Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A US TERRORISM expert has hit out at Donald Trump’s reaction to the Brussels attacks.
Speaking on the Today show after yesterday’s attacks, which left 34 dead, Trump advocated the use of torture on Salah Abdeslam, an alleged member of the terror cell which attacked Paris in November.
He acknowledged that Abdeslam is unlikely to be tortured in Europe because “the laws are so liberal there”, but said he would do it.
“Frankly, the waterboarding, if it was up to me, and if we changed the laws or had the laws, waterboarding would be fine,” Trump said.
“If they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information from these people.
“I am in the camp where you have to get the information and you have to get it rapidly.”
Speaking on MSNBC afterwards terrorism expert Malcolm Nance, the head of the Terrorism Asymmetrics Project and a veteran of US Navy intelligence, took Trump to task over his rhetoric.
He said that Abdeslam could very well have had an attack of conscience over the Paris attacks, pointing out that he rendered his suicide vest safe outside the Stade de France.
We don’t have any intelligence that he was a commander, so capturing him may just have been capturing someone who went on the run. But this is why Isis isolates terror cells – so that one person becoming compromised won’t have any intelligence.
Nance added that US military personnel cannot be ordered to commit war crimes, something Trump seemed to advocate. He said that Trump’s “bluster” was not helpful to the US, EU or anyone by Isis.
“They (Isis) are probably cutting videos of this right now.
Donald Trump is validating the cartoonish view that they tell their operatives…that America is a racist nation, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and that that’s why you must carry out terrorist attacks against them in defence of their version of Islam.
“This is detrimental to the counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism work around the world. There are intelligence officers who are going to have to contend with their partners over what’s being said in the US election.
“It’s irresponsible and it needs to stop. He needs to consult with General Flynn – this is not helping us at all.”
Nance said that the war with Isis was a “fight of ideologies” with both the west and Islam itself.
Trump’s potential rival Hillary Clinton said that his plans to close US borders was “unrealistic”.
“Our country’s most experienced and bravest military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put our own soldiers and, increasingly, our civilians at risk,” she said.
Fair play… No civilian should have automatic weapons
Why not? The military & police in the US have them.
Get back to us when a policeman shoots 19 schoolkids graham…..
The military and police have guarded armories that no soldier or officer can take from without permission, training and supervision.
@ werejammin That guy at sandyhook was a lunatic but the average american who owns weapons have never attacked anyone with them.So why should their protection be taken away because of a minority of mentally unstable people? I would love to see a world without guns but unfortunately that’s not the reality so I understand the argument put forward by the pro gun side.
Because its not their protection. It’s an object that increases the likelihood of them or their family member being murdered.
@andrew if an armed intruder breaks into their home & they have no guns then what protection have they got?none.them & their family are at the mercy of an armed criminal in their own home so yeah it is protection.OAPs in rural ireland are living in fear of burglars everynight of the week.these criminals know that they are vulnerable & an easy target.
If a gun protected you from armed intruders I would yield, but the fact is a gun in your home is more likely to be used against you or your family member than it is against an intruder.
Not the brightest eh?
I fear for a society if this bill is blocked. Any congressman against this should be labelled a murderer. NRA care about profit. Al quida care about power…. I see no difference between them. Well done pro gun USA. Bullets will be useless when the devil has his way… And I hope he does….
They don’t.
The police and military are not civilians?
No, they are trained public servants.
Is the intruder not also less likely to have a gun if sales are limited?
There’s only a ban on guns that have the capacity to kill high numbers of people. Americans will still be able to own a gun, just not assault rifles and semi-auto’s. Definitely a positive step if this is passed.
“There is evil prowling in the world… let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help.” YEAH THIS IS GONNA HELP LOADS.
