First the Koran Burnings, Now This; I Think We're Donesies in the 'Stan

[gaelic cowboy]

Don't act like a whiny child. Yes we've had our problems but why do you think the number of detestable incidents involving our troops is significantly less than those involving your troops? Even then I don't defend the actions of murderers, unlike you, falling hand over foot trying to defend this guy who murdered 16 people.

And yes, we aren't as powerful as you, I didn't ask to get into a manhood measuring contest, you spend vast amounts of money on your military, money us "lesser" powers don't have. I like your attitude though, I guess you don't need our support in these wars though. Maybe you should go back to funding US sponsored terrorism the UK had to fight on its own soil for 30 years.. You only stopped doing that when you needed our help didn't you?

British governments have been funding and allowing state sanctioned barbarism for centuries there is none of us thats white knights.

And for the last time the IRA funds itself privately through bank robberies, protection rackets, tiger kidnapping, taxing organised crime and smuggling any private fundraising in the US was never that big.

The country most at risk from the Provisionals was and is always my own country.

[tibilicus]

British governments have been funding and allowing state sanctioned barbarism for centuries there is none of us thats white knights.

And for the last time the IRA funds itself privately through bank robberies, protection rackets, tiger kidnapping, taxing organised crime and smuggling any private fundraising in the US was never that big.

The country most at risk from the Provisionals was and is always my own country.

Yes, our country has acted badly, but in the modern period we never funded terrorists which damaged our "allies". It's the double standards I have a problem with. I expected no better from Gadaffi's Libya but the point is a mere 2 years after the US government essentially stopped endorsing the IRA, they expected our help in fighting there own terrorist security threat. And yes, they did have sanctioned US government support. By giving visas to known IRA members, arguing openly that the "armed struggle" was part of the "liberation" of Northern Ireland and the various actions of US congressmen who gave moeny both directly and indirectly to arm the provos.

Yet 2 years after the Good Friday Agreement we were unilaterally brought into the war on "terror", in response to a terrorist atrocity. I have a problem with this US sponsored terrorism and the fact successive UK governments have chained our foreign policy to the USA's despite they funded terrorist organisations who killed and murdered UK troops and funded a bloody conflict on our own soil. What makes the IRA claim to Northern Ireland a more legitimate cause than Bin Laden's desire to impose Islamic law in an Islamic region and remove all US presence from the Middle East? I say this not because I support Al-Qaeda, but because i deplore terrorism in all forms. Unlike certain elements of the US establishment.

[rvg]

Yet 2 years after the Good Friday Agreement we were unilaterally brought into the war on "terror", in response to a terrorist atrocity. I have a problem with this US sponsored terrorism and the fact successive UK governments have chained our foreign policy to the USA's despite they funded terrorist organisations who killed and murdered UK troops and funded a bloody conflict on our own soil.

Can you be more specific about the sources of aforementioned funding and their relation to Uncle Sam?

[Vladimir]

Can you be more specific about the sources of aforementioned funding and their relation to Uncle Sam?

It's the same people at CIA that sold crack to black people in Los Angeles. In fact, part of the proceeds were used to finance these attacks.

[tibilicus]

Can you be more specific about the sources of aforementioned funding and their relation to Uncle Sam?

Peter King, just one such lawmaker who was never brought to justice for his role in arming a group which killed hundreds of British and Irish.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...rorism-problem

Clinton by granting visas to Sinn Feinn members who had connections with and actively supported the PIRA gave them a platform of legitimization which provided further endorsement for their cause which legitimized groups such NORAID, a group which gave more money and arms to the PIRA than Libya itself. Imagine giving a platform to radical Islamist politicians (i.e the Taliban) who supported Al-Qaeda and then see why I see double standards.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1410627.html

[rvg]

Peter King, just one such lawmaker who was never brought to justice for his role in arming a group which killed hundreds of British and Irish.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...rorism-problem

Clinton by granting visas to Sinn Feinn members who had connections with and actively supported the PIRA gave them a platform of legitimization which provided further endorsement for their cause which legitimized groups such NORAID, a group which gave more money and arms to the PIRA than Libya itself. Imagine giving a platform to radical Islamist politicians (i.e the Taliban) who supported Al-Qaeda and then see why I see double standards.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1410627.html

Interesting... a quick look at wiki puts the claim of NORA being the front for PIRA as questionable at best. You're besmirching the name of American government because one congressmen supports a non-profit organization that *might* have been linked to PIRA, even though in its mission statement it clearly disavows violence.

