"Wikileaks, the Congressman and the IRA"

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
Excellent article by Ed Moloney in Counterpunch

Wikileaks, the Congressman and the IRA
The Hypocrisy of Peter King

But the prize for breathtaking hypocrisy must surely go to Long Island GOP Congressman Peter King who has been all over the airwaves since the leaks began, demanding that Wikileaks be treated like Al Qaeda and placed on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. “Their activity is enabling terrorists to kill Americans”, he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday. “Wikileaks is an accessory to this, they are taking information which they know is classified, which they know can cost life. They are as guilty as (Pfc Bradley Manning) is.”
What Peter King neglected to tell Morning Joe, or NBC’s Matt Lauer and Fox News for that matter, is that when it comes to supporting foreign terrorist organizations, the L.I. politician is not only in a league of his own in Washington but is the only living Congressman who can say that he owes his political career almost entirely to the ties he forged with one group of foreign terrorist bombers and gunmen.
Is wikileaks a "foreign terrorist organisation" ?
King is certainly a hypocrite.
 


myhonorisloyalty666

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
304
Wow, did Rupert Murdoch buy Counterpunch ? :)
King directly supported the IRA at the height of their armed struggle when bombs were exploding on the streets of British cities and British soldiers were being maimed and killed.
So it is hypocritical for him to be complaining about Assange's wikileaks publishing material that indirectly benefits Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organisations.
The tactics that the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents and Al-Qaeda use are no different from what the IRA did.
 

Northtipp

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
21,688
King directly supported the IRA at the height of their armed struggle when bombs were exploding on the streets of British cities and British soldiers were being maimed and killed.
So it is hypocritical for him to be complaining about Assange's wikileaks publishing material that indirectly benefits Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organisations.
The tactics that the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents and Al-Qaeda use are no different from what the IRA did.
Jaysus someone transported me back 20 years. Nonsensical garble. move on for Christs sake
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
Jaysus someone transported me back 20 years. Nonsensical garble. move on for Christs sake
The IRA killed hundreds of innocent Irish people and set back the cause of true Irish unity by decades if not a century. "Move on"? F*** off.
 

MichaelMac

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
478
Clearly, like may people, King did not recognise the IRA as a 'terrorist' organisation. In that respect how is he being hypocritical?
 

myhonorisloyalty666

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
304
Clearly, like may people, King did not recognise the IRA as a 'terrorist' organisation. In that respect how is he being hypocritical?
King is now ultra-hard line against Islamic terrorism - he turned against republicans after they played a major role in organizing anti-Iraq war demonstrations in '03 and he supported John McCain in '08.
His opposition to dissident republicans is even tougher today than the British.
 

bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
King directly supported the IRA at the height of their armed struggle when bombs were exploding on the streets of British cities and British soldiers were being maimed and killed.
So it is hypocritical for him to be complaining about Assange's wikileaks publishing material that indirectly benefits Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organisations.
The tactics that the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents and Al-Qaeda use are no different from what the IRA did.
If you don't invade foreign countries then your soldiers don't get killed there - simples.
 

MichaelMac

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
478
King is now ultra-hard line against Islamic terrorism - he turned against republicans after they played a major role in organizing anti-Iraq war demonstrations in '03 and he supported John McCain in '08.
His opposition to dissident republicans is even tougher today than the British.


Your point is?
 

bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
It's impossible to talke anything seriously from a poster juvenile enough to call himself "bobbysands81" ...... Sands himself at least had a brain.
Once again the little worm (now that's grown up!) plays the man and not the ball because he knows he's wrong.

Now, the UK is a terrorist state according do the US - do you agree or not?
 

bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
Hardly a man - a twerp.

Don't be silly :)
Once again, reverting to type and, like a true Unionist refusing to enter any dialogue.

I'll leave you in your cesspit of bigotry and hatred now so...

According to the White House, America's War on Terrorism makes "no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists."

The White House says "We are working to disrupt the flow of resources from states to terrorists while simultaneously end state sponsorship of terrorism."

Given that in her report on the 22nd January 2007 Nuala O'Loan found that the British security forces have "supported, harboured and resourced terrorists" and that, during his time as US President George Bush said that "if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist" then the US clearly deems the UK to be a terrorist state.
 
S

SeamusNapoleon

Once again, reverting to type and, like a true Unionist refusing to enter any dialogue.

I'll leave you in your cesspit of bigotry and hatred now so...

According to the White House, America's War on Terrorism makes "no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists."

The White House says "We are working to disrupt the flow of resources from states to terrorists while simultaneously end state sponsorship of terrorism."

Given that in her report on the 22nd January 2007 Nuala O'Loan found that the British security forces have "supported, harboured and resourced terrorists" and that, during his time as US President George Bush said that "if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist" then the US clearly deems the UK to be a terrorist state.
They will argue it's all semantics.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top