Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/5/2002 4:36:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 6:10:08 PM EDT by stcyr]
I can remember watching hours and hours of the type of military vs civilian confrontation we see in Bethlehem or Rammallah today. The military weren't so overpowereing: they didn't use tanks or rockets and they didn't throw stun grenades or fire rubber bulets at the international press – but they were beligerents. The terrorists were not suicide bombers but, they were no less effective in killing innocents. The cities I remember were Belfast and Londonderry; the troops were British and the terrorists were the IRA – and they got their money and support from the U.S. and bought their arms and C4 from sympathetic, oil-rich, terrorist Arab nations like Libya!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 4:44:03 PM EDT
Hypocrisy here in the U.S. ? None to speak of ! (From a very old joke: A Catholic priest was in civilian clothes and was asked if he had any children. His answer: "None to speak of !")
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 5:32:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 5:36:08 PM EDT by stcyr]
You know, 5subslr5, the only reason I posted this is because I saw so many parallels between the "Irish Problem" and the "Palestinian Problem" and the 70/30 support for Israeli military intervention (that Eric raves about – for example), compared to U.S. support for the terrorists pre-9/11. I'm not saying the scenarios are identical; but, they are similar enough to highlight how effectively the 'Jewish Lobby' is able to manipulate U.S. public sentiment .
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:14:08 PM EDT
Judging from the lack of response, I guess; I struck a little too close to close to home!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:19:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:26:59 PM EDT
I agree – everyone seems to want to forget the real suffering of people. They seem far happier to debate scripture.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:30:08 PM EDT
there is a major flaw in your argument. the brit/ira problem was terrorism, but the leadership on both sides were trying to put and end to it, less the small faction intent on destruction, and very few, including the irish agreed to the methods used. in the middle east however, the only people trying to stop the bombings are the israelis. no one else. as a matter of fact, governments are sponsering it (S. Hussein for example with his $25k...) can you imagine a country say like sweden, coming out and saying, "every irishman who dies while involved in a terrorist attack against britain, his family will recieve 25 grand." when put in context i think there are major differences.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:31:12 PM EDT
I remember a while back the little girls trying to go to school getting heckled and stuff thrown at them along the way. The IRA and Protestant terrorist groups are as bad as the ones in the middle east. I think we in the US tolerate them more because they are more similar to us and we have a lot of people of Irish decent here in the US. If England let northen Ireland leave her protection then I think you would see similarities between there and Israel with the Protestants taking on the role of the powerless class much like the Arabs in Israel. I dont think the "jewish lobby" has anything to do with the differences in the general public opinion between northen Ireland and the middle east.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:32:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:46:04 PM EDT
Well, there is one big difference. The Palestinians never had a "homeland". Never were a country unto themselves. So why now do they all of a sudden deserve their hoemland? They were homeless before correct? Ireland has been dealing with this specific situation for hundreds and hundreds of years. And it hasn't always been a situation of Protestant vs. Catholic issue either. For instance there have been many Protestants throughtout history who have supported an Ireland united. And there have been Catholics who would be against it. It stretches back pretty far, and has it's roots in old loyalties and economics. Some may or may not agree with me about whether it relates to Israel and the PLO. But I think if you look into it there are MANY distinctions.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:57:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: Judging from the lack of response, I guess; I struck a little too close to close to home!
