America and the IRA

#1
Recently, in some corners of this most noble organ, mention has been made of the current American administrations dealing with terrorist and terrorism in general. The comments have ranged from the down-right ridiculous to highly enlightening, especially in light of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend".

A few comments have also been made regarding the US and PIRA and the lack of accountability there seems to be.

I thought some historical background might be useful, especially in light of the fact that the current Democratic Candidate for President, is very much a New Englander (Senator for Massachusetts) and in the pocket of the Kennedy clan.

The following extracts are from an excellent book by Raymond Seitz “OVER HERE”, a career American Diplomat, and the first ever non-political appointee to hold the American Ambassadorship to the UK. He held the post between 1991 to 1994.

On Clinton’s decision to award Gerry Adams with a Visa in 1994 (page 280)

“I privately agreed with everything he [Lyne – John Major’s private secretary] said. The President’s [Clinton] decision, it seemed to me, was either naïve or opportunistic or both, and it had debased America’s long-established policy on terrorism as well as the value of relations with the UK. Nor did I think the gesture had much chance of converting Adams into a co-operative partner in constitutional talks about the Province.”

But Clinton must have known something we didn't? (page 289)

“Within the Clinton administration, the State Dept, the Justice Dept, the FBI and the CIA were all ranged against the admission of Adams. Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House and the most sophisticated gauge of Irish affairs in the Congress, had assured me [Seitz] he was also dead set against a visa.”

Hmmm, the plot thickens (page 289).

“Jean Kennedy Smith [Clinton’s political appointee Ambassador to the Rep of Ireland], who distrusted her own staff and penalised them for their dissent, became a promotion agent for Adams. Too shallow to understand the past and too naïve to anticipate the future, she was an ardent IRA apologist…Her brother [Senator Ted Kennedy influence] was another matter. For Clinton’s political staff, a visa for Adams seemed relatively trivial give away for the powerful Senator’s support. Moreover, Senator Kennedy faced a serious re-election challenge in Massachusetts…”

Fascination stuff and not exactly ground breaking news, but two points:

First, one of GW Bush’s first action on taking Office was to tell Adams and Co to get stuffed and sort out their act if they want anymore visits to America.

Second, Kerry is another apologist for Adams and very much fat Ted’s partner in crime. Ted Kennedy is Kerry’s biggest supporter and some say the will be the real power behind a Kerry throne.

Food for thought
 
#2
There are some good spams on here but please tell me why I have a hole in my head because you guys deplore terrorism?
 
#3
American support for the IRA in the past is/was a disgrace. I remember as a kid in Korea attending a neighbors BBQ and present were 2 IRA priests. It was my first and only encounter but disturbing that IRA priests were entertained by a Colonel.
 
#4
PY,
I have stated many a time that the Democratic Party, and members of the party are primarily responsible for raising funds for the IRA terrorists. You are correct that the nest of this support is located in New England, imparticular Boston, Mass., which is also the Kennedy's seat of power.

It baffels me to no end why most europeans and the Brits imparticular embrace the Dems and scowl at the Reps, when the Dems are the major supporters of the IRA, and other terrorist organizations!
 
#5
ctauch said:
It baffels me to no end why most europeans and the Brits imparticular embrace the Dems and scowl at the Reps, when the Dems are the major supporters of the IRA, and other terrorist organizations!
We are also baffled as to why so many Americans seem to think Bliar is a good Prime Minister. New Labour are, as lefty pinko socialists, much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. Many seem to have forgotten that Bliar has made a policy of appeasement of terrorists; his allegiance to Bush43 will last only for as long as it helps Bliar appear to be the great international statesman.
 
#6
ViroBono said:
ctauch said:
It baffels me to no end why most europeans and the Brits imparticular embrace the Dems and scowl at the Reps, when the Dems are the major supporters of the IRA, and other terrorist organizations!
We are also baffled as to why so many Americans seem to think Bliar is a good Prime Minister. New Labour are, as lefty pinko socialists, much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. Many seem to have forgotten that Bliar has made a policy of appeasement of terrorists; his allegiance to Bush43 will last only for as long as it helps Bliar appear to be the great international statesman.
I don't think that most americans see him as a good PM. The admiration is not for what he is doing policy wise in the UK, but more to the fact that he is a steadfast ally.
 
