This might make interesting reading.... a Chair of of the House Homeland Security Committee was (is) an out and out IRA supporter. When I visited the USA, friends told me that Americans have a very limited view of world politics, unless in some way they are directly affected. I fear that this aricle confirms that assertion.

^^ An IRA collaborator as Chairman of a Homeland Security committee..........how absurd.

IMO, this article demonstrates the insidious support that existed for the IRA, not just in the pubs of Boston (which was in no way covert, of course), but also in the corridors of power in Washington. High-profile personalities such as Tipp O'Neill and the Kennedies were not entirely innocent in this respect, which frighteningly demonstrates the cross-party nature of the support

Look you're not going to change the past, but if you've got evidence of specific Irish terrorists living in the U.S., then push that publicly. That's all that can be done.

Of course we can't change the past, but one would hope to see some recognition of the past from the US..... an acknowledgement not only on the dreadful effects of terrorism on the US, which any sane person abhorrs, but also an acknowledgement of the effects of the support for "brave freedom fighters" given by misguided US citizens.

I don't think that taking the "what's done is done" approach really comes close, do you? The OP had asked for opinion from US members, but the silence has been deafening. I will not try to suggest reasons why this has been so....

Probably because it's one of the greatest embarrassments in modern US history...........actively raising money for terrorists, putting on civic functions to greet guest terrorist speakers.

I would like to have seen the reaction if Boston City Hall had put on a meet and greet for Osama Bin Laden.

It's not a political issue in the slightest in the U.S. I can see why you think that's wrong. During the heat of it my impression is that the general American public was mostly sympathetic to the Irish terrorists political aims and not happy with British military oppression but was NOT in favor of any kind of terror attacks on innocent civilians.

It's not a political issue in the slightest in the U.S. I can see why you think that's wrong. During the heat of it my impression is that the general American public was mostly sympathetic to the Irish terrorists political aims and not happy with British military oppression but was NOT in favor of any kind of terror attacks on innocent civilians.

Military oppression. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, safeguarding UK nationals is oppression. ?

It's not a political issue in the slightest in the U.S. I can see why you think that's wrong. During the heat of it my impression is that the general American public was mostly sympathetic to the Irish terrorists political aims and not happy with British military oppression but was NOT in favor of any kind of terror attacks on innocent civilians.

Military oppression. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, safeguarding UK nationals is oppression. ?

I am just reporting the general mood about the situation in the U.S. Not passing judgment on truth.

It's not a political issue in the slightest in the U.S. I can see why you think that's wrong. During the heat of it my impression is that the general American public was mostly sympathetic to the Irish terrorists political aims and not happy with British military oppression but was NOT in favor of any kind of terror attacks on innocent civilians.

Military oppression. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, safeguarding UK nationals is oppression. ?

I am just reporting the general mood about the situation in the U.S. Not passing judgment on truth.

UK military presence in NI was purely to stop the murder of UK nationals. Folk from USA were funding senseless murder. As you know. Some double standards here, BUT I commend your comments on the subject where OTHERS are hiding.

It's funny how this thread has concentrated on NI, when what provoked it was presumably the Boston Marathon incident.

As an Englishman who has never been across the pond, I can only give the impressions I've gained from the media, and doubtless our American friends will hasten to correct me.

I have the strong impression that American attitudes to terrorism changed radically with 9/11. Before then (and that includes most of the NI incidents), the general attitude was that terrorism was something which happened elsewhere; it was something unpleasant, but didn't immediately concern Americans.

9/11 in one day shattered that illusion. Terrorists could attack Americans on American soil, something which had felt inconceivable before. Attitudes changed overnight from a rather distant distaste to something near paranoia. That's quietened down a bit, but an incident like the Boston bombing brings it to the surface again.

"This topic may get a bit heated however it's intended for a genuine exchange of ideas, it's not US bashing."

Mr. Blether, did you think there would be any other possible outcome than US bashing?

On a serious note, it seems IB has the best answer so far in post 41. It isn't that the US citizenry wasn't aware of terrorism and all it's affiliated horrors, it was simply that the huge majority of US citizens felt immune from it. I dealt first hand with several acts of terrorism before 9/11 but that was in an overseas environment. Most Americans had never experienced it up close and personal. They opened their eyes on 9/11.

As far as Yank participation on this thread is concerned, so far Jingthing, maccaroni man, Ulysses G and myself have contributed. It might not be what some members want to hear but there have been posts made..

This might make interesting reading.... a Chair of of the House Homeland Security Committee was (is) an out and out IRA supporter. When I visited the USA, friends told me that Americans have a very limited view of world politics, unless in some way they are directly affected. I fear that this aricle confirms that assertion.

