Martin McGuinness to meet Britain's queen

twinytwo

getz wrote: »

military spending ?.the word subsidy is a goverment payment or concession granted to a state or private company or individual,a subsidy may be provided to keep prices down,to stimulate the market for a particular product,or because it is peceived to be in the public interest,[hutchinson encyclopedia] .

you miss my point, you moan about 6 billion being spent in NI, when there is a lot more wast going on else where.... but it dosent matter when there are resources to be had;)

Happyman42

SocSocPol wrote: »

Before or after:
The Northern Bank robbery
Paul Quinns murder

All armies have their thug and renegade element, it's neccessary if you consider what a soldier has to do, and it's a fact of life you would be aware off if you drove through army checkpoints almost everyday of your life! Somedays you get the nice professional soldier, another you get the thug.
The US and British and every army in the world have structures and even their own military police to deal with the renegade and thug (court martials, the brig etc.
That a few members operated outside the instructions of the Army council is regretable but understandable. The British are only too aware of that too, and it is why it was NOT allowed to bring down any agreement with the official army council.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which may or may not be the case, but I wouldn't be jumping up and down about anything emminating from the British establishment media.

SF's goal now is to make it attractive politically and convince people that they will be better of in a united Ireland. Nobody is underestimating the jo ahead.
But consider all the factors. The British are facing a day of reckoning with their finances more profound than what we have gone through. Their problems are much deeper and they will need solutions. At the end of the day it will have nothing to do with the Irish question, but everything to do with the British themselves.
Mrs Winsdor's visit yesterday, despite being snubbed last year, shows how willing the British are to aid and abet SF. Look at the history of the empire, nothing unusual in the British orchestrating events that will help them achieve their final goals. Principles of loyalty and responsibility will be cast out the window.

you are living in some republican dreamworld,face the truth/facts why there is no longer support for any quick change in northern ireland,

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

you are living in some republican dreamworld,face the truth/facts why there is no longer support for any quick change in northern ireland,

Anybody with a knowledge of world history would know that it only takes the alignment of certain, seemingly minor things to spark a much bigger thing.
It won't be quick, but it will happen.
For instance, if the Celtic Tiger had happened and there had been a prolonged peace, do you think those figures would have been a bit different?

One thing history teaches is NEVER say never....ask Mr Paisley.

KingMonkey

getz wrote: »

you are living in some republican dreamworld,face the truth/facts why there is no longer support for any quick change in northern ireland,

what are u on about? seriously...a vast majority of people if asked would be/are in favor of a United Ireland...no doubt u will do your utmost to ensure change is a thing to be feared and hated...do u watch the news? read a newspaper? anything?...there is a shift change happening at the moment in Irish/Northern politics towards a "republican dreamworld" as u call it haha...what happyman is saying is absolutley correct

Yamanoto

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF's goal now is to make it attractive politically and convince people that they will be better of in a united Ireland. Nobody is underestimating the job ahead.

I'd suggest you take a wee gander at your own contributions

Happyman42 wrote: »

But consider all the factors. The British are facing a day of reckoning with their finances more profound than what we have gone through. Their problems are much deeper and they will need solutions. At the end of the day it will have nothing to do with the Irish question, but everything to do with the British themselves.
Mrs Winsdor's visit yesterday, despite being snubbed last year, shows how willing the British are to aid and abet SF. Look at the history of the empire, nothing unusual in the British orchestrating events that will help them achieve their final goals. Principles of loyalty and responsibility will be cast out the window.

If you're trolling, at least make it somewhat challenging and mildly entertaining.

getz

twinytwo wrote: »

you miss my point, you moan about 6 billion being spent in NI, when there is a lot more wast going on else where.... but it dosent matter when there are resources to be had;)

i am not moaning about 6 billion being spent ,in suporting any part of the UK and northern ireland my moan is why are we paying it to those who do not want to be part of it,

Yamanoto

KingMonkey wrote: »

what are u on about? seriously...a vast majority of people if asked would be/are in favor of a United Ireland..

