of IRA... Why does america glorify in the IRA when it is in fact terrorists who blew up amercia's lap dog britian! why is there statues of bobby sands in amercia yet another terrorist... to me it seems that america supports terrorism if it afflituates it self in the Irish business!! which is none of its business at all....
2007-03-26 08:41:12 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Very hypocritical, no?
2007-03-26 08:44:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Disclaimer: I will state my opinions as I truly believe them, I understand that others may disagree and I will try to show every one respect.
Saying the Sinn Fein and the IRA are terrorists would be like calling the Chinese terrorists in the Opium War. Yes the majority of Northern Ireland wants to remain part of Britain, but that is because Britain has had over eight-hundred years of dictatorial rule over Ireland. They have been spending that entire time trying to breed the Irish out of N. Ireland. Most of the population either are directly from Britain or descended from Britain, as such they don't only just have blood ties to Britain but they have grown up in a family that has taught from the British point of view. Britain has been in control for so long and up until about two centuries ago, they gave the Irish next to no rights and as a result there are barely any Irish who even speak Irish Gaelic anymore. Most of the true Irish in N. Ireland are either a part of the Sinn Fein/IRA or support it.
Unfortunately, America has not joined the Sinn Fein's side, we may support the idea of N. Ireland as a free country where the Sinn Fein are allowed to express their political views as long as they are in a civil and legal manner. Yet we have not said that we agree with the IRA's stance against being under Britain's dictatorial rule. It is true that you could say America is also a dictator because of our colonies, which do not have representation. Though I hate the lack of representation in our territories, we atleast did not obtain those lands by brutal fighting that has lasted for eight centuries.
As for Bobby Sands, the memorial that commemorates him up in Connecticut does not actually commemorate him but the 1981 Hunger Strike. The hunger strike in it self follows along the basic principalities of "Civil Disobedience".
I hope that I helped to answer your question and in a way redirect it. If you would like to discuss this topic with me I do not mind at all, my e-mail is hockeymenow11@yahoo.com.
Sláinte & Tiocfaidh ár lá,
God Bless,
Andrew Travis Pantazi
2007-03-26 22:42:40 · answer #2 · answered by andrew p 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it beats me why Bush would give that scumbag the time of day. I was pissed off when Clinton had this terrorist apologist over to the White House, and I'm not happy that Bush continued that sordid activity.
At least he doesn't have jihadist terrorists over like Clinton had Arafat over to the WH - more times than he met with the head of the CIA!
The presence of terrorists at the Peoples' House is indefensible.
2007-03-26 08:59:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I guess you've missed everythinig since 1998. The Provos have renounced violence and disarmed, and Sinn Fein is now one of two parties which comprise the new government of the Six Counies.
Bobby Sands was one of the greatest heroes of the Irish Republican movement, and I'm a damned sight prouder of him than I would be of ian Bollocks Paisley!
Tiocfaidh ar la!
2007-03-26 09:19:23 · answer #4 · answered by Rick N 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You ire is against the man, regardless of his "record" of performance.
He is also "nice" to lots of foreign people that don't have the best of intentions toward America. Doesn't mean he is in bed with them.
I know you are very angry at Bush. Heck, there's a bunch of stuff that I am angry at him for also.
Trying to paint him as a demon or someone that fosters terrorism raises more questions about your integrity than that of Bush. It is just too sweeping a generality.
2007-03-26 08:47:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
While Bush talks anti terrorism he is also busy propagating it. Our govt has been doing that kind of schizophrenic game for a long time. Why - somewhere along the line it will make $$$ and power corrupts logical thinking...
2007-03-26 08:48:12 · answer #6 · answered by mariee64 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ok,but I prefer a Sam Adams. 2 points.
2007-03-26 08:47:55 · answer #7 · answered by bugeyes 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are no terrorists. You want to make political opponents terrorists. This very wrong. What next China terrorists for being next world power?
I seem remember USA fighting english maybe they understand ireland oppression.
2007-03-26 08:46:07 · answer #8 · answered by George Davis 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Skippy one mans terrorist is another man freedom fighter..and when was the last time the IRA killed any one or did a bombing...hey didn't the Iraq surrender group want Bush to deal with Iran and other terrorist states...maybe you should ask why England is still in Ireland...looking for potatoes...I think not..shouldn't they have left yet..maybe its time for U.N. peace keepers..come on Skippy..talk to me...
2007-03-26 08:46:27 · answer #9 · answered by xjim7 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sinn Fein, like Hezbolla and Hamas is a legitimate political organisation seeking freedom of oppression for its people.
2007-03-29 17:40:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not just him, but American administrations going back years. For once I can't solely blame him for anything, which makes a change. Yes, the Yanks are hypocrits. As long as the attack in not on their soil they'll happily bankroll it.
2007-03-26 08:47:30 · answer #11 · answered by Jock 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