Chairs are designed to support people - either upright chairs giving good support at the dining table or easy chairs giving less support in the longe. Kitchen chairs are the exception, they are light enough to enable the wife to pick them up and throw them, when annoyed with the husband.

In Britain we like to dramatise the impact of the troubles, but to be honest fewer people on the mainland were affected by the IRA than are Americans by their insistence on the right to bear arms. Effective policing, professional and well-trained and disciplined security forces, and a reasonable record on civil rights ensured that. Ultimately, a lot of the trouble could be lain at the feet of the imperialist Irish government that claimed the whole of Ireland.

if one wants to see real terrorism, one should go to the Southern provinces of Thailand, the Basque country; for military oppression, go to Chechnya.

SC

This might make interesting reading.... a Chair of of the House Homeland Security Committee was (is) an out and out IRA supporter. When I visited the USA, friends told me that Americans have a very limited view of world politics, unless in some way they are directly affected. I fear that this aricle confirms that assertion.

Chairs are designed to support people - either upright chairs giving good support at the dining table or easy chairs giving less support in the longe. Kitchen chairs are the exception, they are light enough to enable the wife to pick them up and throw them, when annoyed with the husband.

I assume he was not the only person to chair this committee, hence the term. (Another example of two peoples divided by a common language!)

kitchen chairs? dining chairs same same

On 15th April 1986 I had a darts match in the evening, about 20km South of Benghazi in one of the better camps. As it was German-run the home-brew was excellent and we imbibed heavily.

I drove back to my billet in Benghazi around 11 in the evening and fell asleep immediately. I have vague recollections of hearing thumps during the night and thinking "It's that bloody Reagan, bombing the place" and drifting off to sleep. Next morning I went to the canteen for breakfast as usual and found all my Scandinavian colleagues sittting there with lots of coffee in front of them, wondering whether we should go to work or not. I asked why, and was told there had been a heavy bombing raid during the night.

I asked if our Philippino and Thai workers were OK and found no-one had been to see. So I sent a couple of engineers off to the labour camp and went to see my girlfriend, who worked on the medical side. Evidently Jallah Hospital, which was the A&E hospital for civilians, had treated hundreds of civilian casualties during the night and were working ankle-deep in blood on the trauma unit. These were Philippina nurses, East European nurses and doctors and a handful of nuns from the Catholic Church. All had either been on duty or had come in through the bombing to assist however they may. It was truly horrific. 132 civilian deaths had been recorded in that hospital through those few hours.

Most of the population of Benghazi fled to the hills that day, and stayed there for a week. Driving around had never been so good. We stayed where we were and carried on working, to keep everyone occupied. There were many army patrols around, some police. At the start they were stopping us very aggressively, but we just pointed out that we had shared the experience with them, and in our particular case had built two of the hospitals that were looking after the injured, and we were allowed to go on our way with a smile.

(The military in Benghazi and Tripoli were aware that the raid was coming - the Czech tank mechanics had had orders three or four days beforehand to disperse the tanks in fields away from the depots.)

The military casualties I cannot comment upon, as they were treated away from the regular hospitals. The raid resulted in the destruction of several fighters on Benghazi Airport, but missed any of the training camps around Benghazi, missed the large arms dump (although the Libyan Army managed to blow that up later - accidentally), but hit many civilian properties as much as four or five kilometres away from any possible military target. It was scatter bombing without rhyme nor reason - truly an act of terror.

(I am not saying this because I was there - it affected my life very little - but the indiscriminate way the bombs were scattered over residential districts and virtually all military installations were ignored makes it thus.)

Terrorism comes in several forms, from schoolyard bullying to unprovoked war (Iraq 2 is in this category, in my opinion) but whichever form it takes, history will usually lay the blame correctly.

SC....

Are you somehow trying to suggest that what was experienced in NI was not real terrorism? I'm sure you aren't... probably some strange atmospheric blip, or the Imam wailing and disrtracting you. The IRA were armed not only with AK47s but also with M16s, semtex / C4 etc etc. These were used to deadly effect and very frequently. Want some reminders... Warren Point and Omagh to give you two for starters.

You wee agent provocateur

SC....

Are you somehow trying to suggest that what was experienced in NI was not real terrorism? I'm sure you aren't... probably some strange atmospheric blip, or the Imam wailing and disrtracting you. The IRA were armed not only with AK47s but also with M16s, semtex / C4 etc etc. These were used to deadly effect and very frequently. Want some reminders... Warren Point and Omagh to give you two for starters.

