Is an attack in Dublin imminent?

Lyle Lanley

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not meaning to be flippant, but nearly 12 years ago terrorists were setting off coordinated explosions on the Tube and bus network.

These days it takes 3 lads to engage in a bit of driving without due care and attention as well as a bit of swordplay.

I expect in another 10 years that the modus operandi for Islamic terrorists will be Chinese burns and wedgies. This will disappoint the terror fantasists here.

I've been thinking about this for a while now. It's a bit pathetic that they can only manage to take out a few people. I feel like I could do a better job myself.

Even the Manchester one, there were thousands of people in a small area and the guy only managed to take out a small number. You're only getting one go at this, you'd think you'd make sure to do it right.

The police are getting a rough ride for not stopping these things before they happen but there seems to be **** all planning involved.

BuilderPlumber

Widdershins wrote: »

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.

First of all, ISIS are not religious in the least. They are organised criminals with massive egos who sadly have massive power to inspire gullible people to kill themselves and others to further yet another evil dream of world domination.

Christianity and Islam are more or less the same thing. Islam is a Christian offshoot/cousin that takes Jesus onboard but not as the son of god. He is a prophet. Islam has the same 10 commandments.

ISIS are familiar with the warped Saudi-inspired version of Islam called Wahabbism. They also know how to exploit vulnerable and marginalised people. Sadly, they will kill or threaten to kill anyone who brings forward another take on Islam that is not compatible with theirs. ISIS are most definitely non-believers and are using their warped religious and nationalist agendas to try and dominate the world and to make as much money as possible. They won't take over the world but they just might force the West into a compromise where they get a large oil rich state in the Middle East and/or North Africa.

BuilderPlumber

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".

Indeed...

I have read it too and I most certainly interpret it as outlawing drunkenness and not drinking alcohol responsibly. Mainstream Christian religions have the same. Ironically, it is outlawing someone who actually drinks alcohol and then gets angry and kills people is what Islam bans. Sadly, ISIS types may or may not drink but they still do these awful acts.

py2006 wrote: »

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

The Roman Catholic church has a violent and evil history. They practically invented what we now refer to as religious terrorism. Once more, world domination and superpower status was behind this with such countries as Spain doing the dirty work for militant popes. Once religion becomes political, it is an instrument of power.

Phoebas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

First of all, ISIS are not religious in the least.

That's a bit of a 'no true Scotsman' argument.

Of course they're religious - just a very extreme form of religion. They self identify as Muslims, so I think you have to take them at their word. They, or course, make the same claims against moderate Muslims - that they aren't 'true' Muslims because they're too moderate.

AnGaelach

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

First of all, ISIS are not religious in the least.

Well you're wrong.

BuilderPlumber

Samaris wrote: »

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!)

Religions are right to warn of the dangers of alcohol and to condemn irresponsible drunkenness. I as a drink taker can also abhor and have disdain for those who abuse alcohol and become nuisances in our pubs and on our streets and may get violent. Also those who drink alcohol and beat up their family I would have total disdain for. I feel all religions are aiming at that sort of thing and not the person who enjoys a few drinks and does not harm anyone.

Regimes like ISIS and Saudi Arabia who are happy to totally ban alcohol and try and religiously justify it are quite happy to allow husbands beat their wives, encourage people to kill and behead people for minor offences. This shows the complete hypocrisy of evil regimes who hide behind religion.

AnGaelach

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Religions are right to warn of the dangers of alcohol and to condemn irresponsible drunkenness. I as a drink taker can also abhor and have disdain for those who abuse alcohol and become nuisances in our pubs and on our streets and may get violent. Also those who drink alcohol and beat up their family I would have total disdain for. I feel all religions are aiming at that sort of thing and not the person who enjoys a few drinks and does not harm anyone.

Regimes like ISIS and Saudi Arabia who are happy to totally ban alcohol and try and religiously justify it are quite happy to allow husbands beat their wives, encourage people to kill and behead people for minor offences. This shows the complete hypocrisy of evil regimes who hide behind religion.

But I thought you said ISIS weren't religious

Samaris

scopper wrote: »

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.

Somewhat ironically for this argument, I've also seen arguments (Jared Diamond, Guns Germs and Steel for instance) that people from non-westernised countries tend towards a higher intelligence quotient -due- to having to learn a lot more as children through interaction, play and problem-solving, unlike western children who consume an awful lot of their information passively. IQ -tests- do tend to be set up towards Western mindsets, unsurprising, since it's a western method of measurement (with a lot of issues).

