As you will all know the Turkish tourist resorts have again been targetted, can someone fill me in with the history here and what the group responsible is trying to achieve.
Printable View
As you will all know the Turkish tourist resorts have again been targetted, can someone fill me in with the history here and what the group responsible is trying to achieve.
kurdish independence?
So basically they traget foreign tourists in a bid to damage the Turkish economy through it's visitor trade hoping this will gain them their independence!
Pretty much
:lol: Got a feeling theres not much debate on this topic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
You asked a question that didn't really leave much debating. Ask a more open-ended question and a debate will undoubtedly ensue
I can't really think of one! :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Do the majority of Kurds want independence, should they be granted independence? Im guessing this sounds comparable to the Northern Ireland saga.
Not really sure about the in's and out's of the details, perhaps that is why they are doing it...for exposure to the media?
Either way they aren't going to get what they want, the IRA didn't.
It's not really the same as the Irish situation. The troubles weren't so much about gaining Irish independence (Eire has already had it for almost a century) as trying to wrest control of Northern Ireland from the British and unite it with Eire as a complete republic. That makes it kinda a territorial dispute that has run on from the original fight for independence in the 1920's.
The Kurds are spread across several nations in the area and none of them yet have indendence. If one country grants them independence then it would become more like Ireland in the 20's as the independent state would probably continue fighting/pressuring for independence of the other Kurdish Areas.
So you admit they are still after the same thing as the IRA were...hence the situation is similar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishGuy
Gobble gobble gobble.
Insofar as they're after their own independent state, yes they're after the same thing. But the situation they're starting from is very different. When people talk about the IRA and the situation in Ireland they're usually talking about the 70's and 80's rather than the 20's.Quote:
So you admit they are still after the same thing as the IRA were...hence the situation is similar
The situation the Kurds face now is similar to the 20's but there are still some major differences. Ireland was entirely contained within one Nation : Great Britain; whereas Kurdland (for want of a better name) is spread across several different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey among others. The Irish had to wait until Great Britain (the most powerful nation on the planet in the preceding years) was weak before they could make any progress toward independence. The Kurds have to wait until any one on the countries they occupy, none of which are a world power, is weak (most likely Iraq but who knows) before they can make some progress.
Also, other major world powers of the time were keen to encourage Irish independence, particularly in the Victorian era. The Kurds are unlikely to receive that kind of support becaue today's world powers would, broadly, prefer to retain the status quo - at least as far as national boundaries are concerned.
Another major difference is the religious factor. Unionists and Republicans in Ireland were always divided along religious lines so Catholicism and Protestantism became potent rallying calls. So potent, in fact, many people view the struggle as a religious one, even though religion actually had nothing to do with the root cause. Kurdish is an ethnic grouping rather than a religious one, and one that spans several religions including Sunni, Shia, even Jewish (although a minority) so the struggle there is unlikely to attain the same religious zeal that became prevalent in Ireland.
old topic but i just saw this
who wants a view/prespective from a Kurd?:D
Let's have it!
Definitely! :thumb:Quote:
who wants a view/prespective from a Kurd?
From wikipedia first... to get the history started..
--------------------------------------------
Larger parts of Kurdistan became a province of the Ottoman Empire. Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Kurds were promised an independent nation-state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Turkish nationalists, however, rejected the terms of the treaty, and following the defeat of the Greek forces in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923 in Turkey's favor. The larger area known as Turkish Kurdistan or Northern Kurdistan was given to Turkey and the rest was accepted as part of the British Empire (except for Iranian Kurdistan, which at that time was part of Persia). Since that time Kurdish nationalists have continued to seek independence in an area including the region identified at Sèvres. However, the idea of an independent nation-state came to a halt when the surrounding countries joined to reject the independence of Kurdistan.
The Iraqi Kurdistan region and Kurdistan Province in Iran are officially acknowledged parts of Kurdistan. The Turkish and Syrian governments do not recognize their controlled parts of Kurdistan as a demographic or geographic region.