As for Clinton and Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein has been a political movement while IRA did the dirty work. We support PLO but consider Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade to be terrorists, same deal here.

[gaelic cowboy]

Peter King, just one such lawmaker who was never brought to justice for his role in arming a group which killed hundreds of British and Irish.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...rorism-problem

Clinton by granting visas to Sinn Feinn members who had connections with and actively supported the PIRA gave them a platform of legitimization which provided further endorsement for their cause which legitimized groups such NORAID, a group which gave more money and arms to the PIRA than Libya itself. Imagine giving a platform to radical Islamist politicians (i.e the Taliban) who supported Al-Qaeda and then see why I see double standards.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1410627.html

It's also worth remebering that the Americans would have had members of congress and it's security establishment engage in contact with the IRA in order that if they did somehow drive the British out they would not end up in the soviet camp.

A soviet satelite in the Atlantic could not be allowed ever as it would give soviet subs an ice free, blue water harbours less than a hours flight from London.

It would have destabilised the NATO plans which no doubt were based on complete control of sea access to the UK.

So yes some shadowy evil in the CIA prob sat down and wargammed IRA senarios on what might happen, and sometimes they might even have engaged in a bit of double dealing.

It's a stretch however to say there was ever full or real governmental support, it's like saying the UK governments supported IRA terror on themselves because all the spies in it's ranks who continued to engage in terror activities to maintian cover.

And I already explained the visa situation with regard to Gerry Adams, that visa was acknowledged as really driving the agreement forward. (afterwards of course) I understand you dislike having to treat with Gerry Adams but thats the game and you know that yourself.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yes, our country has acted badly, but in the modern period we never funded terrorists which damaged our "allies". It's the double standards I have a problem with. I expected no better from Gadaffi's Libya but the point is a mere 2 years after the US government essentially stopped endorsing the IRA, they expected our help in fighting there own terrorist security threat. And yes, they did have sanctioned US government support. By giving visas to known IRA members, arguing openly that the "armed struggle" was part of the "liberation" of Northern Ireland and the various actions of US congressmen who gave moeny both directly and indirectly to arm the provos.

Thats pure rubbish no american government not even Kennedy's one ever supported any IRA campaigns, if members of congress spoke some words out of the side of there mouth for electoral reasons then they were more than willing to ignore them once inside the corridors of power.

Lets remember though that plenty UK politicians are more than capable of doing the same pronouncements out of the sides of there mouths too.

Also I think you will find visas were only given to known IRA members AFTER the peace process had started as part of the process(no doubt they were talked to on the sidelines over there on there intentions).

Yet 2 years after the Good Friday Agreement we were unilaterally brought into the war on "terror", in response to a terrorist atrocity.

I suppose you could say governments and people just couldnt see how you could ever talk with Bin Laden he was quite clearly a looper.

I have a problem with this US sponsored terrorism and the fact successive UK governments have chained our foreign policy to the USA's despite they funded terrorist organisations who killed and murdered UK troops and funded a bloody conflict on our own soil.

Not one US government ever funded terrorism in the North not one however US governments I will grant you they have funded terror elsewhere. Also if US private citizens gave money thats a far different kettle of fish and seeing as plenty UK citzens give and have given money for terrorism I see little difference.

What makes the IRA claim to Northern Ireland a more legitimate cause than Bin Laden's desire to impose Islamic law in an Islamic region and remove all US presence from the Middle East? I say this not because I support Al-Qaeda, but because i deplore terrorism in all forms. Unlike certain elements of the US establishment.

Strictly speaking there is no difference, but it's like anything else in life you will just know it when you see it.

It's easy to understand the IRA though there are ordinary people up and down the North who support them, and crucially there never going to just go away enough they can be ignored.

Terrorism has being used as a tool by government for centuries we shouldnt be surprised about it, but I can say with all honesty that IRA campaigns were never funded or helped by American governments.