Posted on 08/26/2006 3:11:23 AM PDT by vimto
Is that so? I don't believe I've ever read that, sickening if true.
I wonder if the IRA ever feels unsafe around the islamofascists. They might be sitting ducks for the eventual beheading knife, after all. The islamonazies OTOH, think it's cool to die anyway and probably don't lose much sleep worrying about whether their newly hired IRA consultant will put a bullet between their eyes.
Too bad these pigs can't just be content to blow up each other and leave the rest of the world alone.
So you merely "posted" this punch bowl with the floating turd in it?
What I'm "going on about" is the scurrilous accusation that former GI's are in league with IRA members supporting world terror against free peoples.
We can see that you are not the author...but there's an issue about guolt by association.
Respectfully and very truly yours.
Why? Terrorists are terrorists. There a lot of terrorist sympathizers in Boston or what?
I think I get it. They're terrorists but they're 'our terrorists'. That sort of thing. Screw 'em. They all need to be eliminated.
It is the wet dream of leftists everywhere.
"SEE!! White people are terrorists too!
"I wonder if the media toned things down on your side of the pond"
That could very well be true. IIRC, in news media on your side of the pond actually showed people jumping out of the twin towers on 9/11 and bodies, whereas over here we simply were shown the debris and the towers burning.
I'll look up the Blackpool bombing. My knowledge of the IRA and it's terrorist attacks is extremely limited to say the very least.
If you go to the link, you see that the allegations are made by the "former special forces soldier". He mostly references British mercenaries but mentions "a renegade sniper from the US military".
You assume these guys are following orders. There's no reason to believe that. For some folks, the struggle becomes a cause in itself, and when their war is over, rather than lay down arms, they find another war for a paying client. They go freelance.
During the Cold War, the USSR would back pretty much anyone who attacked the West. IRA terrorists received money, arms and training from the Soviets, funneled through the PLO and Libya.
When the IRA officially decommissioned, some of their most accomplished bomb-builders were suddenly out of a job. A whole lot of other awful people were out of work at the KGB and Stasi after 1991. They had a well-established network, time on their hands and skills that some folks would pay a lot of money for. Pull back those sheets, and you'll find mighty strange and nasty bedfellows.
Colombian officials blamed IRA bomb-makers for training FARC narcoterrorists, but couldn't make the case and eventually had to let them go. The Basque terrorists in ETA have adopted what appear to be IRA techniques and technology, though the links have been impossible to prove so far. So it's not much of a stretch to believe that the Iraqi insurgents, and their financial backers, chased the expertise and the experts followed the money.
This O'Hallaran hopes all members of the IRA rot in hell. [Actually, I extend this wish to include all terrorists everywhere.]
My use of "I know" was in reference to the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921, which was why I used "early 20th century." I in no way meant to imply that the IRA is/was an innocent, pacific orgnization.
I freely admit to having scant knowledge of the IRA. I am aware that they were involved with weapons trade with the PLO and had dealings in South America (I didn't know about the Philippines), and it really doesn't surprise me that they'd be working with other terrorists. However, I must confess that I'm confused by what constitutes the IRA these days. Is it the official one or the provisional one? Either way, through my internet browsing, I have indeed learned that I was wrong in my estimates of the people the IRA has killed.
American sympathies, and funds, for the IRA dried up in a big hurry after 9/11, especially in their traditional strongholds of NYC and Boston. Seeing the writing on the wall, the Provisional IRA finally agreed to surrender its arms in October 2001 -- something it had resisted since the 1994 Good Friday accord.
I'll hoist a pint or twelve on St. Patrick's Day, but my long-standing practice is to wear both green and orange, and when the songs turn to praise of the IRA, I turn back to my beer.
I'll never forget the time an Irish-American waitress gave me a dressing-down for ordering a Bushmill's and a Bass. Bushmill's, she explained with a derisive snort, was a Protestant whiskey. After a moment's reflection, I asked why she was more insulted that I'd ordered a Protestant whiskey than that I'd ordered an English beer. She didn't really have an answer.
