A Little Pony wrote: » Why else do you think America is always in the Middle East? It is an Empire, expanding all the time to gain influence over its subjects.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why is the 'nationality' of a pilot important specifically? If it is a security issue it is an insulting and discriminatory one, given that it is British citizens themselves that have represented the most lethal threat to Britain in 50 years. My opinion on that (which I think I am entitled to on a discussion forum) is that I am appalled that self respecting person would be in an organisation that (as a pilot or soldier) would expect them to ultimately give their lives for a state that doesn't trust them for certain posts. I am sorry if you don't like that opinion, but there you go.
Fratton Fred wrote: » did they kill a childrens tv presenter as well? ****ing hypocrite.:rolleyes:
Fratton Fred wrote: » are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? It isn't nationality, it is citizenship and residency. I haven't lived in the UK for ten years, so even though I am a British national, I couldn't become a pilot unless I moved back to the UK and resided there for five years or more, without spending more than 28 days abroad. Conversely, an Irish national who has lived in the UK for the past five years, could potentially sign up tomorrow. A pilot is effectively given total control of some of the most sophisticated and advanced weaponry on the planet. This control is only given to someone you can trust, regardless of their nationality, so there are very rigorous back ground checks. That's all this is about, it has nothing to do with trusting British citizens more than any one else.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I am not arguing, just offering my opinion on what I think is a discriminatory and insulting bar. If I can give my allegiance and loyalty to an organisation as a non national and accept that I could die for that organisation I think it demeans me to infer that I am not trustworthy enough to do certain jobs. I think anyone accepting that bar has a bit of an inferiority, subservience complex tbh. Maybe someday somebody will be brave enough to challenge it under equality legislation.
BalcombeSt4 wrote: » They killed a anti-Irish racist who put bounties on there head
Fratton Fred wrote: » non nationals and nationals are treated the exact same.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't agree. And as a 'security' measure it is bull**** given that the biggest threat to British security has come from British citizens themselves.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Why don't you agree?
FrancieBrady wrote: » How could non nationals and nationals be treated the same, when one of them has to revoke their citizenship wait 5 years to be eligible to apply? How is it a 'security' measure when we have seen that it is natural born British citizens that have presented the biggest threat to British security? Edit: I understand they can retain dual citizenship and are not required to revoke. Point still stands though.
Fratton Fred wrote: » so murdering a man, in cold blood on his doorstep is acceptable, because he's a bit of a ****. Like I said, hypocrite.
steddyeddy wrote: » Well I don't think it's acceptable to murder non combatants Fred. However I think the British security forces are no better in that regard.
Fratton Fred wrote: » both have to live in the UK for five continuous years. ergo, British and non British nationals are treated the same.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I never quite understood why he involved himself in the conflict.
Fratton Fred wrote: » why did anyone?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Good question. Probably because they had a dog in the fight. Why McWirther did at such a chaotic moment always struck me as foolhardy.
Fratton Fred wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » Good question. Probably because they had a dog in the fight. Why McWirther did at such a chaotic moment always struck me as foolhardy. because he wanted to see an end to the reign of terror by the gang of thugs, now known as the Balcombe Street 4?
Fratton Fred wrote: » because he wanted to see an end to the reign of terror by the gang of thugs, now known as the Balcombe Street 4?
Fratton Fred wrote: » so if I renamed myself "1st Battalion Parachute Regiment" and started to complain about IRA atrocities, I'd be a bit of a hypocrite?
A Little Pony wrote: » Some got released in 1999. Should have hanged them. The British state was too soft on these lot.
FrancieBrady wrote: » But he involved himself and it ended with his death. Just seemed foolhardy to me. They were not reasonable times for anybody.
steddyeddy wrote: » Well you could Fred. I'm not against violence if it's done for legitimate reasons but I don't see how you can differentiate between the actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland (RUC, army) and the IRA. Both were involved in making, planning or carrying out bombings, killing innocent people and using violence to further their aims. You can only differentiate by the political aims.
Fratton Fred wrote: » would you say the same about Pat Finucane?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » Some got released in 1999. Should have hanged them. The British state was too soft on these lot. Any Loyalists/BA/RUC deserving of hanging?
A Little Pony wrote: » A good few, yeah. IRA cowards shooting defenceless people, what do people expect really. I stick by what I said, should have hanged that lot.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » A good few, yeah. IRA cowards shooting defenceless people, what do people expect really. I stick by what I said, should have hanged that lot. So you'd be in favour of hanging guilty soldiers, police and Loyalists. Ok.
A Little Pony wrote: » Would you not?
