carnivorousplant:
Is that the government of Massachusetts paying money to the IRA? No. It’s some of the people. In Iraq, 'twas the government (Saddam Hussein and his buddies) doing what adaher mentioned.
Again, 'twas the government of Japan at the time that tried to kill your dad. That government doesn’t exist now. It’s a different government.
That reminds me…after the 9/11 attacks when the message boards I visit really started cranking out terrorism discussions, I was informed by a few British that the US itself supports terrorism…as in Bostonians funding the IRA through NORAID. Seems to be conventional wisdom.
Here I am, grandchild of Irish immigrants, large Catholic family in and around Boston, including a whole stepfamily, active in the past in Irish community groups and events…what’s NORAID? Never heard of it. One of the Brits quotes the Irish-Catholic-Boston part and responds, " :rolleyes: ".
Well…I’m only half Irish. Chances are if I were full-blooded I would still be no more inclined to fund foreign guerillas on behalf of my religious brethren. Why, I don’t know…maybe because it’s a fucking ridiculous idea. I’ve no doubt that some people do, and that they are Irish, and they probably can be found nearby, but they are also not representing anyone but themselves in the matter. Not “Boston”, and certainly not “the US.”
Tee, it’s acknowledged here in Ireland, too, that the bulk of IRA funding is/was from NORAID.
The main point is that the US has only just made NORAID funding the IRA illegal (it’s now for ‘political prisoners’) - for decades, the US government allowed such activities. That’s the “supporting” thing that Brits get pissed about.
Clarification: NORAID has always denied funding the IRA. And AFAIK it hasn’t been made illegal. More info.
Coll, on this you are simply wrong.
It’s not simply a matter of rate of travel of passengers. That’s a very narrow view of aviation (although all too common). Aviation includes cargo hauling, flight training, building selling and delivering aircraft, repairing aircraft, training and employment of air traffic controllers, meterologists, support personnel at FAA offices, line personnel at airports of all sizes… There was NOT “severe over capacity” in any area. There were some passenger airlines in trouble due to poor management and financial missteps, but that’s been a feature of airliners since the 1930’s.
Shutting down the entire airspace over the United States unquestionably had a horrific chilling effect on the entire industry. At the time it was the right decision, but to pretend this did not have a terrible economic impact is ridiculous. ALL flight was grounded, except for Presidential, military and a few medical flights (and even those required considerable arguing to accomplish). It wasn’t just the airlines… cargo haulers like Fed Ex, DHL, and UPS had to unload planes and truck packages, and lots of stuff got delivered late. Businesses that depend on airplane-fast shipments of goods suffered - fish markets mid-continent, for example, florists, and so forth.
The airlines were allowed back in the air first - but the cargo haulers were not for several more days, further impacting their business. It was 10 days before I got back in the air, and I took along someone just to watch for F-16’s
Meanwhile, airplane fuel was not being bought, maintenance was put off, landing fees were neither incurred nor paid, transients (including pilots and crews) did not stay at hotels or buy food… if there’s an economic “multiplier” for a new business, this was an illustration of the economic “divider” when business is lost. I know that here in the Chicago area we lost 1/3 of our flight schools within a year - too many restrictions to allow these businesses to continue to function and ONLY the major airlines were offered financial aid - the little guys could go hang. Mind you, these were NOT businesses on the brink of bankruptcy, some had been in the black for two or more generations. If folks can’t get flight training they can’t become pilots - and they won’t be buying a small plane either now or down the road. Which means companies like Cessna start feeling the pinch. Maybe you don’t care about Cessna - but Fed Ex does, because Cessna builds a substantial number of their cargo haulers and the parts to repair them. (For that matter, Cessna builds the parts to repair tens of thousands of small airplanes and business jets around the world.) If Cessna goes under it will have a negative impact on cargo shipping. Businesses near airports also teetered near the brink. A local diner down the road nearly went under after 9/11 and laid off many of their staff - they just didn’t know that 2/3 of their business was from the airport staff and transients.
Problem is, when people lose jobs they don’t have money to fly. That applies to people like myself who are pilots, it also applies to leisure travelers. And, obviously, if you aren’t employed you won’t be flying on business.
