Tony Blair is a 2 faced bastard

On 9/11 'terrorists' attacked America on American soil.

Tony Blair was quick to join George Bush in a 'war on terror' which included killing thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who knows where next.

He is quick to jump into bed with George Bush to fight America's enemies.... yet he is not so quick to fight those at home.

The IRA have attacked the United Kingdom for years killing under acts of terrorism, yet under the terms of the 'Good friday Agreement' he is letting the bastards go free.

Added to this is American funding of the IRA for the last few decades.

He should fight the terrorism at home first - Thatcher would have.

They're freedom fighters, just like Hamas.....

You mean terrorists, just like Hamas.

Bingo, you win the cupie doll.

u mean he's a politician?

I dont think America fund the IRA.. i think that was a mix up.. im sure when it used to say IRA contributions on peoples pay slips, letters ect ect..

that was similier to the UK, pension,

IRA stands for , Individual Retirement Account

not Irish Republican Army...

compairing, the northen island situation to the israel one , is a bit different, i think the Israelis have took more lives than the IRA have..

now now...Hamas is a group that will go to no ends to destroy the infidels. IRA doesn't do that, when have they ever cowardly suicide bombed a crowded place of innocents?

Hamas We already know that Tony Blair is a 2 faced b'stard tell us summat we dont already know

Any proof that the U.S is funding the IRA?

anyway the IRA have stopped killing its the others that are continuing like the UFF.

He's not 'letting the bastards go free', it's a tenuous peace process that is only current hope for the end of 800 years of fighting over religion and a piece of land. You'd rather the British government kept up a campaign to wipe out all the terrorists than help broker peace between the two sides and cause even more bloodshed for God knows how long more? Isn't 800 years enough? Your right though, that is probably what the evil old bat Thatcher would have done.
If you thinking along the lines of what a Conservative government would have done over a Labour one, then I should point out that it was John Major, a Conservative Prime Minister who first brokered the Good Friday Agreement and got the peace process started, not Tony Blair.
There are many parallels to be drawn with the Irish conflict and Isreal/Palistine. I think we should just hope we are more successful...

There is evidence some groups in America were sending money to Sinn Fein and the IRA quite a while ago. I remember a big scandal about it a few years back. I actually think it was the British government who made it public as they were pissed that America was giving Gerry Adams an almost state welcome. It was small groups of Irish ex pats and descent and I think some individuals. It wasn't the American Government though.

This thread was a poor attempt at trying to compare two totally different groups. If you are trying to equate blowing up statues and engaging British TROOPS AND POLICE in combat with blowing up a bus-load of WOMEN AND CHILDREN, you should review your theoretical tactics.

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by goregrinder]

Originally posted by goregrinder
This thread was a poor attempt at trying to compare to totally different groups. If you are trying to equate blowing up statues and engaging British TROOPS AND POLICE in combat with blowing up a bus-load of WOMEN AND CHILDREN, you should review your theoretical tactics.

Coulnt agree more i reckon Hamas(threadstarter ) has personal beef with Blair.

Goregrinder, The IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries have killed many, many innocent women and children in their time; they've blown up whole streets of them. They usually use car bombs but have never used suicide bombers because their situation hasn't been serious enough to call for it though many of them have sacrificed their lives in other ways for their cause.

I don't believe you can compare the situations wholesale, but both sides in the Irish conflict staked claim and rightful ownership over a single piece of land, and their fight was extenuated by their bitter divide over religion. The comparison there is obvious.
The British interceded and placed troops a 'peace' keeping force, though they were obviously biased and aided and colluded with the Loyalists. A comparison could be made of America�s aid to and bias towards Israel.
Any comparisons are obviously subjective, but they are there.

Agreed, but one fact still distinguishes the two. The IRA uses terror as a form of seperation from a colonial power soley for independance, not because of a long religiously intolerant history. I understand that Protestants and Catholics clash, but what you have in the middle-east is a bloodbath on the hands of both sides, and the other group in question loves to use innocents as examples.

Yes, but the Irish situation started when the British Protestants had control of the Irish north and Protestant Lords acted as 'landlords' over the Catholics (Ireland was entirely Catholic) They made laws that treated Catholics as second class citizens with little rights compared to the protestants and laws that allowed them to take their land; eventually Catholics were only allowed to have tiny plots of land to grow their crops on. They offered Catholics bribes to convert to Protestantism and leave that hardship behind.

The religious fight is fought as hard, if not harder than the fight for the land and always has been. The two have been intertwined from the beginning; a lot of time it is more about the religion than anything else. We�ve had similar problems in the west coast of Scotland since Catholic immigrants migrated here over 200 years ago, of which my family was one. There is a lot of sectarianism, though nowhere near what it used to be and it is all about religion.