Odd then, that when asked whether to revoke our territorial claim to NI in 1998, the 'vast majority' voted thus:

Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland referendum:

Yes: 1,442,583 (94.39%) / No: 85,748 (5.61%)

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

I'd suggest you take a wee gander at your own contributions



If you're trolling, at least make it somewhat challenging and mildly entertaining.

It's not trolling, from my perspective I believe that Mrs Windsor's 'offer of the hand' represented a bigger sea change for the British and for Unionists (in that they stood over it, and actively encouraged it) than it does for Republicanism.
That the snub last year was ignored represents to me, an ideology that has shifted somewhat from, say, that represented by Mrs Thatcher's government.

old hippy

Any truth in the rumours that it's been kicking off (protest wise) in the 6 counties during the visit?

getz

KingMonkey wrote: »

what are u on about? seriously...a vast majority of people if asked would be/are in favor of a United Ireland...no doubt u will do your utmost to ensure change is a thing to be feared and hated...do u watch the news? read a newspaper? anything?...there is a shift change happening at the moment in Irish/Northern politics towards a "republican dreamworld" as u call it haha...what happyman is saying is absolutley correct

the medical condition is called britphobia,its a fear of anything british,signs are words like empire,colonies,and imperial

Yamanoto

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's not trolling

Mods have deemed your contributions as such, I'd concur.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

the medical condition is called britphobia,its a fear of anything british,signs are words like empire,colonies,and imperial

1. Can you see a change in what British governments where saying during the conflict, about loyalty to Unionism etc and what they are saying now?.....or, more importantly, NOT saying? Pay particular attention to the GFA.
2. Do you think that there is a possibility that the British themselves, will or could, one day attempt to convince the Unionists that a untied Ireland represents the best way forward for them? Consider the history of the 'Empire' when answering.

old hippy

I'd be quite happy for the 6 counties to be independent of both Britain and Ireland.

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

Mods have deemed your contributions as such, I'd concur.

They where referring to excessive baiting by Happy Monday. I apologise for rising to that bait.
I am not trolling, just attempting to put across my point of view, honestly and without spite.

dr.bollocko

mod:

Happyman42 ban re-applied.

Bizarre.

guinnessdrinker

old hippy wrote: »

I'd be quite happy for the 6 counties to be independent of both Britain and Ireland.

Not very many people living there would be in favor of this though.

Yamanoto

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Not very many people living there would be in favor of this though.

Not at the moment, no.

Northern Irish society will evolve over time, and given a more benign and normalised political environment, this may produce a commonality whereby its people are less inclined to rigidly subscribe to a unionist or nationalist identity.

It's within that context that a shared and quasi-independent identity may be forged, encompassing both cultural traditions and acceptable to all.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

I'd be quite happy for the 6 counties to be independent of both Britain and Ireland.

as it could not sustain itself as independent,it would depend on britain to provide jobs for its citizens,

Seanchai

What bad manners of the British monarch to not take off her gloves when shaking hands with somebody, particularly somebody who, unlike her, has his position from democracy rather than from the blood-based, sectarian (specifically anti-Catholic) British nationalist cult that is British royalism.

With such behaviour, McGuinness should have at least worn gloves when meeting the commander in chief of the British crown forces.

PS: A refreshingly honest letter about the blood on the hands of the Queen of England was printed in The Irish Times from one Donal Kennedy this morning here.

dr.bollocko

dr.bollocko wrote: »

mod:

Happyman42 ban re-applied.

Bizarre.

Aha.
I have figured it out.

Happy monday and happy man. I got confused between the two of them...

IE both trolling and both with similar names.

Either way both are now banned.

Please report any posts which cross the line.

Where To

Seanchai wrote: »

What bad manners of the British monarch to not take off her gloves when shaking hands with somebody, particularly somebody who, unlike her, has his position from democracy rather than from the blood-based, sectarian (specifically anti-Catholic) British nationalist cult that is British royalism.

With such behaviour, McGuinness should have at least worn gloves when meeting the commander in chief of the British crown forces.

PS: A refreshingly honest letter about the blood on the hands of the Queen of England was printed in The Irish Times from one Donal Kennedy this morning here.