-----------------------------------------------
Now in each of these countries (Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq) there is a Kurdish independence push, however the most open are in Iraq and Turkey. The group responsible for the Independence in Turkey are known as PKK, which is supposedly the group resonpsible for the bombings.
Upto recently the PKK was not bombing innocent people and I personally dont believe they are responsible for such bombings. Turkey was caught with its hand in the cookie jar by planting bombs and claiming PKK was responsible for the bombings.
Now I am not saying PKK members are all angels, far from it but now basically they are trying hard to just exist let alone independence. Turkey and Syria are very harsh to Kurds with Turkey claiming there is no such thing as Kurds but they are known as "Mountain Turks".
Syria doesnt even recognize them as being humans, they cant even own property or any thing else.
The situation in Iran is mixed, sometimes they are treated well but sometimes political leaders are hung to death so that one is up in the air. The situation in Iraq is by far the most well known, in 1975 til oust of Saddam Hussein, there was a constant battle between the central government and Kurdish rebels. In March 1988 Saddam and his government were responsible for the chemical attack on a Kuridsh city and right now he is standing in trial this gassing. In the summer of 1988 we was destined to wipe out the entire Kurdish population living in North Iraq, hence the reason we fled to Turkey then now I live in Canada.
In short we have been screwed by every nation in the middle east and outside(US was responsible for giving Saddam the weapons including the mustard gas) and now they didnt like him anymore so they had to take him out of power, same story as Bin Ladin.
Just to add to it, a Kurdistan in Iraq at least is innevitable, it already exists with a government, parliament, army, ministries, you name it.
And yet again Turkey is claiming that some of the North Iraq belongs to them so they will take it if there is a recognized Kurdistan.
the Sagga continues....
Who's going to be the first to say that they think they should let the Kurds have their way......?
Thank you for the enlightening post Kovan.
To hark back to the earlier comparison (or not) with Ireland, one of the underlying root themes with the Irish population (in particular in the Republic/South) was that the vast majority of the population didn't agree with violence as a means for independence. Sure, most people in the South thought that independence was the way forward and justified, but I think I only ever met one or two who thought that blowing up school children or world war II vets was a good way to achieve it. I have no idea if it's the same with the Kurds, but it wouldn't suprise me. In my travels around the world I have found that most people you meet are basically very decent.
The only large group of people I have met who actively support terrorists where, I suspect, wholely ignorant to the suffering that terrorism inflicts.
Very true but it's worth considering that, while people didn't agree with the actions they mostly did support the organisations. Bobby Sands got elected for a reason. So did Sinn Fein. I'm not sure what that tells us about human nature.
Kovan. Is this:-
definitely factual or is it your belief? I'm not meaning to imply it's wrong, I'm just genuinely interested and I don't know enough about it myself.Quote:
Upto recently the PKK was not bombing innocent people
I dont think anyone is gonna step up to the plate and let the Kurds have their way.
The political/economical backlash that will have on the first one to say it will be so great it will shake the region like it has never been.
If you deeply study where 'Kurdistan' is located you will get an idea why so.
Most of Kurdistan has a LOT of oil, in all the countries that it lies in, so for someone to step up to the plate is going to be impossible, and even for an outsider country, the entire arab nation will not like it, and Turkey will invade 'Kurdistan' it the word Kurdistan is mentioned in context of a country name.
But Kurdistan in the north Iraq is innevitable even if Turkey invades (which I think will be their downfall), because everything is already in place. Just recently the Kurdish president in the North orded the Iraqi flag to be lowered and raised the Kurdish flag instead. But the whole thing is still a mess.
The Kurdish population(in Turkey) in general do not like violence but they are die-hard supporters of PKK. By far the most dedicated and supportive of their movement among all the other Kurdish groups.
The movement in Turkey is really not about independence, more of a recognation and being allowed to have cultural freedom in my opinion but of course they want independence. To this day it is not allowed for to name their kids with Kurdish names. Turkey trying to get into EU has probably been the most effective as far as human rights for Kurds. They have changed a lot of laws to please EU and freed a lot of political prisoners.
