Martin McGuinness to meet Britain's queen

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Willie Whitelaw was a ****.

Are you Irish, or one.of those yanks that likes to stick their nose in where its not wanted?

You have been to Ireland haven't you, because you made a bot of an ass of yourself with the clerical abuse statement.

Come on Fred, you have a go at answering, when they where made aware of the the extent of abuse, did the Irish government take action?
Like Happy Monday, can you provide sources for the claim that successive governments covered up systematic abuse or colluded wth that abuse? I demand you point to evidence of that or shut up.
And 'shure they must have covered it up'......is not evidence or source material.

Happyman42

SmilingLurker wrote: »

I believe in a republic, but not one where you tolerate politicians that actively campaigned against democratic politics.

:D I wouldn't know where to start with the historical knowledge deficit here. Maybe buy a book poster!

SmilingLurker

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D I wouldn't know where to start with the historical knowledge deficit here. Maybe buy a book poster!

Trying to insult people rather than make a point is conceding an argument.

Try arguing the point, SF and Martin McGuinness supported an organisation that killed people - Gardai - e.g. Garda G. McCabe. The IRA did kill innocent civilians. As for soldiers and policemen up north - is killing other human being an answer in a society where you can run for elections?

As for insult on my history knowledge:
- Remember democratic republicans include Oliver Cromwell (even though he was a reluctant republican, and only democratic to those with property...)
- I am perfectly aware elections were not always democratic up north, votes based on property, with gerrymandering etc.
- I am making the point violence is not the answer

I am not ignorant of history, but I do argue with logic and points, not insults.

hondasam

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0624/mcguinness-queen-meeting.html

He is doing what he has to do. I'm sure he is not overly happy about having to do it.

Happyman42

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Trying to insult people rather than make a point is conceding an argument.

Try arguing the point, SF and Martin McGuinness supported an organisation that killed people - Gardai - e.g. Garda G. McCabe. The IRA did kill innocent civilians. As for soldiers and policemen up north - is killing other human being an answer in a society where you can run for elections?

As for insult on my history knowledge:
- Remember democratic republicans include Oliver Cromwell (even though he was a reluctant republican, and only democratic to those with property...)
- I am perfectly aware elections were not always democratic up north, votes based on property, with gerrymandering etc.
- I am making the point violence is not the answer

I am not ignorant of history, but I do argue with logic and points, not insults.

You are aware what happens when a society implodes and why it implodes?
Nobody is insulting you, but when you come on thread and make a statement like you did, 'that democratic means' where available to Nationalists in the North betrays a mind that isn't really taking on board what actually happened.
The violence happened, the lid was allowed to come off by a crimminal and irresponsible government, and thankfully with the emergence of memo's like Willie Whitelaw's the facts about how it was allowed to happen and was 'encouraged' to happen are becoming available.
When I see people like you calling for the Conservatives or MP's to 'resign from public life' or to 'apologise' or for Mrs Winsdor to 'humbly apologise for her forces part in the deaths of innocent Irish men, women and children, then I will accept that you are using 'logic' and not just your innate bias and ignorance.

bee_keeper

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Resign from public life. Apologise for being part of an organisation that killed gardai, civilians, and british service personnel when there was a democratic alternative. Possibly get his party to put together a budget that was balanced and an alternative to the current government.

I believe in a republic, but not one where you tolerate politicians that actively campaigned against democratic politics.

As for the handshake, of course he should shake her hand. The question is should she shake his?

Sorry, you asked.

how many politicans at the very top in the worlds most powerfull countries have not aprooved the killing of others

reminds me of the line in the godfather where kay says to michael

senators and presidents dont order people to be killed

now who,s being naive

christmas2012

I think its great martin mcguiness is meeting the queen it means things are moving forward..

AEDIC

Can I just remind people that this thread is actually about a positive step being made by MMG and SF AND Britain in an effort to move forward and to move on to try and make progress.

Reading the last few pages here make me feel that some people should be ashamed of themselves....oooooo did what tooo ooooo.... yeah..way to move on.

I guess there are indeed those that would prefer no progress... no move forward, so that they can continue to argue about whattaboutery until their insane reasons for holding on to the past fill them to bursting just like a fat kid with a bag of doughnuts.

Almost every post over the last few pages has been posted before in one way or another on hundreds of threads in here... and where has that led...to another thread filled with the same old rhetoric... and the dance continues...around...and around...and around..

