The American Spectator

br> — Carl Palminteri br> Monterey, California /p> p> Shouldn’t it, maybe, really, be “resplendently” as opposed to “resplendidly”? br> — Richard Szathmary /p> p> THE TERROR LOBBY br> Re: Jed Babbin’s Deadly Tolerance : /p>

Maybe these terrorists have learnt that terror pays. As Saudi Arabia is to support of Wahhabism so was (and probably still is) U.S. support of the IRA (aka as NORAID over here). And what did this support and its terror progeny glean? It got Adams and McGuinness appointed as devolved government ministers, a voice for these killers in the Government of Northern Ireland, thousand killed and maimed, and the destruction of the Ulster Constabulary. Both Adams and McGuinness, known terrorist and killers, were feted in the U.S. and their charitable fronts allowed to collect money to support terror. All this was acceptable to the U.S. — it really wasn’t terror after all. It was merely an oppressed minority trying to shed the British yoke. One could argue that this U.S. support was one of the first examples in the post WW2 era of a foreign government allowing (or aiding) financing of a terror group whose aim was to carve out a piece of an ally’s territory. All this was fine in the '60s through the early '90s. After all, it did make sense to the Irish Diaspora locked in the Potato Famine mindset, and remember they do vote! Republicans like King as well as the ever present Kennedys tacitly supported these developments. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia didn’t learn a valuable lesson — keep telling the victim that you are really on his side while funding his destruction by terror. A lesson learnt at the knee of Uncle Sam. If the world woke up tomorrow purged of Islamic terror but the “troubles” continued in Northern Ireland, does anyone think that the U.S. would have learnt its lesson regarding support of Irish terror?