And Americans had IRA donation jars behind the bars in Boston and New York pubs?

No cries to stop Irish Immigration or do police checks on the Micks in Southie and Hell's Kitchen...

No, we actually helped FUND the Tiagh bastards...

Hey, I'm a "Mick" from Southie!

So, it'd be wicked Smahht to Pahhhk tha Cahh Neah tha Yahhhd with your Mahhh"

Did the IRA want to bomb the United States, dumb fuck?

Does that make a difference? They were bombing an ally..."dumb fuck"

Of course it makes a difference.

They also weren't using their being Irish as motivation for the bombings, so their conflict with Britain had nothing to do with the United States. Are you really this clueless about what was going on in Northern Ireland at that time?

Pretty sure their sense of Irish Nationalism was the primary motivation for the bombings etc, alongside their Catholic sectarianism.

>>7

"Pretty sure their sense of Irish Nationalism was the primary motivation for the bombings etc,"

And that conflicted with the United States how?

Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.

First Principle of NATO.

Except the Irish/IRA were never, ever a threat to the United States. Are you really this damn dumb?

Are you? The UK and US are both in NATO. try reading up on something before you comment then you wouldn't appear so foolish.

Wait, you think just saying "NATO! Derp!" is some kind of point?

None of the people in Northern Ireland were ever a threat to the United States. Can you say the same of Syria?

Oh dear dopey! I'm not sure how simply I can put this for you to understand. The enemy of one NATO state is the enemy of all, that's how the alliance works.

Alternatively since you seem the simple sort, there was that time an Irish Ned Stark tried to kill Han Solo.

"The enemy of one NATO state is the enemy of all, that's how the alliance works."

Except that the topic of this thread is about immigration and potential immigrants being a threat to the United States. I know you're deflecting because you're a coward with no argument, but you need to answer this question: What threat did the IRA - or Irish people for that matter - pose to the United States?

It's amazing how quickly that changed after the 911 attacks. Terrorism didn't seem like such a good idea any more to those formerly terrorist-supporting Americans.

Also, the Irish troubles had pretty much calmed down by then.

Maybe the 9/11 27 should have put an O or Mc in front of their last names..

Mohammed Bin Al Jazeeri McMohammed sounds nicer, eh?

Almost like the name of the guy who runs the local burger place at 11th and Bowery.

Osama O'Laden has a ring to it, to be sure.

Terrorism didn't seem like such a good idea any more to those formerly terrorist-supporting Americans.

But America still supports terrorism, e.g. the FSA in Syria.

No cries to stop Irish Immigration or do police checks on the Micks in Southie and Hell's Kitchen...

.....one crucial difference being that the IRA weren't threatening or indeed bombing the U.S. of course, not least because they were successfully conducting the vast majority of their fundraising efforts amongst dopey 'plastic paddies' on the East coast who typically professed a pathetically false love of the 'old country'.....that they likely never visited and likely never will.

Not quite the legitimate equivalent of what your disingenuously alluding to I'm afraid.

Nice try.

Except the IRA was a major trainer and exporter of terrorism to countries, having trained terrorists from Palestine to Colombia. They also were likely involved in the Lockerbie bombing due to their close links to Gadaffi.

A terrorist is a terrorist, even if they are white catholics.

>>21
Fair point.

I'm British and I know we didn't always deal with the NI/IRA situation particularly well, but imagine if we'd responded with air strikes at IRA targets. It doesn't even bare thinking about, there would be blood still being spilt on the streets of Ireland and Britain to this day if we had.

>>23
....the moral of the tale being that we shouldn't be bombing ISIS now?

Also, the IRA are hardly comparable with ISIS considering that the latter is an identifiable, visible combatant group with definable military hardware, installations and territory.

Which definable "IRA targets" at the height of 'the troubles' are you glad we didn't launch air strikes at again?

The moral being our foreign policy has been ridiculously crazy for a long time, with Tony Blair even making an admission a week ago or so that going to war on Iraq has allowed ISIS to flourish.

As for the IRA targets, we knew who a lot of the members were, our intelligence had infiltrated them on many occasions, hell, even the general public in NI knew who many members were.

The moral being our foreign policy has been ridiculously crazy for a long time, with Tony Blair even making an admission a week ago or so that going to war on Iraq has allowed ISIS to flourish.

Absolutely but what's done is done and the clock can't be turned back. Fighting ISIS is current. I'd also partially dispute western culpability for the rise of ISIS - at least slightly, considering the regimes they emerged from were/are controlled by one family dynasties with a strong man/despot at the head. As the former Yugoslavia demonstrated though, once said despot dies or is deposed such regions quickly descend into violence due to the power vacuum created by their demise.

One suspects then that if Saddam had been either ousted internally or else died naturally for example, his psychotic son (who, reputation-wise, was a mere shadow of his father) would not have held Iraq together indefinitely. That's purely hypothetical conjecture of course but is still a plausible outcome.

As for the IRA targets, we knew who a lot of the members were, our intelligence had infiltrated them on many occasions, hell, even the general public in NI knew who many members were.

