The Gardaí only have RIBs. I'll tell you as someone with some experience of RIB boats that if anyone came along with much more than a kayak the Gardaí could not prevent them.

johnfás wrote:

The Gardaí only have RIBs. I'll tell you as someone with some experience of RIB boats that if anyone came along with much more than a kayak the Gardaí could not prevent them.

That's something to consider. But in fairness, the only other vessels are fishing boats and not a one of these has ever stopped a member of the Gardaí from boarding and or instigating a false imprisonment after doing so.

I don't want to get hung up on defending my conspiracy theory as it's bullshit, at least until as such time that the allegation about the sub is substantiated. But, there was no reason to have the navy there for more than a week before the arrival of the Solitaire.

Even if the fishermen had thwarted the efforts of the Gardaí, a quick call would have ensured that whatever force was necessary would have arrived within a couple of hours. This is using a pit big enough to trap an elephant to catch an ant. It doesn't make practical sense.

I'm not passing any judgment positive or negative on the deployment of the navy.

However, it is the case that Ireland has rather limited maritime resources at its disposal for public security as well as national security. The naval vessels which we have are not entirely adequate for the policing of Irish territorial waters and protecting our supplies from rogue foreign fishermen as well as fighting the importation of drugs. It is for this reason that they are spending getting on towards 200 million on a few new ships. It is also the case that the Gardaí aren't well equipped in terms of watercraft. We don't have much in between RIBs which are fairly useless in terms of stopping people doing things and big old diesel powered ships which look an awful lot more powerful than they are.


These are the kind of things the Gardaí need and we don't possess them. You'll see them going up and down the Thames in London. I'm going to be cynical here and say that if they bought them people would be up in arms at the cost that we're paying to police the situation.

johnfás wrote:

I'm not passing any judgment positive or negative on the deployment of the navy.

However, it is the case that Ireland has rather limited maritime resources at its disposal for public security as well as national security. The naval vessels which we have are not entirely adequate for the policing of Irish territorial waters and protecting our supplies from rogue foreign fishermen as well as fighting the importation of drugs. It is for this reason that they are spending getting on towards 200 million on a few new ships. It is also the case that the Gardaí aren't well equipped in terms of watercraft. We don't have much in between RIBs which are fairly useless in terms of stopping people doing things and big old diesel powered ships which look an awful lot more powerful than they are.


These are the kind of things the Gardaí need and we don't possess them. You'll see them going up and down the Thames in London. I'm going to be cynical here and say that if they bought them people would be up in arms at the cost that we're paying to police the situation.

I know you're not passing judgement and that's fair enough. As for the rest of your post, I mostly agree with it. And where'd I'd disagree is mostly semantics. The Gardaí should definitely be effectively equipped to deal with crime. Though I must add the proviso that as well as equipment, they should also have higher standards of training and be held accountable for their actions.

MikeW wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I simply don't accept the "appalling vista" theory that states do not do bad things and do not have covert operations. They have enormous budgets for them and the money must go somewhere.

Unfortunately this is not the argument. Of course states do convert operations. Often you can tell them by their sheer ineptitude. However there is a growing cancer across the internet that states the opposite to what you say above. That no matter what happens its a covert operation by somebody and you must look to the unlikely. And at the root of it is always the British, US (or US oil), and Israelis in differing mixes. Airliners are crashed into the Twin Towers? Must have been the Americans and Israelis. Bombs set of on London underground? British, US and Israelis. Russia invades Georgia, almost taking control of the only non-Russian pipeline to the west? US instigated. And that is before getting to the next level of belief, that the driver behind these countries doing strange things is some odd cabal with is origins in 1AD Babylonia, or the Catholic Church, or that Jewish mystical belief (name escapes me at the moment).