PKK politically cannot afford to be bombing innocent people, especially in the resorts because most of the tourists in those resorts are europeans and the biggest support for PKK comes from European countries.
If one studies PKK tactics, it will be clear that they have not targetted innocent(in Turkey) people because that does not serve their purpose.
Again I will say that they are no angels, there WERE (not sure if they still exist) dangerous elements within the circle but none targetted European population.
It is a known fact that Turkey is being cornered by EU for admission so they must submit to EU demans.
EU on the other hand is doing everything it can to find an excuse to tell Turkey you cant join.
It is a known fact that Turkish secret service operatives have bombed innocent people and tried blaming it on PKK this was proven.
So I think Turkey has a hand in those bombings for EU to stop the support of PKK and Kurds in general.
You lost me with that garbage. I'd wager there are more Kurds alive because of the US than in spite of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kovan
As for comparing this to the IRA, Brits seem so quick to compare terrorist actions anywhere in the world to the "troubles" in Ireland. Fact is, most of the regions in the world where instability persists after decades of strife are regions where the empire deposited themselves and when convenient (for them) cut and run. Brits should be grateful the US is around to take the heat from those nations that they chose to take a giant dump on. I guess a "ta-ta, thank you for serving the crown" gets a pass. Pfft. Listening to you subjects of the crown describe your popular version of the "troubles" is quite amusing.
I am NO subject of ANY crown :mad:
As for GREAT Britain it can hardly be described as great when the monarchy is responsible for genocides which would make the current "troubles" look like a picnic, and were responsible for the control of dozens of coutries around the world and don't get me started on the opression they wrought on Wales, Scotland and Ireland in the last millenia
We mentioned the IRA because it is easy to label these people as terrorists but for any terrorist network to operate they need a goal (usually independance or such) and support from their home nation. The fact that Sinn Fein were kept in power for so long proved that there was substantial support for the IRA and their methods. and as for the Americans, they all thought they had Irish blood, and conviently chose to ignore the slaughter that the IRA wrough upon Northern Ireland and mainland UK.
What kind of people puts a nail bomb in the middle of the Omagh highstreet? Those nails would have flown out at great speed so anyone not caught in blast would have instead been caught in a shower of nails flying towards them. Men, Women, Children, they just don't care...
*rant over* :D
Not sure how educated you are on middle east affairs but here is the bottom line.
US was pissed Iran because Shah was over thrown and their embassy was stormed, US couldnt do piss all about it so they decided to arm Saddam Hussein and let him loose on Iran, Hence the Iran/Iraq wark in the 80s.
No one is suggesting that US gave saddam weapons to use agaisnt Kurds, at least this has not been proven, but Saddam used the gas on Kurds when it was meant to be for Iranians.
It is no secret that US created Saddam, look at footages of senior BUSH administrators shaking hands with Saddam and so on in the 80's.
They also armed Bin Laden to fight the Russians, anyone here disagree with that?
The comment about more Kurds being alive then dead because of US is the most most ridicoulus comment one can make. I'd say more are dead because of years and years of US policy then they are alive. The ONLY reason we backed war on Iraq was because we were made to by US, we didnt really have a choice. and yes the north has been stable since the no fly zone was established in the North but that was a combination of Britian and US and not just US.
Either case, US is going to use us til they get what they want and then they will do same thing to 'Kurdistan' as they did to Iraq.
You are very cool to dismiss reality as "garbage" from the comfort of your own home when you have seen absolutely nothing when it comes to 'war'.
You would think different when your relatives where shot infront of you when you were 5 by the guns that were supplied by the great saviour of the world US.
It was also no secret to see US army personnal embedded within Iraqy army in the 80's.
Blah blah blah, please come back with some facts
Little Miss Muffet probably would....Quote:
Originally Posted by kovan
Jee! I wonder why that is? Mmm, let's see, terrorists go around blowing up people indescrimenantly to get their way.... check!Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Terrorists bully and terrify those who don't agree with their viewpoint.... check!