Etiquette my dear fellow, etiquette.

NiallFH

old hippy wrote: »

Any truth in the rumours that it's been kicking off (protest wise) in the 6 counties during the visit?

Havent heard a peep, nobody I know gives a crap to put it bluntly. I have no love for the Queen and neither would the majority of people I associate with, from our side some old woman shaking hands with a politician isnt worth the effort to care.

Havent heard anything from the unionist side either.

getz

Seanchai wrote: »

What bad manners of the British monarch to not take off her gloves when shaking hands with somebody, particularly somebody who, unlike her, has his position from democracy rather than from the blood-based, sectarian (specifically anti-Catholic) British nationalist cult that is British royalism.

With such behaviour, McGuinness should have at least worn gloves when meeting the commander in chief of the British crown forces.

PS: A refreshingly honest letter about the blood on the hands of the Queen of England was printed in The Irish Times from one Donal Kennedy this morning here.

if thats all you can see in that historic handshake,i pity you

Seanchai

getz wrote: »

if thats all you can see in that historic handshake,i pity you

Ah, Mr Getz tries to be patronising. Not as much as I pity your consistently depressing grasp of the Queen's English. So much for being a royalist when you can't give your own Queen that basic respect.

indioblack

Seanchai wrote: »

What bad manners of the British monarch to not take off her gloves when shaking hands with somebody, particularly somebody who, unlike her, has his position from democracy rather than from the blood-based, sectarian (specifically anti-Catholic) British nationalist cult that is British royalism.

With such behaviour, McGuinness should have at least worn gloves when meeting the commander in chief of the British crown forces.

PS: A refreshingly honest letter about the blood on the hands of the Queen of England was printed in The Irish Times from one Donal Kennedy this morning here.

I doubt if anyone's hands are clean in this business.
It was a symbolic handshake - with or without gloves.
They don't have to like it, or each other.
The value was in them being recorded doing it.

Dubhlinner

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is precisely why the question will be put to the people in the future. It's clear as day the British want rid. The Unionists saw to it that the British would have dealt with the Seventh Day Free Willy Assoc if it meant that the conflict would stop.
The mistake Unionism made was to assume that colonisation meant loyalty. Their discomfort, as they realised that fact, over the last number of years has been satisfying indeed.
Their willingness to shirk off centuries of ideals (the Chuckle Bros, power sharing, introducing Marty to Mrs Winsdor) to try and feather their crumbling nests in the new order is equally satisfying.
Never trust a colonist, because essentially colonists are driven by greed and self agrandisement.

This always amuses me. If Britain wanted rid they'd have gotten rid a long time ago.

They couldn't give a f*ck about civil war breaking out after they left. Look at how they left India behind after partition. Hell look at the mess they've left Libya in during the last year to get rid of Qaddaffi ffs.

indioblack

Dubhlinner wrote: »

This always amuses me. If Britain wanted rid they'd have gotten rid a long time ago.

They couldn't give a f*ck about civil war breaking out after they left. Look at how they left India behind after partition. Hell look at the mess they've left Libya in during the last year to get rid of Qaddaffi ffs.

Libya - well, in fairness, it wasn't just Britain.
India - never understood the need for haste in withdrawing - maybe because I don't know enough about it - although Jinnah did want his Pakistan.
I do think the fear of a sectarian bloodbath was in the back of their minds in Westminster as regards NI.
Would you want to be the government remembered only for a bloody end to this business?

getz

Seanchai wrote: »

Ah, Mr Getz tries to be patronising. Not as much as I pity your consistently depressing grasp of the Queen's English. So much for being a royalist when you can't give your own Queen that basic respect.

education is no substitute for intelligence,.....Frank Herbert.

SocSocPol

Seanchai wrote: »

What bad manners of the British monarch to not take off her gloves when shaking hands with somebody, particularly somebody who, unlike her, has his position from democracy rather than from the blood-based, sectarian (specifically anti-Catholic) British nationalist cult that is British royalism.

With such behaviour, McGuinness should have at least worn gloves when meeting the commander in chief of the British crown forces.

