Hmm. Deliberately obtuse it is, then.
If they were still terrorists, and the government knew it and tolerated their terrorist activities, that would be “harboring.” As I understand it very few of the released IRA prisoners are believed to still be active terrorists, and the governments of Ireland and the U.K. are certainly not tolerating any continued terrorism on their part. So no, early release was not harboring terrorism.
minty, sounds like grey areas creeping in here.
Take your deliberate rudeness to the proper forum.
jjimm: You see grey, I see black and white. Please explain where you see grey in early release. How does that equate to “harboring” terrorism?
Minty, the accusation of obtuseness I think comes from the granting to Gerry Adams of a visa by Clinton and his subsequent visit to Washington, before the peace talks kicked off.
The grey area is that this is early release - a deal with the relevant terror groups, that requires no rehabilitation or reform.
'fraid you’re going to have to back this up for me.
Now if you don’t mind sirjamesp, I’ll do the ol’ switcheroo, and report that there is significant evidence to indicate that the UK establishment has colluded with Loyalist terrorists - here’s the worst example (more documentation has come to light recently to back up the accusations). When should we expect sanctions?
jjimm, an accuation of deliberate obtuseness has no place in this forum. Period. I’m actually quite fucking pissed at that particular bit of nonsense.
Moreover, the Gerry Adams visa has not even been mentioned in this thread, and long predates the current administration’s declaration of war on terrorism.
I cannot back up my impression that few of teh early releases are still active terrorists, other than to point out that there’s no significant terrorism to speak of in Ireland these days. But I would think that if you’re going to back up your assertion that early release is harboring terrorists, you’d have to demonstrate that some of them are terrorists, and that the governments either tolerate or encourage their activities. After all, Bush hasn’t declared war on nations that harbor former terrorists or that haven’t managed to eliminate every single terrorist within their borders.
How about The US rolls into Belfast to destroy the Shankill road, plenty of terrorists up there. Except these will be wrapped in a Union Jack.
Why not roll tanks into Whitehall and seize records and people who were involved in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings of 1972, or security staff who had foreknowledge of the Omagh bombings?
The US would never be targeted by the IRA.
Let me just add that if British tanks were to roll onto Irish soil ala Israel into Palestine, I would be scared to think of what the reaction would be.
minty, I quite agree with you (wasn’t me! Wasn’t me!). I think what sirjamesp was alluding to was that you missed the analogy
to Adams being granted a visa by the Clinton administration before there was a ceasefire.
I concede that the Irish and British governments do not officially tolerate terrorism (though don’t speak too soon - this just broke, and the British government have been revealed to be seeking to a law that exonerates illegal acts performed overseas by government representatives… not to mention Charlie Haughey’s (former Prime Minister) involvement in gun-running…)
But you haven’t yet addressed my second GWB quote: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. There’s nothing there about state harboring. If, as you originally asserted, this is actually only in reference to terror that targets America, please tell me what caused the omission of those words in this and every other speech he’s made about the ‘War on Terror’?
Sorry if this is a double but it hasn’t turned up so I’ll try again 
jjimm where you able to vote in the referendum that was passed in Ireland? If so how did you vote? This is a “deal” that the whole Island voted for and was vital to get the paramilitaries to buy into the peace accord.
also
They where released long before the subcommittee sat. Should we install those new time machine views in future so as not to make the same mistake again 
Also likely is not the strongest argument in the world to start taking apart the Good Friday agreement for.
Sorry bud but I’m afraid you should back your point up and not with stories of beatings which where going on while these guys where still in prison and still continue now. Is there proof that people released are actively involved in actions?
As to the Sinn Fein/IRA thing.
Really? Please provide any evidence of present day links between these two groups. Yes Adams and McGuinness and a lot of members of SF where members of the IRA but they are not anymore. They have close links no question about it and most likely a lot of influence but if you think that Adams etc. are still active members then I’d like proof please not from previous posts on this board but actual proof.
