amibovered Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Do you think that or you have been convinced to think like that? Funny I've had a lifetime of political attachment and interest and don't think that. Will treatment help in this instance? Probably not. Unless the lose that destructive mindset and make an attempt to help yourself. must have been convinced to think like that, can't be any other explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 They will still try to justify it. The man can do no wrong. :rolleyes: And Harpo, the hard yards of the peace process was under John Major, Tony Blair completed the task. Just shows both sides of British politics released jaw jaw was better than war war. Doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 must have been convinced to think like that, can't be any other explanation. Or just went along for the ride.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 I actually like some of the conservative supporters on here as people (from what I know of them) but then it just comes back into my head about how can they support the likes of Iain Duncan smith. Eurgh. Im not actually sure of corbyn so far, I think he's better than the other choices but I'm not sure if he'll make a massive difference Oh he'll make a difference if allowed. A big asking without doubt. Best keep away from me in OZ if liking some of the conservative supporters on here though. What's to like? mmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungo Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Just shows both sides of British politics released jaw jaw was better than war war. Doesn't it? It is good that peace was found on the Ireland matter, yes. To compare Margaret Thatcher to Gerry Adams is absurd. He was involved in murder and terrorism. You don't have to agree with her policies but to suggest that she was involved in activity like that is ridiculous and even you really know that. But you are unable to think in a rational manner because you are twisted by hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 It is good that peace was found on the Ireland matter, yes. To compare Margaret Thatcher to Gerry Adams is absurd. He was involved in murder and terrorism. You don't have to agree with her policies but to suggest that she was involved in activity like that is ridiculous and even you really know that. But you are unable to think in a rational manner because you are twisted by hate. Absurd no. Just what direction was that Argentine battle ship steaming when popped by a UK sub?? In case of confusion out of controlled waters towards home. Every reason an Argentine relative would describe that action as terrorist. I can think in a very rational manner. Just know a darn sight more about history than you. And Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia? Any more insightful gems to share? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungo Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Absurd no. Just what direction was that Argentine battle ship steaming when popped by a UK sub?? In case of confusion out of controlled waters towards home. Every reason an Argentine relative would describe that action as terrorist. I can think in a very rational manner. Just know a darn sight more about history than you. And Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia? Any more insightful gems to share? Ah, I see. You don't understand the difference between war (and in particular defending our territory against a hostile invader) and terrorism. And no I am not an expert on wars, but we were not discussing war were we? Still I don't recall any war with Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos during Maggie's years so no gems to share here, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyHeart Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 All war is terrorism. All PMs sanction the murder of innocents. Collateral damage. To deny it is hypocritical. Legal murder is OK, illegal murder is terrorism, just depends who makes the laws and in which country it's legal. Load of bollocks really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungo Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 All war is terrorism. All PMs sanction the murder of innocents. Collateral damage. To deny it is hypocritical. Legal murder is OK, illegal murder is terrorism, just depends who makes the laws and in which country it's legal. Load of bollocks really. So defending Europe against Hitler was terrorism was it..? okay... pea brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungo Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) All war is terrorism. All PMs sanction the murder of innocents. Collateral damage. To deny it is hypocritical. Legal murder is OK, illegal murder is terrorism, just depends who makes the laws and in which country it's legal. Load of bollocks really. Have you heard about Tim Parry or Jonathan Ball. Perhaps before you preach about your IRA loving esteemed leader you should do. You are despicable if you think their deaths are ok because their parents support conservatives. Not that they do, I have no idea, but you are despicable anyway if you think this is ok. That you think it is ok for children to die because your esteemed leader thinks it is ok. You never found Maggie condoning murder. You pretend you are holier than though but you are sick in the head because you will not condemn a man that condones the murder of children (and adults). Edited October 11, 2015 by Bungo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 You mean a member of HM opposition was a terrorist? How about Thatcher then? Makes about as much sense depending the side one finds oneself. Not to say Nixon and a host of others. No he was an active leader of the IRA as well as Sinn Fein leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Ah, I see. You don't understand the difference between war (and in particular defending our territory against a hostile invader) and terrorism. And no I am not an expert on wars, but we were not discussing war were we? Still I don't recall any war with Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos during Maggie's years so no gems to share here, no. I suspect seeing is far removed from the subject on hand. Tabloid historian. Actually I understand events perfectly although displaying a degree of arrogance in saying so, I am fully aware. But you did claim no expert but there was a reason to issue was raised. And yes potential war was part of the theme. History did begin