Bombings at the Boston Marathon

Teddy -

Where did I ever excuse the activities of NORAID?  I said that they funneled money to the PIRA, a group whose actions I have always hated and condemned.  Please re-read my post, and please do not twist my words.

I also believe that the vast majority of British people felt that its military forces were neutral in the conflict, trying to uphold law and order in Northern Ireland and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to democratic self-determination.  

But that did not stop some British soldiers from working hand-in-hand with the UDA.  I've seen the pictures of the armed foot patrols walking together through the streets of Belfast with masked UDA thugs.  Many of the unionist paramilitary leaders were ex-British army.  It would not be right to do so in my opinion, but a silly argument could be made that every British taxpayer supported UDA/UFF bomb attacks on nationalist neighborhoods by funding the British army (who provided logistical support in targetting PIRA members for assassination).  Again, I am not making this argument, but to suggest that there was no support for the paramilitaries coming from individuals in the British army, or from radical right wing groups in the UK (e.g., the National Front) would, IMO, be very naive.

I agree with you that this is in the past, and please understand, I am trying to be respectful of this being a primarily British forum, most likely having members who were directly touched by violence during the conflict. I do not hold the British government or its people any more responsible for terrorist attacks any more than I hold the US government or its people responsible for terrorist attacks.  But as I have said now multiple times, there is no doubt in mind that there are individuals from both countries with blood on their hands, and I condemn them all.

Hook (out)

I can't do the "quotes" thing, but...

You seem to be downplaying the Bostonian contribution to PIRA because the FBI eventually clamped down on them.  

I've not suggested for one second that the British Army didn't have people involved with the UDA etc - so, as you say, stop twisting my words ( or even inventing them.) The IRA sent its people to join the British Army to learn how to use explosives, and get an idea of tactics, etc.

Foot patrols alongside the UDA? First I'd heard of that. 

No, Teddy, that is not correct.  I am not downplaying it all!   I'll say it one last time as clearly as I can.  I condemn all who gave money to NORAID knowing full well that it would go towards arming the PIRA.  There is blood on their hands, and I condemn what they did.

Is that clear enough for you?

Also, I never said that you denied British involvement with unionist terrorists.  All you said was that you, personally, never saw a collecting box.  And all I did was to point out that collecting did exist, and that it constituted the other, equally ugly side of the conflict.

Lastly, and I am sorry for posting this ugly picture, but it is just one of many...

Hook (out...)

PS - And really, this time I mean it.  You can have the last word, even if you choose to once again twist my words and their meaning.  Goodbye.

Hook

I'm sorry to keep digging away at this, but I have never seen or heard of a collecting box for the Loyalist side anywhere outside of Northern Ireland. I suspect that nobody else has, either. You tell me that there aren't any, because I've not seen any. I presume you are certain there are, having seen them with your own eyes?

Concerning your picture, the first thing that I note is that the UDA(?) and the Welsh Guardsman are in different dress states. The reason is obvious to me, and I think you've been duped if you think this is a joint patrol. My opinion is backed up by the title of the JPG - "oint-footpatrol-of-british-uda-terrorists-and-british-army-soldiers-british-occupied-north-of-ireland-1970"

British Occupied?? 

Googling "KKK police " brings up this picture, which is obviously the Police attending a KKK rally...

Don't quite get this - are you saying the UK phoned Uncle Sam who'd happily go and kill somebody?

I know the IRA killed at least one US citizen; didn't know the US had killed any IRA supporters.

Or are you just making that up?

Funny you should say that.

The Russians contacted the FBI and ask them to check out Tamerlan Tsarnaev, they where concerned at his activities during his jaunts back home.

The Russians are claiming the FBI did nothing, because they assumed any terrorist activity carried out by Tsarnaev would be aimed at Russia. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

They got that terribly wrong.

Russ, it is not OK to make up statistics to support your views - you might want to check on the 10 commandments for that.  I believe it's number 9 that has something to say about it.  Also, it's not OK to stir up resentment toward an entire religion for the actions of extremist elements within it.  Regretably, no religion, or for that matter, no political affiliation, is without it's lunatic fringe - yours included.