In fact, the only area I’ve seen an increase in my area is charter flight. Why? Because you avoid the 2 hour security song and dance, that’s why. We’ve seen an increase in charter at my airport and the most common reason was the security hassle at the airliner-serving airports. A second is that many people just don’t feel the new security does anything substantial to increase security. A third was the additional time required due to this new security which can easily exceed the actual time spent aloft. If people are willing to pay two to three times the commercial ticket price to charter a small plane to get them where they’re going I think it’s an easy assumption to make that many others are going by Greyhound Bus or by car - or just not traveling.
Again, you can’t look at JUST the airlines. Why? Well, for starters on any give day only 1 in 5 planes aloft is a commercial passenger jet - on a really nice day the ratio is even more skewed. Even when major airlines leveled off the cargo, small regionals, business jets, and charter were still booming. Even sales of small planes, such as owned by individuals, were rising. And that’s all been turned on its head since September, 2001
Is 9/11 the ONLY cause of aviation problems? No - but it’s just plain stupid to pretend there was either no effect or that it was minor. It was a MAJOR impactor.
Ah, Coll, you’re ever the soul of diplomacy.
In fact, it is our desire to buy their oil that does, in fact, lead to the western influence entering their realm. I believe there is a sense among the fanatics that if the US would just go away they could have their little theocratic totaliterian societies in peace. In reality, it’s completely untrue - I mean, the Russians have their own oil, in fact they’re an exporter, yet they’ve meddled just as extensively in the MENA region as we have.
Frankly, if Afganistan was an example of what sort of “Muslim paradise” these fruitcakes would build I’d venture to say that they’d be better off with the status quo. The Taliban destroyed much and built nothing, although they had a clear and unfettered opportunity to demonstrate what they could do (remember, both the Soviets and the US had abandoned Afganistan)
It would help if there was a set western spelling for the damn organization - I’ve seen at least 3 variants in the past week alone. And, sorry, my English language bias (with a “u” normally going after a “q”) is showing. Show a little tolerance. Nit-picker
But it’s somehow OK for that fanatics (I refuse to call them Muslims, because it would tar the reputation of many Muslims I know and admire as decent human beings) to conflate the US government and the US people, and declare that there are “no civilians” and “no non-combatants”, that even our children are fair game - but the US is NOT to touch the least little hair on THEIR families’ heads? I’m sorry, the same rules have to apply both ways. Sure, there’s plenty of hypocrisy on BOTH sides, as usual.
Um… so who, exactly, are the “corrupt bastards” here? The Saudis, or the US? Or both?
What is “kafir”?
And, frankly, if by their logic bombing civilians is an OK and acceptable practice then I just can’t accept their position. It’s wrong to delibrately target the defenseless.
I suppose someone will bring up the “US bombs kill civilians” point, so let me address it right now. For the US military, although civilians are killed in warfare, civilians are not the primary target and certainly in recent years there has been considerable effort to develop weapons that are more accurate and less likely to go astray and hit unintended targets. Perfect? No - but at the least the US is attempting to achieve that goal. For al Qaeda, however, civilians ARE the target, first and foremost. For me, that’s a considerable moral distinction.
You know, everyone keeps rattling on about how America is insensitive to their culture, but no one seems to give a damn about our culture. In the US, co-existance of people with radically differing beliefs is considered the norm, civilized, and mature behavior. Going to war over reglious differences is seen as somewhere between stupid and incomprehensible. What happened in the Balkans between the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims was, to most folks born and raised in the US, literally incomprehensible, a fact Europe has still not absorbed. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t real warfare with real pain and suffering, real death, real atrocities - it’s just that, the idea of going to war over religious differences, or language or ethnic differences, just doesn’t enter the American psyche. It’s baffling to us.
As an example - when Cardinal Bernadin, the leader of the Roman Catholic church passed away a few years ago local religious leaders from not only other Christian denominations but also the local Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, and other minority religions attended a memorial service for him, held in Holy Name Cathedral. This sort of cross-religious tolerance is the norm in this country. Sure, there are considerable differences and disagreements, and occassionally something winds up in court, but no one is killing, bombing, or throwing rocks over this. I don’t see this sort of thing happening anywhere else - certainly not in the ME where holy sites like the Dome of the Rock/Jewish Temple have a “Muslim territory” and a “Jewish area”, or the way certain Christian holy sites are subdivided by various denominations who then fiercely defend their turf. Not to mention that idea that certain extensive areas are only to be entered by people of one particular religion is, quite simply, offensive to American ideas of tolerance and openess - regardless of which religion is imposing the rules.