Terrorists all claim to be fighting for a "cause" which justifies the killing... check!
So, yip, I would say that it's a fairly safe bet that comparing terrorist actions to the IRA is actually a reasonable thing to do, wouldn't you?
Or are they not terrorists because they are/were mainly funded by the US? Or do you wish to try and dispute that fact as well? The one good thing to come out of 9/11 is that at least some of the US citizens suddenly realised that blowing up innocent children isn't quite so romantic as they thought.
------------------------
As for your comment about the US taking the heat for problems Britain created! Yip, on that score you are bang on. Thanks a bundle! Of course, you're not taking the heat out of the goodness of your own heart, you're taking the heat because of your own meddling in the region..... so yes, Britain did cause the unstable situation, but you guys then threw gasoline onto the fires.... so, you can't exactly blame the Brits alone... or are you one of those people who believe that all this hatred for the US stems from jealousy of your lifestyle (including it's high violent crime rate, low education and two party "democratic" system)?
Thanks Ex-FB :thumb:
You've managed to quite aptly illustrate the whole point of comparing the current terrorists with the IRA. The only difference is that now they are more radicalistic (the IRA never used suicide bombings)
kovan, I agree that the US created Saddam, but I would respect the current US administration more if they admitted mistakes were made instead of denying their motives.
A wise man once said:
"All leaders make mistakes, because all leaders are but human"
:thumb:
First off. The US did not fund the IRA. Just as there were sympathizers within the UK for the IRA there were also sympathizers within the US. This doesn’t mean the UK funded terrorism against itself; it means that some in the UK supported the IRA cause. Please in the future refrain from saying the US funded the IRA. Please state correctly that some inside the US supported the IRA cause (just as other individuals in other countries supported the IRA). I can remember that US government shut down supposed “charities” that were linked to the IRA to cut off funding to that terrorist group.
Second. Despite your assertion people inside the US do not support or have ever thought that blowing up innocent woman and children is “romantic”. Believe it or not Americans are real human beings who want the same thing as you do, they want their children to be safe and grow up in a peaceful world.
Kovan, you say you wish people to come back with some facts yet you fail to list any of your own to support your arguments.
First off the US didn’t let Saddam loose on Iran. If you know anything about Saddam and his rise to power you must know that he considered himself to be a figure of destiny. It was Saddam and Saddam alone that decided to invade Iran to fulfill this supposed destiny of his as being a great Arab leader. You will need to provide proof of this claim to convince me otherwise (remember like you said….come back with some facts).
Second. Military support for Iraq from the US was limited to a few million dollars in arms sales and intelligence support during the Iran/Iraq war. Most of Saddam’s arms came from the former Soviet Union. If you can remember the Iraqi military uses T-72 tanks, AK-47’s, Mig Fighters, and Skud missiles, none of which are made in the United States. Up until the 2nd Gulf war there were still Russian advisors inside of Iraq. I’m not even mentioning European support for Saddam from France, Germany who were still selling arms to Saddam even after the 1st Gulf War. Who do you think gave Saddam his nuclear technology? It wasn’t the US, it was France who gave them their first nuclear reactor.
Not sure I understand how in one paragraph you state that more Kurds are dead because of US policy and say how Northern Iraq is stable because of the US No-Fly zones. Isn’t that US policy that has worked to protect the Kurds in the North? You must agree because you have stated as such. I have say I saw a commercial a few weeks ago from the Kurds thanking the US for all they have done because now they have a chance at something they never would have had under Saddam, freedom.