before Thatcher, as remarkable as it may seem, not forgetting UK is not the main player in global activity, although keen enough to participate. Yes to the many Argentine family's of those conscript sailors killed without warning, with out a declaration of war , they say murdered, the sinking of the General Belgramo was indeed a terrorist act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 No he was an active leader of the IRA as well as Sinn Fein leader. A fighter of freedom to those not opposed to that particular stand. Just like groups that take to armed struggle through out the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Have you heard about Tim Parry or Jonathan Ball. Perhaps before you preach about your IRA loving esteemed leader you should do. You are despicable if you think their deaths are ok because their parents support conservatives. Not that they do, I have no idea, but you are despicable anyway if you think this is ok. That you think it is ok for children to die because your esteemed leader thinks it is ok. You never found Maggie condoning murder. You pretend you are holier than though but you are sick in the head because you will not condemn a man that condones the murder of children (and adults). All wars and the results of wars against repression lead to despicable acts. Instead of getting emotive over a few particular if nasty issues, look at the big picture and you will note no side comes out without blame. You know that's the result of war. All sides commit atrocities but try and be open minded enough to say all conflict is bad. How about instead of appropating blame how about celebrating the ability of grown men to reach out and talk and bring the death to a close? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 A fighter of freedom to those not opposed to that particular stand. Just like groups that take to armed struggle through out the world. You are despicable if you support the IRA and defend their murders of innocent men, women and children as freedom fighting. I've heard everything now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 You are despicable if you support the IRA and defend their murders of innocent men, women and children as freedom fighting. I've heard everything now. There you go on another tantrum. It may help you to try, hard as it obviously is for you, to leave out the emotion and take a look at the historical matter on the subject. You are such a knee jerk reacting fellow towards stances that that suit your own spoon fed views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 You are truly sick if you defend them. This group who abduct and murdered housewives and other innocent people. Adams himself was arrested over one of these murders but charges not proceeded with at this stage due to lack of evidence. But he was in the IRA up to his neck. How can you possibly defend such evil murderers ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Everyone knows that Mr Adams was a member of the IRA Council and was personally involved in operations. But going down the "evil murderer" route will not help anyone - and did not help anyone when it was pursued unwaveringly by Margaret Thatcher. It is interesting that one of John Major's first priorities on coming to power was to try to break the Troubles impasse. When this was eventually achieved, many years later, it came as a result of allowing the past to remain in the past, and giving those who had been actively involved (on both sides) a stake in building a shared future. Northern Ireland was a place of great injustice before the Civil Rights marches. It remained a place of great injustice during the Troubles. Let's not try to reheat old grievances and go back there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johndoe Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) You are despicable if you support the IRA and defend their murders of innocent men, women and children as freedom fighting. I've heard everything now. Then hear this. How many innocent men, women and children were killed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many are being killed in Afghanistan and Syria? Rather then being so emotive about past acts of war, and yes, the IRA was engaged in a war, why not appreciate that an agreement, and cessation of hostilities was reached, and that combatants moved on with their lives as best they could just as is the case after all wars. I suggest you read a bit about the history of Ireland, of those who stood against the Empire for the freedom and unification of their own country from the British, but were betrayed by their leaders, which eventually led to the Troubles. The very same (earlier) IRA, fielded men against Franco and fought alongside Englishmen from the International Brigade. Were they terrorists then? Edited October 12, 2015 by Johndoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petkula73 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 A fighter of freedom to those not opposed to that particular stand. Just like groups that take to armed struggle through out the world. What an egregious comment. Do you truly classify the Provisional IRA as "fighter(s) of freedom"(sic)? Please tell what freedom they were fighting for? The right to vote? The right to work? The right to practice religious beliefs? The right to healthcare and education? The right of free movement? All of this they already had. So, you're effectively justifying this "fighting for freedom" based on a minority of people wanting the six counties of Northern Ireland to be governed from Dublin not Westminster. And you're excusing the bombings, the executions of the police and political opponents, the punishment beatings and so on as part of this struggle for freedom. How risible! It may have escaped your attention, but the UK is not some banana republic or third world dictatorship. We have a democratic process, which despite being far from perfect, works. If you oppose something you have the right to protest, to write what you like, to stand for election, to petition for change. Yet Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and their friends didn't believe in democracy, preferring instead to commit heinous crimes hidden behind some half baked religious and political ideals. That's terrorism, plain and simple. Inexcusable and indefensible. Conversely, the RUC and British Army in Northern Ireland operated under a code of regulation, a legitimate chain of command from the government downwards and operated in a peace keeping role. Huge difference to the