PS: A refreshingly honest letter about the blood on the hands of the Queen of England was printed in The Irish Times from one Donal Kennedy this morning here.

Nearly died laughing at this drivel, His position from democracy indeed..lol that would be the democracy of holding "a fully loaded armalite in one hand and a ballot paer in the other"!
Let the murderer McGuiness and his apologists explain their democracy to to the family of Jean McConville,Tim Parry andJohnanton Ball (the ywo young boys slaughtered at Warrington) anf the thousands of others they killed and maimed.

prinz

getz wrote: »

education is no substitute for intelligence,.....Frank Herbert.

Bettttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.......................Frank Spencer.

Patrick Cleburne

SocSocPol wrote: »

Nearly died laughing at this drivel, His position from democracy indeed..lol that would be the democracy of holding "a fully loaded armalite in one hand and a ballot paer in the other"!
Let the murderer McGuiness and his apologists explain their democracy to to the family of Jean McConville,Tim Parry andJohnanton Ball (the ywo young boys slaughtered at Warrington) anf the thousands of others they killed and maimed.

This is true. I actually felt a bit embarrassed for Mcguinness and this handshake. He was lined up like a lap dog and went with it. Would be like Peter Robinson shaking the hand of the Pope.

AEDIC

This thread has probably ran its course now...its turned into an excuse for people to just throw thinly veiled insults.

Fenian Army

SocSocPol wrote: »

Nearly died laughing at this drivel, His position from democracy indeed..lol that would be the democracy of holding "a fully loaded armalite in one hand and a ballot paer in the other"!
Let the murderer McGuiness and his apologists explain their democracy to to the family of Jean McConville,Tim Parry andJohnanton Ball (the ywo young boys slaughtered at Warrington) anf the thousands of others they killed and maimed.

The usual names...

Because people like Julie Livingstone dont matter.

Besides, many of McConvilles family, including at least one son, were in the IRA.

Strange how the media never mentions that isn't it?

Seanchai

SocSocPol wrote: »

Nearly died laughing at this drivel, His position from democracy indeed..lol that would be the democracy of holding "a fully loaded armalite in one hand and a ballot paer in the other"!

1) So you're denying Martin McGuinness's democratic mandate? Why oh why am I not surprised.

2) It was Danny Morrison and not Martin McGuinness who made the armalite and ballot box statement, which you have predictably also misquoted, as anybody with a bit of knowledge of Ireland's British problem could tell you. Moreover, the implied notion in your post is that British rule in Ireland (and in the other remnants of the British Empire) has, apart from being initially based on mass murder and colonial subjugation, no coercive element sustaining it. As if the 50,000 armed British personnel in the north-east of Ireland in, say, 1972 were there distributing flowers for Interflora in an area "as British as Finchley".

3) Since the creation of the Provisional IRA on 28 December 1928, your heroes in the British state have been responsible for the murder of far more innocent people than have the volunteers of the IRA. I wouldn't expect a British nationalist, or tabloid readers generally, to know about the horrors of the British state's arming of (and international defence of), say, the Indonesian genocide in East Timor after 1976 in return for multi-billion contracts to British corporations like Shell, or the British state's support for Pinochet's fascist régime in Chile or its political and military support for the apartheid régime in South Africa in return for millions of pounds in fundraising from White South Africans (around the time the then British Prime Minister referred to one Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist"). And so much more - and that's before mentioning the British state's massacres and tortures in Iraq, or its shoot-to-kill policy in Ireland against the latest generation of the native Irish forces of resistance to the latest phase of British occupation, its involvement in torturing confessions out of innocent Irish people and its involvement in collaboration with its own British settlers in the murder of Irish people (including defence lawyers for same).

Morally speaking, Martin McGuinness emerges glowing when compared to the sinister murdering devious little public school educated bastards in the British establishment, and their Robert Nairic-type cannonfodder from the lower classes, and all their dirty wars across the globe against indigenous populations struggling for freedom.

Seanchai

getz wrote: »

education is no substitute for intelligence,.....Frank Herbert.

Invariably said by people who are too lazy to apply their intelligence to the work of becoming educated.