#7
I have said on this site before that terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. The thought held dear by the left wing press that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter is crap.

Whether it is Adams, McGuinness, Mugabe, Kenyatta or Osama, anyone prepared to commit terrorist acts will, once they have power, be equally prepared to commit terror against anyone they don't like.

The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them when they have a gun in their hands and lock them away for ever when they don't.

Zero tolerance.

The last time I said this someone asked me what I would do if Britain was occupied. My answer was I would fight the occupiers to the the end. That doesn't mean I would bomb or kill civilians and civilian tgts.
 
#8
mushroom said:
The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them when they have a gun in their hands and lock them away for ever when they don't.

Zero tolerance.

.
Nail on the head, well said that man.
 
#9
ctauch said:
PY,
I have stated many a time that the Democratic Party, and members of the party are primarily responsible for raising funds for the IRA terrorists. You are correct that the nest of this support is located in New England, imparticular Boston, Mass., which is also the Kennedy's seat of power.

It baffels me to no end why most europeans and the Brits imparticular embrace the Dems and scowl at the Reps, when the Dems are the major supporters of the IRA, and other terrorist organizations!
ctauch, can I try to reassure you. For logical left-right reasons, the Conservative Party has traditional links to the Reps and Labour has traditional links to the Dems.

Both parties which have been in government since WW2 have traditionally seen it as a vital national objective to get along with the US administration, regardless of which US party is in power.

I suggest that what has changed things is the Iraq war - more accurately, the way our two countries got into the war. The war has changed things here too. I cannot think of any other time when the issue of trust in a British Prime Minister (however hated!) has been an issue to the average citizen.
 
#10
hackle said:
ctauch said:
PY,
I have stated many a time that the Democratic Party, and members of the party are primarily responsible for raising funds for the IRA terrorists. You are correct that the nest of this support is located in New England, imparticular Boston, Mass., which is also the Kennedy's seat of power.

It baffels me to no end why most europeans and the Brits imparticular embrace the Dems and scowl at the Reps, when the Dems are the major supporters of the IRA, and other terrorist organizations!
ctauch, can I try to reassure you. For logical left-right reasons, the Conservative Party has traditional links to the Reps and Labour has traditional links to the Dems.

Both parties which have been in government since WW2 have traditionally seen it as a vital national objective to get along with the US administration, regardless of which US party is in power.

I suggest that what has changed things is the Iraq war - more accurately, the way our two countries got into the war. The war has changed things here too. I cannot think of any other time when the issue of trust in a British Prime Minister (however hated!) has been an issue to the average citizen.
Ah yes...BUT, in my recent memory, every Republican president was seen a a crook or a clown by the europeans. The slurs against Reagan were he was a 2 bit actor destine to bring us to a nuclear conflict...even Bush41, front person for GW1, was refered to as a war-monger by Euros. Clinton and Carter and as far back as Kennedy were embraced and loved. what last republican US President was held in even medium esteem by europe??? Eisenhower, maybe????

My point is that the vast majority seems to think that Rep = war and Dem = peace...what I fail to understand is peace at what price? 8O
 
#11
ctauch said:
hackle said:
Ah yes...BUT, in my recent memory, every Republican president was seen a a crook or a clown by the europeans. The slurs against Reagan were he was a 2 bit actor destine to bring us to a nuclear conflict...even Bush41, front person for GW1, was refered to as a war-monger by Euros. Clinton and Carter and as far back as Kennedy were embraced and loved. what last US President was held in even medium esteem by europe??? Eisenhower, maybe????

