Is an attack in Dublin imminent?

BuilderPlumber

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Yes. Also non practicing to differing levels ... But you would be saying atheism in the Irish Asian community. And they are Irish. They are totally Irish and really great amazing peeps:). They are just normal people.

And lots do drink.

They are as shocked as anyone. I promise you. And out spoken about it too. My friends are really amazing people whom I love.

People who commit violent acts ...they are not normal ...there is something not right there. To be cold or hateful you don't learn that in a book. It's in you.

There is nothing in Islam to say one cannot drink. Ironically, it is people who drink and commit violent acts and use drink as an excuse to do so that Islam condemns. In other words, ISIS and Al Qaeda!!!

Widdershins

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Thou shalt not kill or steal. 2 things so-called Christian ISIS don't seem to know about.

Could you answer the question?

I'm finding your posts very difficult to decipher. ISIS are not Christian, they are Muslim, among them are very well read Islamic scholars. They are intimately familiar with their religion.

NIMAN, Yes there are ex-Muslims who are classed as apostates and often shunned or worse. Someone posted an excellent report on British ex-Muslims on this thread. Some of the well known reformists are ex Muslims themselves, and have received death threats.

pilly

The 1st thing I thought of when Manchester happened was that it could have been the 3 arena because when a concert is over all the doors are thrown open so anyone could walk in.

So yes it could happen here. Will it stop me going to events no. When your time is up its up.

Wibbs

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

There is nothing in Islam to say one cannot drink.

You seem to have a stunning level of ignorance on this subject. Islam most certainly has specific and very clear religious laws forbidding the consumption of alcohol. It's in the Quran and in the Hadith and Sharia. It couldn't be more clear. You may as well say "There is nothing in Judaism to say one cannot eat pork".

Sadly, these tossers do not read their Koran properly

Indeed...

py2006

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Atheist drug dealers who PRETEND to be Christians are the problem, they condemn people who drink wine and drink wine themselves, snort cocaine and extort millions from governments. Nothing against atheists but there is not one thing religious about ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Saudi Arabia or any of these other self styled Bond Villain types. They HIDE behind religion and use religion to form FASCIST dictatorships.

And the Roman Catholic Church doesn't/didn't?

Wibbs

Persephone kindness wrote: »

People who commit violent acts ...they are not normal ...there is something not right there. To be cold or hateful you don't learn that in a book. It's in you.

An all too naive and sadly all too common view. Unfortunately history proves this wrong time and time again.

One can most certainly "learn that in a book" and foster a culture where people commit violent acts and quite happily with it. Not wishing to go full Godwin here, but how do you think one of the most sophisticated, cultured and moral societies in Europe went from "normal" to appalling mass supported cruelty in not much more than a decade? And when that was all over within another generation went the other direction. Culture and "books". I hate to break it to you PK, but if you were around in 1930's Germany the stats show that the chances of you being a supporter of fascism to some degree or other are overwhelming.

I read recently the story of an American chap, a Jew, who was the youngest prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. A man who saw this up close. His opinion on the monsters he prosecuted? He is firmly of the opinion that without the morals of the culture they operated in they would have been "normal people", friends, coworkers, neighbours, with no taint of evil about them.

Look closer to home. Look at all the post Catholic Ireland scandals that have come to light. They did not happen in a vacuum. It was "normal people". These scandals were often in plain sight and supported to one degree or other by most.

"Normal people" are about the most dangerous of all. It depends almost entirely on the moral culture that surrounds them. Evil is not some Hollywood black caped villain, it is almost always horribly banal and commonplace. Those that resist the wider culture, whether that culture is bad or good, are the minority and usually a tiny one.

Samaris

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Atheist drug dealers who PRETEND to be Christians are the problem, they condemn people who drink wine and drink wine themselves, snort cocaine and extort millions from governments. Nothing against atheists but there is not one thing religious about ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Saudi Arabia or any of these other self styled Bond Villain types. They HIDE behind religion and use religion to form FASCIST dictatorships.

I did not realise we have an epidemic of atheist drug dealers pretending to be Christian. Also, what?

Wibbs wrote: »

You seem to have a stunning level of ignorance on this subject. Islam most certainly has specific and very clear religious laws forbidding the consumption of alcohol. It's in the Quran and in the Hadith and Sharia. It couldn't be more clear. You may as well say "There is nothing in Judaism to say one cannot eat pork".