Open your mouth about the Government in the future and you will be in “INDEFINITE DETENTION” signed off on by the lovely Mr Obama as well as his KILL LIST that he annually renews over his own citizens as well as GUANTANEMO staying open war in Afghanistan and Iraq and know the disarming of the American people who are undeniably in fear of their own Government and the police state that live in.There freedom is eroding faster than their economy .Do ye ever notice when the U.S government want to take something away from the American people something convienently happens to endorse their agenda .ie 911 wher Bush passed Patriot act and basically gave more power to TSA FBI CIA Americans are living in fear and it was not gangbangers that shot the people in the cinema and sandy hook it was the sons of a high ranking Military Intelligence officer and the Financial Director of GE Money.Obama is bypassing every law that stands in his way like he is a monarch but everyone loves him because he is the opposite to Bush cool charming and smiles and comes to Ireland and drinks a pint of porter he is enhancing everything Bush has done but the brainwashed masses continue to rejoice in the deception they are complicit in .Wake up ye mainstream zombies wake up ffs.
Dumb.
Ever see a socialists government work out well??
Graham – Ever heard of Canada?
yes… its where I live, from ballyfermot to vaughan, the city above toronto…
About time. Who the f*ck needs an assault rifle.
That might be the reason why they’ve been strictly controlled and any made after 1986 banned completely in the US for a very long time.
What he’s talking about is an “assault weapons” ban. As in, the same law that was in place at the federal level for a few years before Columbine. The same one that was in place since 1995 in Connecticut.
Most of the rest of his ideas were good common sense (and mostly were “study the problem” and “enforce existing laws better” and “polish the rough edges”, to paraphrase). But this AWB MkII is just a waste of time.
‘Guns require a finger to pull the trigger’. No shit! What a foolish argument. How that statement could be used to argue for guns is beyond me. Rick Perry is mind bogglingly stupid.
Its almost as stupid as obamas “won’t somebody think of the children?” argument
@peter @andrew they took our flegs where’s my gun – enough said
” let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help.” There’s no helping these people.
Bushmaster automatic rifle-same one used in Sandy hook- NRA say it’s for killing vermin. If you can’t hit the rat with the first or second shot – buy a rat trap! NRA should be outlawed in the states
Not vermin. Varmints. In *Ireland* we call them vermin, in the US they call them varmints. Meaning foxes and the like. And yes, that is what most of the .223 rifles that are legally licenced in Ireland are used for – hunting foxes. Enjoying your free range chicken?
Varmints is what they called them on the show “Beverly HIllbillies”, never hear that now days
NRA have lots of friends in high places..Obama is right to do this. It should have been done long ago, but that’s of little comfort to those are grieving from gun-related outrages..
The gun lovers sure love their toys! I am not sure how it is supposedly responsible for a person to own weapons which are designed to kill human beings with maximum lethality but, that said, gun lovers will never recognise this. Their obsession with guns trumps the right of children and their teachers not to be massacred by disturbed individuals who acquire lethal weapons from family, private gun vendors and the myriad of other quick and easy sources.
It is the mindset, ” I just love my gun, I love the power, I don’t really want to kill anyone but boy I sure love to have this gun and the other guns which I could use to kill lots of people, if I really wanted to. Look, I could shoot at least 60 rounds a minute out of this sucker. Now, you don’t want to make me angry, don’t make me angry, because I have guns. I am the man! “
Problem is you really dont understand why the second amendment was created. People have a genuine fear of their government. And rightly so. e.g. NDAA to name just one..
Peter, a little bit of courtesy would be nice. I’m a supposed “gun nut” yet I support some of the measures Obama is taking. There was always a need for background checks when purchasing firearms. How it has taken so long is beyond me. I would go so far as to say that renewal of licences every 4-5 years with background checks and mental health examinations of both the renewer and anyone who will be close to them (much like we have checks for people who will be close to foster children here) should be brought in.
But an Assault Weapon Ban, especially in the US, won’t work. The simple reason is that they just don’t know what an assault weapon is. Some say (correctly) that a rifle firing ammunition less powerful than a battle rifle round but more powerful than a pistol cartridge with selective fire capabilities are assault weapons. Some say any weapon with automatic capabilities are assault weapons (not true, I wouldn’t want to carry an M2 into a building for example). Many more have many different descriptions. Until they work out a viable definition of an assault weapon any attempts to ban them will not work.
Jason, so what kind of weapon would you like to carry into a building? and for what purpose, shooting indoor deer?