X
removed by moderator
The US Government did indeed shut down some of the IRA's fundraising activities in America, although this was, of course, post-September 11th. However, there are still several IRA fund-raising groups that still operate with impunity: NORAID, Irish Northern Aid, Friends of the IRA, for example. Naturally, they now claim that their fundraising doesn't pay for terrorist attacks, but their tag-line when rattling their collecting tins in bars ("Every dollar helps to kill a British soldier") rather gives the lie to that. I love the way some of it happens, too - the Irish Freedom Committee, for example, hold fun-runs and dinner dances! And this is an organisation that openly admits that they support dissident republicans who oppose the move away from an "armed struggle" in Northern Ireland!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
On a happier note, though, the IRA's most vocal supporter in the US Government seems to have changed his mind: Peter King sees which way the wind's blowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I think ID has pretty much said all that needed to be said on that score. Xanith, I've said it many times before, but it's worth saying again, if the US wants the rest of the world to take it's war on terrorism seriously (in the meaning that they really believe it to be a war on terrorism and not warmongering for percieved political gain), then they should round up all the people actively raising money for terrorists who live right under their noses.
Until they do that, I'm afraid it will just look like a "war against the terrorists that are on our god given land that has our god given oil and don't even believe in our god.... and they don't even speak English.... or Spanish", which whilst not as catch as "Global War on Terror" would at least make more sense to the rest of the world and maybe wouldn't make the rest of us snicker behind our hands whenever Bush mentions it, .... actually what scare me the most is I suspect he might actually believe that he is waging a war on terrorism..... :p
Actually I was being a bit tounge in cheek about that. I do like almost all Americans that I know, however I did meet an awful lot in Boston who I despise, mainly because they thought that the IRA was some sort of romantic freedom fighting oppressed group. To them it was quite acceptable to give the IRA money to go and set nail bombs off beside school children, shoot teenagers kneecaps off for dating outside of their religon, execute taxi drivers for taking fares from protestants, machine gun local police officers to death whilst robbing banks, slit the throats of people who didn't agree with them, firebomb the businesses who didn't give them protection money, you know, all that stuff which sounds a little bit like terrorism. So forgive me if I am somewhat synical about the US's war on terror, when these murderers are left to wander your streets for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
As for no direct support for the IRA from your government, funny, but up until recently, wasn't Gerry Adams a regular visitor to the whitehouse? Or how about the continued refusal to extradite convicted IRA prisoners from the US to Britain because they were "Political Prisoners"? But that is all aside, if you were to ask the IRA where most of their money came from, they would say the US. So, if you don't mind, I will continue to state that the US is/was the largest supporter of this terrorist group.
Kovan, I understand your argument, but your facts are a bit off. The US did give Saddam military support. However, The mustard gas did not come from the US. [cough] france [cough].Quote:
Originally Posted by kovan
Yet you yourself give no facts to this assumption. The US may not have publicly supported the IRA but they certainly didn't stop the IRA being funded by organisations operating from the US. It is also curious how the Americans label the terrorist war in Ireland as "troubles", I doubt the families of all killed would label it so trivially. Also the Americans had little interest in terrorist activities (including the terrorists in Ireland) until 9/11. Then the US decided that terrorism was a "global" threat....kind of reminds me of WWII but that's another discussion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Want their children to be safe?? Yet you have free gun laws! Thus enabling children to get their hands on firearms with great ease. How many schools in the US have had mass shootings from a teenager attending that school with daddy's gun? In short, too many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
...because Ireland's what we know about. I think you'd find a Greek or Turk would be drawing comparisons to the situation in Cypress, a Spaniard to Basque Separatists etc. I fail to understand your objection.Quote:
As for comparing this to the IRA, Brits seem so quick to compare terrorist actions anywhere in the world to the "troubles" in Ireland.
There does seem to be a strong correlation and I think you're probably right in that it is a factor. I think the instability is down to the rapid departure of British presence rather than it's existence in the first place (it was generally considered a stabalising factor while in presence) so lets look at what precipitated that departure. Britain basically mortgaged her empire to the americans in order to fight two world wars. This is not to imply the the American contribution wasn't great - it was - but that we had to hoc ourselves to you up to the hilt to hold out until you were ready to enter. Following WW2 the American administration (quite legitamately) called those debts in. Empires are expensive for a state to maintain (the costs tend to be met by the state whereas the benefits tend to flow toi individuals and businesses) so this left Britain unable to continue to support the empire - thus it became 'convenient' to leave.Quote:
Fact is, most of the regions in the world where instability persists after decades of strife are regions where the empire deposited themselves and when convenient (for them) cut and run.