For the next round, I made a point of ordering a Jameson's, a good Catholic whiskey. She seemed to approve. After taking a sip, I patted my ample abdomen -- draped in green and orange -- and described my stomach as a place where we could all just get along.
She still didn't go home with me. Ah, life is like that.
i remember hearing once that more IRA members were killed by rival IRA factions than by British soldiers.(this was in reference to the irish terrorist campaign to achieve independence, which was followed by a civil war between 2 ira factions.)
my impression is that the current crop of terrorists in Ireland are sociopathic gangsters.
...uh, if that were true, they'd be after bin laden... the bid, I believe, is $50 million... nope, I think they're just a-holes and like to do what a-holes do...
Post 350 answers your question about presentday "IRA" -
My post to you was just to reinforce what you obviously do - independent research, instead of relying on the misleading information printed or shown as "news" these days.
Wow, you're cluelessness of history astounds me.
Read a book.
I'd argue that the 9/11 attacks were the major turning point. It's not a coincidence that the Provos agreed to surrender their arms a little over a month after that event. The Americans who had traditionally kicked money to the IRA were suddenly less sympathetic to the argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
The McCartney murder brought widespread attention (at least on this side of the Pond) to how much the IRA had changed, in public perception if not reality. The Good Friday accords were twelve years ago. There is a whole generation of thugs who joined the IRA since then without any nationalist ambitions. They're just thugs who want to be thugs, and their version of the IRA is nothing more or less than a red-headed Mafia.
I don't use the term "Mafia" carelessly. The Sicilian Mafia formed to resist French occupation. When the French were gone, it became a criminal gang oppressing the people it had been formed to liberate. The IRA appears to be following the same path.
I'd argue that most American support for the IRA dried up after 9/11. The McCartney sisters -- make no mistake, I salute their courage and eloquence, and admire them greatly -- were just the final nail in the coffin. Irish-Americans came to realize that the IRA of today is not made up of the people their grandmothers sang folk songs about.
Oops: "350" was meant to be #50.
Did you mean post 35? Because that post talks about democratic funding for the IRA.
I agree with you on the independent research. I don't don't know about your media (except for the BBC website), but at least in my area, the news is pretty much blatantly one-sided (I don't know how it is in other parts of the U.S apart from the nightly national news).
The comparison of the IRA to alquaeda is correct. Both groups are nothing more than people whose favorite thing to do is cause pain, suffering and death to others. They just use different excuses—“Irish sovereignty” vs “Islamic jihad.”
This was what I was referring to:
American sympathies, and funds, for the IRA dried up in a big hurry after 9/11, especially in their traditional strongholds of NYC and Boston. Seeing the writing on the wall, the Provisional IRA finally agreed to surrender its arms in October 2001 -- something it had resisted since the 1994 Good Friday accord.
Here is a good article about our media (I am in Baltimore, Md):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/taking_on_the_527_media.html
August 25, 2006
Taking on the '527 Media'
By Jed Babbin
Dear Mr. Mehlman:
---snip---
The second truth is that the media are more than just the Dems' think tank. In fact, some of the biggest media outlets are the source of thinly veiled attack ads aimed at your candidates just like the so-called "527 Groups," those huge soft-money peddlers supposedly independent of the candidates they support. Think of what George Soros could do if he had a global news network that could produce multi-million dollar attack ads every day, and then you'll know what some mainstream media outlets have become. Rightly or wrongly, given their history with CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and lately, AP, some conservatives classify them among the worst offenders.
The "527 Media" -- and that's what you should be calling them -- are essentially political activists. They are in the campaign business nearly as much as they are in the business of reporting the news these days. They will be tossing October surprises at Republicans all day every day from September 5, when Katie Couric takes over at CBS, until the election returns are certified.
Well as long as you ignore the british shooting children in the streets. Or is it OK to kill Catholics?
Do you deny the Catholics the right to protect themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.