Happyman42

AEDIC wrote: »

Can I just remind people that this thread is actually about a positive step being made by MMG and SF AND Britain in an effort to move forward and to move on to try and make progress.

Reading the last few pages here make me feel that some people should be ashamed of themselves....oooooo did what tooo ooooo.... yeah..way to move on.

I guess there are indeed those that would prefer no progress... no move forward, so that they can continue to argue about whattaboutery until their insane reasons for holding on to the past fill them to bursting just like a fat kid with a bag of doughnuts.

Almost every post over the last few pages has been posted before in one way or another on hundreds of threads in here... and where has that led...to another thread filled with the same old rhetoric... and the dance continues...around...and around...and around..

And you know the reason for that? Because people keep coming on threads like this with the same old lack of historical knowledge or worse, willyfully ignoring certain facts that would undermine their positions. You constantly get the same old kneejerk requests for admission of defeat and shame from people who have no idea what it was like and with no willingness to explore mindsets and ideologies.
I for one will not let them away with that nonsense. I am a product of my country, I have no shame or misplaced pride in it's evolution, just an understanding of what happened.

AEDIC

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you know the reason for that? Because people keep coming on threads like this with the same old lack of historical knowledge or worse, willyfully ignoring certain facts that would undermine their positions. You constantly get the same old kneejerk requests for admission of defeat and shame from people who have no idea what it was like and with no willingness to explore mindsets and ideologies.
I for one will not let them away with that nonsense. I am a product of my country, I have no shame or misplaced pride in it's evolution, just an understanding of what happened.

Know what... I dont care. Get over it and yourself. F*ckwittery breeds f*ckwittery and turning the other cheek and ignoring provocation is all about growing up and moving forward.

What does anyone coming in here and 'correcting' peoples opinions about the past do?... I will tell you what it does....re read the last 5 pages and it will give you a clue.

Happyman42

AEDIC wrote: »

Know what... I dont care.

Fair enough, the door's the wooden thing in the wall. > :rolleyes:

I think it's always important to give the other view, I would never ever stand over censorship of opinion, either in here or in general. It allows dark forces to operate. For too long on this island, people 'didn't care', it's why we are in the mess we are in.

AEDIC

Happyman42 wrote: »

Fair enough, the door's the wooden thing in the wall. > :rolleyes:

I think it's always important to give the other view, I would never ever stand over censorship of opinion, either in here or in general. It allows dark forces to operate. For too long on this island, people 'didn't care', it's why we are in the mess we are in.

Yes - I am well aware of that...and if you want to start a new thread for your rhetoric instead of derailing yet another one then the button is up there ^^^

I wont engage you any more on this...I wont allow you to further derail this thread using my post, I have no more to add to my opinion posted earlier, I think anyone who read this whole thread will see what has happened here.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

Come on Fred, you have a go at answering, when they where made aware of the the extent of abuse, did the Irish government take action?
Like Happy Monday, can you provide sources for the claim that successive governments covered up systematic abuse or colluded wth that abuse? I demand you point to evidence of that or shut up.
And 'shure they must have covered it up'......is not evidence or source material.

http://vaticancrimesinireland.blogspot.ie/2012/05/irish-government-cover-up-clear.html

Check this out with reference to the magdalene laundries.
If this happened to Catholics in the 6 counties you'd be crying over it.
In the 26 counties 'ah shure it's wasn't too bad if them brits didn't do it'.

Happyman42

AEDIC wrote: »

Yes - I am well aware of that...and if you want to start a new thread for your rhetoric instead of derailing yet another one then the button is up there ^^^

I wont engage you any more on this...I wont allow you to further derail this thread using my post, I have no more to add to my opinion posted earlier, I think anyone who read this whole thread will see what has happened here.

I wonder why some are afraid of free discussion? You always get someone trying to stop the thread when it reaches a certain point. Keith and Fratton Fred frequently appear on these threads, spout their biased nonsense and then disappear when they get rebuked.
The original topic is woven through this thread, the shaking of Mrs Windsor's hand has all sorts of issues around it and you can't ignore those issues. It's ridiculous to even try.
I think a wee bit of growing up might be required on your part if you want to take part in that disccussion. Unless, as I said, you are afraid of something? :cool:

And that is my last word on the sidetrack too.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

http://vaticancrimesinireland.blogspot.ie/2012/05/irish-government-cover-up-clear.html

Check this out with reference to the magdalene laundries.
If this happened to Catholics in the 6 counties you'd be crying over it.
In the 26 counties 'ah shure it's wasn't too bad if them brits didn't do it'.