My point is that the vast majority seems to think that Rep = war and Dem = peace...what I fail to understand is peace at what price? 8O
I still don't think we THE BRITISH see things in such a polarised way, ctauch. Yes, I believe Eisenhower was held in some esteem, went back to wartime association. Our Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had an excellent relationship with President Reagan. As for GW1, this may come as a surprise but our armed forces did fight in that campaign too, and I dont recall any problems with BushSen.
 
#12
ctauch said:
New Labour are, as lefty pinko socialists, much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
Lefty pinko socialists? You are clearly a total f***wit.

Socialism is the concentration of economic resources and policy under the governance of the state, while capitalism is about the promotion of the free market and enterprise.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that Tony and his muckers are socialists. Next you can explain how the Irish are stupid, the Scots are stingy, the Jews/Aliens/Illuminati have taken over the world, CO RLC Trg Regt is the Deepcut Serial murderer and how Osama Bin Laden is the Bush family's spurned business partner.

That throwaway statement about left pinko blah blah blah sounds like trailer park redneck talk. It's like McCarthyism when the spams accused anyone they didn't like of being communist. "Hey boy, what doing with a book. Look's like we've got ourselves a reader, boys. Prob'ly a communist".

Idiot. Blair's as right wing as they come. He's a lawyer - as if you need any further proof.
 
#13
PoisonDwarf said:
ctauch said:
New Labour are, as lefty pinko socialists, much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
Lefty pinko socialists? You are clearly a total f***wit.

Socialism is the concentration of economic resources and policy under the governance of the state, while capitalism is about the promotion of the free market and enterprise.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that Tony and his muckers are socialists. Next you can explain how the Irish are stupid, the Scots are stingy, the Jews/Aliens/Illuminati have taken over the world, CO RLC Trg Regt is the Deepcut Serial murderer and how Osama Bin Laden is the Bush family's spurned business partner.

That throwaway statement about left pinko blah blah blah sounds like trailer park redneck talk. It's like McCarthyism when the spams accused anyone they didn't like of being communist. "Hey boy, what doing with a book. Look's like we've got ourselves a reader, boys. Prob'ly a communist".

Idiot. Blair's as right wing as they come. He's a lawyer - as if you need any further proof.
Had you troubled to read the thread before launching your little tirade against Ctauch, you would have noticed that I wrote (with tongue firmly in cheek) the line which seems to exercise you so much.

The fact remains, however, that whilst some of Bliar's policies do seem somewhat right wing, the Labour Party are socialists. This may well be why so many back-benchers are rebelling against the Dear Leader.



"Hey PD boy, what doing with a thread. Look's like we've got ourselves a reader, boys. Prob'ly a f*ckwit".




:lol:
 
#14
PoisonDwarf said:
ctauch said:
New Labour are, as lefty pinko socialists, much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
Lefty pinko socialists? You are clearly a total f***wit.

Socialism is the concentration of economic resources and policy under the governance of the state, while capitalism is about the promotion of the free market and enterprise.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that Tony and his muckers are socialists. Next you can explain how the Irish are stupid, the Scots are stingy, the Jews/Aliens/Illuminati have taken over the world, CO RLC Trg Regt is the Deepcut Serial murderer and how Osama Bin Laden is the Bush family's spurned business partner.

That throwaway statement about left pinko blah blah blah sounds like trailer park redneck talk. It's like McCarthyism when the spams accused anyone they didn't like of being communist. "Hey boy, what doing with a book. Look's like we've got ourselves a reader, boys. Prob'ly a communist".

Idiot. Blair's as right wing as they come. He's a lawyer - as if you need any further proof.
Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem, since that quote was never made by me...must be the tint of the rose colored glasses 8O
 
#15
PoisonDwarf said:
ctauch said:
New Labour are, as lefty pinko socialists, much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
Lefty pinko socialists? You are clearly a total f***wit.

Socialism is the concentration of economic resources and policy under the governance of the state, while capitalism is about the promotion of the free market and enterprise.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that Tony and his muckers are socialists. Next you can explain how the Irish are stupid, the Scots are stingy, the Jews/Aliens/Illuminati have taken over the world, CO RLC Trg Regt is the Deepcut Serial murderer and how Osama Bin Laden is the Bush family's spurned business partner.

