Still waiting for that cite bloomingpouf.
I’m not saying that Omagh wasn’t horrible, the IRA is good etc. etc. I’m saying that the IRA wasn’t attacking the US so condemning us for not jumping in with both feet to crush them as soon as they started their terror campaign just doesn’t make sense. The difference between AQ and the IRA are their chosen targets; if the IRA had been bombing pubs in New York, we would have paid more attention to them and their money-raising activities.
RE: all this conspiracy theory stuff–it’s one thing to have an open mind but a completely different thing to have such an open mind that your brain falls out. Lets look at this logically: according to y’all, a secret cabal of oil exec’s and Republicans deliberately let AQ fly plans into the Pentagon and the WTC so they can build a pipeline through Afghanistan. You ever think that flying a plane into your own military HQ and crippling your own economy right before starting a war might not be the smartest move? Granted, I don’t think Bush is the wisest president we’ve ever had, but even he isn’t this dumb. That particular honor rests with all the people who are mindlessly believing this tripe.
Did I miss something? Who said there was a conspiracy to “let” them crash planes into the WTC? I thought the conspiracy was to swipe oil from the Afghans, (which is understandable, Hell, they did it to Oklahomans) and that got them pissed.
So, what I am getting from some of the posts that I am reading here is that there are people out there who actually like Bush and approve of his policies. Interesting.
I hope you’re not referring to me, drone, because as I stated in my previous post I don’t think Bush is the smartest president we’ve ever had and in another post I registered my distaste for some of his actions in regards to civil liberties and pursuing a unilateral strategy against Iraq. Just because I think some of the conspiracy theories flying around here about 9/11 are a bit kooky doesn’t mean I want Bush to bear my children. 
Also, a lot of people here screaming about the US’ policy towards Iraq seem to be engaging in the reflexive US-bashing that seems to go on every time we have a foreign policy crisis. Again (and memorize this part of my post even if you ignore the rest) I don’t think attacking Iraq alone is a good idea! But none of usual handwavers have offered any other alternative plans on what to do if Saddam screws with the weapons inspections again which there’s a good chance of him doing. So–if you’ve got constructive critisism to offer, be my guest, but don’t expect me to yell encouragement when people are breathlessly proposing asinine conspiracy theories or generating a lot of heat but no light. Its a personal ‘thing’ of mine I guess. And, for the record, I consider myself a moderate Independant (i.e. a non-fanatic) if those sorts of things are important to you.
DUHHH:smack:
So explain it again for this thick Irish person!!!
So it makes sense to allow terrorists to raise funds in the USA because the bombs and bullets bought with the money will be used against people in MY country, not YOURS!!!
By that logic it would have been OK for Bin Laden to collect money in Belfast to buy weapons to use in the USA - though I bet if he tried it you’d have expected our government to arrest him:confused:
My family was bombed from our home by the IRA - for the crime of being a convenient target - a Buddhist family in a predominantly Catholic area where the IRA wanted to “send a message”. The bomb equipment was probably paid for by the USA - but that’s OK by you, is it?
And Americans wonder why other countries don’t see eye to eye with them over their “War On Terrorism”!!!
Oh fer chrissake Zombie, get your gawddamn head out of your ass. I was explaining why the US didn’t act against the IRA sooner. I didn’t say it was right, I was using it as an example of pre-9/11 foreign policy. Now, after 3000 people were killed in about 2 hours, we tend to be a little more ‘on the ball’ in regards to terrorism. What I get from your posts is that since the US didn’t declare war on the IRA back in the 70’s, we shouldn’t be declaring war on al Qaeda now. Quite frankly, that’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard anyone argue here (and I thought I’d heard some doozies before, I can tell you).
Well, if thats what you get from my posts “American intelligence” really must be an oxymoron!!!
What I’m trying to highlight is that the American view of what constitutes a “terrorist” is very subjective and also hypocritical:wally
Why do you expect the rest of the world to automatically support your “war on terrorism” when , for years, America has been either funding or turning a blind eye to terrorist atrocities in other parts of the world???