Weell, actually, funnily enough...

There's three short passages in the Quran (unless there is another section) that get steadily stronger, but they do actually leave loopholes.

The first indicates that drinking has some benefits but more sin to it. "And they ask you what they should spend. Say "the surplus." which indicates that alcohol isn't good for you in a moral sense, but it is not directly forbidden. It appears to suggest that as long as you do not spend the money needed for important things, it's okay to spend some of your spare money on it.

The second part puts a stopper on intoxication before prayers, that one must be have a clear mind and sober body before speaking to God. Since Muslim prayers are at set times, that effectively limits the times of day during which one may drink alcohol, but one must be sober by the time prayers are spoken.

The third part is the most clear that "intoxicants" (plus a range of other things, including divining arrows) are works of Satan and to be avoided.

It really has to sorta work its way up to it.

Funnily enough, the word "alcohol" is never strictly mentioned, it refers to that which causes one to be in a state of intoxication. Alcohol would count as would anything else that causes intoxication. The lack of the use of the word may be where the idea that it's not forbidden comes from.

I could see that being all taken with a greater or lesser amount of strict adherence. It could be argued either way if people weren't that bothered by it, particularly that it's alright to have a small amount, but not to get into a state of being drunk. Since it is already a long-time custom though, I figure it'll remain forbidden by the last part.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

Weell, actually, funnily enough...

There's three short passages in the Quran (unless there is another section) that get steadily stronger, but they do actually leave loopholes.

Muslim scholars on the matter explain this lead up to a complete ban as a way of bringing in the ban progressively, because wine drinking was culturally very popular. The three passages are chronological, increasing in severity as the number of faithful grew. The last instruction abrogates the first. Oh and the Arabic word used(whose name escapes ) refers specifically to wine*, that is alcoholic drink, but has come to mean/be interchangeable with intoxicants in general.

Beyond the Quran, the various Hadeeth make no bones about their Prophet's disdain for alcoholic drinks. Not just the imbibers either. Those that make, sell and pour it are considered beyond the Pale. So, nope, there are few to no loopholes.



*I seem to recall even more specifically wine from fermented dates? But it's definitely alcohol based.

The J Stands for Jay

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Although I don't think an attack is imminent its certainly possible and think the authorities should be taking some small practical steps like retractable bollards in pedestrian areas and better stab vests and training for patrolling guards. I think more effective gains would be made from better information sharing with other jurisdictions and adequate trained staff to process it. From what I have read the guards and defence forces have met and discussed how they would cooperate in such an event. I'm sure they have developed and practiced drills even if they haven't broadcast the fact. It would be no harm having more armed support units in Dublin on duty at any one time, if not to deal with a terrorist attack then to deal with the greater imminent threat of the drug cartels.

Haven't you noticed all the big BMW and Volvo SUVs with "Garda Armed Response" written on them patrolling Dublin for the last month or so?

wdmfapq4zs83hv

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think if anything happens in Ireland, it would have to involve tourists/foreign people. It would draw a lot more attention internationally than a predominantly Irish event, and the martyrs want their money-worth of attention.

Agree with this. I think an attack here is inevitable. I think the obvious targets would be the likes of Grafton street, totally accessible to traffic from the green or suffolk street. O'Connell street, Dublin airport & concert venues.

Norin O Sullivan will protect you :P

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

Muslim scholars on the matter explain this lead up to a complete ban as a way of bringing in the ban progressively, because wine drinking was culturally very popular. The three passages are chronological, increasing in severity as the number of faithful grew. The last instruction abrogates the first. Oh and the Arabic word used(whose name escapes ) refers specifically to wine*, that is alcoholic drink, but has come to mean/be interchangeable with intoxicants in general.

Beyond the Quran, the various Hadeeth make no bones about their Prophet's disdain for alcoholic drinks. Not just the imbibers either. Those that make, sell and pour it are considered beyond the Pale. So, nope, there are few to no loopholes.



*I seem to recall even more specifically wine from fermented dates? But it's definitely alcohol based.