Yes, it’s a bogus excuse. If they want to drive the “infidels” out, giving purity of the Muslim lands or some variant as an excuse, then go out and blow up Muslims it’s a bogus excuse. What they’re saying and what the want are too different things.
Yes, it’s about power. They want absolute, unquestioned power over other people in this world. Which is why I refuse to call the fanatics “Muslim” - because I believe what they want is only very superficially related to Islam.
Then I’m glad some folks in the MENA region are beginning to realize the issue isn’t as black and white as some folks think, and that even if they don’t like the US particuarlly, al Qaeda and other fanatic groups are necessarially their friends, either.
Nope, it’s not upside down.
Let’s see the American take on the “cultural influence” thing. First of all, we don’t see foreign cultural influence as a bad thing. Our cuisine and our language readily absorb outside influences, for example. Our cultural institutions regularly promote the works of foreign artists whether we’re talking about the visual arts, music, or acting. In fact, many of our top news anchors aren’t even US citizens. Even in government you can find foreign-born elected officials, some of considerable influence (Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State, for example). So, for better or worse, the US “culture” (it’s debatable just how homogenous we are culturally anyway) is extremely tolerant of outside influences and even to a large extent welcomes them.
As an educated person, I realize this is not a universally held viewpoint. Many cultures throughout history have opposed foreign influences. But I don’t see where anyone in the MENA is forced to buy a satellite dish and watch MTV. In fact, in many areas to do so is illegal. If they can’t get their own people to follow their own laws I’m not sure how I, as an American, am responsible for that. Here in the US we have pockets of people who have managed to hang onto their own customs and culture despite being literraly immersed and surronded by our culture - the Amish come to mind - why can’t people halfway around the world? Unless, perhaps, the people want (some) of our culture but their government does not.
If a person (of any stripe) is opposed to foreign cultural influences, yet watches foreign movies, buys foreign goods, listens to foreign music particularly products of the culture they claim to despise then there is something wrong with their thought processes. If you don’t like American culture you shouldn’t be viewing Baywatch or Dallas or watching Star Wars. No one is forced to buy American culture. MENA produces artists, musicians, and actors of equal calibar to the west - yet many in the MENA choose to watch American products. Why is that?
I am well aware that most folks from MENA are tolerant of outsiders (as long as we don’t overstay our welcome), and when they’re here in the US I’ve seen them struggle to accomodate a middle road between their customs and ours, and make effort (with rare exception) to avoid giving offense. The problem is not the vast majority of people on either side, who either don’t give a hoot about The Other, or actually see something worthwhile in the other viewpoint, the problem is, as always, a vocal and well-armed minority who just can’t handle living in peace with their neighbor.
Uh, really? We’ve pissed off simply everyone and we have no friends left anywhere in the world? That’s a little simplistic and extreme.
The US, like every other country in the world, does some things the neighbors like and some they don’t. You might just as easily say Europe somehow “deserved” WWI and WWII as outgrowths of the imperial and empire-building ethos of the 16th through 19th Centuries. Are they “over it” yet, in regards to those two wars? Nope - those two conflicts have a lot to do with Europe’s present political landscape and internal conflicts. Certainly, as long as there are living veterans of those conflicts Europe will not be entirely “over it”.
Obsessing? Who’s obessing? I’ve talked more about it in this thread than I have in the past year.
Do you really want us to “get over it” to the extent of forgetting about it? Or do you want us to “stay under it” as a reminder that yes, our foreign policy really does have consequences?
Right… and the bombing of Pan Am 103 and tossing an old man in a wheelchair off the Aquille Laro never happened, just to name two. And, oh yes, that truck-bombing of the WTC in 1983 - we played by everyone else’s rules on that one, didn’t we? Hunted them down via the police and courts, didn’t attack anyone over that, and down the road we get airliners impacting the two towers.
You totally ignore the fact that the US and the Middle East have been in a pissing match since the 1973 oil embargo, for a variety of reasons. Al Qaeda chose to up the ante.
Billions of dollars (and other denominations) have poured in the MENA regions since the 1940’s How did the rulers choose to spend that money? Who chose to hire western expertise, rather than develop their own native talent?
It benefited Ronald Regan’s administration as part of the window dressing on the “war on drugs”.
Nope. I won’t because it isn’t.