None of which equates to legitimate IRA targets that an airstrike could've conceivably been launched at - Gerry Adams's bulbous forehead not withstanding. The IRA were/are therefore not directly comparable to ISIS (at least not with regards to what was outlined in the OP) considering that both groups operate/d vastly differently from one another on almost every conceivable level.

getting rid of saddam allowed ISIS to form & grow, he was very good at killing al qeada, its PKK allies & any other such group

Indeed, if the UK had followed the Israeli strategy to terrorism, responding to every IRA attack by conducting airstrikes on Dublin the US would have lost it's shit, as I believe they like to say.

>>28
I wouldn't be so sure of that. After the Brighton hotel bombing, if the Iron Lady said she wanted to do a little precision bombing of suspected IRA positions; the Reagan admin's official position would be "we're concerned" while under the table telling her "Do what you have to do, and get that little Morrissey puke while you're at it." It's the members of Congress with Irish constituents in their districts that would have gotten uppity.

Maybe so, but thankfully for all Thatcher's faults, she wasn't that stupid. Although it probably would have been a popular response in mainland Britain to strike the IRA with air strikes the consequences would have been disastrous.

In the end, a problem that many people thought could never be resolved (much like they say about Israel today) got resolved, it wasn't solved by more guns, bombs and violence, it was solved by diplomacy, we had to make tough concessions (including releasing convicted terrorists) and withdrawing our troops from NI and agreeing to a power sharing agreement, as did the IRA make tough concessions agreeing to completely disarm.

I think people are correct to point out that the situation with ISIS is very different, I don't know what the answer is there, but there are similarities with the Israel/Palestine conflict, and perhaps Israel could take our lead.

Indeed, if the UK had followed the Israeli strategy to terrorism, responding to every IRA attack by conducting airstrikes on Dublin

Pardon my potential ignorance, but wasn't the IRA operating mostly out of BELFAST AND REGION?

The other end of the island?

Yeah and Derry/Londonderry.

Not really, they operated from bases in Southern Ireland as well as all over the north. The rural areas of the 6 counties were referred to as bandit country and the ambushes and what would be called IED attacks were so bad that the Army would only move by helicopter in those regions.

Further the Irish government or at least parts of it were supplying the IRA with arms. Similarly the catholic church was also giving them funds.

Irregardless the Israelis strike somewhat indiscriminately so a retaliatory strike against Dublin which shared the goal of a unified Ireland would be similar to much of the tactics the Israelis have followed. If leveling ever city in the South from the air would of broken the IRA, or spurred them on is certainly an interesting thought.

...the "troubles" would still be going on and with a monstrously higher death toll.

I don't remember that but if that's true that is deplorable.

IRA supporter Peter King (R-NY) seems to have forgotten.

Were they beheading people, burning people alive, raping children and burying them alive, etc., etc., etc.?

No group matches the savagery of ISIS. Stop trying to make stupid moral equivalencies; it just makes you look like a clown.

Actually yes to all of those.

Were there any IRA terrorists hiding among Irish immigrants planning to attack the US?

The OP's equivalency meter is laughable and shows just how disgustingly far liberals will go to defend radical Islam.

A terrorist is a terrorist, only a bigot distinguishes between a brown muslim one and white catholic one.

Ah, the ole race card. Had to know the coward would pull that one soon!

I'll also note that Islam is not a race, nor is Syrian. The fact that you automatically label them as "brown people" shows just what a pathetic piece of shit racist you are.

And how amazing is it that you're too fucking stupid to not distinguish between people who are at war with another country and pose no threat to the United States and people who want to wipe the United States and all of its citizens off the planet? I'd say pretty damn amazing.

Republican Peter King has long been a vocal supporter of the terrorist IRA.

The IRA never bombed targets inside the US. IRA controlled neighborhoods in Ireland were also safe. The IRA committed genocide against no one. Indeed the IRA was in part a response to the genocidal policies of the UK towards the Irish.

It doesn't matter if they ever bombed the USA or not: terrorists is what they were and many Americans supported them. You either oppose all terrorism, or you are a hypocrite.

Remember when the IRA was bombing markets and hotels and Americans

You might as well bring up the Crusades while you are at it. Forget it, Our POTUS already did that.

Those of us who lived through that period are pointing at you, and laughing at how stupid you are.

No cries to stop Irish Immigration or do police checks on the Micks in Southie and Hell's Kitchen...

Naturally. I don't see what point you are making here.

At the time, was the United States in a state of armed conflict with either of the belligerents?

yeah, and I have no time for Micks who support/ed that terrorism..
and the most annoying thing about them is how soft they are on Islamic terror as well...go through the passenger list on any so-called Gaza 'aid" convoy...3/4 of them are meddling Lefty Micks...wankers who thought that things like the PLO and Ghaddafi were their 'oppressed brothers in struggle"..

but , back in Ireland, it was never a religious war..Republicans happened to be Catholics, most Loyalists were Protestants..

no Green or Orange fucker was ever running around yelling and screaming about God..freaks like Paisely were never what it was about...even he was a politician, not a Churchman...