RandomName2

Seanchai wrote: »

3) Since the creation of the Provisional IRA on 28 December 1928, your heroes in the British state have been responsible for the murder of far more innocent people than have the volunteers of the IRA.

Well this is categorically untrue. Really, quite a slip. You might want to take a look at this

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Although you were starting to go off topic anyway.

Edit: Oh you were talking globally or whatever... sigh.

Seanchai wrote: »

Morally speaking, Martin McGuinness emerges glowing when compared to the sinister murdering devious little public school educated bastards in the British establishment, and their Robert Nairic-type cannonfodder from the lower classes, and all their dirty wars across the globe against indigenous populations struggling for freedom.

Ooh ooh... jaysus... I don't really think this is going to make for much progressive discussion. I will point out that MMG was educated under the Welfare State mind you. And the fact that the majority of the indigenous population of NI don't want... er 'freedom'

Seanchai

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well this is categorically untrue. Really, quite a slip. You might want to take a look at this

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Edit: Oh you were talking globally

Do you always respond to posts without reading them correctly? "Quite a slip" indeed. Moreover, I'd be worried that anybody would reference a loyalist website such as that of Wesley Johnston in support of his/her argument and expect to be viewed as impartial.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ooh ooh... jaysus... I don't really think this is going to make for much progressive discussion.

With responses like this, it would seem that the real problem for you is the fact that all of the above about the British state's involvement in, and support for, murder and torture across the planet is true. And there you were expecting to condemn the native Irish forces of resistance to British rule without our bringing up the British state's far greater involvement in murder and torture. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

RandomName2

Seanchai wrote: »

Do you always respond to posts without reading them correctly? "Quite a slip" indeed. Moreover, I'd be worried that anybody would reference a loyalist website such as that of Wesley Johnston in support of his/her argument and expect to be viewed as impartial.

The website may or may not be impartial. That's not the point - the source of the statistics it uses are correct. But you aren't really discussing NI at all.

Seanchai wrote: »

With responses like this, it would seem that the real problem for you is the fact that all of the above about the British state's involvement in, and support for, murder and torture across the planet is true. And there you were expecting to condemn the native Irish forces of resistance to British rule without our bringing up the British state's far greater involvement in murder and torture. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Oh and I believe that the IRA are great etc. because Henry V unnecessarily executed French soldiers at the Battle of Agincourt.


AH or not, this is weak. Not the hyperbole on your part; it actually scans quite well. Tad biased, mind.

KingMonkey

id just like to know the reasons why user : "getz" believes the lame granny handshake between queenie and mcguinness was so supposedly historic?....

i don't believe it was in anyway significant..same as my thoughts on the visit a while back..

enlighten us...would love to hear it.dont forget to let your anglophile nature shine thru

getz

KingMonkey wrote: »

id just like to know the reasons why user : "getz" believes the lame granny handshake between queenie and mcguinness was so supposedly historic?....

i don't believe it was in anyway significant..same as my thoughts on the visit a while back..

enlighten us...would love to hear it.dont forget to let your anglophile nature shine thru

ireland the UK and SF believe its historic and they are the only ones that are important,mind you a few fringe idiots who still live in the passed will never be satisfied.

SocSocPol

Fenian Army wrote: »

The usual names...

Because people like Julie Livingstone dont matter.

Besides, many of McConvilles family, including at least one son, were in the IRA.

Strange how the media never mentions that isn't it?

How casually you dismiss the innocents your heroes so cold bloodedly murdered.
As for the rest of your post I trust you can prove your slanderous remark regarding the McConvilles.
The PIRA are were and always will be nothing other than a criminal gang, no better than than any other organized crime syndicate.

fasttalkerchat

SocSocPol wrote: »

How casually you dismiss the innocents your heroes so cold bloodedly murdered.
As for the rest of your post I trust you can prove your slanderous remark regarding the McConvilles.
The PIRA are were and always will be nothing other than a criminal gang, no better than than any other organized crime syndicate.

Actually her sons's involvement is very important, that's probably why the brits started targeting her.