Sure, we’ve done an awful lot to enrage Europe from time to time, but we haven’t gone to war with them in the past few decades. We don’t have French “sleepers” plotting to blow up our embassies, or German agents sneaking around our monuments plotting to kill our civilians, or even Bulgarians planning mayhem in our streets. After Viet Nam we didn’t have Viet Cong terrorists skulking around our country although if we did it would be understandable given the devastation we caused their countries. For that matter, Japan - who we most certainly did take over and whose government we re-structured - and the US get along, or are at least able to differ politely on most issues these days. Cuba has launched a few sorties against us, but it’s been a mutal affair. In the 1970’s some Puerto Rican separatists set off a few bombs on the mainland. Other than that, it’s been pretty quiet over here in North America. Frankly, there are people out there who, over the last century, have had a LOT more reason and justification to be angry at the US or cause mayhem here who did NOT do so. Now, why is that?
Certainly the Europeans are capable of engaging in terrorism - Ireland just by itself has numerous examples of this behavior - why didn’t they? Why doesn’t Mexico, which has had more than it’s fair share of US meddling and even had a good chunk of territory taken from it (California, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona. Texas had broken free of Mexico prior to that, but was originally Mexican as well) Why don’t we have Mexican terrorists setting off car bombs in our cities?
The US has never held territory in the MENA - unlike other places in the world. Our influence has been economic and cultural - but lots of other people have been engaged in the same as well. So why target the US?
Truth is, it’s not JUST the US that is a target of the MENA fanatics. They’ve blown up people in Bali, for goodness sake! Not to mention Morocca, Saudi Arabia, Kenya… That’s just in the last 2 years and I’ve probably left somebody out of that list. And, oh my, those countries are all long-time bastions of the west, aren’t they? (NOT!) Did Bali “derserve it”? Were the bombings of night clubs on that island a result of Bali pissing off the rest of the world for decades due to bad foreign policy decisions? Are the dead in Casablanca any less dead for not “deserving” it on the same level as the people in America?
The Middle East DOES generate terrorism at rates much higher than the rest of the world, even other world hot-spots. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something about the so-called “cradle of civilization” that prompts this sort of response. That in no way excuses past US ineptness in foreign affairs - and it was truly ineptness more than anything else over these past 20 years, if not the prior decades.
The MENA has been festering for quite some time - since prior to WWII, a time when it was the Brits who were the world hegomony and no one took the US very seriously in foreign matters. As the wealth and corruption in the area increased the festering only got worse. It was inevitable that the mess would boil over, and the only question was when and how, not if. But the world was content to clamp down the lid on the pressure cooker and, when it finally blew, blame the cook who happened to be in the kitchen at the time and forget about everyone else who had ignored the problem.
With the caveat that, if you look hard enough, you can find any opinion held by at least one person in this country…
For the most part - no. Virtually nobody in this country thinks 9/11 is the “fault” of the US government.
Oh, sure, we think that maybe the US government could have done a better job of protecting the populace, but no, we hold al Qaeda responsible for 4 destroyed airplanes, 16 devastated acres in Manhattan, one crater in a Pennsylania farm field, and a chunk taken out of the Pentagon. And, oh yes, 3000+ dead people.
Any other stupid questions? :dubious:
With the caveat that, if you look hard enough, you can find any opinion held by at least one person in this country…
For the most part - no. Virtually nobody in this country thinks 9/11 is the “fault” of the US government.
Oh, sure, we think that maybe the US government could have done a better job of protecting the populace, but no, we hold al Qaeda responsible for 4 destroyed airplanes, 16 devastated acres in Manhattan, one crater in a Pennsylania farm field, and a chunk taken out of the Pentagon. And, oh yes, 3000+ dead people.
Any other stupid questions? :dubious:
With the caveat that, if you look hard enough, you can find any opinion held by at least one person in this country… (including fringe conspiracy groups fond of French websites…)
For the most part - no. Virtually nobody in this country thinks 9/11 is the “fault” of the US government.
Oh, sure, we think that maybe the US government could have done a better job of protecting the populace, but no, we hold al Qaeda responsible for 4 destroyed airplanes, 16 devastated acres in Manhattan, one crater in a Pennsylania farm field, and a chunk taken out of the Pentagon. And, oh yes, 3000+ dead people.
Any other stupid questions? :dubious:
Holding all that back isn’t healthy Broomstick 
:smack: Sorry about the multi-post - the hamsters must have burped.