The state failed those people, without a doubt. Where is the evidence of the 'cover-up'? Failure to see the problems is not a cover-up.
Government ministers who failed in their briefs should be held responsible. Government ministers who attempted to cover up that failure should also be held accountable. Nobody is denying anything here Happy Monday. But 'systematic' cover-ups and collusion in those events because the Vatican was secretly running the country is NOT proven. And even if it was it is not in anyway comparable to what the British colluded with right up until it was politically expedient to seek and sign an agreement.
The Unionists and Loyalists are now finding out just how expedient they will be when it is something they want. The special 'relationship' they thought they had with the Crown is now sundered and they aren't liking the reality of that. Watch as the bigots come out of the woodwork objecting to Mrs Winsdor shaking Martins hand!

indioblack

Happyman42 wrote: »

The state failed those people, without a doubt. Where is the evidence of the 'cover-up'? Failure to see the problems is not a cover-up.
Government ministers who failed in their briefs should be held responsible. Government ministers who attempted to cover up that failure should also be held accountable. Nobody is denying anything here Happy Monday. But 'systematic' cover-ups and collusion in those events because the Vatican was secretly running the country is NOT proven. And even if it was it is not in anyway comparable to what the British colluded with right up until it was politically expedient to seek and sign an agreement.
The Unionists and Loyalists are now finding out just how expedient they will be when it is something they want. The special 'relationship' they thought they had with the Crown is now sundered and they aren't liking the reality of that. Watch as the bigots come out of the woodwork objecting to Mrs Winsdor shaking Martins hand!

So much surrounds this meeting, and it's bound to raise issues - some of which have been aired here.
Both Martin McGuinness and the Queen carry baggage from the past - directly and indirectly.
It is symbolic and I think will be a positive event - unless too many people with agenda try to derail it - never mind claims of derailing this thread! We can survive that.

FairytaleGirl

Martin McGuinness is a man who sould be in jail.

Instead his dirty dealing during the troubles ensured young innocent boys were drawn in and even killed for 'the cause'. While now McGuinness colludes witht the Crown. If he does go ahead and shake her hand etc he'll be a marked man. Wait and see.

PS) NOT my personal views but growing up in Derry and having catholic parents and grandparents who lived through the troubles Ive heard enough about it.

Happyman42

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Martin McGuinness is a man who sould be in jail.

Instead his dirty dealing during the troubles ensured young innocent boys were drawn in and even killed for 'the cause'. While now McGuinness colludes witht the Crown. If he does go ahead and shake her hand etc he'll be a marked man. Wait and see.

PS) NOT my personal views but growing up in Derry and having catholic parents and grandparents who lived through the troubles Ive heard enough about it.

So we'll just lock up one man, with a huge mandate from the people? That ought to sort things, well done. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

indioblack wrote: »

So much surrounds this meeting, and it's bound to raise issues - some of which have been aired here.
Both Martin McGuinness and the Queen carry baggage from the past - directly and indirectly.
It is symbolic and I think will be a positive event - unless too many people with agenda try to derail it - never mind claims of derailing this thread! We can survive that.

You are absolutlely right, so much does surround it. But it has been handled very well and responsibly. It was a nonsense to try and force this during Mrs Windsor's visit. That was never going to happen.
Private, out of sight of the bigots and diehards on both sides. No triumphalism. And then move on.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wonder why some are afraid of free discussion? You always get someone trying to stop the thread when it reaches a certain point. Keith and Fratton Fred frequently appear on these threads, spout their biased nonsense and then disappear when they get rebuked.
The original topic is woven through this thread, the shaking of Mrs Windsor's hand has all sorts of issues around it and you can't ignore those issues. It's ridiculous to even try.
I think a wee bit of growing up might be required on your part if you want to take part in that disccussion. Unless, as I said, you are afraid of something? :cool:

And that is my last word on the sidetrack too.

Err, if she was just Mrs Windsor then no one would be getting excited. Your refusal to refer to her by her title is insulting.

In fact, your tireless rhetoric is what most people find insulting, its like you have swallowed Irish republicanism 101.