Looks like the KKK still have a huge influence in America unfortunately.. no right-minded person would oppose these measure’s.
The gun nuts are gonna shite themselves.
It takes a split second to change a magazine on a gun. The magazine law is pointless and there are far too many assault rifles out there now for this to be effective. Too little, too late.
We ALL need weapons to protect us from a tyrannical Govt.
It seems very important to Obama to try and deny the American People of their right to bear arms. I wonder why?
It sure as hell has nothing to do with the shootings? How many Govts introduce measures to control the Public ‘for their own good’ or ‘in the interest of Public Safety’?
I wonder if the Irish Govt would have dared to impose the debts of others on the entire Irish People if the majority of homes in his country had access to an assault rifle to protect them from tyranny? Sincerely doubt it.
Wake up Ireland, no one is going to save you from the criminals in Govt. We have to do that for ourselves.
Governments have been responsible for 170+ million deaths in the 20th century.Many of them had brought out legislation banning citizens from owning guns. Hitler done it before WW2 & we all seen how that turned out.
Yes Toby, very sensible response. Don’t like what the government is doing? Go shoot your local TD. All our problems would be over if we all had a gun. Totally mental post.
Replacing the ballot box with with the gun…we all know where that’s got us…cop on
The right to bear arms was intended to allow any citizen to join the army in protection of their country. The laws meaning has been warped since its writing.
@Andrew The right to bear arms is to protect american citizens from all enemies foreign & domestic.
Yeah Toby.. It’s all Obama’s fault.. Ya eejit ya..
Have to agree with you Toby. It’s not wrong to want to defend yourself or your family.
Especially since we can see for ourselves that our well-being is not a priority for those being paid to represent us.
The majority of Irish People want nothing to do with guns, which I respect but I can’t understand their total opposition to someone else wanting to defend themselves of their family from a threat be it “foreign or domestic”.
Let’s be honest we call ourselves the Republic of Ireland but we are anything but a Republic.
We like to think that we live in a free country but we are anything but free.
(You are not allowed defend yourself, you have to live by rules that someone else decides for you. If you don’t agree you are a trouble maker.)
The second amendment is very very important and something that we need to fight for over here. The Govt was created by the Irish People, it is answerable to the Irish People and if it ever loses the run of itself the People have the right to protect themselves from it. Can’t see the problem.
The second amendment is US constitution not ireland wise up
@peter well said.a voice of reason is rare in ireland regarding this issue.those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.i often wonder how many people in history could have survived & defended themselves from out of control governments had they been armed.
@ Toby, that’s such an amazing pile of sh*te
@Peter, its not wrong to want to defend your family but, as is clear to anyone who has even glimpsed any gun crime stats, that is not what guns do. They don’t defend. A gun in a home is more likely to be used against a homeowner than an intruder. As to the right to protect yourself from an out of control government, that’s called voting. Hitler didn’t force his way into power in Germany or Austria. Nor did Mussolini or Stalin in their homes. That’s an argument about the problems with democracy though and probably not the best place for it.
Ryan Stewart. Why are you afraid of anyone exercising their right to bear arms?
The Criminals in this Country already have guns.
Perhaps they do, but the passion killers, mentally ill, young and stupid don’t. That’s a large part of the population that’s safer here now than they would be if we had gun laws as liberal as the U.S.
As a point do you people think that the current riots in Belfast would be worse or better with more liberal gun laws???
Andrew. I would dispute your remedy for an out of control Govt. The Parties may all have different names and apparent different policies but once they get into power they all seem to act the same i.e. protect the party, further the party, take-take-take, get the expenses and screw the people that elected them. The Political System in Ireland is a complete and utter disgrace. Democracy does not exist here in Ireland. We have monkeys in charge, the kind that defecate into their own hands, make a mess and then expect you to pay to clean it.
In a time where there is a more diminished police presence in rural areas, what would you say to people in fear of their safety? Tough luck?