Moral considerations aside Russ, and I hope you will really think about this, it is not OK because it makes combating that fringe - the war on terror if you will - more difficult, and I would even go so far as to say it undermines it.

The recent disruption of a terrorist plot here in Canada which you celebrated in another post provides an excellent illustration of that point.  You might have noticed that at the begining of the press conference announcing the arrests, the police thanked the muslim community for their assistance in uncovering the conspiracy.  It appears that the police and security forces were alerted to it by a member of the muslim community, an imam in fact, who came forward more than a year ago to warn them of a danger of which they had previously been unaware.

Thankfully, there are a great many in the law enforcement and security intelligence community who recognize that the vast majority of muslims are just as horrified by these despicable acts as you are Russ.  Over the past many years they have worked hard to build bridges to that community and to establish a level of trust which encourages those people to come forward and alert them to imminent threats.

By making the kinds of statements you have made in this and other threads you are undermining those efforts and making us all less save.

So cut it out.

Tarquin and Fatcat: Didn't mean to ignore your previous posts.  What I meant in my last couple of posts was this:  not that the US would kill US citizens at the request of the UK, but rather that the UK didn't have to attack perpetrators on US soil (the analogy that had been drawn) because, if they requested assistance from the US, they would likely get it--deportation--that sort of thing. 

Now as to the Russians, the US and they do not have that degree of cooperation--due to hangover from the Cold War.  My position on this is kind of in the middle.  I don't trust the Russians to have our (the US's) interests very high on their list of concerns.  So I don't trust what Putin says.  On the other hand, I don't KNOW what transpired between them and us, so if they DID put us on to this sack of crap (Tamarlan), and we did nothing--as may be the case--then shame on us.

By the way, I think it was much further up in this thread that it was mentioned how his poor, dear, grieving Mum would just naturally defend her sweet babies.  So much for that--her latest was to say she didn't care if her youngest lived or died.  Then she uttered the cry that so many do when they set off an explosive device or open fire.  Meanwhile, this entire family of worthies came to the US claiming asylum, then drew welfare from the State of Massachusetts, yet found the money (piles of it, apparently) to drive nice cars and, in Tamarlan's case, to take a six month trip back to Russia. 

Bannanahead: OK, let's go ahead and call shootings of the kind you reference "Terrorism".  But then let us also remove the Fort Hood shooting from the column of "Workplace Related Violence" and call it that as well!

Best regards,

Russ

And Americans wonder why they can be so disliked in many parts of the world.....

Rabbie Burns was so right....

"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."

Jim

Ah, yes, but when the rest of the would-be free world has, in the past, misjudged tyranny, hasn't it been convenient to have our rude, obese, unsophisticated, overly-militant American asses around to bail it out?  Perhaps folks like Barack and HIllary won't be so accommodating as, oh, let us jjust say Franklin Roosevelt!  Actually, you can pretty much bet on it, because as Hook noted (with my agreement), young Americans strongly disagree with me and would side with most of the folks on this thread.  Only problem is, I'll just bet that most of the American soldiers who lie under European soil would have tended to agree with FDR more than with BHO.  And they are all dead.

As "Rabbie Burns" also said:

"For gold the merchant ploughs the main,

The farmer ploughs the manor;

But glory is the sodger's prize,

The sodger's wealth is honor;

The brave, true sodger ne'er despise,

Nor count him as a stranger;

Remember he's his country's stay,

In day and hour of danger."

With all due respect, our sodgers have proved helpful.  I predict that in the future, we (and you) will be counting them as strangers.  Best regards,

Russ

Agricola:

My curt answer was only aimed at those who love to bash anything and everything American.  Of course I realize that we are not always right.  Nor do I think there is anything superior about the United States.  But our status as superpower has been handy in the past--I know you are not arguing against that.  But no, we are by no means perfect!