If there was proof for this BTW SF would not have a office in Westminster of have TD’s in Ireland. They’d be a illegal organization. So you may feel this to be true but please try to prove it.
From this you can read that if the IRA has been involved with FARC and possibly others then they where indeed involved in Global terrorism and should be “found, stopped and defeated”
Then again Mr. Bush like most politicians is a good man for OTT rhetoric. Others deal with the actual substance of US foreign policy IMO.
Trust me, jjimm, I can tell the difference between you and the other guy. You have been perfectly polite in this discussion, which I’m enjoying just fine.
Doesn’t say the U.S. is responsible for doing all the defeating by itself, so I don’t think it necessarily implicates an American responsibility to level Belfast if the parties don’t play nice with each other.
That part is from the quote provided by SuaSponte, which actually describes what the U.S. is going to do, on its own if necessary. If you ain’t harboring terrorists, we won’t have to start the carpet bombing. That’s a fairly simple standard, really.
I did not assert that this is only about terrorism that targets America. You will have to forgive us, however, if we decide to set our priorities based in large part on that criterion.
yojimbo, I’m not allowed to vote in referenda, but if I had I totally would have voted for the Good Friday Agreement (and Nice while we’re on the subject).
The points I raised were not to diss the GFA, or any of the things in it that were quite necessary to be done to bring peace. I support them. They were there to illustrate a) the lack of black-and-white when it comes to issues of countering terrorism, and b) the futility of declaring a ‘war on terror’.
Where it comes to released prisoners, I was referring to ALL NI early release candidates (there is no IRA activity at the moment, so no, they aren’t active). You only have to look at the activities of Johnny ‘Mad Dog’ Adair to show that there was no requirement of reform or rehabilitation for release.
I think there’s another point that needs to be made here. The U.S.'s policy is not and never has been to start carpet bombing once it is revealed that a government is harboring or supporting terrorists (however you want to define any or all of the terms in the last part of that sentence). If a government harboring or supporting terrorists were to say “Oh gosh, we’re supporting terror? Mon dieu! We’ll stop right away,” and actually mean it, the U.S. wouldn’t attack for past actions.
I mean, the U.S. did give the Taliban over a month to expel/turn over bin Laden.
Sua
Adair was locked back up for his actions as would anyone else who was shown to have broken the conditions of their release.
As to the fact that they got no rehabilitation well what kind of rehabilitation should they have gotten?
Most IRA members I have heard interviewed and talked too :eek: say that they where at war nothing else. When the ceasefire was called they stopped. Granted there are nuts on both sides but less that you would expect IMO.
Agree 100%
Thats the thing.
The US (or the UK, for that matter) will never be able to make that charge to the irish Government, for one simple reason.
The Irish Government does not Sponsor Terrorism.
“Terrorism” founded the Country, but we are long past that.
God knows!
Yes, I think that fact puts paid to the British tabloid assertion that they’re all ‘murderers’ and ‘psycopaths’. I think to say that about a terrorist group (one manifestation of a ‘black and white’ view) is really to create conditions between oneself and the terrorists that cannot be accommodated.
That’s an interesting take on the rhetoric, and one that I had never considered. Unfortunately, many outside America have interpreted it the same as I did.
I always believed a War of Independence helped. Fought by [British View]Traitors and terrorists / [Irish View]Freedom fighters using guerilla tactics and good old fashion “here I am now come and fight me” tactics.
As I have said before, and I will undoubtedly say again,
One man’s Freedom Fighter is anothers Terrorist.
“British Tabloid”. The greatest source of Ignorance in the western world.
Spot on, Twisty. Where the OP is concerned, the critical difference between the Provos and Al-Qaeda, etc. is that the Provos are behaving and cooperating with the British/Unionists as much as they’re ever going to behave and cooperate - notwithstanding whatever the Colombia Three were up to. It would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions for the British government to decide to punish them for this extremely tenuous link to world terror - and the British government to its credit seems to realise this, even if not all of its subjects do.