It seems to me that if your point is that the British are to blame for current global terrorism because the empire collapsed then America must share some of the blame as it was a factor in bringing that collapse about. Actually, if you're really looking for a nation to blame it should probably be Germany.
Also, although it's probably a factor I believe that Western (not exclusively American BTW) foreign policy since WW2 has been a far greater one. We meddled all the way through the cold war and then kept medelling after that. Eventually it's going to breed resentment.
A large number US citizens have funded the IRA with contributions though to my almost certain knowledge the US government never has (indeed the FBI and CIA were instrumental in bringing about many high profile arrests of IRA members). That said, I'm not sure which of those options is less palatable. The extradition thing is another matter you guys seem ready to demand extradition without due process from us (for businessmen as well as terrorists by the way) but do seem intent on blocking extraditions we ask for in return. That's something I wish you'd change.
Finally, I don't think it's remotely possible to determine whether American (or any other international) involvement in the middle east has benefited the Kurds or cost them - it's way too wooly a question. I do think, however, that if a Kurd feels that American involvement has been to his peoples detriment it's up to Americans to listen and try to understand where he's coming from. America is, after all, the meddler, not the meddlee. Some of Kovan's facts may have been slightly (though not alot IMO) wide of the mark but you may want to question where the perceptions came from.
I have found no facts linking the US government to support for the IRA (I cannot give facts if there are none to give). What I have found is that certain organizations that were set up as charity organizations here in the United States were funneling money to the IRA. Those organizations have been shut down (that is a fact).Quote:
Yet you yourself give no facts to this assumption. The US may not have publicly supported the IRA but they certainly didn't stop the IRA being funded by organisations operating from the US. It is also curious how the Americans label the terrorist war in Ireland as "troubles", I doubt the families of all killed would label it so trivially. Also the Americans had little interest in terrorist activities (including the terrorists in Ireland) until 9/11. Then the US decided that terrorism was a "global" threat....kind of reminds me of WWII but that's another discussion...
It usually does take a large even to wake people up. 9/11 was that event. There is a real problem in this world with Islamic Extremism, there has been for 30 years, it just took a 9/11 style event to wake people up. Unfortunately people forget, they go back to their big screen TV’s and online gaming and forget all about the real dangers of the world.
If you want to talk about WWII I am well aware most of Americans would just have let Europe go to hell then do anything about it. I guess this attitude was mostly because Europeans have been killing each other for so long (and had started a previous World War not 20 years ago) why get involved. Again it took something like 9/11, Pearl Harbor in this case to get people to act and do what is right.
Only stupid people let their children near guns. Gun locks and gun cabinets are easily purchased if children are present in the house. Now if we could pass a law that banned bad parents that would be something. Also more people die on the roads each year than are killed by gun violence yet we never hear calls to ban the automobile. Guns much like automobiles if used responsibly are perfectly fine; one cannot ban a thing just because some of the population uses it irresponsibly. The constitution of the US guarantee’s the right to keep and bear arms, it has worked really well for 200+ years I don’t see a cause to change it now.Quote:
Want their children to be safe?? Yet you have free gun laws! Thus enabling children to get their hands on firearms with great ease. How many schools in the US have had mass shootings from a teenager attending that school with daddy's gun? In short, too many.
X
I think that arming bears is a terribly dangerous thing to do; aren't their teeth dangerous enough?
Surprisingly that's the term the Irish use. I have no idea when it was originally coined but it's how Irish on both sides of the divide (and there's another innocous term) refer to it.Quote:
It is also curious how the Americans label the terrorist war in Ireland as "troubles", I doubt the families of all killed would label it so trivially.
We could use that law over here as well. :rolleyes: :DQuote:
Now if we could pass a law that banned bad parents that would be something.