That is democracy, like it or not. A problem with democracy is that, sometimes, the majority choose wrong. This is well doccumented. Churchill once said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. The quote was in reference to the decision made my the german people to elect an extremist bigot. What I would say to the rural population is not to install an alarm, a dog or an inexpensive security camera, every one of which is a proven deterrent to burglars and keeps them far safer than a gun would. Ironically, the recent spate of armed burglaries across the Rathcoole mountains have been targeting families known to HAVE guns.
Andrew. As you like quotes:
There is no crueler tyranny that that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. – Charles-Louis de Secondat
Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic. – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
Andrew. That law was written way before the world was full of trigger happy crazy people , and I think it should be amended. The world is a different place now. Especially, nobody needs an assault rifle , they only do harm. As a citizen of Chicago, I know that ALL guns are bad news and they only kill people ..wonder how those NRA guys would feel if someone in their family was riddled with 50 holes in their body, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time …guns are evil
I’m moving to Ireland, where no one shoots you for looking sideways at them
Guns don’t kill people , people do , if the right checks are done it would go along way to curbing the violence , I know some people might not agree but they can’t ban guns outright isn’t fair on responsible people.
Read the article again, no mention of banning guns outright. Automat assault weapons are the primary concern…you know those guns made primarily to kill people. What use are these guns other than killing people, not much use in a hunting context. Don’t be so naive.
A huge amount of gun murders in America happen in the home and are one off or accidental incidents that just wouldn’t happen if there were no guns lying about in the house. The likelihood of a gun being used on a trespasser is minute compared to the likelihood of one being used on a dweller.
Not been naive , but why should responsible people have to suffer because some people take it upon themselves to commit crime , people should still have the right to protect themselves
Well if guns aren’t left lying around the house it wouldn’t happen , still no reason to stop people having the right to have a Gun , that is like saying if someone kills someone in a car they should be allowed to drive again
That’s the point though. With a car you need training, an i.d., the roads are strictly controlled and policed and if you do kill someone in a car, chances are you wont be allowed drive again. There is no legitimate reason to have a gun other than for hunting/sport. And in those cases a single/double cartridge rifle suffices.
At the end of the day it is written in law in the US that people have the right to bear arms , that is their right , that fact cannot be argued , it’s pity that the people kicking up against Guns in the US didnt take to the streets and show as much passion about the Government lumping us with years of debt
Actually that can be argued. The right to bear arms in the constitution was intended to allow citizens to join the army. That’s abundantly clear in the founding fathers other works.
Maybe that was the idea back in 1791, but in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that people have the right to bear arms with the intent to protect themselves within their home.
A federal judge also said that the chances of pregnancy from rape was one in millions. Not all that clever are the republican judges of the US. Anyway, we know its technically legal. I’m merely saying it’s wrong.
F$&k…. Guns are destructive…. Cannot grow potatoes from them…. According to your logic, ban forks, butter knives, sewing needles, dangerous in the hands of people. When are people going to get it? No guns… Much less chance of a loser trying to be infamous…. Go into a school, university and attack with words, wit…. See how much damage they do then…..
What is it about us Irish that we have to always bring the Spuds up in an argument
Still a crazy amount of guns floating around though. Just look at the stats.
A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”
I’m sure when the right to bear arms was written into the American constitution, it was based on the kind of simpler weapons that existed in those days. They couldn’t possibly have predicted that automatic weapons would exist someday, so I don’t see why such weapons are allowed. Sure going by the logic that arms are arms, we may as well let every single ordinary citizen keep a nuke or two for protection.
Actually, the state constitutions and other similar documents from the same time period all state that the most advanced firearms of the day should be available. So the situation in the US today is a roll-back from the intentions of the original drafters of the constitution.
Mind you, if you ever read the injury reports from wars fought with muskets, you’d think that this notion that the weapons from that time period were somehow nicer and friendlier was about the silliest you’d ever heard. A musket is effectively a .50 calibre rifle firing dum-dum bullets, and to reload you reach into your large barrel of powder, aka your DIY pipe bomb kit…
Fair enough, I wasn’t entirely familiar with the exact laws of the US, so I retract my comment. Although, I still don’t understand why anybody could possibly need automatic weapons for legit purposes. The impression I get as an outsider is that a lot of people think of them as toys.