I note you have avoided answering my question. Maybe you could tell us how you know so much about the troubles?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Err, if she was just Mrs Windsor then no one would be getting excited. Your refusal to refer to her by her title is insulting.

I don't recognise monarchies and she isn't my head of state.

I note you have avoided answering my question. Maybe you could tell us how you know so much about the troubles?

What?


btw; you still haven't given us your spin on Willie's memo and the implications of it.

Scanlas The 2nd

Happyman42 wrote: »

indioblack wrote: »

So much surrounds this meeting, and it's bound to raise issues - some of which have been aired here.
Both Martin McGuinness and the Queen carry baggage from the past - directly and indirectly.
It is symbolic and I think will be a positive event - unless too many people with agenda try to derail it - never mind claims of derailing this thread! We can survive that.

You are absolutlely right, so much does surround it. But it has been handled very well and responsibly. It was a nonsense to try and force this during Mrs Windsor's visit. That was never going to happen.
Private, out of sight of the bigots and diehards on both sides. No triumphalism. And then move on.

Britain conquered Norther Ireland fair and square, that's how borders are made, get over it.

My name is URL

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Martin McGuinness is a man who sould be in jail.

Instead his dirty dealing during the troubles ensured young innocent boys were drawn in and even killed for 'the cause'. While now McGuinness colludes witht the Crown. If he does go ahead and shake her hand etc he'll be a marked man. Wait and see.

PS) NOT my personal views but growing up in Derry and having catholic parents and grandparents who lived through the troubles Ive heard enough about it.

He's more than likely been a 'marked man' for quite a number of years, to some extent.

What collusion do you speak of? Meeting Betty in such a public manner can hardly be called collusion, can it?

It's obviously going to annoy some people, but I think any rational person from either side of the fence will see it as a positive thing.

fasttalkerchat

My name is URL wrote: »

It's obviously going to annoy some people, but I think any rational person from either side of the fence will see it as a positive thing.

A lot of republicans will see it as reconciliation before the struggle has ended.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't recognise monarchies and she isn't my head of state.



What?


btw; you still haven't given us your spin on Willie's memo and the implications of it.

Which part of "Willie Whitelaw was a ****" is ambiguous?

Look, you can spin this anyway you want, as some sort of great victory for sinn fein or whatever, but the reality is, this is a natural progression of the process that is srvuring race in northern Ireland.

The people of NI, not the IRA, not the British army and certainly not the uvf secured peace. They overwhelmingly rejected the armed forces of both sides, just as they.continue to do today.

If the likes of McGuinness want to continue to remain relevant to the politics up there, this is one of the.things he has to do. Simple.

fasttalkerchat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which part of "Willie Whitelaw was a ****" is ambiguous?

Look, you can spin this anyway you want, as some sort of great victory for sinn fein or whatever, but the reality is, this is a natural progression of the process that is srvuring race in northern Ireland.

The people of NI, not the IRA, not the British army and certainly not the uvf secured peace. They overwhelmingly rejected the armed forces of both sides, just as they.continue to do today.

If the likes of McGuinness want to continue to remain relevant to the politics up there, this is one of the.things he has to do. Simple.

Actually all previous deals involving the SDLP did not succeed because they did not have the support of the majority. It wasn't until the PIRA began to nogotiate and SF called for peace talks that the majority voted for an end to the conflict under the GFA.

Fratton Fred

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Actually all previous deals involving the SDLP did not succeed because they did not have the support of the majority. It wasn't until the PIRA began to nogotiate and SF called for peace talks that the majority voted for an end to the conflict under the GFA.

You can plot a declining straight line of support for the IRA from enniskillen onwards. Support for armed action started declining after that atrocity and practically hit zero after the Warrington bombing.

The IRA had no choice, its successive failures had lost it the support of the people it was supposed to be fighting for.

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You can plot a declining straight line of support for the IRA from enniskillen onwards. Support for armed action started declining after that atrocity and practically hit zero after the Warrington bombing.

The IRA had no choice, its successive failures had lost it the support of the people it was supposed to be fighting for.

Successive failures? In getting the British establishment to listen, take heed and run. You gotta be joking. As with all other colonies ....... the mighty British empire crumbling under freedom fighters. Can you tell us why the empire has shrunk? Nothing at all to do with all of these "terrorist organisations" giving the British Army a bloody nose? Fred, you and your ilk are very much deluded. Just like Thatcher ........ trapped by the past. Sad.