Something to consider anyway!

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Christianity and Islam are more or less the same thing. Islam is a Christian offshoot/cousin that takes Jesus onboard but not as the son of god. He is a prophet. Islam has the same 10 commandments.

Please stop referring to them as Christians and atheists, it's just confusingly inaccurate. You may as well refer to Christianity and Islam as Judaism under that argument. We're all aware that they're "brothers of the book" and have the same roots and same God, but "Christianity" is a distinctly separate religion.

BuilderPlumber

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a bit of a 'no true Scotsman' argument.

Of course they're religious - just a very extreme form of religion. They self identify as Muslims, so I think you have to take them at their word. They, or course, make the same claims against moderate Muslims - that they aren't 'true' Muslims because they're too moderate.

In my view, they have a very extreme view of their self importance. They self identify as Muslims but it is their Islam. They take stuff from Saudi Wahabbism, the Taliban, etc. and add more. They are also extreme nationalists and want to unite the Arab world under their banner of a new Caliphate. They have turned themselves into their own religion and they most certainly don't recognise any other religion inclusive of other forms of Islam even similar extremist self styled ideologies such as Al Qaeda.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Well you're wrong.

I'm not wrong. ISIS are not religious in the conventional sense. They are terrorists, criminals, etc. They are fanatics and religious fanatics but they believe ONLY in themselves and would not adhere to anything other than what they are into. Their extremism is a mix of warped religion, warped nationalism and fascism. Their goals are extortion, receiving ransoms, criminal enterprise and total domination of at least the Arab world and eventually the entire world.

It is MOST IMPORTANT to differentiate between religion and religious extremism like ISIS where that organisation becomes the only ideology thus replacing conventional religion and nationalism. I also think the founders of these such organisations are more concerned about gains in their world than in Allah's. Those who commit violence in ISIS' name are either misguided religious nutters or mentally ill angry criminals who have run out of luck.

AnGaelach

scopper wrote: »

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

That isn't true though. It was a British Unionist who despised the Irish who did the "study". I'm quite sure we all know how they feel about us.

If you look at our student's PISA scores, we do quite well.

BuilderPlumber

AnGaelach wrote: »

But I thought you said ISIS weren't religious

I say ISIS are not religious but hide behind it. They have a warped ideology that they firmly believe in and use to replace conventional religion. It is an insult to religion to call ISIS religious. It is also an insult to nationalism to call them nationalists. They most certainly believe in what they are and force others to. They are a death cult.

Wibbs

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Christianity and Islam are more or less the same thing.

Nope, they're not. They take a very different approach, on a few levels.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I have read it too and I most certainly interpret it as outlawing drunkenness and not drinking alcohol responsibly. Mainstream Christian religions have the same. Ironically, it is outlawing someone who actually drinks alcohol and then gets angry and kills people is what Islam bans.

You can interpret it all you like, but you're still wildly uninformed about the religion and its tenets.

AnGaelach

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I'm not wrong. ISIS are not religious in the conventional sense. They are terrorists, criminals, etc. They are fanatics and religious fanatics but they believe ONLY in themselves and would not adhere to anything other than what they are into. Their extremism is a mix of warped religion, warped nationalism and fascism. Their goals are extortion, receiving ransoms, criminal enterprise and total domination of at least the Arab world and eventually the entire world.

Are you just throwing around buzzwords to sound informed? IS don't believe in a nation, they believe in a caliphate. I also don't think IS are all that much interested in the works of Julius Evola and the magical properties of sex so that's fascism out the window.

IS are a group of religious extremists. They're motivated by their religion. Sure, there's other stimuli like money or power, but they're still employed in the pursuit of a religious caliphate.

Phoebas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

ISIS are not religious in the conventional sense. They are terrorists, criminals, etc. They are fanatics and religious fanatics but they believe ONLY in themselves and would not adhere to anything other than what they are into.

They definitely aren't conventional and they certainly are terrorists.
But they are religious.

Samaris

While you're not absolutely wrong that they have an extreme and warped view of their religion and it is influenced by Wahhabist notions and I'll even agree with death cult, calling them atheists (or Christians...!) or non-religious is jumping fifteen steps and landing facing the wrong way. They are absolutely religion-based, even if their version of Islam is pretty fcuked up. They're fundamentalists of the worst sort, but they are religious fundamentalists and extremists.

No point throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree there's a cynical use of religion, particularly in framing it as The Muslim Way (and happily murdering any Muslims that don't agree, which is most of them, especially the Shia), but going to the opposite extreme and insisting they're not religious at all is way too simplistic and also just not true.