I've more or less given up on Internet debate these days because it is virtually impossible for any topic not to become some odd conspiracy theory involving a state. Or the illuminati, or whatever. In this specific case I have no idea who planted a reportedly amatuerish but viable explosive device over the railing of Shells headquarters. To be honest I doubt it was Shell, the Irish Government, ShelltoSea, the Royal Navy, the illuminati, or 10ft Lizards. I would assume that it was a kook with an attitude about Shell, and who has read the Anarchists Cookbook.

But I can absolutely gaurantee that the next time something like this happens somebody will use as evidence of a state conspiracy that "Of course they do it, didn't they leave a bomb outside Shells headquarters and pretend it was ShelltoSea".

Neither is this the point. You are conflating two completely different issues.

Firstly I have in mind that it is time to start a thread on the whole phenomenon of Conspiracy Theory, how it has grown and developed in the last few years and what its implications are. It is an extraordinary phenomenon in itself, and though stimulated by the Internet is by no means totally Internet dependent. My personal opinion is that Conspiracy Theory is entirely toxic, and muddies the water in precisely the way it is being muddied here in your post, in which you have linked ShelltoSea with 10ft lizards. From what I have seen of Conspiracy Theory I disagree that it is always the British, US and Israelis, who are the supposed conspirators. As you rightly pointed out yesterday, Jewish bankers and secret cabals and Top People' elite groups of various kinds are the focus. Conspiracy Theory rarely if ever goes accurately for the jugular of any responsible body. I can't think of any instance of Conspiracy Theory exposing any actual instance of a real conspiracy of covert action (by all means correct me if I'm wrong). The theories are generally hokum like the "exploding" Twin Towers - completely meaningless complications for complication and confusions sake. I think people have been far too kind about conspiracy theory and that its big dangers, including irrationalism, hysteria and anti-semitism should be exposed vigorously. Hence my welcome of your related post yesterday.

Secondly, there are covert actions, that you agree take place. The inept ones may at times you say be uncovered. They have nothing to do with Illuminati (please fill me in on those) or two headed fish or whatever it is. They are routinely part of the methods of engagement of states with political opposition and inconvenient populations. Psyops, under the hand of Brigadier Kitson, were extensively honed on this island and the lessons exported elsewhere, but there wasn't much new in what was involved. The Quiet American was modelled on life. At the other end of the scale, you get the kind of provocation that the Daily Mail article described, and everything in between the two.

The fact that the phenomenon of Conspiracy Theory exists is absolutely no reason to pretend that provocation and false flag operations don't happen.

In the case of this incident at the Shell building, I was rightly pulled up by johnfás for making an assumption in one direction. You are making an assumption in the other direction, that as far as I can see also has no evidence to back it up. No one has "claimed" to have planted anything so far as I'm aware. I don't know who placed the device, or even what it was: as someone said, it could have been a box of matches.

Groups involved in ShelltoSea have made formal statements today disassociating themselves and clearly stating that they had no involvement in this.

[quote="ibis"]

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

I have to say that oil companies are constantly involved in many many situations worldwide like Rossport which have a potential for violence and direct action. Despite that, there is no known history of them using "false flag" attacks of such a kind whatsoever, for obvious reasons. They could not possibly afford the consequences involved were they ever found to have done or even contemplated such a thing, and none of the oppositional situations they find themselves in are "life and death", so they have no motive whatever for actions like this.

Why would the oil companies bother with such tactics when you've got the most powerful country in the world invading Iraq to ensure your profits? Oil companies are a cut above the rest morally speaking. I take it the amassing of £13.9b in profits was achieved in the most ethical of manners. Shell is innocent. Mind you the Guards and the State have plenty of form with the "false flag" operations.

Oil companies have done all kinds of bad things, and continue to do all kinds of bad things - and indeed governments regularly do bad things on account of them. My point is that they have no record of doing this particular kind of bad thing.

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?[/quote]

I've just looked, and it is only you.

Cactus,

you say:

"The fact that the phenomenon of Conspiracy Theory exists is absolutely
no reason to pretend that provocation and false flag operations don't
happen."