If that’s all it is about - and I suspect it is - they really have no room to complain. Google “Londonistan” for example and see what arguments can be used to suggest official support of terrorists. Which I wouldn’t do anyway, because I don’t believe that it’s any kind of valid point to make with regards to who had what coming, or whatever.
Broomstick: you can add the Phillipines to the al-qaida list, and absolutely anything else you might like to say.
They did mention Norway recently. :dubious:
I’ve combined a bunch of Tarantula’s posts in the interest of getting through this pile of stuff:
Acutally, by the age of 12 a child has enough reasoning capability to be at least partially responsible for his/her actions.
In any case, we’re not talking about adults vs. children here. The fanatical types we’re opposing are no less and no more “grown up” or “evolved” or whatever word you care to use than the US. The terrorists attacks over the last few decades have been planned and perpetrated by adults. The 9/11 guys at some point decided to kill people and did so. That makes it pre-mediated murder. To blame these murders on someone else besides the trigger-men and their sponsors is … incredible.
Nope. We aren’t going to. Deal with it. As I have pointed out, we’ve arguably given a lot more provication to a lot of other people who didn’t respond with killing civilians or attacking our mainland. These fanatics chose violence of their own will, no one forced them to kill.
Gosh, darn, I’ve lived here nearly 40 years and I’ve yet to meet THAT “United States”! Do we have right-wing neo-fascists and war happy idiots here? Yeah, a few - every country does. And attacking the US gave them the excuse to crawl out of the wood work and get involved in our government. THANK YOU - NOT!
“Quiet” and “well-behaved” by whose definition?
Excuse me, have you even read or listened to some of the stuff al-Jazeera thoughtfully relayed to the world for al Qaeda? They don’t want the US “quiet” or “well-behaved” - they want us DEAD. GONE. ELIMINATED. From the viewpoint of most Americans THEY declared war on US.
Yes, there IS a reason for them to attack a “quiet” or “well-behaved” America - they want to rule the world and in order to do so they must elminate the most powerful military on the planet - well behaved or not, quiet or not. To YOU this may be about arrogant Americans. To THEM it’s about racial and ethnic cleansing on a global scale.
Well, when we DIDN’T take sides in the Balkans back in the 80’s everyone yelled at us for being uncaring and isolationist. In other words, no matter what we do or don’t do someone is going to be mad at us.
And yes, when what goes on in other countries affects what goes on in our county it IS our business. Europe has been quite happy of late to scold and “correct” us about everything from what we grow and eat to whether or not our citizens should buy firearms or whether or not we should have the death penality. Before Europe tells us to stop meddling with the rest of the world, they should stop telling us how to conduct ourselves within our own country.
As I’ve mentioned before, there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
Yes, it is to much to ask. Even if America wanted to “shut up and go home” it can’t be done.
Way back in the early 20th Century America tried to be isolationist. During WWI, when Europe was convulsing with trench warfare, we were criticized for not getting involved until the very end, and then only in a minor way. In WWII we tried to stay out of the conflict (although we did provide some supplies to some of Europe), but between the Nazi subs threatening our ships and the Japanese attack that just didn’t work. And we still got criticized for not getting involved soon enough so it’s somehow our fault all those millions died in Europe. Ah, Europe was happy to have a meddling back then, weren’t they? Happy to have thousands of American boys bleeding and broken fighting for THEIR cause, hey? Although I’m sure the Germans would have been happier at that point if we hadn’t “meddled” or gotten involved, if we had just “shut up” and “gone home”.
THERE’s a huge spot of hypocrisy on the part of Europe - they’re happy to use our guns and our blood for THEIR benefit, but no one else’s, including our own.
Now, I’m not so naive as to think Europe should somehow be eternally grateful for the Americas that died in the two world wars on their behalf - it would be nice, but it’s not human nature. But get a grip and realize that one nation “meddling” in foreign affairs is not the whole of the problem here, nor is a problem limited solely to the United States.
Fact is, Europe WOULD be a match for the US if they would just stop squabbling amongst themselves. And if ya’ll can’t sit down and agree with each other on matters of concern to Europe - well, don’t blame another continent for your inability to work together. Look in the mirror. The United States had just one civil war of five years duration - how many wars have been fought in Europe in the last century alone? How much blood has been spilled because the countries of Europe can’t learn to live in peace and cooperation? No, I don’t want Europe to be a carbon copy of the US, but I’d like to see them cooperate more and fight less.
All of which is geting off the beaten track here.
