This is a good piece.

This is a good piece.

Interesting, that doesn't correspond with my memory of events.
When did he stop it? ... NORAID, that is.

<EDIT > I have just done a quick Google and straight away found a BBC article where a guy was asking for Bush to stop NORAID ... the date of that article was 25 September 2001, or as the Americans would say, 09/25 ... which is a couple of weeks after 09/11.

El Barbudo wrote:Interesting, that doesn't correspond with my memory of events. When did he stop it? ... NORAID, that is. <EDIT > I have just done a quick Google and straight away found a BBC article where a guy was asking for Bush to stop NORAID ... the date of that article was 25 September 2001, or as the Americans would say, 09/25 ... which is a couple of weeks after 09/11. Here's another article, from your beloved Guardian, dated 16 May 2001. I did make one mistake though: it was the Real IRA that Bush added to the list. The IRA had declared a ceasefire by that time which obviously meant they weren't in any way involved in violence at all. Obviously.

El Barbudo wrote:Interesting, that doesn't correspond with my memory of events. When did he stop it? ... NORAID, that is. <EDIT > I have just done a quick Google and straight away found a BBC article where a guy was asking for Bush to stop NORAID ... the date of that article was 25 September 2001, or as the Americans would say, 09/25 ... which is a couple of weeks after 09/11. Here's another article, from your beloved Guardian, dated 16 May 2001. I did make one mistake though: it was the Real IRA that Bush added to the list. The IRA had declared a ceasefire by that time which obviously meant they weren't in any way involved in violence at all. Obviously.

SaintsFan wrote:Here's another article, from your beloved Guardian, dated 16 May 2001. I did make one mistake though: it was the Real IRA that Bush added to the list. The IRA had declared a ceasefire by that time which obviously meant they weren't in any way involved in violence at all. Obviously. All fine and dandy but we were talking about when Bush stopped NORAID funding, you said before 09/11 ...so when did it happen? Just that I'm wondering why the BBC reported (two weeks after 9/11) that someone was asking him to stop that funding.

SaintsFan wrote:Here's another article, from your beloved Guardian, dated 16 May 2001. I did make one mistake though: it was the Real IRA that Bush added to the list. The IRA had declared a ceasefire by that time which obviously meant they weren't in any way involved in violence at all. Obviously. All fine and dandy but we were talking about when Bush stopped NORAID funding, you said before 09/11 ...so when did it happen? Just that I'm wondering why the BBC reported (two weeks after 9/11) that someone was asking him to stop that funding.

Have they decided who's to blame yet?

Must still be looking for a fully intact Saudi Arabian passport.

Obviously it was the CIA hoping to raise sympathy for the cause of marathon runners.

are people allowed to celebrate these deaths or is that just reserved for an old ladys death!!
also are people allowed to be hypocritical and express their sympathy for these deaths but celebrate an old ladys death!!
we need some clarification here.

We do. How many of the marathon runners or spectators who were killed or injured were divisive politicians for example?

How many have been murdered/maimed as opposed to dying of natural causes in a hotel in London?

Life is all about lessons, yesterday the people of Boston learned when you donate your money to NORAID and Clan na Gael, this is the sort of stuff they spent it on.

I think you're the one needing clarification. On the difference between an 8 year old boy being killed by a bomb and an 87 year old woman who many believe blighted their lives while not giving a rats booty about it dying naturally at the end of a long life.

If you think expressing sympathy for the former and saying good riddance to the latter is hypocritical you are living on the wrong planet.