This is a short history lesson Fred. But a true one!

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

Successive failures? In getting the British establishment to listen, take heed and run. You gotta be joking. As with all other colonies ....... the mighty British empire crumbling under freedom fighters. Can you tell us why the empire has shrunk? Nothing at all to do with all of these "terrorist organisations" giving the British Army a bloody nose? Fred, you and your ilk are very much deluded. Just like Thatcher ........ trapped by the past. Sad.

This is a short history lesson Fred. But a true one!

If that's what you want to believe, then go right ahead.

Sunnyisland

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You can plot a declining straight line of support for the IRA from enniskillen onwards. Support for armed action started declining after that atrocity and practically hit zero after the Warrington bombing.

The IRA had no choice, its successive failures had lost it the support of the people it was supposed to be fighting for.

The move towards a more political approach was confirmed by the emergence of new leaders, predominantly from the north, and the election of Gerry Adams as President of Sin Féin in 1983, There is no general agreement among commentators on the start date of the peace process. The announcement of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) "cessation" of military action on 31 August 1994 was the end of one part of the process and the beginning of another phase. Some people consider that the process dates back to the 11 January 1988. This is the date on which John Hume, then leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), had a meeting with Gerry Adams, then President of Sin Féin (SF). This was the first in a series of discussions that were to take place between the two men from 1988 to 1993,For you to be saying there was no choice is totally wrong and as usual trying to undermine what actually did happen up here and give credit where it is due.

Fratton Fred

realies wrote: »

The move towards a more political approach was confirmed by the emergence of new leaders, predominantly from the north, and the election of Gerry Adams as President of Sin Féin in 1983, There is no general agreement among commentators on the start date of the peace process. The announcement of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) "cessation" of military action on 31 August 1994 was the end of one part of the process and the beginning of another phase. Some people consider that the process dates back to the 11 January 1988. This is the date on which John Hume, then leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), had a meeting with Gerry Adams, then President of Sin Féin (SF). This was the first in a series of discussions that were to take place between the two men from 1988 to 1993,For you to be saying there was no choice is totally wrong and as usual trying to undermine what actually did happen up here and give credit where it is due.

Gerry Adams certainly deserves credit for convincing the army council to stop, yes. iirc, Warrington was a major turning point for him. How many Tim Parrys is a united Ireland worth?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You can plot a declining straight line of support for the IRA from enniskillen onwards. Support for armed action started declining after that atrocity and practically hit zero after the Warrington bombing.

The IRA had no choice, its successive failures had lost it the support of the people it was supposed to be fighting for.

^ ^ The usual British spin.
Look at the FACTS of the chronology.
The IRA refused point blank to decommission, despite the British demands that SF wouldn't be allowed to the table until they did. They bombed Manchester to bring more pressure on the British. Eventually John Major quietly dropped the demand and the GF deal was done.
Decommissioning did not happen until the IRA where ready to do it on their own terms. The actions of a defeated army? Get a grip on the facts Fred.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

^ ^ The usual British spin.
Look at the FACTS of the chronology.
The IRA refused point blank to decommission, despite the British demands that SF wouldn't be allowed to the table until they did. They bombed Manchester to bring more pressure on the British. Eventually John Major quietly dropped the demand and the GF deal was done.
Decommissioning did not happen until the IRA where ready to do it on their own terms. The actions of a defeated army? Get a grip on the facts Fred.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sunnyisland

Lads/Ladies this thread was about MMG shaking hands with The queen, IMO and in most peoples opinion its a good positive move forward for all the people of these Islands, Now cant we just agree on that ?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Apologies, it was of course Tony Blair who dropped the demand.

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Talking to the man in the mirror? You should!

indioblack

Spread wrote: »

Successive failures? In getting the British establishment to listen, take heed and run. You gotta be joking. As with all other colonies ....... the mighty British empire crumbling under freedom fighters. Can you tell us why the empire has shrunk? Nothing at all to do with all of these "terrorist organisations" giving the British Army a bloody nose? Fred, you and your ilk are very much deluded. Just like Thatcher ........ trapped by the past. Sad.

This is a short history lesson Fred. But a true one!