What makes American terrorist fatalities so much MORE awful than fatalities that the USA has subsidised here and in other countries???
There’s nothing about ‘our’ casualties that makes them any more special than yours, zombie although I’m still wondering why you think it’s amazing we get more upset when our citizens are killed than when yours are. What’s different now, however, is that these small, extra-national terrorist groups are rapidly getting the capabilities to take out entire cities! So, we’re trying to stop them. Now unless you have a better idea (or your idea of utopia includes large numbers of crazy-eyed folks running around with an assortment of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) I’m thinking you should be supporting this whole ‘war on terror’ idea. Of course that’s just me; feel free to keep squealing about whatever moronic ‘conspiracy of the week’ takes your fancy if that’s what gets you off. Just don’t expect to get any respect from me when the most intelligent thing you’ve managed to do so far is master the art of using emoticons.
Sheesh, some people’s kids.
cite please ? This is still way out in tinfoil hat territory.
Well, I’ll admit to maybe overblowing the rhetoric a bit but its a far cry from tinfoil hat territory when terrorist groups are playing around with poison gas.
I guess I’m crazy for wanting to stop them before they get to the point where they can manufacture the stuff though.
What “conspiracy of the week”???
Moronic???
Seems to me and a lot of other people on SDMBs that America is trying to START a war with Irag - which has bugger all links to 9/11 !!!
And, no, I don’t care whether you respect me or not - as you’ve shown already that you’ve no respect for the victims of American sponsored terrorism [like myself] in other parts of the world.
So,go stick your “respect” where the sun don’t shine!!!
Yes, ‘moronic’ zombie. Newsflash: the IR-freakin-A bombed your house! That sucks, but don’t come in here acting like a badass trying to say the US sponsored it. At the worst, we didn’t act strongly enough to stop IRA fund-raising by **private freakin’ citizens ** but you can hardly call that sponsorship (well, you could, but then you’d be a moron).
And I don’t support a US war on Iraq, a point I’ve even bolded in the past to stop people from making the mistake you just did, but I do support a UN-sanctioned war on Iraq. And the reason I do so is not out of any burning desire to blow the fuck outta the Iraqi’s (although I’m thinking the world would be a much better place without the likes of Saddam in it), but because if the UN–more specifically the Security Council–doesn’t enforce its resolutions, it looses what little credibility it has left. I don’t think the world would be a safer place without the moderating influence of the UN because, much like you I suspect, I don’t like the idea of any nation, even the USA, being able to enact its foreign policy without having to worry about repercussions from the international community. Clear?
LC, valid point but since we’re talking about the IRA I feel obligated to point out that they had nothing to do with Omagh.
As for Zombie, I just can’t take seriously anybody who claims that the USA “subsidised” the IRA just because a tiny handful of its citizens gave them financial support. By that logic, Canada has subsidised the UVF, and Britain itself has subsidised terrorist groups on both sides (actually in the loyalists’ case that’s probably true … )
Ah you deliberately miss the point! … and who mention subsidies???
Ever heard of turning a blind eye???
America now says it will not tolerate Terrorism in any form, yet when specifically asked to Ban Terrorist Organisations such as the IRA in America they refused.
The American Government Gave Comfort and Aide to Terrorists PERIOD!
The American Government Also was the Arms supplier to The Taliban PERIOD.
The American Government have declared war on Terrorism – great!!! So who will be charged and what law will be used. The International Criminal Court is a Moot point given that America refuses to abide by it…. So we are left with America being Mr Strong Arm.
Successive American Governments have sponsored Terrorism when ti is convenient – they have turned blind eyes ( Such as the IRA) when the Irish Vote was more important than lives and The American Government is now playing Bully boy cos they don’t like the results of all that nasty stuff over so many years. Boo Hoo! The bully is crying with a bloody nose!
If America is really interested in a war against terrorism they had better renounce it’s use and sponsorship world wide… and that Includes Economic Terrorism – sometimes called Blackmail – and euphemistically called politics to keep some guys hands clean!
Ah you deliberately miss the point! … and who mention subsidies???
Ever heard of turning a blind eye???