Please trust me, my friend, I would NEVER say anything to denigrate the role Great Britain and other European nations, including the Resistance in overrun nations, played in defeating the Axis.  God knows, I am the biggest fan of Churchill on the planet.  You are absolutely right that we could not have done it on our own!  Hell, even the Normandy Invasion would not have been possible without the soil of England from which to embark.  And the soil of England would have been all Nazi had Britain not stood alone all those terrible months. 

You are also correct that folks in the US were not any more eager to go to war with Germany or Japan than many in Europe.  There was a definite feeling of isolationism that Roosevelt had to overcome.  But I do have to take relatively minor issue on a couple of points:

First, while we were admittedly slow as a people to enter the War, FDR and his popularity with Congress and the American People did help keep Britain in the fight via Lend Lease.  We violated neutrality all over the landscape prior to coming in.  But when we came in, we came with a vengeance--just as we did in 1917. 

Second: Even if Hitler had not declared war on us, once we were involved in the Pacific, it was inevitable that we would have joined in in the European theater.  Roosevelt and Churchill would have found a way to engineer it even if they had encountered opposition among the American People.  But they would not have.

Best regards,

Russ

Dear Russ,

I unfortunately deleted the posts you replied to.

But the point remains clear.

The USA emerged as top nation in 1945, and Britain was bankrupt. Britain was not alone in effort, though certainly the only nation in active armed combat with Nazi-ism immediately before Pearl Harbour.

I have serious doubts that the USA under Roosevelt would have joined the war on Nazi-ism had not Nazi-Germany declared war on the USA. It was knife edged to get the Congress to support even protecting the convoys across the Western-Atlantic at that stage.

Roosevelt was pro-Britain, but the populace - as represented in the houses of US parliament - was certainly not.

Farmer

A not unnoticed comment of the [US] popular press was that Britain would fight to the last American ...

Farmer,

I think I remember reading of that comment, and of course it is sad that anyone in the press would have made it.

And I suppose it is possible that, had Hitler not been a madman, and had he not declared war, the U.S. would have gone on for 3 1/2 years or more without touching off a war with Germany or Italy.  I respectfully doubt it, especially given the fact that not only were we sending goods and ships to Britain, but also escorting convoys all the way to Iceland.  The rules of engagement were such that if any German warships (mostly U-boats) approached within 100 miles of a convoy, they were to be destroyed.  Of course, we shall never know for certain.  But we can be happy it turned out as it did--Britain hung on with a tenacity that was far beyond admirable, in the face of tremendous pressure until the U.S. entered the War.  We fought together as allies.  And we are allies still.

Russ

Teddy: I cannot any longer find your post to which I promised a response a few days ago.  What I was referring to in saying that many in the media are portraying the bombers as "kids", "mixed up kids", "nice kids" etc. came from an audio montage I heard either on the evil Rush Limbaugh program or the evil Shawn Hannity program--either of which one should never listen to. 

The bit was taken from about twenty or more commentators talking about the bombers.  Every one of them used the word "kid"--they all had that in common, and then each had other appellations added on.  True, the lines were taken out of context and since the bias was obviously right wing in nature, there was a negative bent toward the left.  But the gist in which I am interested is the use of the word "kid" which tends to add an element to the reporting that implies at least a lessened degree of responsibility--say, over that implied by using the word "men". 

Sorry for the delay in answering you.  I looked for the bit on the internet and I think I found it on Utube (it was Limbaugh) but I could not download it. 

Best regards,

Russ

Was it not the other way around? 

Germany would have got stronger and stronger and declared war on America eventually if Great Britain and Russia had not stood in its way. It was inevitable was it not?. Hitler wanted the whole world. Therefore waiting until Britain, Russia and Germany were on their knees (and having made a good deal of money first) seems to me to be a tad despicable and opportunistic. The (eventual) American contribution came a long time after it was promised (by Roosevelt who in addition despised the British Empire and wanted to see it weakened) and cost the US far less in terms of lost lives. Posturing as the savior of Europe just adds more insult to injury in my view. Maybe Russia and Britain saved the US? 

