Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Erikl

BREAKING NEWS: Attackers seize Russian school

299 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DC09
Every single one of these countries that now 'hate' us do so because we screwed up a financial boon for them.  All of these countries, Germany, France, Egypt, and many others were deep into the 'oil for food' scam by the UN.  We screwed up their golden chicken egg machine.

Damn straight. thumbsup.gif

Edited by Kellalor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs
Every single one of these countries that now 'hate' us do so because we screwed up a financial boon for them.   All of these countries, Germany, France, Egypt, and many others were deep into the 'oil for food' scam by the UN.  We screwed up their golden chicken egg machine.

Damn straight. thumbsup.gif

263026[/snapback]

Damn straight again! thumbsup.gifwink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor
Every single one of these countries that now 'hate' us do so because we screwed up a financial boon for them. All of these countries, Germany, France, Egypt, and many others were deep into the 'oil for food' scam by the UN. We screwed up their golden chicken egg machine.

I suppose you have extensive proof from a wide range of sources to back this up eh???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

No tongue.gif they don't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
I suppose you have extensive proof from a wide range of sources to back this up eh???

i can't see any other reason why Germany and France (especially France and i don't know about Egypt so i'm not going to comment on it:P ) would oppose the war in the UN. Remember, France promised to veto any military action, and the UN DID believe the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

Russia's grim return to reality

It was the first Monday morning after the Beslan siege.

Children were arriving at the school on Bakhrushina Street in central Moscow: small girls with oversize ribbons festooning their hair, small boys, fidgety and chattering, dwarfed by large satchels.

Welcoming them in, the headmaster, Vyacheslav Nikolayevich was understandably nervous.

Terrorism is on everyone's mind in Russia these days, and nowhere more so than in schools, now potential targets.

#Already extra funding has been allocated. There has been talk of panic buttons to alert local police or guards on the playground but the rhetoric has not yet been translated into action.

The headmaster sighed in frustration.

"The police show some interest," he said. "But what we really need is a round-the-clock guard on the buildings."

Soldiering on

Everyone is anxious about attacks.

It is less than two weeks since the last suicide bomb at a Moscow metro station which killed 10 people.

And not yet three weeks since 90 died when two separate Russian airliners exploded in mid-air - apparently two co-ordinated suicide bombings.

It has not stopped people leading lives as usual.

"What else can we do?" said one parent at the school.

"You've got to get to work somehow. You just have to be fatalistic."

It is easy to assume what happened in Beslan must be Russia's 11 September.

But, unlike the United States, Russia has been living with terrorism for 10 years now, including some horrific hostage crises: in 1995 and 1996 Chechen militants seized whole hospitals full of patients in southern Russia.

And two years ago the siege of the Dubrovka Moscow theatre seemed about as terrifying as you could imagine.

Hurting children

Well now, it has turned out, there was a worse scenario: the deliberate targeting of small children, held without food or water, and shot in the back as they fled in terror.

So when a big Kremlin rally was called the other day, it was not entirely a government-inspired charade.

It is true some did wave banners which said "Putin, my s vami" ("Putin, we're with you").

It is true some people were bussed in from outlying areas, Soviet-style.

But there was also genuine emotion.

"It was such a monstrous crime," said one man I spoke to.

"All the earlier terrorism attacks, you could sort of disconnect yourself from. But when they target children, we're all affected."

"It's like the beginning of the end of the world," added his wife quietly.

I have always thought children had a special place in Russian society - perhaps because many people only have one child, or perhaps because of how families are structured.

More than one Russian friend has confessed to me that she feels closer to her mother than to her husband.

Or perhaps it is because life can be so hard here, the joy of a child makes them precious not just to their own parents but to everyone, a reason to smile in grim conditions.

Facts and lies

It is also a fact that many people here know a good deal about what happened in Beslan.

Not from the state-controlled channels on TV, but from the newspapers.

The whole front page of one paper on Saturday was a single photo of a soldier carrying a half-naked, bleeding child, and more arresting pictures and commentary on the inside pages.

The paper's editor has since lost his job, many believe on orders from the Kremlin.

But other newspapers were equally blunt.

"The last five terrorist attacks were one long uninterrupted stream of lies," said one article.

"Putin always says we're stronger than the terrorists - it isn't true," said another.

