Turkish Bombers

[Valleysboy1978]

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.

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...

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.

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.

[FunkyDexter]

As for comparing this to the IRA, Brits seem so quick to compare terrorist actions anywhere in the world to the "troubles" in Ireland.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[Xanith]

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...

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).

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.

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.

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.

X

[yrwyddfa]

I think that arming bears is a terribly dangerous thing to do; aren't their teeth dangerous enough?

[FunkyDexter]

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.

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.

Now if we could pass a law that banned bad parents that would be something.

We could use that law over here as well.

Also more people die on the roads each year than are killed by gun violence yet we never hear calls to ban the automobile.

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.

I think that arming bears is a terribly dangerous thing to do

You have to be careful they're not concealing a side arm in their pickernick basket.

[Ex-FB]

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).

I really wish that you were right for once. Alas it is not a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID

http://www.inac.org/

[Xanith]

I really wish that you were right for once. Alas it is not a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID

http://www.inac.org/

Maybe you missed this in your links.

"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

[Ex-FB]

Maybe you missed this in your links.

"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.

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.

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).

Again these are not US government organizations. So saying the US funded the IRA is just rediculous.

X

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.

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?

[Valleysboy1978]

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.

X

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5400570.stm
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

[Xanith]

I do understand that money came from people inside of the US that probably did help fund the IRA (probably most of it from people who didn’t know where it was going). Money has also come from the UK and other countries. I have already stated that and understand that. What everyone seems to be glossing over is that when the US government was able to prove that money was being diverted to terrorist organizations like the IRA these organizations were shut down.

While I understand that some of you feel that this should have been a top priority of the US government to stop terrorism inside the UK/Ireland, you have to understand that before 9/11 the US government didn’t even take Osama Bin Laden’s threat to the US too serious. The US government let its own people down, its not surprising the US government didn’t take the time to stop terrorism in another country, they didn’t even try too hard to stop it at home in its own.

Money is still being raised inside of the US for terrorist organizations that help kill Americans. The problem is proving where the money is going and then taking the necessary steps to shut these organizations down.

In a free society such things like this are always going to happen. The US even trained the 9/11 pilots to fly those airliners into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. The only thing the US government can do is learn from its mistakes and then take the steps now to correct those mistakes.

Also you have to understand that the problem of international terrorism is not going to go away simply by ignoring it. If history has shown us anything it is that ignoring a problem only makes things worse in the long run. Leaving the terrorists alone for too long allowed them to build a base inside of Afghanistan where they trained the next generation of leaders. Not doing anything to destroy the global organization of terrorists because you feel it would create more terrorists is simply idiotic.

The only way to destroy the threat is to confront it, as I said it’s not going away on its own. So while you are afraid of Bush because he is confronting this global threat (yes its not just a threat to the US) head on, I am more afraid of Iran and if they actually are allowed to get nuclear weapons. Iran will use them, and anyone who thinks otherwise better wake up soon before it is too late.

X

[Valleysboy1978]

The only way to destroy the threat is to confront it, as I said it’s not going away on its own. So while you are afraid of Bush because he is confronting this global threat (yes its not just a threat to the US) head on, I am more afraid of Iran and if they actually are allowed to get nuclear weapons. Iran will use them, and anyone who thinks otherwise better wake up soon before it is too late.

X

Again the US doesn't learn. Confronting the problem head on solves nothing, except by making the said government into the "bad guy". Look at the Irish terrorist war (sorry to keep going back to this but they are very similar). For decades the two sides were too stubborn to sit down and talk. As soon as the IRA and British government (who were both as bad as each other) sat down to talk, peace was finally a possibility and was a reality almost immediately. Now Ireland as a whole is flourishing from renewed trade and tourism and it is proof when the children cannot understand what the problem was, a good sign for it is with the children that are hopes lie

I know it's hard to envisage but the US/UK governments have certainly made their mistakes and can probably be held partially responsible for creating the problem (granted not the current leaders). However, if they continue to try and solve it with weapons it will quickly escalate. What happens if a terrorist (or as you say even Iran) uses a nuclear weapon. Doesn't matter where (although in a Western country would obviously be worse from the international communities point of view), what will be the response?
Will the UN impose sanctions and just condemn the action? But essentially do nothing?
Will the said country ask for international aid in returning the action?
Will the US/UK just invade citing the WMD story used for Iraq?

Yes I agree it's concerning that Iran (and now probably N. Korea) have nuclear weapons, but nothing can really be done to stop them without contravening international law (and of course many would say it's hypocritical seeing as we have countless nuclear weapons)

I just hope there will be stability for our children

[Ex-FB]

I do understand that money came from people inside of the US that probably did help fund the IRA (probably most of it from people who didn’t know where it was going). Money has also come from the UK and other countries. I have already stated that and understand that. What everyone seems to be glossing over is that when the US government was able to prove that money was being diverted to terrorist organizations like the IRA these organizations were shut down.