America now says it will not tolerate Terrorism in any form, yet when specifically asked to Ban Terrorist Organisations such as the IRA in America they refused.
The American Government Gave Comfort and Aide to Terrorists PERIOD!
The American Government Also was the Arms supplier to The Taliban PERIOD.
The American Government have declared war on Terrorism – great!!! So who will be charged and what law will be used. The International Criminal Court is a Moot point given that America refuses to abide by it…. So we are left with America being Mr Strong Arm.
Successive American Governments have sponsored Terrorism when ti is convenient – they have turned blind eyes ( Such as the IRA) when the Irish Vote was more important than lives and The American Government is now playing Bully boy cos they don’t like the results of all that nasty stuff over so many years. Boo Hoo! The bully is crying with a bloody nose!
If America is really interested in a war against terrorism they had better renounce it’s use and sponsorship world wide… and that Includes Economic Terrorism – sometimes called Blackmail – and euphemistically called politics to keep some guys hands clean!
It is so funny that you love the AD HOMINEM rather than the rational. One requires a clear mind and the other a sewer!
You call people Morons because they don’t agree with you. It seems that The Term Moron is to be used now for anyone who does not agree with America or Americans.
Well that makes Bin Laden and many others Morons…. So why would America want to spend so much time effort and energy killing Morons??? You show contempt for the folks you call Moron… so perhaps you need to tell The Shrub that he doesn’t need to spend so much time trying To Butt Fuck Morons!
Perhaps you need to expand your vocabulary so that you don’t rely on just the one word when labelling someone you don’t like. Try Idiot, Putz Ass Hole or even cerebrally Challenged… or maybe your just taking the Exampleraization of the Comanderator in Chiefly Charge!
I’d like to add that without official US Administration support for the peace process eg. George Mitchell’s great work and the effort of Clinton during the GFA setup ** there most likely would not be the relative peace that exists in NI today **.
Yes individuals did support the terrorists and the US administration did not act in the way the UK gov. would have wanted them to in regards to Sinn Fein and fund raising but they also did a huge amount of good.
I think that a lot of Irish Americans pre 9/11 had a almost romantic view of the struggles in NI. The reality of terrorism is terror. It’s not romantic, it’s not noble. It’s ugly and vicious and IMO some elements of it can be justified* at least to me. To some degree is not just carried out by terror groups. A lot of governments have excelled at the job of inflicting terror on people all over the world.
From what I can see everyone gets bloody when it comes to inflicting terror and fighting it. Black and white arguments have little use in these situations. There is always another side.
I don’t think that the possible/definite upcoming war with Iraq has anything to do with the fight against terror(whatever that means).
*Some elements meaning when all options are used up and attacks against non-civilian targets can get their message across in a way that non-violent methods have failed to do. I’m perfectly willing to accept that my views on this may seem abhorrent to a lot of people but there you go.
I’m not entirely sure I understand your question, ** carnivorousplant**:
9/11 – radical terrorists, Pearl Harbor – a nation State bent on regional Imperialism
Omagh – (wider) political solution supported by informed public, 9/11 – …Iraq ?
I guess the “effect” on the people of these society-influencing acts of terrorism depends on how politicians choose to characterise events and whether the public determine to accept that characterisation or form their own independent perspectives (framed, in the case of Omagh, from 35 years of continuous conflict)…if that’s what you meant ?
FWIW, historically and generationally speaking, if terrorism is founded within a society/culture, you don’t defeat it, you and they learn from experience that a political resolution is the only option. You have to begin to address the causes because you cannot otherwise make it (the society/culture/grievance) go away.
London:
We’re new at this. The initial American reaction is to kick someone’s ass. Hence the popularity of attacking the Taliban and military action against Iraq, even when we don’t know that the asshole has anything to do with our plight. Hussein is an asshole and we need to kick somebody’s ass, so let’s go for it.
I think the policital response of our leaders is due to this “let’s get somebody” idea of the constituency and the desire for votes.
So, you guys have dealt with it by deciding their must be a political resolution. How’s it going? (that’s not intended to be nearly as sarcastic as it sounds, but’s it’s early in the morning over here.)