In fact, when it comes to Mr Putin, it seems this crisis has divided Russian opinion.

Kremlin spin

The Kremlin's view is that Russia no longer faces internal insurgency - gunmen fighting for a Chechen homeland.

Instead, it is a war with an international Islamist network, using Chechens as pawns to weaken the Russian state by destabilising the entire North Caucasus.

The solution is to crack down hard.

And there are plenty of Russians who agree with that.

"I think we should do like Stalin, put them in a camp or build a wall around them, like Israel," said one young woman.

But others say blaming foreign intervention is only a pretext.

"Why do the Russian authorities insist this is international terrorism?" said one Russian commentator.

"Because then it won't appear these children died because of the war in Chechnya."

And the danger, goes this argument, is that if President Putin continues to push Chechen rebels into a corner, he could create the very problem that he fears, militant Islam across the North Caucasus, creating mayhem that no Russian government can cope with.

Either way, it is a gloomy prognosis.

"We don't want Russia to become another Middle East," said one analyst to me this week.

"But that is what we fear could happen."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/3646834.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

The US and Russia on terrorism

President George Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have made common cause in the war against terror.

Mr Bush has strongly condemned those responsible for the hostage-taking in southern Russia, telling Mr Putin that America stands with the Russian people.

Both leaders, says a White House spokesman, are working together "to defeat global terrorism".

This solidarity stems, in part, from a quite natural human response to the drama that is unfolding at the school. Many children are among the hostages, and fearful and anguished parents are waiting beyond the security perimeter for news.

But inevitably, there is a good deal of politics as well. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, President Putin embarked on a significant tilt in Russian foreign policy.

He determined to stand alongside the Americans in the face of the terrorist threat. Indeed, he did not just provide rhetorical support. Russia played a practical and diplomatic role in helping to facilitate the US assault on Afghanistan.

'Divided'

Since then, the common rhetoric has served both leaders well. For Mr Bush, it emphasises his contention that America really is facing a global terrorist phenomenon. And for Mr Putin, it enables him to deflect some of the foreign criticism of Russia's handling of the Chechen crisis.

There is no doubt that foreign Islamic fighters have played a role in the Chechen conflict. The tactic of using suicide bombers appears to have been imported from outside.

But most experts tend to see this as a problem of Chechen nationalism, rather than a close relation of America's fight against al-Qaeda.

Opinion in Washington - even within the Bush Administration - is increasingly divided. Mr Bush himself may be sincere in his view that Russia and the US face essentially the same challenge.

But many US experts believe that Mr Putin's harsh measures in Chechnya have actually compounded the problem and that Russia's security forces are now struggling to cope with the consequences.

They argue that Moscow has invoked the same language and the same enemies in order to apply even tougher policies on the ground in Chechnya and that this policy has largely failed. For all the sympathy in the face of specific incidents, Russia's methods inevitably spark controversy in the West.

Nonetheless, the recent wave of attacks in Russia appears to have created a widespread sense of insecurity - a public concern about the terrorist threat very similar to the feeling in the United States after 9/11.

And, just as the Americans found out in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, military measures are only part of the solution.

Russia may remain Mr Bush's global partner in the war against terror - at least at the rhetorical level - but in reality the US-Russia relationship has largely stagnated in the wake of the Afghan war.

If Mr Bush's chief foreign policy goals are the fight against terrorism, countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the promotion of democracy, then experts say that on at least two of these counts, Russia could do a good deal more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3621140.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

i can't see any other reason why Germany and France (especially France and i don't know about Egypt so i'm not going to comment on it:P ) would oppose the war in the UN. Remember, France promised to veto any military action, and the UN DID believe the evidence.

So bathory you dont have any proof then???

I mean your one of the first to say "do you have any sources?" or "do you have any proof?" when people say something like george bush lied about iraq.

I mean your being hyporcritical at best, but i forgot the people with right wing attitudes on the forum are allowed to say unsubstatiated stuff like that cxause we all support and sponsor terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fmorrow6

I live in the US. I have been reading your discussion over this topic. I first would like to say that my heart goes out to all the families and the victims of this horrific attack. Also, my thoughts and prayers goes to all who will be effected by the future effects this may have on all the innocent people who live in those countries.