A car's primary purpose is to move people from a to b. A gun's primary purpose is to kill things. It's arguable whether a civilised society should not be doing all it can to prevent the latter from happening.Quote:
Also more people die on the roads each year than are killed by gun violence yet we never hear calls to ban the automobile.
You have to be careful they're not concealing a side arm in their pickernick basket.Quote:
I think that arming bears is a terribly dangerous thing to do
I always thought that the right to bare arms was more of a pro-T-shirt sort of policy.....
I really wish that you were right for once. Alas it is not a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
http://www.inac.org/
:(
Maybe you missed this in your links.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
"The British and U.S. governments accused Noraid of being a front for the IRA, an accusation that has always been denied by Noraid"
There are many non-profit organizations here in the US that raise money for various causes. If it was provable it would have been shut down.
Again these are not US government organizations. So saying the US funded the IRA is just rediculous.
X
I would laugh if it wasn't so saddening. They deny it in much the same way that Sinn Feinn denies being a front for the IRA. It's a very difficult thing to prove when the IRA are not in the habit of issuing reciepts. So NORAID collects money, sends it to Sinn Feinn and they go forth and buy weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
As has already been pointed out, in the Pre-9/11 US all you had to do was walk into an Irish pub in Boston to be confronted with Noraid collectors demanding money to help "free the North from British oppression", "Help kill a British Soldier", "Drive the British out of Ireland", "Support the Brave Lads of the Provos" etc.. I haven't been there since 9/11, but I do believe things have died down a bit because of people suddenly realising what terrorism really means. And ever since 9/11 peace has sort of broken out (although many despicable acts are still carried out in the name of IRA/UDF - just not as many).
I have already addressed this. No-one is saying that the US government is directly funding the IRA. I am saying that the US is the major source of funding for the IRA. You can try and deliberatly mis-interpret those words as much as you want, but the fact remains that most of the funding for the IRA comes from the US, ergo: the US funds the IRA. I'm not sure how I can explain it any clearer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
What I did say about the US government is, that as long as they turn a blind eye to the US citizens who fund terrorism, then this is always going to appear as a war of convenience for the American government, and not a "Global war on terror", as they are quite happy to let people sponsor terrorists, as long as they are not terrorists who attack American targets.
You seem very quick to condem other people for sponsoring terrorism on the flimsiest of pretexts, yet when you have people openly canvassing for money to blow up school children, you defend them to the hilt because they are Americans.
Please read a bit about the troubles. I guarantee you that you will be reduced to tears a number of times at the things these people have done to others. Then tell me with a clear concience that you don't think we pursue the people who give them money....
:(
here is a small selection of the more major events: Most of the other major events can be found easily, but the day to day knee-cappings, firebombings etc. are so common that they are hardly even reported....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/north...c_stress.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2515113.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_McCabe
Now tell me. Should we pursue anyone who sent money to these people?
Gee, I didn't think anybody was unaware that the money for the IRA came from the US. Is there a terrorist organization anywhere in the world that draws the bulk of its financial support from within the area they are operating? If the IRA isn't being bankrolled out of the US, who is funding them? Perhaps its the Saudis....no, they have enough to fund. Iran...no, that's hezbollah. Oh wait, Israel isn't funding any terrorist organizations, maybe it's them!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5400570.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
So it is acceptable for a grown man to enter a school, and shoot 4 innocent young girls in the head? After all he had the right to bear arms. A person does not buy a gun for fun, they are designed to kill and no good can ever come from using one.
As for the Irish, yet again you are denying the obvious truth, that the IRA received funding via the US (mostly through charities) and the US government of the time did nothing to stop them.
Terrorism was prevelant in many countries around the world but now that it has reached American soil it was become a full scale war. What scares me most is Bush. Thanks to him (and to no small part Blair) terrorists are now receiving far more recruits, funding and resources. This terrorist war has the potential to get out of hand very very quickly, and I have to say I can't see this ending for a very long time.....if ever. What a legacy to pass on to our children :(