Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Terror Attack on Ireland.

123457»

Comments

  • #182
    TempestSabre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭TempestSabre


    I don't get where this is going. Seems like everyone is convinced of their theory before discussing the issue to find out what people think. I don't see what extremist of any side or middle has to do with Ireland buying inappropriate defence equipment.


  • #183
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,176 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    TempestSabre wrote:
    Because of the previous comment in context "Radical islamists and neocons are basically same". There wasn't a third choice of the middle ground.

    And I will ask again .... why are there suddenly only two choices, both of whom are pretty much the same coin just flip-sides there-of? More to the point .. why are _you_ reducing it to only two choices?

    To quote Henry Ford (or possibly paraphrase slightly):
    You can have any colour car you want so long as it's black

    There are far, far better ways to make an argument than just narrow it down to patently absurd choices which amount to the same thing.


  • #184
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Make me laugh this thread.

    If you wanted to bring a country to its knees you could quite easily do it with a biological attack on its agricultural infrastructure or it ecosystems. I can think of at least one such attack for which I know of current protocols in place to stop. Large countries like the US would probably be most vunerable.

    Yet, despite the fact that such attack is easy, untracable and low risk, we never see attacks like this. Why? Because terrorism has very little in terms of global strategy. It all about show, its all about panic, it is all about ...well terror.

    To look at the amount of organisation that go into these attacks and the actual comparitively low casualties, you have to understand that these morons aren't the brightest sparks (I mean, they're blowing themselves up for christ sake) and they're not as well funded or directed as they would have you believe.

    I don't see what advantage they would gain by making an ACTUAL tactical strike against a country like Ireland. They just want headlines in the US and UK.


  • #185
    TempestSabre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭TempestSabre


    Lemming wrote:
    And I will ask again .... why are there suddenly only two choices, both of whom are pretty much the same coin just flip-sides there-of? More to the point .. why are _you_ reducing it to only two choices?

    To quote Henry Ford (or possibly paraphrase slightly):


    There are far, far better ways to make an argument than just narrow it down to patently absurd choices which amount to the same thing.

    Hopefully because it illustrates that the extreme is absurd. Which this whole thread is, from F22's to Anjem Choudray to Nick Griffin, to invasions of Europe, Ireland, and people drawing absurd parallels.


Advertisement