Latest Terrorist attempt

[TheMercenary]

Heh, people are now calling this "Underpantsgate".

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Underpants Fly might be just as good.

[Cloud]

say what you want about Obama, he is not afraid to take the hard knocks and accept responsibility; to say, we were wrong, I am responsible, and we're gonna fix it. If it were Bush, he'd be denying accountability and pointing fingers at others.

[Spexxvet]

"You're doin' a heck of a job, Janetie"

[Sundae]

Latest terrorist attempt:
Cop Hurt By Car Bomb In Northern Ireland

A policeman has been seriously injured after a bomb exploded under his car in Northern Ireland.

Peadar Heffron, 33, had just driven off when the blast happened in Milltown Road, Randalstown in County Antrim.

He was taken to hospital and army bomb disposal experts were called to the scene of the attack.

It happened just a few miles from Antrim town, where Sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21, were shot dead by the Real IRA outside Massereene Army barracks last March.

Northern Ireland Security Minister Paul Goggins condemned the latest atrocity.

He said: "This vile attack will sicken people across Northern Ireland."

The one positive result of the bombing of the World Trade Centre - to me - was that Americans finally started to see that terrorism was not just forceful public opinion. Lack of American support had a real impact on the Troubles. All of a sudden, men like Bobby Sands went from being a martyr, to a criminal. What would American public opinion have been if a 9/11 bomber starved himself to death? Ho hum, one less mouth to feed - as opposed to a political prisoner demanding to be treated as such and not as a criminal.

This is only the most recent attack BTW. Another exmaple was the girlfriend of a police dog handler, targeted in October last year. Car bomb. She escaped with injuries.

These people are well schooled in the divisive and personal nature of terrorism.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

The one positive result of the bombing of the World Trade Centre - to me - was that Americans finally started to see that terrorism was not just forceful public opinion.

Exactly when did we Americans think that?

Lack of American support had a real impact on the Troubles.

It will likely be less going forward.

What would American public opinion have been if a 9/11 bomber starved himself to death? Ho hum, one less mouth to feed - as opposed to a political prisoner demanding to be treated as such and not as a criminal.

?????

[Cicero]

Here's my tinfoil hat. Lets think- weren't there some patriot act articles that were supposed to be out of effect as of Jan. 1st? And now they are not? Just a thought- I'm not really saying it was definitely a false flag operation but.....I thought I'd throw that out there. (tail-posting anyway)

[richlevy]

I just heard from Rudy Giuliani that there were no terrorist attempts in the US under Bush, only under Obama. Later his press person amended that to mean since 9-11, which was still wrong.

What's the difference between a shoe bomber and an underpants bomber? The difference is that Rudy doesn't count the shoe bomber as an attempted terrorist attack.

Do they really think our attention span is that short? I seriously don't remember liberals undermining Bush this way. We may have questioned his intelligence, but we didn't tell the world that he was weak.

The next election is going to be ugly. The Republicans might have had a shot if they'd stayed near the center. I think they are going to dump Steele and move further to the right into what used to be considered the fringe. The independents are going to have to pick the party they are less disgusted with or stay home.

Meanwhile, Cheney and company are going to be painting a big target on the White House, and by extension the entire country, by telling the world we have a weak president. This may hamper any attempt to try a softer, more comprehensive strategy that might have a chance at success.

A pure military strategy will not work. You can't bomb these people back to the stone age. The hard core are already living in the stone age.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The next election is going to be ugly. The Republicans might have had a shot if they'd stayed near the center. I think they are going to dump Steele and move further to the right into what used to be considered the fringe. The independents are going to have to pick the party they are less disgusted with or stay home.

That sounds pretty much like the last, what 3-4 elections for me. Nothing new there. I think once you discount the hardcore extremists on both sides and those who vote party lines, thats been the attitude of most people for well over a decade, if not longer.

Meanwhile, Cheney and company are going to be painting a big target on the White House, and by extension the entire country, by telling the world we have a weak president. This may hamper any attempt to try a softer, more comprehensive strategy that might have a chance at success.

Bullshit. Sounds like an excuse in the making. You're already blaming the other side in advance? C'mon. If something happens and Obama proves his strength, it won't matter what anyone else says - especially Cheney. I mean seriously what RATIONAL person is listening to him anyway.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

...The one positive result of the bombing of the World Trade Centre - to me - was that Americans finally started to see that terrorism was not just forceful public opinion. Lack of American support had a real impact on the Troubles. All of a sudden, men like Bobby Sands went from being a martyr, to a criminal. What would American public opinion have been if a 9/11 bomber starved himself to death? Ho hum, one less mouth to feed - as opposed to a political prisoner demanding to be treated as such and not as a criminal.
....

I always wondered why Bush didn't invade Ireland. What's so different about Ireland and Iraq?

Originally Posted by classicman

That sounds pretty much like the last, what 3-4 elections for me. ...

It's been that way since the Democrats had the unmittigated audacity to begin impeachment hearings against Nixon. Sour grapes, and vengeance.

Originally Posted by classicman

....Bullshit. Sounds like an excuse in the making. You're already blaming the other side in advance? C'mon. If something happens and Obama proves his strength, it won't matter what anyone else says - especially Cheney. I mean seriously what RATIONAL person is listening to him anyway.

If you dont think that this latest terrorist attempt has been politicized by the right, then you havent been watching or reading the news.....not just Chaney, but Gingrigh, Guiliani, members of Congress using it for fund-raising by suggesting that Obama and Democrats are weak on terrorism, most of the neo-con talking heads, etc.

National security should be, and has always been, the one issue around which Americans unite. They (we) certainly did so after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan....right up until the "war on terror" was relocated to Iraq.

But it is an issue on which many (not all are that callous) Republicans think they can "win" and have no problem with politicizing the issue.

[DanaC]

As to the IRA.

Personally, I think those prisoners were political prisoners. Yes, they committed violent acts. But then so did the British government they were opposed to, and so did their unionist counterparts. I won't sit here and say they did right. It was an ugly time, and both sides engaged in the ugliest kind of conflict.

But they were political prisoners. They weren't just 'criminals' they were soldiers fighting a guerilla war.

The level of support they had in America has been overblown. Mainstream American politicians were very reluctant to offer any kind of moral or political support to them, despite having some sympathy for their cause. I had sympathy for their cause. Didn't make me a supporter.

The worst violence and damage was within NI itself. Both sides of that conflict hurt innocent people and treated ordinary civlians appallingly at times. Then again, for all that they bullied, abused and terrorised the local communities, they also provided something that was at times needed by the Catholic civilians: a 'police force' they could turn to. Because they sure as hell couldn't turn to the actual police.

When it came to the violence on the mainland; the majority of IRA bomb attacks were preceded by warning phonecalls. Bit different to walking onto a plane and blowing yourself up. Apart from the pub bombings ( a very dark chapter) and the Brighton Hotel, most IRA attacks were designed to cause maximum disruption ancd fear with minimum loss of life.

The attacks over here caused distress and fear, but most of all they kept NI in our news and in our minds. If they hadn't been waging that war, we'd have been happy, as a nation to just try and forget what was going on over there. leave it to the politicians. I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say: oh just let the bastards kill each other; leave us out of it.

We were the imperial power. We were supporting/condoning/instrumental in unionist violence and oppression. We were utterly unsympathetic to the plight of the Catholic population, who'd been pushed into an apartheid of sorts.

What is happening now is different. What we have now is a kind of global terrorism. It's a drawing up of lines between extremists and idealists. It is not an oppressed indigenous population attempting to free themselves from an aggressive and overbearing oppressor.

Interesting article about American involvement in the Troubles.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/america.html


Nowadays, I'd say those who are attempting to continue the fight are terrorists and criminals. They do not have popular support. They are not fulfilling a needed function: they are diehards who refuse to let it go. They are acting against the interests and desires of both sides.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by classicman

Exactly when did we Americans think that?

From Dana's article (which is actually about how little support their was in America, so if anything it's biased the other way).

The Irish diaspora, especially those who settled in the United States, have played an intregal part in the Troubles. It is true that a small portion of Irish-Americans have always supported the Irish Republican Army
however, many Irish-American supporters of the IRA remained wedded to the idea that only violence would bring about a united Ireland.
For a quarter century, the IRA attracted a core of followers in the United States who were loyal and dedicated.
In 1969, as TV images of Catholics being attacked were beamed back to Irish Catholic enclaves in Boston and New York, hats were literally passed around pubs from Southie to Woodside in Queens. Fundraising for the IRA, or at least for IRA prisoners, peaked whenever the British were seen to do something outrageous, such as when British soldiers shot 14 civil rights marchers dead on Bloody Sunday in 1972 or in 1981 when Margaret Thatcher allowed the hunger strikers to die.

Originally Posted by classicman

It will likely be less going forward.

Don't get me wrong - I was writing about support in the past, not a current situation. And I have always been aware that it was a minority support.

Originally Posted by classicman

?????

Not 100% sure what you're questioning. I was stating my opinion that I don't think the IRA were political prisoners, and I doubt many Americans will see the terrorists involved in the current terrorism of America in a purely political light either. Bobby Sands starved himself to death and I didn't give a shit (poor pun). It wasn't meant to be anti-American.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

As to the IRA.
Personally, I think those prisoners were political prisoners. Yes, they committed violent acts. But they were political prisoners. They weren't just 'criminals' they were soldiers fighting a guerilla war.

I know that there were mistakes made on both sides. But IRA mistakes tended to be far bloodier. They were ruthless, cruel and engaged in criminal activities. And after all they were accorded political status in the end - after all that fuss about the Lockerbie bomber going home to die - how many IRA members with blood on their hands were freed before their sentences were up?

The level of support they had in America has been overblown.

Interesting article. I'm not completely convinced, given that this is the first time I have read this and have had no time to read around it. But I will do and am willing to concede that much of what I swallowed without question was as a teenager.

When it came to the violence on the mainland; the majority of IRA bomb attacks were preceded by warning phonecalls. Bit different to walking onto a plane and blowing yourself up. Apart from the pub bombings ( a very dark chapter) and the Brighton Hotel, most IRA attacks were designed to cause maximum disruption ancd fear with minimum loss of life.

I disagree. In Omagh three warnings were given, each slighty contradicting the other. The police were clearing the wrong area when the bomb went off. And Enniskillen, no warning - and in fact it was only cackhandedness that prevented a far higher death toll that day - 20 miles away a bomb was planted at a memorial service for the Boys and Girls Brigade - 4 times the size of the one which exploded. But that's Ireland which we weren't discussing.

So on the mainland. The warning system just doesn't appear to be a real failsafe.
The warning system still allowed two shopkeepers to die at Canary Wharf.
Manchester City Centre cleared of shoppers and workers, but 212 still injured.
Pub bombings - Guildford 4 dead, Woolwich 2 dead, Birmingham (one inadequate warning) two pubs bombed 21 dead.
Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings - the Royal Green Jackets playing a medley of songs from Oliver, civilians among the wounded, 7 horses killed or so badly maimed they had to be put down - no warning.
Brighton Hotel bombing, no warning - 5 dead many seriously wounded
Deal Barracks bombed - the Royal Marines School of Music that takes in 16 year olds to train in music and as medics. 11 dead, 23 seriously injured, almost all teens and new recruits.
Warrington bombs - warning given for Liverpool, 15 miles away. 2 children killed in a shopping street the day before Mother's Day.
Two Australian tourists shot and killed in Roermond in the Netherlands, mistakenly identified as off duty soldiers.

The attacks over here caused distress and fear

And death.

My point being if you don't like killing civilians than you have to be a hell of a lot more careful than the IRA were.

Please don't think I'm a supporter of the Loyalists either. I'm only picking up on the death of civilians (okay, not Deal, but they were unarmed kids) on the Mainland. Yes, I think you're right re the situation being different. Yes I agree that the most damage was done in Ireland - the builders, taxi drivers, passers by, partners, families etc etc. It's all revolting.

It still affects me as I'm sure you can tell. A slightly older generation grew up in fear of The Bomb. That didn't mean shit to me. I grew up in fear of the IRA. Of having stations and shopping centres and office buildings blown up.

[Sundae]

Some final facts before I stop flogging this poor old horse.
These are not offered as evidence for my personal beliefs - they prove nothing one way of the other. They are simply to remind people what we lived through.

IRA casualities:
Another detailed study Lost Lives,[113] states the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,781 people up to 2004:
644 civilians,
456 British military (including British Army, RAF, Royal Irish Regiment, Royal Navy, and Territorial Army)
273 Royal Ulster Constabulary (including RUC reserve)
182 Ulster Defence Regiment and 5 former British Army
23 Northern Ireland Prison Service officers and five British police officers
163 Republican paramilitary members (including IRA members, most caused their own deaths when bombs they were transporting exploded prematurely)
28 loyalist paramilitary members.
Six were Gardaí and one was Irish Army.