By the mid 1970's it appeared to me, as a not disinterested observer, that this business would have to end in negotiation - as I'm sure much wiser heads had realised long before.
With hindsight, that staple of the born armchair strategist, it is understandable that there would be conflicting claims as to who should get the most acclaim for achieving peace.
In this thread, as in so many others, you will also find competing assertions as to who should take the greater share of blame for the recent period known as "The Troubles".
Most of my criticism has been for the IRA and similar groups - especially for continuing a campaign that was never going to succeed in it's avowed aim of ending the NI state.
In fairness, however, Britains handling of this crisis has received much justified criticism too.
Finally, in my opinion, when you have to use an army to restore order in what should have been a democracy then it is a sign of political failure - and there is something fundamentally wrong with the state to which they are sent.

K-9

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What is it you want K-9? The UDR (A regiment of the British army) colluded with loyalist death gangs - that's just what we know about.

There is another thread that highlights how the torture of innocent people was effectively sanctioned by the British.

If Colonel Gaddaffi is implicated in the deaths of IRA victims then aren't the British responsible for the deaths of people sitting in the pub watching a match, people betting on horses, or men trying to make a living driving a taxi?

What standards would you like to employ?

This is the answer I hoped for and expected.

Well I'd hope you wouldn't be defending McGuinness or Adams when others ask questions of them.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

This is the answer I hoped for and expected........

.......and also didn't address. :rolleyes:

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

Apologies, it was of course Tony Blair who dropped the demand.

Didn't the IRA decommission though?
Isn't the North still part of the United Kingdom?
Isn't the British army still in the 6 counties?
Is the Queen not head of state of NI?

You people have accepted everything you said you would never accept.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

.......and also didn't address. :rolleyes:

I was rather puzzled why I was asked something about Ghadaffi, so just ignored it. Bit like I ignore most of your nonsense.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

I was rather puzzled why I was asked something about Ghadaffi, so just ignored it. Bit like I ignore most of your nonsense.

Dear me. The question wasn't about Gadaffi though K-9. You didn't address it for the same reason you ignored my 'nonsense' question about the Whitelaw memo, because to do so with any honesty, would undermine your position.

nua domhan

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Perhaps he should confess it so - publicly. I'd have a lot of respect for that tbh.

Probably would be a publicity stunt.....you know, like all the rest of the moves forward both sides have been making.

Border-Rat

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

That's the spirit.

Can I just say I'm glad this is annoying you and I hope the increasing success of Sinn Fein annoys you further still.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

Didn't the IRA decommission though? Yes, on their terms.
Isn't the North still part of the United Kingdom? Yes, but enshrined is the principle that the majority decide the future.
Isn't the British army still in the 6 counties? Not on active service, withdrawn to barracks.
Is the Queen not head of state of NI? She is, but I refer you to answer no. 2

You people have accepted everything you said you would never accept.

We 'people' know that when the demographic is right then we will get what is ours. In the meantime we have hard won equality of esteem and equal rights and oppurtunities.
To my knowledge we fought because we wouldn't 'accept' your version of human rights and we won that fight, hands down. Nor have we given up the quest for a United Ireland, free of occupation.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Dear me. The question wasn't about Gadaffi though K-9. You didn't address it for the same reason you ignored my 'nonsense' question about the Whitelaw memo, because to do so with any honesty, would undermine your position.

The question was asked was about Ghadaffi. I've never posted about Ghadaffi, ever, so you can f*ck right off with your nonsense right now.

Border-Rat

K-9 wrote: »

The question was asked was about Ghadaffi. I've never posted about Ghadaffi, ever, so you can f*ck right off with your nonsense right now.

There's no need to speak to other users like this.

delaad

Happy Monday wrote: »

Didn't the IRA decommission though?
Isn't the North still part of the United Kingdom?
Isn't the British army still in the 6 counties?
Is the Queen not head of state of NI?

You people have accepted everything you said you would never accept.

Brands you quicker than a sash.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

The question was asked was about Ghadaffi. I've never posted about Ghadaffi, ever, so you can f*ck right off with your nonsense right now.

Gadaffi was used as an example, the question was, 'what standards would you like to apply'?

And calm down, you might get banned and you wouldn't be able to answer the question, would you? :rolleyes:

K-9

Border-Rat wrote: »

There's no need to speak to other users like this.

I very much mind my p's and q's as a matter of principle!

When I speak to users like that, there's a damn bloody good reason!

My dear old Dad taught me that!