I've heard many of you say that the american's are ignorant and arrogant because we ignite "A war on Terror" only after 9/11, when terrorists have been attacking different countries for thousands of years.

In our defense, we have been the "policeman" of the world for generations now. Our soldiers have died trying to defend what we thought was right. In many countries, Bosnia, Germany, Africa, and all over the middle east. Through both fighting, and giving aid.

Having said that, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just speaking from my point of view and experience.

Growing up here, the thought of terrorists never was brought up around me. America hasn't had to confront that problem before 9/11. We fought our war on freedom back in the 1700' s against great Britian, and again in the 1800's against ourselves, (the civil war).

Had we been confronted with terrorism befor 9/11, we would have declared a war on terrorism then. But we haven't. So now we are reacting the way we should. I don't see how any of you can condemn us for doing so.

Those of you fighting for freedom's and land, my heart goes out to you. THose of you who have been living in wartime for centuries, my prayers are with you. But don't condemn my country because we are involved late in the game, or because we have taken a proactive approach since 9/11. We know it's not the first terrorist attack the world has seen, but it's OUR first. And we are fighting it with the blood of our Fathers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons and Daughters because we feel that the fight is right and JUST.

I don't feel hatred for Muslams or Russians or Arabs or any other Country or Race, So why hate me and my country for defending ourselves.

There is evil in this world. These animals who kill innocent kids and civilians, and I hope that the good people of each country will band together to fight it. If not to rid the world of terrorists, and least take a stand and say that this WORLD will not tolerate it.

God bless you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Well put, and welcome! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Yea, fmorrow6! thumbsup.gifnotworthy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor
Had we been confronted with terrorism befor 9/11, we would have declared a war on terrorism then. But we haven't. So now we are reacting the way we should. I don't see how any of you can condemn us for doing so.

Your post was very poetic fmorrow.

However to this comment i can only explain a few things.

Now im assuming youve read quite a few posts on our debates we have.

So ill explain my standpoint to you.

We arent condemning the US for protecting itself not at all i dont think there are many here who are.

1. We are mainly only arguing that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and POSSIBLY not the right route. That said i did originally back the war, believing my GOVT about the WMD's, subsequently when none were found i was very suspiscious and did not like the fact i was lied too, after the beslan outrage i have somewhat changed to a more hardline stance, now all i want to hear is the truth , if mmy givt is saying to me look we can let the guys control us through oil so we are gonna look after our nation and go on so we aint held to ransom then fair enough. I ll back them and fight if need be. I mean i totally and unequivocally back the invasion of afhganistan , without hesitation, the protected osama , in my opinion america shouldve went in staight away. That was different.

2. We get very defensive when we are criticised for "not understanding what its like " in a reference to terrorism IE: 9/11, especially when for 5 deacdes terrorism has been the blight of my nation and sectarian hatred an evil sore on our people. We understand terrorism VERY well , we've grown up with sectarian hatred and the terrorist spectre all our lives , so to be told that we "dont understand" is both ignorant and insulting to the memorey of the thousands of dead and many thosuands of injured in my nation, not to mention other terrorist threats to other country's IE: spain.

3. This is a more contetious issue, when some memeber attack us and say we are on the terrorists side or say we are terrorist sypmathisers it really gets me angry, for one The IRA had massive not just support but funding from American sources, please dont refute this , our govt has published findings that have shown involvement, not by the american govt BTW. I mean we find it highly hypocrytical that just becuase we dont agree with the war in iraq we are called terrorist sympathisers yet many many many ameicans backed the IRA's campaigns of terror against us, yet there is little mention of this by those memberes, little condemnation of this.

I meanthis was done through sheer ignorance a daft romantic notion that Tthe IRA were still freedom fighters when really they were just bigoted religious fanatics who hated us not just through religion but because we existed and wanted to destroy us.....see the parallels .

This reply was not an attack on you at all not in the slightest i understand where you are coming from , but as we are consistently being told to look at the wider picture by the pro-bush camp then so must they and yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fmorrow6

WELL, GOOD MORNING.

AND I, AGAIN, WILL SAY THAT FORTUNATELY OUR COUNTRY HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SCALE OF TERRORISM THAT YOURS HAS.