IRA. And in the middle of this we have some bearded idiot from Islington North sucking up to Sinn Fein, attending appreciation rallies for Bobby Sands, publicly meeting with Gerry Adams in weeks after the IRA had attempted to kill the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the Brighton bombing and editing a Labour newsletter which praised the attacks and regretted that they hadn't caused more death. Some "freedom fighters" indeed. Your comments on the Belgrano sinking are completely out of context. This was not an act of terrorism. The Argentinians had taken a British Overseas Territory by force, against the wishes of the islanders and despite having little tangible claim to them except their proximity to mainland Argentina. The Argentines had been previously made aware that the 200 mile exclusion zone would not be considered the limit of activity by the RN. At the time of the sinking, the Argentines were planning an all out assault on the Task Force which the sinking of the Belgrano and subsequent retreat of the Argentine Navy, prevented, saving thousands of British (and Argentinian) lives. It's also a subject of conjecture that the Belgrano was heading back to port. Although it was sunk outside the exclusion zone, heading away from the Falklands it is likely that this was as part of a manoeuver to outflank the Task Force. It's very easy to be wise after the event, but given the opportunity and potential consequences of not taking it, Mrs Thatcher was 100% correct to order HMS Conqueror to sink the Belgrano. It's absolutely irrelevant what the families of the 300 odd sailors may claim 33 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 What an egregious comment. Do you truly classify the Provisional IRA as "fighter(s) of freedom"(sic)? Please tell what freedom they were fighting for? Well, the Civil Rights Movement was looking for equality in terms of housing and employment. But the bigger beef was that when the Irish Free State was created, six counties were carved off and remained under British rule. The Republican Movement would have argued that the majority population within the whole of Ireland wanted independence and it should have been granted. It may be of incidental interest that the IRA in 1922 became the Irish Army that still exists today. It may have escaped your attention, but the UK is not some banana republic or third world dictatorship. We have a democratic process, which despite being far from perfect, works. If you oppose something you have the right to protest, to write what you like ... the RUC and British Army in Northern Ireland operated under a code of regulation, a legitimate chain of command from the government downwards and operated in a peace keeping role. Huge difference to the IRA. That is certainly what was said at the time. But the Bloody Sunday Inquiry concluded that the Britsh Army had opened fire, unprovoked, on peaceful civilian protestors and that the State subsequently carried out a whitewash to ensure that those responsible were never subjected to the force of Justice. Plus, you had internment (indefinite detention without trial), the loss of a right to trial by jury, the creation of offences that could be proven on the word of a policeman, collusion between the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. There were heaps of lower level isolated incidents in which the security forces did not cover themselves with glory - including the shooting of teenage joyriders by Private Lee Clegg - and the subsequent repeated trials to try to get Clegg off the resultant murder charge. Then there was Death on the Rock - Irish citizens shot dead by the British Army in Gibraltar. Then there was stop and search, armed patrols on the streets, roadblocks. Border crossings were destroyed, preventing cross border travel and trade. There have also been allegations (e.g. the Stakeknife allegations) that the security forces turned a blind eye to Republican paramilitary activity in order to protect their informants. So suggesting that the State adhered to rules is a little bit of wishful thinking. The Argentinians had taken a British Overseas Territory by force, against the wishes of the islanders and despite having little tangible claim to them except their proximity to mainland Argentina. The Argentines had been previously made aware that the 200 mile exclusion zone would not be considered the limit of activity by the RN. Just reread this, but substitute references to Argentina with Britain, and Britain with Ireland. See what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petkula73 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 . Then there was Death on the Rock - Irish citizens shot dead by the British Army in Gibraltar. . No, three British Citizens and prominent IRA terrorists shot dead by the SAS whilst in the process of planning to blow up a car full of explosives outside the Govenor's House. That the SAS effectively executed them is of little consequence - a car packed with explosives was found in the following days in mainland Spain. Ultimately of course, all three would still be alive had they not been plotting to kill and injure innocent civilians and British armed forces. I have no sympathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) No, three British Citizens... All three were born in Belfast and I think it is fair to assume that all three would have asserted their right to Irish citizenship. That the SAS effectively executed them is of little consequence Actually it is of consequence - you claimed that the British security forces operated "under a code of regulation, a legitimate chain of command from the government downwards and operated in a peace keeping role". The British Army does not have the legal right to execute people. Therefore you have contradicted your earlier point. I have no sympathy. We can tell. Edited October 12, 2015 by Quinkla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Never realised before that left leaning people tend to be IRA sympathisers. Something new I have learned today. Another reason to hold them with disregard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Never realised before that left leaning people tend to be IRA sympathisers. Something new I have learned today. Another reason to hold them with disregard. thats alright, I'm sure those same people hold you with just as much disregard after your comments about a plane crash in Indonesia being karma. I also seem to remember a dodgy comment about Hiroshima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.