That throwaway statement about left pinko blah blah blah sounds like trailer park redneck talk. It's like McCarthyism when the spams accused anyone they didn't like of being communist. "Hey boy, what doing with a book. Look's like we've got ourselves a reader, boys. Prob'ly a communist".

Idiot. Blair's as right wing as they come. He's a lawyer - as if you need any further proof.
ROFLMAO! Taking f*ckwit to new highs! Or is it lows? :lol:
 
#16
mushroom said:
I have said on this site before that terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. The thought held dear by the left wing press that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter is crap.

<snip>

The last time I said this someone asked me what I would do if Britain was occupied. My answer was I would fight the occupiers to the the end. That doesn't mean I would bomb or kill civilians and civilian tgts.
I don't see how you can disagree with the first statement, the PLO are trying to remove Israeli troops from thier homes, in thier own eyes if no one elses they are freedom fighters.

To the second point, that you wouldn't bomb/kill civilians etc this is a very "pampered" viewpoint. The goal of anyone fighting a war is to win. If you win by killing so many enemy civilians or troops that the enemy public decide that the cost is too great and they pull out, you've won.

Terrorism is warfare, it's an extension of gurrilla (i can't speell) warfare, no more no less.
 
#17
Bob_the_bulletproof said:
To the second point, that you wouldn't bomb/kill civilians etc this is a very "pampered" viewpoint. The goal of anyone fighting a war is to win. If you win by killing so many enemy civilians or troops that the enemy public decide that the cost is too great and they pull out, you've won.

Terrorism is warfare, it's an extension of gurrilla (i can't speell) warfare, no more no less.
Some interesting points so far, but BtB, i'm sorry to destroy your bizarre view of the world, but Terrorism is the specifically targeting and killing of civilians in order to achieve your goals.

But your right, war is war, so why do you argue against killing terrorist outrigth?
 
#18
Plastic Yank said:
i'm sorry to destroy your bizarre view of the world, but Terrorism is the specifically targeting and killing of civilians in order to achieve your goals.
and im sorry to destroy your interpretation of terrorism, but the dictionary definition is:
terrorism n use of violence, intimidation to achieve ends; state of terror.

terrorism is used against civilian and military personnel equally. Try telling anyone who has served in Northern Ireland that the terrorists werent actually targeting them as its confined to "specifically targeting and killing of civilians".

For years the USA have financed Irish paramilitary organsiations, but now theyve been on the receiving end and have launched themselves into this 'war on terror' they are desparately trying to distance themselves from having done it.
I bet that Bush, like Blair, is secretly hoping that he wont be re-elected so that someone else can sort out the mess that hes got us all in to.
 
#19
FF,

Having served in NI a number of times you can keep the sanctimonious comments to yourself.

your definition only differs from mine in that it is more exact, of which i admit, you are more correct.

i however, was attempting to correct the view of an earlier post, which seemed to indicate that Terrorism and Warfare were to be treated without any moral disctinction. Which i believe is wrong.

The yanks, of which i am not one (look at my name and thing "irony") have suffered from terrorism for years and your childest comments on them "now getting there own back" does you no credit. I will admit that for a split second on 9/11 i thought back to Clinton doing his walkabout in Londonderry with Gerry in 1994 (with us providing "protection") and think, yah ya bastards take that - but no one deserves it.

There are as many yanks that have supported PIRA as there are Brits, and equally there are as many that oppose it as in Britain. If you do not understand that simple fact, then we will have to leave it.

A point which should not be lost on you is that it has been the Democratic Party, of which there seems to be quite a lot of support here, that has traditionally (and continually) supported the IRA.
 
#20
the large democratic supporter michael moore, is well known for coming to belfast to hang out with his friends. he even put it in his last book. although his choice of friends are of course members of sinn fein (the ira to you and me) and i'm sure he also stated that he supported their campaign and the british were colonising imperial bastards ad infinitum.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top