're done here. You have your opinions, I have mine. Time will tell which one of us was right. And I hope it isn't me.

And therein lies your issue - you have zero idea of the quality or quantity of info in the public domain - it could be trash or it could be highly accurate. It could represent 95% of what the security services know or it could represent 9.5% or even 0,95% of what they know.....

.....and if you are into analysing things can I suggest using the Cynefin framework then you'll understand how important it is to "know what you know" and know what you don't know......

I know enough to know I know cock all about what's going on behind the curtains.....just because you get the occasional glimpse doesn't mean you know even close to the totality of what's available.

tiger55

Maybe if we build more Mosques it will help them integrate?

tecknika

tiger55 wrote: »

Maybe if we build more Mosques it will help them integrate?

there has to over 20 now

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

There is an interesting article today about staff at Facebook's counter-terrorism based in Dublin who had their personal details accidentally exposed online. One of the workers has left Dublin as he feels that it is no longer safe for him. Interesting stuff, I didn't even know Facebook had a counter-terrorism unit. (Although it is more likely a glorified moderator role...)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/16/facebook-moderators-identity-exposed-terrorist-groups

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Ireland’s counterterrorism preparation ‘grossly negligent’
‘We have achieved our security on the cheap,’ says ex-director of military intelligence

Even the professionals are now warning that our counter-terrorism measures are not up to scratch. The deputy director of Irish Military Intelligence has weighed in with three immediate proposals:

Mr Murphy made three proposals for immediate implementation: a review of the structure and functions of the national security committee; establish a national intelligence analysis centre and appoint a director for national intelligence to lead it; and set up a civilian intelligence agency and extract the State security responsibilities from the Garda commissioner.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-s-counterterrorism-preparation-grossly-negligent-1.3158101



I find it somewhat relieving to know that those who have the inside track are making this very clear call now. It would appear my initial assessment of the security situation was indeed accurate. Noirin O Sullivan isn't fit to run a hen-party, never mind overseeing the intelligence gathering capabilities of the State. Anyone who thinks otherwise in light of recent Garda scandals and events has no intellectual credibility whatsoever.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

It seems the proposal for an intelligence organisation separate of policing was considered by the policing commission, but has been rejected by Senior Garda bosses:

Senior Garda bosses are resisting proposals being considered by the new policing commission to split the area of security and intelligence from the force.
Garda management met over two days this week with members of the commission set up to examine the future of the force, which is being led by former Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole.
The meetings took place in Garda Headquarters just weeks after Ms O'Toole cast doubt over the quality of applicants that applied for the position of Garda Commissioner, currently held by Nóirín O'Sullivan.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/garda-bosses-resist-plans-to-hive-off-intelligence-unit-36070690.html

Ubbquittious

Yet more big brother.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Yet more big brother.

The proposal for a separate organisation was rejected. The arrangements will remain the same.

Esel

It is no surprise that AGS brass would be against it. They have a vested interest and should not have been allowed to influence the decision. Same for G2 or whatever they are called these days.

Ubbquittious

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The proposal for a separate organisation was rejected. The arrangements will remain the same.

There is no need to drum up a big fighting force for the few youngfellas in this country who might possibly be one day convinced to take up a career in islamic terrorism if the mood takes them. There's no need to enroll everyone into a big brother society and track them at all times in case they decide to take up terrorism.

People don't join these terrorist groups if they're living an otherwise normal, good life. You won't find the lad who's out on the jetski at the weekend and getting the roide most nights of the week suddenly deciding he wants to blow himself up in a crowd of people for the good of Allah.

The solution is simple, ask the schools and colleges who are the muslim lads who might be having a bit of a ****ty life. Get the guards to call to his house with a recovered jetski that nobody claimed back, a stack of prostitute vouchers and maybe a baggeen of weed from a recent drug bust and the problem will soon solve itself. Much cheaper than all this secret service mumbo jumbo