BuilderPlumber

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, they're not. They take a very different approach, on a few levels.

You can interpret it all you like, but you're still wildly uninformed about the religion and its tenets.

No I'm not. I know religion and history. Religion is basically an ideology that has believers and various religions along with nationalist views have been used throughout history to further the causes of greedy kings and dictators.

Various parts of religions have been used and abused and warped so as for evil world leaders to dominate their people and try to dominate the world. ISIS are very much political terrorists with an aim to rule an empire covering the Middle East and North Africa with a view to taking over the entire world. Their Islam is an political ideology much like so-called national socialism and with the same warped sense of importance and aims for it to dominate the world. Hitler is a hero to these ISIS types and they are inspired by what he stands for and they look up to him. Hitler was kind to 'Islamic extremists' too in his time.

BuilderPlumber

Samaris wrote: »

While you're not absolutely wrong that they have an extreme and warped view of their religion and it is influenced by Wahhabist notions and I'll even agree with death cult, calling them atheists (or Christians...!) or non-religious is jumping fifteen steps and landing facing the wrong way. They are absolutely religion-based, even if their version of Islam is pretty fcuked up. They're fundamentalists of the worst sort, but they are religious fundamentalists and extremists.

No point throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree there's a cynical use of religion, particularly in framing it as The Muslim Way (and happily murdering any Muslims that don't agree, which is most of them, especially the Shia), but going to the opposite extreme and insisting they're not religious at all is way too simplistic and also just not true.

I think we both mean the same thing. They are messed up extremists who have made up their own concoction. I refuse to call what they believe in religion (of course, they consider it that) as that would only justify their warped belief system. They are a death cult, power mad and sick. I would have no doubt that ISIS are not doing what they do for the greater good in Islam, they are doing it for ISIS and for the greater evil.

Samaris

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think we both mean the same thing. They are messed up extremists who have made up their own concoction. I refuse to call what they believe in religion (of course, they consider it that) as that would only justify their warped belief system. They are a death cult, power mad and sick.

Well, you can refuse to call it whatever you want to refuse to call it, but please don't derail the rest of us by dragging in Christianity (oh the irony of my saying this, but really) or atheism. The rest of us are working off the same starting point, which is that they plainly -are- heavily religiously influenced, whatever about that it's a mad, twisted, extremist version.

It's more the phrasing that's throwing people than the general notion that they're twisted manipulative violent b*stards who want to conquer the world in the name of their Caliphate and are quite happy to break certain rules of their own (mainstream) religion to do so. I think we're all pretty well behind that one!

BuilderPlumber

Samaris wrote: »

Well, you can refuse to call it whatever you want to refuse to call it, but please don't derail the rest of us by dragging in Christianity (oh the irony of my saying this, but really) or atheism. The rest of us are working off the same starting point, which is that they plainly -are- heavily religiously influenced, whatever about that it's a mad, twisted, extremist version.

It's more the phrasing that's throwing people than the general notion that they're twisted manipulative violent b*stards who want to conquer the world in the name of their Caliphate and are quite happy to break certain rules of their own (mainstream) religion to do so. I think we're all pretty well behind that one!

ISIS are basically to religion what Dessie O'Hare was to Irish nationalism. Heavily influenced but warped, yes.

Galwayguy35

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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

I wouldn't be as optimistic I'm afraid, we have a Government who seems to be burying it's head in the sand and is telling us not to worry everything will be fine.

We also it seems have to rely on MI5 to give the Gardai the heads up about radicals living among us because we have no intelligence organisation unlike other countries.

Sky News were reporting on the attack in London and the guy who was living here for a while and it's being said over there that Ireland is seen as an easy option as a back door to organise attacks on Britain.

Some of us mentioned this months ago and we were accused of "scaremongering" by lefties.

AnGaelach

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No I'm not. I know religion and history. Religion is basically an ideology that has believers and various religions along with nationalist views have been used throughout history to further the causes of greedy kings and dictators.

Anything and everything has been used to "further the causes of greedy kings and dictators", that's a pointless position to hold. Caesar and Sulla used the belief in Republicanism to establish themselves as dictators in Rome, Napoleon used the belief in democracy to become Emperor.

Complaining about beliefs being misused and abused is ridiculous, every single kind of belief can be hijacked - globalism can be used to facilitate the desires of the ultra-rich, nationalism can be used to facilitate the desires of power-hungry individuals.