UNFORTUNATELY, I'M NOT WELL VERSED IN THE HISTORY OF THE IRA, AND I PRAY TO GOD THAT ANYTHING I HAVE BOUGHT OR DONE HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE IRA OR ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRORIST OR MILITANT GROUP.

I, AND MOST AMERICANS, HAVE NOT FOR A SECOND CRITIZED ANY COUNTRY FOR "NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT'S LIKE". I KNOW THAT I HAVE TRULY BEEN BLESSED FOR GROWING UP IN THE USA WHERE THIS IS, SCRATCH THAT, WAS, NOT A COMMON PROBLEM, AND WASN'T ON THE TOP OF OUR LISTS.

I, TOO, BACKED THE WAR ON IRAQ WHEN I WAS TOLD THERE WERE WMD. I'M NOT SO SURE THERE WASN'T. THEY COULD HAVE EXPORTED THEM TO A NEARBY ALLIED COUNTRY. WHO TRULY KNOWS, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL EVER FIND OUT THE TRUTH.

I AM CERTAIN THAT I DO BELIEVE SADDAM HUSSEIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF POWER, IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST GULF WAR. I THINK IT WILL TAKE YEARS FOR IRAQ TO BE PEACEFUL. BUT, AT LEAST NOW THERE IS HOPE THAT IT WILL BE PEACEFUL. WITH SH IN POWER, AND HIS FAMILY LINED UP TO TAKE OVER WHEN HE DIED, IRAQ WAS FACED WITH THE SAME GRIM FUTURE AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. I'M NOT SAYING OUR WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY, OR THE ONLY WAY, I'M JUST SAYING SH'S WAY DEFINATELY ISN'T. BUSH MAY HAVE HAD HIS OWN PERSONAL AGENDA, BUT HOWEVER IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED I'M GLAD IT DID.

I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU THAT RAIDING AFGHANISTAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRST PRIORITY. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS THAT THEY NEED TO DEAL WITH, AND MAY NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER OR RESOURCES TO BACK A WAR, OR THIS WAR ISN'T THEIR TOP PRIORITY.

I AM A BUSH BACKER, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE WAY HE AND HIS PARTY WENT ABOUT THIS WAR, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WERE ARE NECK DEEP IN A SESSPOOL OF EVIL. I DON'T THINK THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE BALLS TO DEAL WITH IT.

EVEN IF BUSH HAD NOT GONE TO WAR WITH IRAQ, AND JUST STUCK TO AFGAHNISTAN AND THE WAR ON TERROR, IT WOULD HAVE EVENTUALLY SPREAD TO IRAQ, IRAN, AND OTHER COUNTRIES. HIS STARTING POINT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CORRECT, BUT THE ENDING POINT, WILL BE THE SAME.

THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT WHEN THE USS COLE WAS BOMBED. (HE WAS TO BUSY MAKING A MOCKERY OF OUR COUNTRY, DOING THE DIRTY IN THE OVAL OFFICE.)

SO I AM GLAD THAT BUSH TOOK THE CHALLENGE. HOPEFULLY, WITH EVERY TERRORIST TRACKED DOWN, NO MATTER WHAT THEY'RE CAUSE OR WHERE THEY'RE FROM, ONE BY ONE, IT WILL MAKE THE WORLD ALITTLE BETTER AND SAFER FOR OUR KIDS.

GOD BLESS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

erm theres no need to shout BTW. lol

If you arent well versed on the IRA then dont comment on it please we've had enough of that.

BTW many of the americans on this forum have criticised countryy's saying "we dont understand what its like" thats what i was explaining to you.

Ok ill tell all the hundreds of thousands of victims of the iRA that we havent faced terror on a scale that america has.

We only suffered 50 years of SUSTAINED ATTACKS.

These are the kind of comments that annoy us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fmorrow6

I wasn't shouting, my caps lock was on and i didn't bother to turn it off.

Your transcribing my words. I said OUR hasn't been faced with the scale of terrorism YOUR country has.

And i didn't comment on the IRA, you did. I wouldn't bring it up if i didn't know about it. Which i didn't. So why don't you read and listen befor you reply.

I would never downgrade the tragedies other countries have suffered. I'm the FIRST to admit that the USA has been fortunate with this issue.