Maybe I'm not being very clear on this, I'm typing while working on something else. As I say, and as you note, I am not saying false flag operations don't exist. My point however is that it is getting to the point where the first port of call is that a false flag operation has taken place. And that very definately is a side effect of the internet based phenomenon of the conspiracy theory. Occam's Razor seems to have been rewritten to say "The simplest theory is usually wrong". To my mind they are going to be by far the exception, not the norm.

I do fully appreciate that you have much the same opinion as me on conspiracy theory, and it is only an unfortunate accident that a couple of your posts have been connected to this.

Regarding the bomb on the Shell building, I understand what you say about making assumptions, but from the last line of your post you seem to think I am blaming StoS? I specifically am not, I really doubt it was them. Maybe I am just misinterpreting that.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?[/

I've just looked, and it is only you.

Really? There's nothing about it on the front page. There's the S2S press release, with no comments whatsoever, and there's a thread on p.ie complaining that any comments are being instantly struck out by the indymedia mods. What am I missing here?

Indymedia is gas, free speech when it suits their agenda.

cookiemonster wrote:

Indymedia is gas, free speech when it suits their agenda.

Conspiracy? Anyone?

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Indymedia is gas, free speech when it suits their agenda.

Conspiracy? Anyone?

Well, no new conspiracy is ever required to explain indymedia's actions in any particular case. Is there some doubt over the normal m.o. of indymedia?

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?[/

I've just looked, and it is only you.

Really? There's nothing about it on the front page. There's the S2S press release, with no comments whatsoever, and there's a thread on p.ie complaining that any comments are being instantly struck out by the indymedia mods. What am I missing here?

There's loads of confusion about S2S stuff currently on Indymedia. There's a plethora of threads and different folks are jumping into different ones. Also this half hour delay is complicating things beyond credibility. By the time someone has aswered to some point or other the direction of the thread may have changed completely - requiring another comment, etc. Someone with the patience of a saint like meslf can barely keep up with all that's going on there.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Indymedia is gas, free speech when it suits their agenda.

Conspiracy? Anyone?

MikeW wrote:

Cactus,

you say:

"The fact that the phenomenon of Conspiracy Theory exists is absolutely
no reason to pretend that provocation and false flag operations don't
happen."

Maybe I'm not being very clear on this, I'm typing while working on something else. As I say, and as you note, I am not saying false flag operations don't exist. My point however is that it is getting to the point where the first port of call is that a false flag operation has taken place. And that very definately is a side effect of the internet based phenomenon of the conspiracy theory. Occam's Razor seems to have been rewritten to say "The simplest theory is usually wrong". To my mind they are going to be by far the exception, not the norm.

I do fully appreciate that you have much the same opinion as me on conspiracy theory, and it is only an unfortunate accident that a couple of your posts have been connected to this.

Regarding the bomb on the Shell building, I understand what you say about making assumptions, but from the last line of your post you seem to think I am blaming StoS? I specifically am not, I really doubt it was them. Maybe I am just misinterpreting that.

I agree with you on the dangers of Conspiracy Theory, but I think you are again muddying the waters between two completely different things. One = real and the other = fantasy.

I don't agree about the simplicity thing either. The simplest explanation for Iraq was oil. The simplest question to ask about terror attacks is often "who benefits most". That is not to say that all terror attacks are false flag. Unfortunately there are some frustrated and impatient individuals around that reach for what they wrongly think is a quick fix to injustice.

cactus flower wrote:

The simplest question to ask about terror attacks is often "who benefits most". That is not to say that all terror attacks are false flag.

I think I would have to disagree with you there. I would say that a very small proportion of terrorist atrocities can be analysed using this who benefits most idea. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by people who are barely great philosophers thinking about the wider repurcussions of their actions. They often benefit least from their actions and that is why terrorism is rarely successful. There are of course exceptions.

The peace process benefitted most from Enniskillen but that wasn't the reason behind it.