SocSocPol

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Actually her sons's involvement is very important, that's probably why the brits started targeting her.

I supposes it was the big bad brits that kidnapped, tortured ,and murdered her before hiding her body on templetown beach as well!
Irish republican means never accepting responsibility for anything.

Galwayguy35

SocSocPol wrote: »

Nearly died laughing at this drivel, His position from democracy indeed..lol that would be the democracy of holding "a fully loaded armalite in one hand and a ballot paer in the other"!
Let the murderer McGuiness and his apologists explain their democracy to to the family of Jean McConville,Tim Parry andJohnanton Ball (the ywo young boys slaughtered at Warrington) anf the thousands of others they killed and maimed.

You have proof of this have you?

edgecutter

Dubhlinner wrote: »

This always amuses me. If Britain wanted rid they'd have gotten rid a long time ago.

They couldn't give a f*ck about civil war breaking out after they left. Look at how they left India behind after partition. Hell look at the mess they've left Libya in during the last year to get rid of Qaddaffi ffs.

Britain can't get rid until there is a majority of people in northern Ireland vote to be reunited with Ireland. Cameron could do sweet f all if he wanted too. Northern Ireland is a massive drain on Britain as Britain spends more than it earns on the north through keeping jobs and services to stop violence.

Yes they would give a fcuk if there was civil war. Remember how many miles seperate both islands. You don't think they want that mess finding itself over there.

steddyeddy

I think the fact that Britian wanted nothing to do with the north caused a lot of the problems up there. The total amount of talk dedicated to the north in westminster before the troubles was two hours. Their absence ensured that the loyalists could discriminate against catholics in terms of jobs, housing and voting. Britian's biggest mistake was to ignore and destroy the civil rights movement leading to the troubles. The phrase that sums this inaction for me is by protestent mp and civil rights organizer Ivan cooper :

I just want to say this to the British Government... You know what you've just done, don't you? You've destroyed the civil rights movement, and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight, young men... boys will be joining the IRA. and

Dubhlinner

edgecutter wrote: »

Britain can't get rid until there is a majority of people in northern Ireland vote to be reunited with Ireland. Cameron could do sweet f all if he wanted too. Northern Ireland is a massive drain on Britain as Britain spends more than it earns on the north through keeping jobs and services to stop violence.

Yes they would give a fcuk if there was civil war. Remember how many miles seperate both islands. You don't think they want that mess finding itself over there.

They repeatedly found that mess showing up. Provos caused a billion worth of damage with the bomb on bishopsgate. Innocent civillians were massacred en masse at Birmingham. Many more in London. They were also humiliated when the provos managed to mortar Westminister. Airey neave was assasainated by republican socialists with an up and under.

Had they withdrawn the loyalists would have been more likely to target Dublin/Galway or Cork etc and their capabilities in logistics and intelligence were nothing compared to the provos or irps

I mean intelligence there in the millitary sense I am not say Prods are thick or anything like that. Republicans were only better because they had to be.

The British are there because they want to be. Thats why they chose the six counties of ni specifically

Happyman42

SocSocPol wrote: »

I supposes it was the big bad brits that kidnapped, tortured ,and murdered her before hiding her body on templetown beach as well!
Irish republican means never accepting responsibility for anything.

Irish repubicanism have accepted responsibility for that a long time ago.

Why do you think it furthers yours or anybody else's argument to constantly bring the victims of one side into the debate?
Jean McConville died for the same reason everybody else died.

indioblack

Happyman42 wrote: »

Irish repubicanism have accepted responsibility for that a long time ago.

Why do you think it furthers yours or anybody else's argument to constantly bring the victims of one side into the debate?
Jean McConville died for the same reason everybody else died.

What does "accepting responsibility" actually mean?
So if, for example, the British "accept responsibility" for, let's say, Bloody Sunday, does that mean the subject is closed?
I had an illuminating discussian with an Irish relative, who was also a staunch republican. It started well - "leave things in the past, faults on both sides, time to move on" I agreed with him on all of this - and then he launched into a tirade about Bloody Sunday.
For him, leaving the past aside meant only one side.