So again, I'm not at all attacking you or your country. So relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

sorry i misread your post. my fault .

the caps thing was just annoying.lol

But you see whilst you seem very open minded theres quite a few on here who talk down the sectarian hatred we have here.

Read the 1000 dead soldiers thread from start to finnish youll totally understand then.

Again sorry for the misintepretation

Edited by wunarmdscissor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fmorrow6

no problem. I'm not so savvy at the chat thing. This is actually the first time i've posted anything,

so the abbreviation thing, clue me in sometimes (BTW?) i have no clue. I like to think of myself as an open minded person. Thanks!

I like to read other people's oppinions, because i think the media is completely biased, and i can only find out whats going on in other countries from someone who is living there.

Thanks again for listening and responding. I don't know if you don't tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

Wund, I knew about the Protestant-Catholic conflict in North Ireland, but I didn't know that the motivations of the IRA were religious ones.

I thought it just wanted to annex N. Ireland to Ireland.

Also I thought that the IRA mostly targeted military targets, not civilians ones.

On the other hand, it is known that the IRA and the PA/PLO are close allies and have assisted eachother in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

BTW is just By The Way.

I dont really use much of those abbreviation things lol.

Read that 1000 dead soldiers thread i had a big argument with exactly the same memebers i was talking about.

BTW i like joc, although it seems like i dont in that thread i actually do liek him lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fmorrow6

I will definately read it. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor
Wund, I knew about the Protestant-Catholic conflict in North Ireland, but I didn't know that the motivations of the IRA were religious ones.

I thought it just wanted to annex N. Ireland to Ireland.

Also I thought that the IRA mostly targeted military targets, not civilians ones.

On the other hand, it is known that the IRA and the PA/PLO are close allies and have assisted eachother in the past.

God aye the IRA are extremeley Religion motivated , as are the paramilitary organisations like the UVF etc.

And they attacked many, many civilian targets . I dont think think military deaths are including in the death toll for the troubles actually.

They do want to annex n.ireland but they also want ireland to be a catholic state, they hate protestants intensely.

I myself am a protestant.

This is ognna sound so daft to outsiders but its deadly serious. the football club i support has deep catholic btraditions going back to the irish immigrants who set it uo. its fan base are intensely anti-protestant and the PLO fllag is flown regulary at gamnes erikl.

I am ashamed to say it mate, i hate it cos ive crossed the divide, i should by tradition be a Rangers supporter , who are the protestant team , thiere fan base are ver crown orientated. and fly teh UVF and red hand of ulster banners at their games.

The violence when the too meet is crazy and this is just football. these are "normal" people who turn into animals.

Can you imagine what the real deal lunatics are like .

I mean the gamez are used as recruiting grounds for support form both sides.

It is 10 times worse in n.ireland.

It is religion based and land based 2nd.

The hatred is seething.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

Wund how many civilians were killed by IRA terrorism, and does the IRA used suicide bombing like the Palestinians do?

Also I thogought the IRA was dismantled and there's peace now blink.gif

Can you imagine what the real deal lunatics are like .

I think I can... tongue.gif

Edited by Erikl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

Here is an article I've found on the internet regarding PLO and IRA cooperation:

"August 21, 2002, 9:00 a.m.

IRA + PLO =Terror.

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

Following the Israeli incursion into Jenin earlier this year, Paul Collinson, a British explosives expert working with the Red Cross, identified hundreds of explosive devices found there and noted that "the pipe bombs I found in Jenin are exact replicas of ones I found in Northern Ireland." The Daily Telegraph quoted a U.S. government official as saying in response: "If there was clear and convincing evidence that the IRA has been training Palestinians in bomb-making techniques, then we are facing a grave and grievous situation for the IRA — it would surely lead to a reassessment of whether the IRA should be put on the designated list of terrorist organizations with a global reach."

The incident came on the heels of a shooting spree of ten Israelis with a bolt-action rifle, perpetrated by a single sniper who left his rifle behind. This technique was also identified as a Irish Republican Army (IRA) trademark.

But the IRA's connections are not limited to the Middle East or the Palestinians. On April 24, 2001, the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations published the findings of its investigation into IRA activities in Colombia. Their report clearly demonstrated a longstanding connection with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), mentioned at least 15 more IRA terrorists who have been traveling in and out of Colombia since 1998, and estimated that the IRA had received at least $2 million in drug proceeds for training members of FARC.