George Bush benefitted most from the WTC attacks but conspiracy aside that was not the reason behind it.

The list goes on ad infinitum.

Quote :

Unfortunately there are some frustrated and impatient individuals around that reach for what they wrongly think is a quick fix to injustice.

I think this is more to the point.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?[/

I've just looked, and it is only you.

Really? There's nothing about it on the front page. There's the S2S press release, with no comments whatsoever, and there's a thread on p.ie complaining that any comments are being instantly struck out by the indymedia mods. What am I missing here?

Possibly this >> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89119

"I'll give ye 50 quid if you drop this bag near the canal on Leeson st." said ?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?[/

I've just looked, and it is only you.

Really? There's nothing about it on the front page. There's the S2S press release, with no comments whatsoever, and there's a thread on p.ie complaining that any comments are being instantly struck out by the indymedia mods. What am I missing here?

Possibly this >> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89119

Aha! Thanks for that...I didn't spot it there down under Opinion and Analysis. I mean, it's not like it was a bomb. On Leeson Street. Nothing very important at all.

Several comments on the latest development:

1. None of us know whether the people who planted the device were prominently involved members of Shell to Sea, others who felt outraged by events in Rossport, some left wing revolutionary wannabees who have a problem with Capitalism in general and are hoping to trigger a global revolution by latching onto a prominent issue, people in the pay of Shell or some sort of Garda dirty tricks. I know which one is most likely, in my opinion, but it is only opinion. None of us have any full idea of what happened and even a conviction will leave questions that may never be answered and it would be well for people to remember that. (i`m talking about idiot journalists and associated mouths here rather than our little gang)

2. I`d be of the opinion that a large number of people in this state, regardless of the regard in which they`d hold indiviudal members of the Gardaí, would feel that the law of the land is not equally applied to companies and citizens and that there are serious questions to answer regarding the manner in which Shell acquired and later set out to exploit these resources and that there are also questions regarding the behaviour of our political and legal leaders in this matter. There would definitely be a strong feeling in the country that the law hasn`t seen justice being done. In that atmosphere the surprise isn`t that violence be directed against Shell, the surprise would be that it hasn`t happened sooner.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?[/

I've just looked, and it is only you.

Really? There's nothing about it on the front page. There's the S2S press release, with no comments whatsoever, and there's a thread on p.ie complaining that any comments are being instantly struck out by the indymedia mods. What am I missing here?

Possibly this >> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89119

Aha! Thanks for that...I didn't spot it there down under Opinion and Analysis. I mean, it's not like it was a bomb. On Leeson Street. Nothing very important at all.

No one has used that word Ibis. It was a "device". It has been disposed of.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0916/device.html

Don't use the "B" word. The Branch and the CIA will be all over us.

Shhh...

Not actually impressed here. Explosive devices in public places are not something to be downplayed because of the potential PR damage.

ibis wrote:

Not actually impressed here. Explosive devices in public places are not something to be downplayed because of the potential PR damage.

I'm sure everyone totally agrees with you there Ibis. The gardai, Shell and the Press should not have called it a "device".

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Not actually impressed here. Explosive devices in public places are not something to be downplayed because of the potential PR damage.

I'm sure everyone totally agrees with you there Ibis. The gardai, Shell and the Press should not have called it a "device".

And Indymedia shouldn't have it buried in "Opinion and Analysis", but there we go.

Quote :

Several prominent politicians today called for Shell to immediately make explicit what the intent of the pipe laying ship Solitiare is.
Given that Maura Harrington is entering her 10th day of hunger strike, and there are various rumours going around about the sea worthiness of the pipelaying vessel, Tony Gregory TD, Sen. David Norris, Joe Higgins, Patricia McKenna, Andy Storey (Afri) and the filmmaker Ken Loach all
signed up to the joint statement calling for the Multinational Shell to give an unequivocal annoucement , rather than playing with the life of
local campaigner Ms Harrington

LINK.

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin