Bombings at the Boston Marathon

They like to dish it out but not take it

What an idiotic comment.

So presumably America should sit back and accept that they deserve the next nail & ball-bearing filled bomb?

And while I'm on the subject, some on here get a bit too hot under the collar when Islamists are linked with terrorism - but its a fact.  I don't recall there being any Sikh or Buddhist bombings of the West recently.  Having said that, I'm sure someone here is now going to move heaven and earth just to prove me wrong...

Russ, you are one of the few I agree with on this particular post.

You should investigate the Pacific Island campaigns of World War Two.

And yes, an idiotic comment.

If Guerilla fighters stopped using civilian buildings and surroundings to launch missiles and then hide behind them...

Terrorism; defensive war; and accidents; are terrible events. They all result in death, terrible injuries and long term suffering. But there the similarities stop.

I don’t imagine many people on this forum would liken accidents, even those caused by gross negligence, to acts of terrorism. For my part, I don’t see any likeness between defensive war and terrorism.

I would much prefer that disputes be resolved by diplomacy and negotiation. But there are limits, and when the other side resorts to war or terrorism, I would never be a stranger to defensive war.

There are too many terrorists and too many “causes” to try to figure out what lies at the centre of each terrorist’s grievance and I don’t consider I should pander to their “requirements” in any case. They should join the rest of society, put their cards on the table and accept they have a minority point of view – if that is the overall consensus of society.

As for complaining that the “British” have invaded all but 22 countries…………

I’m British and I’ve never been involved in any invasions (ok, a slight incursion intoYemen, but not a real invasion). How far do people want to put the clock back ? Modern Man has only been around for c.200,000 years and only left Africa c.70,000 years ago (at least according to a couple of books I read, so I’m willing to be corrected). Our entire existence has been marked by successive waves of people occupying land previously occupied by others. Why pick on one specific wave starting 500 years ago ie when Europeans swarmed over North andSouth America?

But returning to Bruce’s idea of “understanding” the root of terrorism. Its probably the desire for power, the ability to control others. Perhaps a bit like OPEC, but in a slightly less civilised way. And there’s another aspect of life that I’m not too keen on – holding others to ransom.

Cheers

Don

So, lets say an Afghan farmer returns home from the fields to find HIS community has been attacked by an American drone. HIS wife and kids have been blown to pieces.

In "Russworld" what retaliation against America would be considered appropriate.

That's far to subtle.

Russ, you are coming across as very myopic, and you seem to be making stuff up - has anyone said that the bombers where nice kids?

You don't care what caused them to bomb, but you state that the US has done nothing to harm them. Can you confirm their reasons?

Slight digression; Boston gave, via NORAID, a lot of money to the IRA. "Dollar to kill a soldier" was one line. Perhaps the UK should have bombed Boston to stop them raising money for terrorists?

"Boston" is a major US city with over 700,000 people, and about 1 in 10 are Irish.  Only 3% of new immigrants come from Ireland, so the precentages are dropping rapidly.

Boston did not give one penny to the IRA.  And London not did give one penny to the UVF, UDA, LVF, UR, RHC or any of the many other Northern Irish "paramilitaries".

But individiuals of Irish decent living in Boston most certainly did.  Of course, most of the money raised in corner bars by "passing the hat" never made it to Ireland -- it stayed with Irish American mobsters who organized the so-called "charities". Recall that these crime leaders were were as right-wing as the Provisionals were left-wing. Bernadette Devlin scandalized IRA supporters in Boston in the early 1970s when she announced that she was more comfortable with blacks in Roxbury than she was with Irish-Americans in South Boston!

In any case, please recognize that there is a big difference between the criminal activies of a relatively small number of Americans and official US policy. All the vast majority of Americans ever wanted for Ireland was peace.  Also, if you think that fund raising was done with impunity, you are wrong.  The FBI has declassified 3000 pages of documents showing details of their surveillance and sting operations.  But think about it - think how easy it was to get away with! Unless there was an undercover cop or informant present, how do you catch people in the act?  Also, keep in mind that that many of these neighborhoods very close knit, and very difficult to infiltrate.  But make no mistake, attempts were made to stop the flow of money.

It is a complicated world, and hyperbole and gross exaggeration will never help us to understand it.

Hook

How about those killed by monsters in the name of democracy and freedom?

Or was oil?

I can't remember. Never mind, I'm sure God didn't mind, at least he was on our side.

How many Gods are there?

Just one, our God. Allah? No the other one? The good one! Ah that one...

All good then...

That would exclude the Americans then, they continuously blow things up. Unfortunately not just things, more often than not people too...

I know you are Canadian.

Just saying.

Well, that's exactly what's been happening.

As the saying goes, great minds think alike....

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

One thing is for certain, like it or not, America is considered by many as the biggest terrorist nation on earth. It might be hard to swallow but it is plain obvious that American foreign policy since the 2nd WW has been driven largely by its own geopolitical and economic interests. Any means justified the ends, including starting wars for so called "geopolitical stability", destabilising and overthrowing governments either through covert operations or overt involvement, invading for oil in the name of democracy and/or saving the world from WMDs that never existed, you name it, take your pick. With such a history one needn't wonder why so may people loathe America, even to point where they are willing to attack innocent people on home soil. The world may be a complicated place but one thing is quite simple, going to war will inevitable create a hostile environment...

IMHO the war on terror is one America is not going to win by military means. Some even argue America created that enemy itself and tbh I am not sure they are wrong. 

I know it's more complicated but it's part of the picture. 

As the saying above says, how do you define terror? That's an interesting question and one worth contemplating.

That's an interesting comment Hook. Though it raises the question of how do we define justice, doesn't it? It's obvious that the concept of justice means different things to different people and maybe that's part of the problem. I would argue there is no such thing as a just war and that this really only leaves justice through the judicial system as a resource. If it turned out that the two men were indeed part of some form of organisation or larger group, shouldn't all the people involved be tried in a court of law?

Wow!  Not much heaven and earth moving required for that Ian - the largest loss of life from a terrorist bombing prior to 9/11 was perpetrated by Sikh extremists in the Air India bombing in 1985.  Perhaps before you start pointing fingers you should read a few newspapers, or maybe Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

TP -

The Obama administration has often said that they have a strong preference for capturing terrorists rather than killing them. But it still doesn't happen very often.  For example, it wasn't too long ago that bin Laden's son-in-law was captured, transferred to the US, and IIRC, his trial starts very soon.  But clearly a special effort was made in his case because of the name recognition. Overall, only a handful of terrorists have been brought to the US for trial, while most terrorists that have been captured alive have been jailed by other, cooperating countries.

Let's face facts -- it is a lot easier to kill than capture.  Drones don't risk US casualties. Also, capturing usually requires the cooperation of the country where the terrorist is hiding, and most foreign rulers say no to any form of US military incursion. Lastly, with Al Queda having been significantly weakened by ongoing military efforts, there just does not seem to be the same premium on interrogation value as there used to be.  So yes, over last few years, all of these factors added up to a lot more killing instead of capture.  

Fortunately, and at least in the near future, that appears to be changing.  From a practical perspective, the number of high-level targets left to kill or capture is not nearly as large as it used to be.  But it is also true that rights advocates have made a strong case that a drone strike is nothing more than execution without trial, and I think Obama is starting to listen to them.  But, TBH, if there is another major attack, and if the evidence points back to terrorist leaders abroad, we can anticipate the drone strikes to pick up again in frequency.

Also, there are those who argue that civilian courts are not the right place to try terrorists.  To begin with, it becomes an extremely expensive proposition due to the security requirements.  The courthouse and the jail facilities where defendants are housed require extra U.S. marshals that must be recruited from other jurisdictions.  Jurors must be selected anonymously and escorted to and from the courthouse under armed guard. Judges who preside over such cases often need protection as well. All of this burdens an already overloaded justice system and interferes with the handling of other cases.

Despite all of this, my own opinion is that we should make every possible effort to capture, rather than kill.  And we should try them in civilian courts, regardless of the cost.  It is the only way I can think of to rise above their level, and demonstrate who is civilized, and who is barbaric.  BUT, if there is a real and present danger, if we truly believe that lots of innocent people will die if we don't act immediately, then yes, I believe we should kill the terrorist. The thought of blowing up a car or a house full of people in order to kill that single terrorist is very troubling, and I wish there was a better way of doing it.  But I don't think there is.

Hook

+1 Teddy.  But you're wasting your breath, I'm afraid - Russ has made it pretty clear in this and other threads that he is not interested in facts which conflict with his views

Forgive me, Hook, but you sound like you're in denial. In May 1981, the U.S. Department of Justice won a court case forcing Noraid to register the Provisional Irish Republican Army as its "foreign principal", under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938. They appealed, but that is salutory. 

I'm a fan of the US and as indicated earlier, have spent time with the National Guard, in Mass. They had no idea about the realities of the IRA. The reason was clearly, that PIRA and NORAID had much better PR in the US than the UK did. 

NORAID raised money for terrorism; what seemed to have stemmed the flow was McVeigh and 9/11.

Teddy -

You are making my point for me.  I said that it is wrong to blame the entire US for the acts of a few individuals.  I also said that the US government and law enforcement agencies did what they could to stop the flow of money and arms to the IRA.  The court case you site is a good example of exactly that.

Up until that court case, Noraid got away with portraying itself as a benevolent charity, raising funds to be distributed exclusively as relief to innocent women and children whose family members had been killed by the UDA, UVF, and other paramilitary groups.  As you say, they did indeed have a very good PR organization. 

But the US government challenged them in court, and in May 1981, a US District Court Judge ruled against them, saying that they were, in fact, an arm of the Provisional IRA.  Lawyers for the Justice department produced evidence to show that Noraid was not simply a relief organization, and in fact were providing money for arms and explosives.  They then forced Noraid to officially name the IRA as the recipient of the money being raised.

And that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The US government opposed the IRA's efforts, and did what they could to capture individuals in the act of laundering money or buying arms.  When they could, they opposed IRA fund raising in court, as in the Noraid case.  Again, I refer to the FBI files as direct evidence of their effort to capture people in the act of arms smuggling..

I repeat:  please do not confuse the acts of a relatively small number of Irish immigrants living in the northeast US with official US policy.  And if we can agree that this is an incorrect thing to do, then I won't make silly claims like it was official British policy to support the UDA (which London did not label as a terrorist group until 2001).

Lastly, just so we are clear:  my own views are in line with what I believe to be official US policy.  I condemn all terrorists on both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland.  They are all cowards who deliberately targeted innocent people using weapons of mass destruction. 

I am glad that ugly chapter seems to finally behind us...or, at least, for most of us. I can certainly understand how people who were personally effected by acts of terror during the so-called troubles will forever hold feelings of hatred for the other side.  I would most likely be no different.

Hook

Hook, the pedantry is pointless. 

I should also point out that I'm not aware of a single collecting box for UVF etc, outside of Northern Ireland, or any organisation outside of NI that collected money for any of the organisations you list.

Bostonians ( and New Yorkers) collected money for terrorists, and I have no doubt that the money they collected facilitated the murder of British Citizens ( and one US, Kenneth Salveson, at Harrod's).

Its in the past, but its worth remembering.  You can't excuse the activities of NORAID just because the FBI et al eventually took action against them.

No, I'm afraid it won't end there Hook.  That will be just one more stop in the endless cycle of misery and violence.

In the wake of unspeakable acts such as the one we witnessed in Boston last week it is quite understandable to seek vengance, and of course no effort should be spared to seek out the perpetrators of such heinous crimes and hold them accountable.  There is no excuse for what they have done.  Putting an end to these atrocities is a different and more complex problem, however.

There is an excellent piece in the current issue of the New Yorker by David Remnick which gives some insight into how the Tsarnaev brothers became so depraved.  The seeds of the Chechnyan conflict go back to Stalin's time and beyond.  But you need only to look for images of Grozny after Putin got through with it.  It comes pretty close to resembling the "sizzling parking lots" that Russ so gleefully describes.  Plenty of vengeance on display there, but no end in sight.

I offer a quote from beyond the grave of a young boy who was obviously wise beyond his years and whose loss in Boston we mourn: "No more hurting people...Peace."

THAT is the goal, and unlike vengeance, it is not so easily achieved.  Painfully, it sometimes requires setting aside legitimate grievances for past wrongs.  But it is possible.  There are people serving in public office today who had no small hand in some of the despicable acts perpetrated by BOTH sides of the struggle for Irish independence.  That is a bitter pill to swallow.  But we can find comfort in the thought that, because it was swallowed, that cycle of violence is seemingly at an end, and it is more than likely that many people are alive today as a result.

Digger -

I agree with everything you just said.  I want nothing more for future generations than peace.

The challenge, of course, is how to get there from here.  As I have said in the past, I do not believe in retaliation for vengence's sake alone.  There has to be clear evidence that the retaliation serves to remove a future threat of violence against innocent people in my country and yours.

I would love nothing more than to find a way towards negotiated peace with Al Queda. But until they embrace a vision of the future where people of multiple faiths can share the world, I do not see how that is possible.  

Recall that the "Good Friday" peace accord was based on the idea that democracy and majority rule would determine the fate of Northern Ireland. After 30+ years of horrible violence, somehow all parties agreed that this was...fair.  The day that Al Queda arrives at some similar conclusion is the day talks can begin.  But until they stop talking about "pushing the Jews into sea" and until their leaders stop saying things like...