A more recent report, published in May by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, identified Hezbollah, Hamas, and a number of other Middle Eastern terrorist organizations as active in Colombia and the Triborder Region (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Venezuela).

Last week, President Alvero Uribe declared a state of emergency in Colombia as a result of mortar attack by FARC terrorists during his inauguration. This attack killed 21 people and injured 60 more, and was followed by further attacks resulting in more than 100 people dead. Colombian law-enforcement sources have confirmed that the bombing techniques used by FARC are identical to those used by the Irish Republican Army.

The IRA/FARC connection was first made public on August 11, 2001, following the arrest in Bogota of two IRA explosives and urban-warfare experts and of a representative of Sinn Fein (the IRA's political wing) who was known to be stationed in Cuba and on the payroll of the Cuban Communist party. The three had explosive traces on their clothes and luggage, but claimed they were in Colombia to advise the FARC on their "peace talks" with the government. The false travel documents they carried, however, raised doubts about their peaceful intentions. Since then, the violent attacks of the FARC have escalated, at a cost of hundreds of lives — of civilians as well as military personnel.

President Uribe's decision to rid Colombia of the FARC follows years of attempts by previous governments to appease the narco-terrorists. The "Land for Peace" initiative — handing over almost half the country to the FARC in order to bring them to the negotiating table — was encouraged by both the European Union and the Clinton administration. The EU went as far as to invite FARC terrorists to Europe and send them diplomatic delegations, thus giving them legitimacy and political power. The more the former Colombian government and the Europeans appeased the terrorists, the bolder the terrorists became. Similar appeasement towards Palestinian terrorists groups, including financial aid and "Land for Peace" initiative, by the EU and the Clinton administration, had similar disastrous effect in the Middle East.

The Department of State for many years has designated the FARC as a foreign terrorist organization. Before 9/11, U.S. officials were quoted as calling it "the most dangerous international terrorist group based in the Western Hemisphere." Only in late June — and over French and Swedish objections — did the EU add FARC to its terrorist list, still omitting the second-largest narco-terrorist groups, the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN) and Hezbollah.

Students of terrorism can easily trace the IRA's connections to the PLO and its numerous factions back to the 1970s and 1980s, when IRA and PLO operatives trained together in Libya and the Bekaa Valley. Today, IRA involvement is ongoing in Colombia, where al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad factions — to name a few — are engaged in illegal arms and drug trafficking and money-laundering. Recent revelations about al Qaeda training methods has been also identified as carrying some of the IRA's trademarks. If the EU and the Bush administration would unify their terrorist lists with "global reach" to include all terrorist organizations — including the IRA, Hezbollah, all Palestinian terror organizations, and the ELN — we might then have a better chance to win the war on terrorism.

— Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the Manhattan-based Center for the Study of Corruption and The Rule of Law, is the author of Narco Terrorism and Evil Money, and is working on a new book, Funding Evil: Follow the Money Trail, to be published in 2003."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

i think civilians is like 4000 at the moment.

No there was never suicide bombers although i do know that many of the IRA snipers who killed military targets were on suicide missions not the same though as suicide bommbers on a bus which was at least spared that way.

You see the irish terrorists didnt have an endless amount of terrorists too if they all blew themselves up thered be none left lol.

The IRA have more or less being dismantled by the eofforts in the peace process of the Labour government it has too be said.

However the sectarian hatred is as bad as ever, they just dont have the infrastructure any more and our security servoces got excellent at dealing with both sides.

The last bombing was by a splinter group called the real IRA , and thankfully that was a long time ago now, although the punishment deaths still carry on.

The reason it stopped was down to the Irish people who stood up to them and said we've had enough no more kilkling woman and children in our name.

it was never as bad as it was for you though erikl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

BTW, is it true that in Belfast, Israeli flags are flown side by side the union jack by protestants, while the PLO falgs are flown side by side the seperatists flags of the catholics? laugh.gif

EDIT: Oh, well, I guess the following image taken on April 2002, in Belfast, N. Ireland, kinda answer this original.gif :

user posted image

Edited by Erikl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.