Samaris

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wouldn't be as optimistic I'm afraid, we have a Government who seems to be burying it's head in the sand and is telling us not to worry everything will be fine.

We also it seems have to rely on MI5 to give the Gardai the heads up about radicals living among us because we have no intelligence organisation unlike other countries.

Sky News were reporting on the attack in London and the guy who was living here for a while and it's being said over there that Ireland is seen as an easy option as a back door to organise attacks on Britain.

Some of us mentioned this months ago and we were accused of "scaremongering" by lefties.

Maybe by some, but a lot agreed.

Yeah, I'm worried about Ireland being used as a back-door country for organising attacks on Britain. Or here, if it comes to that. The story out of Waterford a few weeks ago was alarming. We have a duty to ourselves and to our neighbours not to allow ISIS plots to be developed on Irish soil.

I think the thing about our not having an intelligence service was repudiated by that we do have one, it's just military rather than civilian (it was back some bit, near the start of the thread) and the very fact that they were caught and/or that we're hearing about it is a sign that not only IS there an intelligence network, but that it's working. Ironically, the signs that it's working are the signs that cause the alarm.

Galwayguy35

Samaris wrote: »

Maybe by some, but a lot agreed.

Yeah, I'm worried about Ireland being used as a back-door country for organising attacks on Britain. Or here, if it comes to that. The story out of Waterford a few weeks ago was alarming. We have a duty to ourselves and to our neighbours not to allow ISIS plots to be developed on Irish soil.

I think the thing about our not having an intelligence service was repudiated by that we do have one, it's just military rather than civilian (it was back some bit, near the start of the thread) and the very fact that they were caught and/or that we're hearing about it is a sign that not only IS there an intelligence network, but that it's working. Ironically, the signs that it's working are the signs that cause the alarm.

The only reason the guy in Waterford was caught was because MI5 told them about it.

The cops here hadn't a clue what he was at.

Wibbs

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No I'm not. I know religion and history.

Apparently not as much as you seem to claim.

Religion is basically an ideology that has believers and various religions along with nationalist views have been used throughout history to further the causes of greedy kings and dictators.

I'd agree with that.

Their Islam is an political ideology

And this is where the basic foundations of the Abrahamic faiths differ. Islam is and always has been a political ideology as well as a religion(and a cultural and personal set lifestyle". This is where the "ah sure it's like Christianity" ideas fall flat.

Christianity has most certainly been used as a tool of politics and many times with it, but the basic foundations of the faith are outside that sphere. There is a duality to it and straight from the horses mouth with it. EG "My kingdom is not of this earth/Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The founder himself was executed by the state. Compare that to the founder(s) of Islam who from the very start strove to build a religious empire through conquest and war(including religious instruction on how to prosecute such a war).

So while the line has been crossed many times(not least in 20th century Ireland) there exists in Christianity the concept of the separation of state and church. This does not exist within Islam. Islam is the state and contained within the texts are clear instructions on how to run such a state, from the hierarchy and the law of the land, even down to the treatment and taxation of citizens, Muslim and non Muslim. They didn't pull this idea for the caliphate from thin air. It is a part of the religious duty for Muslims where they are the majority in the land to strive for an Islamic state.

take everything

Wibbs wrote: »

Apparently not as much as you seem to claim. I'd agree with that.

And this is where the basic foundations of the Abrahamic faiths differ. Islam is and always has been a political ideology as well as a religion(and a cultural and personal set lifestyle". This is where the "ah sure it's like Christianity" ideas fall flat.

Christianity has most certainly been used as a tool of politics and many times with it, but the basic foundations of the faith are outside that sphere. There is a duality to it and straight from the horses mouth with it. EG "My kingdom is not of this earth/Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The founder himself was executed by the state. Compare that to the founder(s) of Islam who from the very start strove to build a religious empire through conquest and war(including religious instruction on how to prosecute such a war).

So while the line has been crossed many times(not least in 20th century Ireland) there exists in Christianity the concept of the separation of state and church. This does not exist within Islam. Islam is the state and contained within the texts are clear instructions on how to run such a state, from the hierarchy and the law of the land, even down to the treatment and taxation of citizens, Muslim and non Muslim. They didn't pull this idea for the caliphate from thin air. It is a part of the religious duty for Muslims where they are the majority in the land to strive for an Islamic state.

This is a very important post.
Not to mention McQuaid and the likes (as bad as they were) didn't go around killing you if you satirised them in cartoons (if I remember my history correctly).