Tarantula’s position is rather like telling a young girl who has been raped that it’s her fault because she was out unescorted, and if she had been a “good girl” it wouldn’t have happened, and she should just get over it and stop talking about it and get on with her life, even if she is damaged goods and no honorable man will touch her due to her loss of virginity. Blame the victim. Well, you know, even if a young girl walked down the street naked at 2 am - which is certainly not the most intelligent thing she could do - it does NOT justify rape. It is still the fault of the rapist, not the victim.
Yes, the US has done some really stupid things over the past 50 years or so (as have most other nations). You know, if it had been Grenadans attacking us after we nabbed Noriega it wouldn’t be so shocking and mystifying. And yes, we understand that our presence is often unwelcome, which has a lot to do with why we have NOT attacked after our troops have been bombed (in Lebannon and Saudi Arabia) or our embassies (easily a half dozen or more instances over the past 30 years). However, none of what we have done justifies or excuses what was done to us on September 11, 2001. It’s like saying shipping supplies to Britain to combat the Nazis justifies the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It doesn’t.
Again, it’s a real simple concept that’s true whether you want it to be or not. If you attack America you WILL be at war with us. It is the least likely way to get us to stop being involved or get us out of an area that you can imagine. To put it another way, attacking us will only get us MORE involved in what’s happening, not less.
Here’s another analogy - you have a bully in the neighborhood. One hothead says “Hey, I got an idea - if we kick the bully in the nuts he’ll go away and leave us alone!” So someone goes and kicks the bully in the nuts, and is mystified when the bully gets back up and beats the living crap out of them. Telling the bully “but can’t you see how your actions led to me kicking you in the nuts?” is not going to work - someone DID come up and whack someone between the legs without warning, and said someone was already known to use fists to get his way. As I said before, if you punch someone in the nose don’t be surprised if you get hit in return.
I really believe that the fanatic types WANT a war - not necessarially with the US but Fanatic “Muslim” (their brand) against non-Muslim in a world-wide conflict. Hence, they’ve targeted not just the US but other countries as well, and attacked other people as well. Saying “let’s just make nice, give them what they want, and they’ll go away” is repeating the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain almost 70 years ago.
Broomstick: Bravo!! Well said!! Exactly so! Thank you.
**To add to this train of thought, Winston Churchill is reported to have said at some point after WWI, that if the US hadn’t entered WWI, Europe would have most likely fought itself to exhaustion, instead of the victorious powers putting such punitive conditions on Germany, and thus allowing Hitler to come to power. So not only were we damned for showing up to the “game” late, we were damned for even showing up at all! So, no matter what you do, you’re going to piss somebody off, it seems. Imagine that.
Basically, Europe is fine right now so they want us to stay out of the world.
But anyone who needs help asks for it and expects it. Especially Europe. Save us! We love you America! Then they are spitting on the graves of our servicemen only weeks after they don’t need us anymore.
Unless you’ve got a cite for this, we’ll have to ticket you for gratuitous and unfounded Europe-bashing.
I presume adaher is referring to the disgusting defacement of US servicemen’s graves in France. Which, of course, was carried out by “Europe”, rather than some sick and stupid vandals.
Um, it might be “acknowledged” as such in the popular view but pretty much every academic and security source I’m aware of would say otherwise. Overseas donations (not limited solely to Noraid) have always been a substantial source of income but the bulk is generally agreed to come from illegal activities on the island. There are no hard statistics, for obvious reasons.
And the US did hassle Noraid pretty relentlessly. A several years long court battle resulted in Noraid being forced to register as an agent of the IRA; Noraid officials and known supporters were kept under constant surveillance and in a number of cases prosecuted on gunrunning charges. Without actual proof that Noraid was sponsoring terrorism there was really very little else the government could (constitutionally) have done.
Um, it might be “acknowledged” as such in the popular view but pretty much every academic and security source I’m aware of would say otherwise. Overseas donations (not limited solely to Noraid) have always been a substantial source of income but the bulk is generally agreed to come from illegal activities on the island. There are no hard statistics, for obvious reasons.
And the US did hassle Noraid pretty relentlessly. A several years long court battle resulted in Noraid being forced to register as an agent of the IRA; Noraid officials and known supporters were kept under constant surveillance and in a number of cases prosecuted on gunrunning charges. Without actual proof that Noraid was sponsoring terrorism there was really very little else the government could (constitutionally) have done.