While I understand that some of you feel that this should have been a top priority of the US government to stop terrorism inside the UK/Ireland, you have to understand that before 9/11 the US government didn’t even take Osama Bin Laden’s threat to the US too serious. The US government let its own people down, its not surprising the US government didn’t take the time to stop terrorism in another country, they didn’t even try too hard to stop it at home in its own.

Money is still being raised inside of the US for terrorist organizations that help kill Americans. The problem is proving where the money is going and then taking the necessary steps to shut these organizations down.

In a free society such things like this are always going to happen. The US even trained the 9/11 pilots to fly those airliners into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. The only thing the US government can do is learn from its mistakes and then take the steps now to correct those mistakes.

Also you have to understand that the problem of international terrorism is not going to go away simply by ignoring it. If history has shown us anything it is that ignoring a problem only makes things worse in the long run. Leaving the terrorists alone for too long allowed them to build a base inside of Afghanistan where they trained the next generation of leaders. Not doing anything to destroy the global organization of terrorists because you feel it would create more terrorists is simply idiotic.

The only way to destroy the threat is to confront it, as I said it’s not going away on its own. So while you are afraid of Bush because he is confronting this global threat (yes its not just a threat to the US) head on, I am more afraid of Iran and if they actually are allowed to get nuclear weapons. Iran will use them, and anyone who thinks otherwise better wake up soon before it is too late.

X

First, I would like to commend you on an excellent post. Thank you.

I don't believe that the US's top priority should be to stop terrorism in the UK, but if they expect anybody to take them seriously about the "Global War on Terror", then they should at least be arresting the people in the US who fund the IRA. Unfortunately there seems to be little incentive to run the risk of upsetting the 35 milion Americans who claim Irish heritage, so these fund raisers are left to go free. Shutting down the organisations is not enough, people should be thrown in prison for this (IMHO). And until stringent action is taken, the "Global War on Terror" is simply going to look like "Bush's war against Muslims with Oil"

As for ignoring/confronting the threat. I have never seen anyone ever say that the threat should be ignored. That would be insanity. However, bombing innocent people who happen to live near suspected terrorists, only breeds more terrorists. That was obvious from the start of the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. A far better solution would have been to pursue these people using the well defined boundries of the law. Yes, it may be a lot slower and more painful but at least you wouldn't be despised by the rest of the world (and unfortunately, that is the state your present government has put you in).

Let's look at the facts:

Afghanistan was harbouring Bin Laden. They asked for proof that he was responsible for the attacks on the WTC (this was before the videos came out). The US cited that to give proof would be detrimental to their intelligence gathering agents. So they invaded. Now, flip this around. If Afghanistan asked the US to hand over a US citizen for a terrorist action, yet refused to show any proof. Do you think the US government would comply?

Iraq, had nothing to do with the WTC, and was fairly crippled still from the previous war. So what does the US do. They attack them, killing thousands of innocent people and therefore creating a massive pool of new terroriist recruits under the guise of freedom fighters or revenge for freshly killed brothers, sisters, children.....

Bush ignores the Geneva convention and starts holding prisoners without trial and tortuing them. Now, don't get me wrong, I doubt if the terrorists are going to stick to the Geneva convention, that would be nieve, however, he has reduced your nation to just another terrorist state. I mean, for F's sake, listen to yourselves... torture.... acceptable practice.... ***! It's easy to say that if it saves American lives then it's okay... I'm sorry, but any state that employs torture could make that statement. I'm sure the Nazi's used the same excuse when they tortured prisoners... and yet, somehow you still believe that you can hold your head up as a world power.

Now we get onto your so called Allies. Pakistan are only on your side becauise you threatened them (by the way I was there a few months ago, and they hate the US because of your "War on Muslims"), is that the sort of Ally you want? So, then Bush goes on to say that he will stomp all over Paklistani authority if he has to. Again, it shows the world a complete disregard for trust and law. I know, again you will say that the gains justify the means.... however there are so many of these statements that you are presenting a common face to the world as a rouge nation that has no regard for anybody elses juristiction.

So, you also pull out of the Geneva War Crimes, because you don't trust other countries. So we have a world wide forum for convicting war criminals, one that works well and has brought many war criminals to trial, and one that the US supports when it suits them, but one that you are not willing to let your citizens be held accountable to. Again, it shows the world a blatent disregard for the few world laws that we have.

Abducting citizens from their countries and taking them away to torture them? Again, the sort of thing a rouge nation would do. Oh, and before you say the ends justify the means, look at how many have turned out to be completely innocent people. Sorry about the torture and all that...

So, then we have Israel bombing the Lebanese. Again, the world calls for them to stop the massacre, but the US vetos it and allows them to go on. Apparently the US is doing all it can to keep the Israelis supplied with bombs (with many extra weapons deliveries over the period), so that they can bomb innocent families. Don't get me wrong, both sides were to blame, but unfortunately once again, your country sullied it's hands by over eagerly supply cluster bombs to be used on civilians.