You wee agent provocateur

What I'm saying is that the mainland suffered very lightly from terrorism, and that the headline-grabbing terrorist atrocities, when weighed quantitatively, paled in comparison to real trouble-spots around the world; though the thuggish gangsterism that flourished under the protective wing of the "armed struggle" was an appalling blight on the province and its people. We, and the people of Northern Ireland, should be grateful for the professionalism and restraint shown in the management of the troubles, even though mistakes were made, while had George Bush been one of our leaders instead of those we had, perhaps a pre-emptive strike on Boston or Dublin might have allowed us to turn thuggism and occasional outrage into a thousand-year jihad.

Personally, I was deeply opposed to negotiating with the terrorists, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, if you like.

SC

I am surprised there has not been more discussion on this one.

Probably because the peace in NI is still fragile and having the government in London openly chasing terrorists (or former terrorists) in the US, where they have been for several years, and bringing them back to the UK would stir up trouble in NI again - more people would help/join the small cells of die-hard Republicans who still see terror as the means to achieve their aims. The UK government may be prepared to allow these (now US resident) people to go free, unless they return to the British Isles.

The flip side of that though is that the US are harbouring terrorists that were trained and supplied by Libya, and enemy of the US state...........surely that must be of some concern?

Harboring terrorists? I didn't see anything in your article that said the US was willfully not complying with a UK extradition order. it appeared, reading between the lines, that the UK authorities had no appetite for dredging these matters up, despitE the intelligence provided by the news publication.

It would not surprise me to learn that this reluctance to vigorously pursue former terrorists is part and parcel of the UK plan to quiet the troubles. These former terrorists become neutered, shown for the cowards the are and time passes on to a hopefully better future.

I would urge those commenting to read this thoroughly if not been read before.

I have read the entire book and it is harrowing stuff, from those on both sides of the divide.

This is one story....one of many sadly.

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

It's not a political issue in the slightest in the U.S. I can see why you think that's wrong. During the heat of it my impression is that the general American public was mostly sympathetic to the Irish terrorists political aims and not happy with British military oppression but was NOT in favor of any kind of terror attacks on innocent civilians.

Military oppression. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, safeguarding UK nationals is oppression. ?

I am just reporting the general mood about the situation in the U.S. Not passing judgment on truth.

also known as spouting nonsensical garbage.

I am surprised there has not been more discussion on this one.

Probably because the peace in NI is still fragile and having the government in London openly chasing terrorists (or former terrorists) in the US, where they have been for several years, and bringing them back to the UK would stir up trouble in NI again - more people would help/join the small cells of die-hard Republicans who still see terror as the means to achieve their aims. The UK government may be prepared to allow these (now US resident) people to go free, unless they return to the British Isles.

The flip side of that though is that the US are harbouring terrorists that were trained and supplied by Libya, and enemy of the US state...........surely that must be of some concern?

Harboring terrorists? I didn't see anything in your article that said the US was willfully not complying with a UK extradition order. it appeared, reading between the lines, that the UK authorities had no appetite for dredging these matters up, despitE the intelligence provided by the news publication.

It would not surprise me to learn that this reluctance to vigorously pursue former terrorists is part and parcel of the UK plan to quiet the troubles. These former terrorists become neutered, shown for the cowards the are and time passes on to a hopefully better future.

You have convicted terrorist within your midsts that escaped from the Maze in 1988......hunt them down and send them back.

I am surprised there has not been more discussion on this one.

Probably because the peace in NI is still fragile and having the government in London openly chasing terrorists (or former terrorists) in the US, where they have been for several years, and bringing them back to the UK would stir up trouble in NI again - more people would help/join the small cells of die-hard Republicans who still see terror as the means to achieve their aims. The UK government may be prepared to allow these (now US resident) people to go free, unless they return to the British Isles.

The flip side of that though is that the US are harbouring terrorists that were trained and supplied by Libya, and enemy of the US state...........surely that must be of some concern?

Harboring terrorists? I didn't see anything in your article that said the US was willfully not complying with a UK extradition order. it appeared, reading between the lines, that the UK authorities had no appetite for dredging these matters up, despitE the intelligence provided by the news publication.

It would not surprise me to learn that this reluctance to vigorously pursue former terrorists is part and parcel of the UK plan to quiet the troubles. These former terrorists become neutered, shown for the cowards the are and time passes on to a hopefully better future.

You have convicted terrorist within your midsts that escaped from the Maze in 1988......hunt them down and send them back.

I don't think he needs hunting down, as the newspaper has provided his location

I don't know what kind of resident status the fellow in your newspaper article has, but it would be interesting to find out, as one of the questions asked of permanent resident applicants is "are you or have you ever been a terrorist."? Anyhow, you can't force someone out of the country if they have resident status unless you prove they gained it unlawfully, they are in non-compliance with the terms of that status, or another country presents a lawful extradition order. This has been done with regularity and to good effect by governments in search of former Nazi war criminals. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I suggest the will is lacking on the European side of the Atlantic and not with

the Americans.