The US feels the same way – they have very strict controls there on automatic firearms of any kind.
Mainly the idea for automatic weapons is for target practice and for reenactments of famous battles. The target practice is the main one as controlling an automatic weapon is seen as one of the big achievements of a shooter.
Semi-auto versions are much better for the likes of vermin hunting, but of course an automatic can usually be switched to semi-auto making automatic weapons popular for vermin hunting as well.
Re David o Leary’s comment. I think there should be an Enda Law. The Enda Law states that a some point during a thread/argument/discussion, a reference to Enda Kenny, the Government and the debt that the Irish people have been saddled with will be dragged in crop and neck. An award should go to the person who makes the reference first. On this occasion the award goes to… David o Leary.
There’s no point arguing with the NRA or those in favour of the gun laws in the States as they stand. Their mindset is completely the opposite of what most sane sensible people see as plain common sense. I fear for Obama when he tries to push this reform through.
Like talking to a brick wall, trying to “reason” with the NRA
“Guns don’t kill people. Bullets do.”
Ban cars NOW. Drunk people use them to kill people. Like maniacs on Prozac use guns to kill people. Especially Automatic cars. You dont even have ro change gears in those death machines
How about ban all guns and just everyone carry mace… That’s only temporary, unlike a bullet to the head
So all the law-abiding people have a spray can and all the criminals who ignore that law because they’re about to commit a more serious one, they have guns.
Not the best scenario in the world if you’re not a criminal.
It would if no one had a gun except the cops
But if you removed the firearms from all the criminals, you’d have already eliminated the vast majority of the firearms homicides in the US every year (which are gang-related rather than the more widely publicised but far rarer mass shootings).
And after a few hundred years, the US hasn’t managed to do that.
Nor has any other country in the known world.
So maybe a more pragmatic approach would be to select a course of action that didn’t require you to do something that no other nation in recorded history has ever managed to do.
I don’t know what the solution is, I only know guns are bad news, and sometimes some of the stuff this country does makes me alittle embarrassed to be an American .. Now if I were running the show…
While I agree with the statement that it takes a certain person to commit mass murder on the scale we’ve seen in recent years in the US, making it harder to obtain a gun, either you or your family can only be a good thing. If you have the kind of mentality that will try to kill as many people as you can and the only weapon you can get hold of is a knife, the chance are about 80% of those people will survive. Guns in the home are unnecessary, use other non-lethal methods to subdue intruders.
The anarchists handbook sadly proves you wrong. Anyone who wishes to do harm can easily get their hands on it due to the Internet. It contains information such as how to manufacture homemade guns and bullets, bombs and mines. All using material nobody would really question you buying.
Also look at the guy in Germany who went on a killing spree in his school with an axe. He still managed to kill over 10 people (not sure what the exact number was). Banning guns won’t stop the mass murder.
I can also point to the guy in Belgium last year who was obsessed with killing people. He went to a crowded square and threw grenades (illegal), shot down with an automatic assault rifle into fleeing people (illegal) before killing himself with a pistol (legal). He was also arrested a few years back for having a lot of drugs and, among an arsenal of illegal weapons, a rocket launcher which is about as illegal as you can get.
That is correct Jason but it would definitely cut down on the frequency of these massacres.
Is it just me or have the gun nuts decided to have a red thumb field day on here
Didn’t Adam Lanza’s mother have a whole array of weapons at her disposal that according to the pro gun folk should have helped save her life? Part of he problem is the availability of guns, it’s easier to get rid or reduce them than fix the mentally ill and violent crazies.
Kevin – how?
If these things happened by accident, yes, you’d be right. Hard to slip on the soap in the shower and accidentally shoot six people if guns are banned.
But they don’t happen by accident, they’re planned ahead of time by some fairly sick people – just look at Columbine, Norway, and so on. And when people will plan to do evil things like that, they’re not going to be too fussed at the law or be stopped because one kind of tool isn’t available. Don’t forget the worst school massacre in US history (in Bath) didn’t use a firearm even though the criminal responsible had a firearm.
have your say