So, as you look around at the rest of the world and wonder why your country doesn't garner any respect for it's "Global War on Terror" and most of the other countries cower from your terrorist actions and hope that you don't turn your mightly war machine on them, at what point do you complain because suddenly they feel the burning urge to start buildiung nuclear weapons to protct themselves before you manage to extract your armies from the quagmire of Iraq and turn your hateful vegence on the next nation on your list of "Evil".

No, history has shown us that there are only three succesful ways to fight terrorism.

1) Covertly. Bullet in the brain, bury the body, don't tell anyone. This was the most effective method employed by the Germans against the French Resistence. Lack of knowledge as to where the rest of the organisation is, is one of the weaknesses of a large dissapated, loosly connected group of people.

2) Removing popular support. In this case, I believe this could have been done post 9/11. Most muslims I know where horrified about the 9/11 attacks and had great sympathy for the US. Now most of them see the destruction you have sown and that opportunity is long past.

3) The hardest one. The legal route. Bin Laden could probably have been brought to justice by now through diplomatic means. It would have taken a long time, but would probably have cost far fewer innocent lives. I think Americans scoff at the power of sanctions, which shows a very blinkered view of the world. You have a very affluent lifestyle, but sanctions for many countries are crippling and often more than enough of a threat to topple any government.

Your method of attacking the terrorists has only strengthened them, destabilised the world, and caused massive untold grief throughout both the Muslim and Western worlds.

[rory]

So, then we have Israel bombing the Lebanese.

And Hezbullah bombing the Israellis ..

So, as you look around at the rest of the world and wonder why your country doesn't garner any respect for it's "Global War on Terror"

I am 100% behind the allies and the Global War on Terror and I dont live in the US or the UK .. anyone that is not against terrorism is a little punk terrorist and will have their day in hell.

Now most of them see the destruction you have sown and that opportunity is long past.

So as you are saying "you" instead of "we", then you are one of these terrorists?? This is not a Terrorist Support forum!!!

You have a very affluent lifestyle

So you are living in the bush with no running water?

Your method of attacking the terrorists has only strengthened them

They are weak little punks that will spend their time in hell.

[penagate]

Bush ignores the Geneva convention and starts holding prisoners without trial and tortuing them. Now, don't get me wrong, I doubt if the terrorists are going to stick to the Geneva convention, that would be nieve, however, he has reduced your nation to just another terrorist state.
[...]
Your method of attacking the terrorists has only strengthened them, destabilised the world, and caused massive untold grief throughout both the Muslim and Western worlds.

I couldn't agree more.

It's like that saying about arguing with a fool: he will drag you down to his level, and then beat you. And that's more or less what we're seeing, although no-one has really been beaten yet, and probably never will if we continue down this road.

[demotivater]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5400570.stm
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.

Thomas Hamilton had the right to carry his weapon into the school in Dunblane as well, no? We've seen the affect the knee jerk banning of handguns has had in England where the populace hasn't the means or the legal right to defend itself. Crime rates plummeted, oh wait, no they didn't. They continue to drop here in the US.

removed by moderator

[Valleysboy1978]

Thomas Hamilton had the right to carry his weapon into the school in Dunblane as well, no? We've seen the affect the knee jerk banning of handguns has had in England where the populace hasn't the means or the legal right to defend itself. Crime rates plummeted, oh wait, no they didn't. They continue to drop here in the US.

removed by moderator

And yet the US has had 3 school shootings in 1 week. Surely you have to admit that things are getting out of hand?

Ex-FB you keep coming out with these great posts! I too hope this poster was a kid as the comments seem juvenile, but I suppose we live in a free country and he is entitled to his opinion (rory: something that those said country's do not enjoy)

[rory]

And yet the US has had 3 school shootings in 1 week. Surely you have to admit that things are getting out of hand?

Ex-FB you keep coming out with these great posts! I too hope this poster was a kid as the comments seem juvenile, but I suppose we live in a free country and he is entitled to his opinion (rory: something that those said country's do not enjoy)

Juvenile is this:
Planet Xeoroaniar

Edit. I didnt realise I was replying to young kids here, and the other a troll.
Carry on smartly then ..

[Ex-FB]

Ex-FB you keep coming out with these great posts! I too hope this poster was a kid as the comments seem juvenile, but I suppose we live in a free country and he is entitled to his opinion (rory: something that those said country's do not enjoy)

Thank you, I will endeavour to keep up the good work.


Rory makes me laugh. It's kind of nice to know that such innocent nieve people still exist in this world. I hope nobody takes advantage of him in the real world.

[demotivater]

And yet the US has had 3 school shootings in 1 week. Surely you have to admit that things are getting out of hand?

Not at all. In fact, assaults and other violence at schools in the US have dropped nearly 50% in the last decade. Not that the media would tell you that or anything, but the facts is the facts.