Aye, I agree on what you said, and it's why I listed them in that order. Even with the last, it COULD be argued (perhaps a bit disingenuously) as keeping it more in line with the previous two - it's okay to drink in moderation but not to get drunk. Now, obviously it isn't, it is taken strictly which is fair enough. But religious rulings based on holy scripts tend to be taken more or less strictly based on the opinions of whoever is currently making the rules, choosing to take this passage to be more important (and more literal) than another passage. This one has been taken more strictly down through the centuries. It could have been semanticked around by a different accepted interpretation if the political will had been there for it. It wasn't though, so that's that (for now).*

I'm not positive on which order the "alcohol/intoxicants" translations go. I -thought- that at the time, the word meant "intoxicants" in general, and was related in interpretation to alcohol in particular, but I may be wrong on that. Ancient Arabic is hardly a strong point for me, so I'll take your word on it!


(**All that is more my thinking about how religions in general pick on certain parts of their holy scriptures to get dogmatic about and carefully ignore the more awkward parts, usually based on the opinions or prejudices of whoever is writing or interpreting at the time, rather than an argument against that passage, btw!)

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

It could have been semanticked around by a different accepted interpretation if the political will had been there for it. It wasn't though, so that's that (for now).*

Oh sure S, religious texts have regularly been "fettled" to suit the current order. Some are easier to fettle than others. The Islamic prohibition on alcoholic drinks would be one that would a difficult sell. It's repeated so often in the religious texts from the start of the faith loopholes would be scant. IIRC one "loophole" reckoned by some is that because the original texts referred to wine in particular, other drinks might be a grey area, so vodka would be OK. Vanishingly few Islamic scholars now or in the past would go along with that mind you.

I'm not positive on which order the "alcohol/intoxicants" translations go. I -thought- that at the time, the word meant "intoxicants" in general, and was related in interpretation to alcohol in particular, but I may be wrong on that. Ancient Arabic is hardly a strong point for me, so I'll take your word on it!

Again going on memory(oh oh) the root of the word is along the lines of "covering/hiding" but it's contextual. It doesn't refer to wine or alcohol specifically, but is used alongside/instead of the word for wine, IE a "drink that covers the senses" kinda thing. So any drink that causes intoxication, which would mean generally speaking alcoholic drinks. So vodka, beer etc are all covered by the instruction.

It gets more anal as these things will as it refers to an intoxicant, so foods or drinks(or medicines) that may contain trace amounts of alcohol(which would be legion) are OK, so long as they don't get you intoxicated. This doesn't mean that one can consume say a little wine so as not to be intoxicated, as the wine is "designed" as an intoxicant.

The irony being that the early Muslim world got very expert in distillation. They could have made some great whiskey.

RocketRaccoon

I think it is only a matter of time until there is an attack in Dublin but I doubt it will be a bomb, I see it being similar to the truck attacks we have seen of late. I dread to think what would happen if someone decided today was the day to do it considering how many people will be around the city for the marathon.

The J Stands for Jay

Widdershins wrote: »

And I'm almost sure those statistics the poster quoted are either skewed or well out of date.

Didn't they just divide the number if victims into the population of London/England/UK. I don't think there's any danger of out of date population figures having a noticable effect on the result.

The J Stands for Jay

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I think it is only a matter of time until there is an attack in Dublin but I doubt it will be a bomb, I see it being similar to the truck attacks we have seen of late. I dread to think what would happen if someone decided today was the day to do it considering how many people will be around the city for the marathon.

By the time the marathon is on (October?), Grafton Street could be hit, but right now there's a bit of protection from the Luas works.

ChikiChiki

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Why do you think the most experienced counter-terrorism force in Europe would be unable to respond exactly?

Once upon a time. Not anymore. The Gardai are all in disarray the last decade.

RocketRaccoon

McGaggs wrote: »

By the time the marathon is on (October?), Grafton Street could be hit, but right now there's a bit of protection from the Luas works.

There is a womens mini marathon on today

Mountainsandh

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Sadly, these tossers do not read their Koran properly. Islam bans people who drink alcohol and kill or harm people because of it and not people who drink alcohol and don't. Sadly, ISIS tossers drink alcohol and get others who don't drink it to kill others and these nonbelieving tossers are defining Christianity (inclusive of Islam) today. A shame.

This is beyond my comprehension level after a good night last night.
You messing with my head ?

Annasopra

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This is beyond my comprehension level after a good night last night.
You messing with my head ?