Mountainsandh

I agree on that too Galwayguy, I can see it. At least though, there is progress on all fronts, some people are less naive, some people see the government's inaction or mistakes for what they are, the gardai, if not able to do it on their own, seem to work with international intelligence well... We're forced into awareness, but it's looking better.

I have hinted on the Waterford forum that I find it a bit suspicious/coincidental that, only a few months ago, it was announced Saudis were to invest millions into a shopping center in the town. A lot of Saudi money earmarked for an area where Isis fundraising has been noted ? Maybe there's nothing to it, but there's no harm in pointing it out right ?
I expect ridicule and conspiracy theorist's jibes. People don't look ready to even consider Isis may have an interest in operating from there, which is exactly the point for Isis I guess.

McGiver

Wibbs wrote: »

Apparently not as much as you seem to claim. I'd agree with that.

And this is where the basic foundations of the Abrahamic faiths differ. Islam is and always has been a political ideology as well as a religion(and a cultural and personal set lifestyle". This is where the "ah sure it's like Christianity" ideas fall flat.

Christianity has most certainly been used as a tool of politics and many times with it, but the basic foundations of the faith are outside that sphere. There is a duality to it and straight from the horses mouth with it. EG "My kingdom is not of this earth/Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The founder himself was executed by the state. Compare that to the founder(s) of Islam who from the very start strove to build a religious empire through conquest and war(including religious instruction on how to prosecute such a war).

So while the line has been crossed many times(not least in 20th century Ireland) there exists in Christianity the concept of the separation of state and church. This does not exist within Islam. Islam is the state and contained within the texts are clear instructions on how to run such a state, from the hierarchy and the law of the land, even down to the treatment and taxation of citizens, Muslim and non Muslim. They didn't pull this idea for the caliphate from thin air. It is a part of the religious duty for Muslims where they are the majority in the land to strive for an Islamic state.

Although I agree with the description of the differences between Islam and Christianity, I had to laugh at the "separation of the church and state". Certainly not true for early Western Church and most of the history of the Eastern Church. And definitely not true for the Anglican Church and Russian Orthodox Church later on, in both instances the head if state was the head of the Church as well.

Separation of the Church and state is a modern concept.

It is true that Islam deals with social and political (i.e. mundane) aspects of life much more than Christianity. Which is also true for Judaism to some extent by the way. The OP should have compared Islam with Judaism with which, in my opinion, shares much more than with Christianity. Islam is basically a fusion of Judaism, local tribal Arabic beliefs and Christianity, with the latter having the least influence. The base is clearly Semitic, therefore closer to Judaism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic–Jewish_relations

Christianity was Semitic in the very beginning but then underwent Hellenisation and Romanisation therefore it is quite different than Islam.

Elemonator

I would imagine that it would be unwise for the Gardai to publicly discuss what capabilities they have and don't have. Some should be made public, the more obvious ones anyway, to put the public at ease. They may have training we are not aware of and it would be unwise to publicly talk about it.


There are videos of the Garda Emergency Response Unit on training exercises simulating the retaking of a building and a ferry. I have also witnessed simulations at Dublin Airport. While more may need to be done, to say they are sitting on their hands totally is not a considered assessment. Dublin is crawling with armed Gardai at the minute.

harry Bailey esq

A lot of people seem to forget that the city centre was under high alert for terrorists acts,bombings particularly for over 30 years.Even the airport,everyone entering the doors would be stopped and scanned with a handheld metal detector.Im only 35 now and stuff like that was just normal.Bomb scares were normal in the city centre,announcements in train stations reminded us every 10 minutes that if we left bags unattended they would be gone.Not robbed by an unfortunate addict,but blown to smithereens by the army ordnance squad. Again,these things were just normal to us.So if it's put out there that Dublin is at *insert colour* terror alert it certainly won't stop me going into town everyday making my dollar and meeting my mates.I was born in town I grew up in town and if I die in town so be it. Of course,it doesn't mean we aren't under threat,anywhere that's densely populated is a potential target,and a vast majority of Irish people are naive enough to buy into the idea that 'ah sure we're Irish everybody loves the Irish' mentality. Anyone who's spent any time in an area that Irish ex-pats gather en masse knows this is a loada bollix.
Tl/DR not many people are shaking in their boots.

gizmo81

Edel McGinley from Migrants Rights thinks Ireland has a rigorous immigration system, wants community policing to solve the problem on VINB.

Community policing can barely deal with anti-social behaviour but she wants them to tackle extremism?

She says we should stop investing in war and intimated a senator was racist/xenophobic because he spoke about the difficulty with people presenting as refugees with no identity papers.