Oh, to a great extent they did help save us--as I said--by holding strong at Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain.  Not posing as the savior of the world, but just having the gall to point out that, when Europe failed stand firm against Hitler as he violated every single term of the Treaty of Versaille (and after all, they were right there n Harm's way and chose to build an antiquated wall (France) and engage in wishful thinking (following Chamberlain instead of Churchill). 

So I suppose I am to believe that FDR was a god in the domestic arena--creating the New Deal, creating entitlements, and single-handedly ending the Great Depression--but evil incarnate in foreign affairs--because it took him so long to get the US into the War.

And the US was dead wrong for engaging in isolation--but we shall say nothing about that of Europe which was sitting right on the edge of the volcano!  Great logic, there what?  Or am I just being backward and unsophisticated? 

Best regards,

Russ

From the Boston bombing to WW II, and on the other thread from Margaret Thatcher's funeral to gay marriage...  We all direly need a NO VEERING traffic sign to remind us to stay on course.

Absolutely not. That is the whole beauty of the Padded Cell.

cheers

Don

Well this thread has certainly moved off subject, from the thoroughly depressing to quite interesting speculation about WWII.  So here goes on the latter.

Given the background of WWI I'd suggest that USA's isolationism was understandable: why get embroiled in (another) spat between old European powers when they seemingly didn't learn lessons last time? Britain might have wanted to appear to be doing the decent thing in standing up to fascism. No doubt much truth in that, but weren't there also underlying motives of some of the ruling classes about the preservation of empire with a willingness to lay down the lives of its working classes to achieve it?  No, I don't criticise the USA for staying out of WWII for so long.

And what real threat did the axis powers pose to the USA? Japan, perhaps, in its expansionism into the Pacific.  That conflict might have been unavoidable at some point, even if Japan hadn't made the monumental misjudgement about US psyche in thinking it could give the American's a bloody nose at Pearl Harbour and they would sue for peace (10 out of 10 for stupidity on that one!).  The outcome of the war in the Pacific though was never in doubt and would have been achieved by the USA alone without any help of its allies.

Europe, though. Now that's a different matter.  If Adolf had been smarter and looked to foster the US's reluctance to enter the European conflict I think it would have needed something pretty seismic for the US President to persuade the US people to unilaterally declare war on Germany.  Assistance in sending supplies to Britain was never going to a decisive. And without the US military and logistic support Britain and its (old Empire) allies were never going to be in a position to mount an invasion of Italy or N. France with a realistic prospect of success.  Nor would Britain have developed the bomb on its own.

So where would that have left the European war?  The campaign in North Africa would eventually have fizzled out, as would Bomber Harris' campaign. So Hitler would have been left to fight the Russians with pretty much full resources at his disposal.  

The Eastern front conflict was by no means a certain outcome.  If the weather and ever-lenthening supply lines thwarted an eventual German victory, some sort of stalemate was also quite possible, but at a point well into Russian territory. This would have given the Germans time to exploit the industrial resources of the Ukraine and Baltic States.  And the possibility of additional manpower, given the Russians weren't exactly popular in the Baltic states, so strengthening Germany's ability to defend much of the land it had conquered. 

I'd suggest the inevitable defeat of Japan wouldn't have had much impact on the European war, and the latter would likely have ground on until some point at which Britain and Germany would have reached an armistice leaving German domination of Western Europe and Britain with what was left of its empire (India and bits and bobs).  That was pretty much the 'deal' that Germany had offered Britain after France had been conquered.  A deal Churchill turned down but one that Halifax might have accepted.

Meanwhile Germany and Russia would continue to slug it out, possibly ending up with some 51st parallel equivalent until politics in both countries and/or the death of the respective dictators allowed some progress.  The Nazis would eventually have been elbowed from power by the industrialists and the German old-guard and a face of international respectability would have been created.

Europe today would, I'd suggest, look pretty different.  But I suspect the USA would still have gone on to be the power it is today, but might not have had the distraction of the Soviet empire along the way.   

Still, nice to speculate.

MDS