View Quote
Apparently you think you've said something profound. I think most people, even those who tend to be pro-israeli, would agree that the jewish lobby is a very powerful beast, and is clearly heavily influencing the media. IRA sponsored terrorism has been much less frequent than PLO sponsored terrorism, and I think that explains at least part of the media attention.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:44:49 PM EDT
Sorry, Pompey, the issue was not terrorism, it was – and it ALWAYS will be – about control and power. It doesn't matter where it is: Sri Lanka or Peru, Belfast or Betlehem. Essentially, the Provos were communist – it always amazed me that the U.S. Govt. backed the (extreme right) Contras and the people of Boston and N.Y. backed the (Marksist) Provos at the same time. The thing is that right now, it appears that the U.S. Gov't and popular policy is to support Israel. I am not saying that there are exact parallels to be drawn ( and I think that 'semusemcoi's' post is relevant), but the scenarios are, I think similar enough to regard the current U.S. Gov't policy and the "pole result" as hypocritical. zonan – No, nothing profound – not even anything new. Just that the IRA vs PLO terrorism has being going for about a century compared to 50 years. And if you think that it is okay for that the "Israeli Lobby" should be able to exert such influence on the U.S. – then I guess I have have little to add apart from, shalom!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:54:50 PM EDT
you're confusing me. your original thread seemed to parallel both types of terrorism and the difference between our policy. i tried to argue that there is no hypocracy because, although both are terrorism issues, the circumstances are different. maybe i tried to back door it or something, your last thread made me go "huh?" now im lost.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:58:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: I can remember watching hours and hours of the type of military vs civilian confrontation we see in Bethlehem or Rammallah today. Maybe you watched in the wrong time or place. In 6/72 a real bright guy told me "they'er all f***ing Charlie".
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:19:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 8:24:15 PM EDT by stcyr]
pompey, My original point was to illustrate that in two 'similar' (but NOT identical) scenarios, many in the U.S. show support for opposite sides: Before 9/11, the IRA terrorists were supported by many in the U.S. vs the Brit. Military in Belfast and Londonderry and now, the U.S. supports the Israeli Military vs the Palestinian terrorists in Ramallah and Bethlehem. Regardless of whom might have wanted to bring an end to the bombing in the U.K. – the major bombers (the Provos) – did not seem too interested in negotiating. Although I believe that most of the Middle East (and Israeli, of course) would like to see an end to the violence and a negotiated peace, I don't think that Hamas do – just like the Provos! I cannot see the distinction between the IRA and Hamas and the Israeli and Brit. military and I wonder why apparently most of the U.S. do? Origbadbob – Not entirely certain what you mean. However, if you're saying all terrorist are the same – why did the U.S. provide popular support for the IRA terrorists?
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:22:54 PM EDT
here's some response: [sleep]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:34:24 PM EDT
Fox poll: 23% don't know who Afarat is. 54% don't know who Sharon is. Sorry if I woke you markm – try to stay awake, there might be a "Celebrity Squares" rerun on soon.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 9:44:42 PM EDT
stcyr, I think you're confusing "support" for the IRA from a substantial number of Irish-Americans in New England for US policy. It was illegal to give money to a known terrorist organization even back then. True, the law was hardly enforced, but it was still illegal. The US government understood who the Provos were and as well as all the other known splinter groups. It was also an established fact that the IRA participated in training with other terrorists organizations: PLO, RAF(Bader-Meinhoff,)Red Brigades, and that Japapese one whose name escapes me at the moment. Now, you're going to ack why so very little enforcement. How many Irish-American Catholics were in Congress at the time? That seems to me to be the answer.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 12:46:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: zonan – No, nothing profound – not even anything new. Just that the IRA vs PLO terrorism has being going for about a century compared to 50 years. And if you think that it is okay for that the "Israeli Lobby" should be able to exert such influence on the U.S. – then I guess I have have little to add apart from, shalom!
View Quote
No, I do not think that the jewish lobby should be able to exert such influence. But that's the way our country works--money talks. It's a fact and there's not much that can be done about it.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 12:52:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2002 12:54:02 PM EDT by zonan]
Originally Posted By stcyr: Before 9/11, the IRA terrorists were supported by many in the U.S. vs the Brit. Military in Belfast and Londonderry and now, the U.S. supports the Israeli Military vs the Palestinian terrorists in Ramallah and Bethlehem.
View Quote
Who? I have never met anyone who has ever thought the IRA were anything but terrorists except, in another thread, some idiot on this board who happens to be irish.
23% don't know who Afarat is. 54% don't know who Sharon is.
View Quote
You are almost as good at twisting statistics as the liberals are. If you actually think about what the 23% and 54% said it was phrased as a combination of a neutral opinion and a "don't know". "Can't say" That's what I would have voted for regarding sharon, because there are good aspects and bad aspects of his policies.
Top Top