None of BPs posts make much sense.

The_Kew_Tour

Not sure if posted already. Just confirming one lived in Ireland for while

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0605/880356-garda-meeting-london-attack/

Mountainsandh

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

None of BPs posts make much sense.

Thank goodness, I thought I might have killed one too many neurons.

zetalambda

Burial. wrote: »

I'd be shocked if there wasn't an attack here in the next 18 months tbh. And I think the country will come to an absolute standstill.

Anything is possible but this is unlikely. I'm assuming that you haven't spent too much time in London, Manchester or Birmingham? These cities have whole suburbs full of muslim that are not one bit intergrated and live by sharia law. They walk around the place wearing all that funny garb, dresses and turbins for the men and the women all covered up from head to toe. Being in some parts of these cities feels more like your walking through a neighborhood in Pakistan and that's no exageration. Anyone who's been to Sparkhill or Sparkbrook in Birmingham will know what I mean. Have a look at this video from Bradford in the north of England. Maybe this is what we have to look forward to in 20 or 30 years time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_ygnKIF8fM

gizmo81

This should be pause for thought;

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0605/880356-garda-meeting-london-attack/

Royal Legend

So this guy had a EU Card because he was married to a scots woman and they lived in Ireland

py2006

Royal Legend wrote: »

So this guy had a EU Card because he was married to a scots woman and they lived in Ireland

Rathmines in Dublin apparently

PMBC

'Importing a group of people ...... lower IQ.
From where did you get that. Intelligence is distributed randomly. A lot of the 'imports' are qualified doctors, engineers, scientists.
I appreciate there might be potential problems but we need facts.

the_barfly1

maizes wrote: »

london suspect travelled from dublin on eurolines coach

More informed than the news agencies. Remembered this comment when listening to the news this afternoon.

scopper

PMBC wrote: »

'Importing a group of people ...... lower IQ.
From where did you get that. Intelligence is distributed randomly. A lot of the 'imports' are qualified doctors, engineers, scientists.
I appreciate there might be potential problems but we need facts.

The irony of this argument is that the Irish have a relatively low IQ so we'd have to stop importing ourselves.

*just to note IQ is not distributed randomly, some countries do have higher IQs, especially in Western Europe, but, crucially, this often has more to do with education, of which, of course, these nations tend to excel at, leading to higher IQs over generations. It does not preclude many, many immigrants having higher IQs than natives, but distributed randomly is a little naive.

Mountainsandh

I have to say, and it's going to sound awfully arrogant and patronizing, but I'm allowed as I'm French (:P), I am glad to see the level of awareness increasing overall, and the discussions ongoing here in Ireland, particularly on this thread.

When the Charlie Hebdo attacks happened, I took part in some of the discussions, but kept to myself a lot of what is being openly discussed now, because at the time, I would probably have been branded extreme right or something, and more than likely banned even.
But I had the feeling of dread that goes with some terrible event actually hitting close to home, and I think at that stage for most Irish people, that feeling hadn't happened (maybe for some who had family in Paris it had). Or if it had, people just weren't ready to express it.

Now I know the Mods probably find it harder to moderate these new threads on islamism and isis, but I can see how within the Boards demographics, terrorism has become a more concrete threat, and it's ok now to discuss immigration policies and how (in)tolerant of extreme ideologies we wish to be, without being branded far-right straight away, kind of, nearly, within reason.

And maybe, hopefully, people in Ireland will be more mindful now of suspicious behaviour out and about, and more vigilant in their every day lives, without becoming paranoid either.

We shouldn't change our Western ways of life for terrorists, but little things like bollards here and there, safer dustbins, some additional security checks in some situations, reporting suspicious objects left unattended ... these shouldn't affect us too much, and they might help fight the scourge of terrorism. I think if I'd mentioned reporting unattended packets/bags back in the threads about Charlie Hebdo or the burkini debacle, only 2 years ago, I would probably have been laughed at or dismissed as paranoid. (I don't go to Politics Café so these are my threads of reference)

It's happy-sad that this wouldn't be the case anymore.

Anyway chin up, terrorists seem to become more amateurish, and we're getting wiser, here's to the Irish spirit and gardai foiling all the baddies plans.


** steps down from soap box.
please don't ban me for soap box temporary lapse, I was inspired m'lord.:o