To declare a personal interest in this topic, firstly having been at the receiving end of US supplied, military-grade hardware in N. Ireland, and secondly having had a buddy killed in Ulster by a US-sourced M60. Re the second incident, one of the terrorists convicted of his murder, escaped to NYC and there began a decade long extradition process after he was finally arrested 2 years after arrival. Despite the support of many NYC state congressmen, Mayor Dinkins and the Catholic Archbishop of NYC (plus having a street corner named after him), Joe Doherty was finally extradited to complete his sentence for murder (and was subsequently released under the terms of the Peace Accord). The other 3 members of the ASU (PIRA unit) were given Royal Pardons and allowed to return to Ulster without fear of prosecution, again as part of the Peace Accord and also to ensure the destruction of PIRA's arsenal of weapons.

While at the time this really stuck in the craw, things have moved on and I happened to be working in WTC2 on September 11th 2001. During the course of one of the many funeral/memorial services I attended in the weeks afterwards I got to know a senior NYPD officer and he frankly stated that while he and many of his fellow police officers had contributed toward "the boys behind the wire", the recent events had really brought home to him and many of his colleagues what terrorism really meant. He was thoroughly ashamed and embarrassed by his prior stance re PIRA.

Ironically prior to 11th September the US had already begun to see the dark/real side of PIRA and its meddling with FARC in Colombia and with Cuba had already lost it much support in the US political hierarchy. The events of September were the final nail in that coffin. 2 excellent articles below which highlight this lesser known but one of the finer chapters in changing US behaviour and attitude:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/aug/19/northernireland.ireland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/28/northernireland.colombia

I have always liked to think that life is too short to bear grudges and animosity. Were the views, held in many quarters of the US, re PIRA activity during the 1980's and 1990's still current, my attitude might be different but we have all moved on....

I am surprised there has not been more discussion on this one.

and i would like to follow that discussion during my afternoon nap.

Very interesting articles Folium.

"This topic may get a bit heated however it's intended for a genuine exchange of ideas, it's not US bashing."

Mr. Blether, did you think there would be any other possible outcome than US bashing?

On a serious note, it seems IB has the best answer so far in post 41. It isn't that the US citizenry wasn't aware of terrorism and all it's affiliated horrors, it was simply that the huge majority of US citizens felt immune from it. I dealt first hand with several acts of terrorism before 9/11 but that was in an overseas environment. Most Americans had never experienced it up close and personal. They opened their eyes on 9/11.

As far as Yank participation on this thread is concerned, so far Jingthing, maccaroni man, Ulysses G and myself have contributed. It might not be what some members want to hear but there have been posts made..

The thread has been informative, the subject is tense for obvious reasons, and where tension exists tempers can rise. I accept your explanation of the US attitude before and after 9/11.

Also it's a little disingenuous to say that the USA had not experienced domestic terrorism before September 11th.

While the KKK and the Anarchists of the second half of the 19th century may be a little historical (the latter group managed to assassinate a US President), the first bombing of the WTC in Feb 1993 killed 6 and injured 1000, and caused serious structural damage to the lower floors of WTC1.

Ironically some people did pay attention to this attack and drills/procedures were put in place that saved many lives 8 years later when rapid evacuation plans were put into effect as soon as the first Tower was hit.

Also it's a little disingenuous to say that the USA had not experienced domestic terrorism before September 11th.

While the KKK and the Anarchists of the second half of the 19th century may be a little historical (the latter group managed to assassinate a US President), the first bombing of the WTC in Feb 1993 killed 6 and injured 1000, and caused serious structural damage to the lower floors of WTC1.

Ironically some people did pay attention to this attack and drills/procedures were put in place that saved many lives 8 years later when rapid evacuation plans were put into effect as soon as the first Tower was hit.

There was also the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

Nevertheless, I think it is broadly true that the majority of Americans felt "It couldn't happen to us", and were shocked out of their complacency by 9/11.

Specifically addressing the OP on the USA's attitude to terrorism, one of the first things this poster thought when seeing wall to wall coverage of the two bombers and the numbers killed was this kind of thing happens in the south of Thailand everyday and the Thai's just suck it up and get on with it.

That's not to slight the deaths and dismembered in Boston but it seems some of the actions of the police in chasing down the bombers e.g. busting into homes w/out a warrant etc were over the top. That coupled with the obsession Americans have to try to figure out why these boys went bad.

Doesn't help when even the POTUS doesn't admit to Islamic Terrorism does it?

WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013,
during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent
the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While
it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now
crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were
filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the
residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming
the homes to perform their illegal searches.