Doron, you have proof that the IRA was indeed responsible for this bank robbery? And that they are using it to finance a terrorist attack?
Are you planning to submit your evidence to the proper authorities? Have you notified Scotland Yard (because they say they have no concrete evidence of any of these claims, so if the British Government and Scotland Yard have no evidence against the IRA, and you do, and you are antiwar and antiviolence -- you should submit all that you have to them so you are not viewed as an accessory to wrongdoing).
If you have no evidence, and there has been no trial to show the guilt or innocence of the people or the organization being blamed, then you are irresponsible in stating that the IRA did indeed rob a bank and that the terror alert status currently assigned to that organization (an organization that under a peace agreement is supposed to be dormant, if not disbanded) is justified.
Innocent until proven guilty at trial. It is irresponsible reporting to make someone guilty without any proof, (at least in the U.S. we use the word "allegedly" in our news articles, no matter how biased the account). That is what David was saying, and saying that is not the same as agreeing with or condoning any acts of violence. Or acts of theivery (although I think Raeder's comment on the Federal Reserve was totally on point). I am curious to see what new information and evidence comes out. Robbing a bank is not right but it isn't an act of international terrorism, you'd have to prove what the robbed money was used for or intended to be used for, and why.
Created By: Dayann Molina-McDonough