Re: New Musicals You'd Like to See?


bvallely@xxxxxxx wrote:
How about harboring members of al Qaida and other terrorist
organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
good enough for you?


Speaking of harbouring and funding terrorists, I'm curious: What's your
position on US politicians who welcomed people wanted in connection
with IRA bombings into the United States? What's your position on those

idiot Irish-Americans who donated money to organisations like NORAID
and the Thirty-Two Counties Sovereignty Committee? (The link between
those organisations and the munitions funds of the IRA and The Real IRA

was conclusively established rather a long time ago). >>>

Terrorism is terrorism. Period. People who attack "soft targets"
(shopping malls, discos, theaters, ect.) should be slapped up against
the wall and shot. Period.

People who knowingly support terrorists should be slapped up against
the wall, and shot. Period.

So, given that the USA provided a refuge - well, visas - for people who
were known to be wanted for their participation in IRA bombings, would
not the UK have been justified in, say, rallying the international
community to put economic sanctions into place against America until
such time as those persons were extradited? Does the fact that numerous
very, very stupid Irish-Americans funded terrorism via their donations
mean that the UK would have been justified in, say, bombing South
Boston?

I'm beign facetious. Slightly. I'm also, though, somehow curious to
know how you feel about the fact that the Reagan administration sold
arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and to the Taliban following the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Stephen

.

Relevant Pages
Loading