>>But HMG was always very clear about treating IRA bombs as crimes. Internment in N Ireland (outside the usual criminal process) was a disaster in PR and ineffective in terms of security
>
>Besides Ireland being truly a special case, given the complexities, or at least being a case far different than an attack on the US mainland by Saudis harbored in Afghanistan by a regime installed and supported by Pakistan ...
>

>I don't think HMG ever quite knew what to do about the IRA. I certainly wouldn't. If they were, as they said, soldiers that implied they had to be treated as POWs. If they were criminals they had to be accorded British justice. And of course the result was an ever shifting a somewhat schizophrenic policy that satisfied few. And then there was the fact that the IRA, the Provos, the UVF etc were all engaged in truly criminal activities both in and out of the UK.
>
and was financially supported in part by some Catholic Irish-Americans...


>I only paid close attention in the 70s when some of that activity was creating some blowback in areas that concerned me, but during that time I knew some SAS and intelligence folks who'd done duty in Ulster or concerning extra-territorial IRA activity (Libya, Lebanon etc) and I found the frustration with both enemies and "allies" they were feeling to be the only thing that rivaled what we felt in Vietnam and Laos. Tougher for them in a lot of ways as the cultural similarities made the ambiguities more difficult.
>
>
>
>>
>>>Iraq has nothing to do with it, nor did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11 - we agree on that.
>>>
>>>As I said, Afghanistan's harboring and refusing to give up those who had bombed the Unites States was and act of war and was dealt with as such. This wasn't crime, this was war. Technically, after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the murder of William Buckley we should have considered ourselves at war with both Syria and Iran. The reality of the Cold War was that it had to be a proxy war.
>>>
>>>FWIW I consider the Madrid train bombs, the London tube bombing and all IRA bombs (especially Brighton ) as acts of war, as did the perpetrators.
>>>
>>>>No its not. Its like saying the Madrid train bombs or the IRA bombs where crimes. If Iraq planes had dropped bombs on New York that would have been an act of war.
>>>>
>>>>>>Yes Charles
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am serious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The chosen approach was to attack 1 country who had nothing to do with it and 1 country that was a basket case.
>>>>>>If we had confined ourselves to Afghanistan and maintained (proper) sanctions against Iraq we would be in a much better place now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would not have been against seizing individuals who where identified as involved but I am against bombing the average citizen in their own country with "surgical airstrikes".
>>>>>
>>>>>Attacking anyone inside of Afghanistan was an act of war, and was intended as exactly that. That is not how you address "a crime".
>>>>>
>>>>>I think Afghanistan was a case study in doing it right - right up until we caved to Pakistani sensibilities at Tora Bora. The diplomacy that allowed forward staging in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan ( and our being more realistic about Chechnya in exchange) and our causing Mushareff to be more frightened of us than the ISI/Taliban, and the paramilitary component was about as well done as it has ever been done.
>>>>>
>>>>>Iraq is another matter, and I am more persuadable. I don't mourn Saddam but the whole thing would have been better modelled on Afghanistan than Gulf War I. But then I don't much like large military operations.
>>>>>
>>>>>But the idea that what happened in NY, PA and Washington (or London or Madrid) was "a crime" is like saying the Luftwaffe violated British airspace in 1940.