Weathering wrote: » The sickening bigoted behaviour is here for all to see. Kaiser has been talking about terrorists sickening behaviour over the last few days. And upon his own definition of what a terrorist is"stated above in quote" I brought to his attention bloody sunday in derry where british troops opened fire and killed innocent civilians many of who were in their teens. On several occasions I have pointed this out to him but he continues to ignore it. He responded today but yet again he completely ignored what he said. No doubt tomorrow he will be bashing "terrorists" again but as always he'll be wearing his blinkers when it comes to the british army who fit the bill of terrorists using his own definition of what a terrorist is
delthedriver wrote: » The tone of Pro IRA , Anti British feeling in this thread is disgusting.
delthedriver wrote: » Gosh, I am not finger wagging! I am like everyone else entitled to express my opinion. Perhaps in voicing my thoughts I am also trying to bring some balance to the debate, which at this point is very heavily weighted in one direction. Finally I have made no attempt to Mod., nor am I apologising for having an opposing viewpoint.:)
delthedriver wrote: » Baroness Thatcher was an elderly lady, daughter, wife, mother & grandmother. The tone of Pro IRA , Anti British feeling in this thread is disgusting. It is completely disrespectful to dance on anyone's grave. A little respect ,please.
true wrote: » thats because they were terrorists, and recognised as such by every democratic government in the world. Even in this country they killed/ murdered people, inc members of the Gardai.
Lingua Franca wrote: » You may not think you are finger wagging, but you posted this: in two different Thatcher threads, no less! You are fingerwagging. Even her own people accept that she was widely loathed and that she will be criticised. This constant fingerwagging (heavily weighted in one direction? Are you reading a different thread?!) is boring, tiresome and utterly pointless. No one is going to stop criticising her just because you demanded it. I will once more direct you never-speak-ill-of-the-deads to the OP.
delthedriver wrote: » What exactly is your point?. I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence. Respectfully,
dr.bollocko wrote: » Hello folks, Following on from a recently closed mega merge thread which is currently under review. Please use this thread only for discussion of the recent death of Maggie Thatcher.This is not a condolences forum so as a result of this, fair criticism of her legacy is allowed / understandable. However bile / jokes / off-topic nonsense / piss on her grave type crap will be removed and people will be carded / banned.
K-9 wrote: » Nah, the main reason is it was happening under the British Government, it's rebels with the likes of Libya or Syria because they had backing or sympathy from the U.S and U.K.
Happyman42 wrote: » You are confusing an opinion on the thread itself with an opinion on Margaret Thatcher. If you can't handle justified criticism then don't come on the thread or go to the street parties. If you think the thread shouldn't exist, take it up with the mods.
delthedriver wrote: » There is nothing wrong with healthy debate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if their view is a minority view point. Do you prefer that a thread or debate should have a one sided view point only.?
Lingua Franca wrote: » OP = Original post. You didn't add an opinion of your own, you just told people off for criticising her.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Nothing to do with them putting bombs in pubs, restaurants and shopping centres then, it was just semantics?
The 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d'état attempt, also known as the Wonga coup, was an alleged coup attempt against the government of Equatorial Guinea in order to replace President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo with exiled opposition politician Severo Moto, carried out by mercenaries and organised by mainly British financiers. Equatorial Guinea has vast oil and gas reserves. One US official called it "the new Kuwait". Prosecutors alleged Equatorial Guinea's opposition leader, Severo Moto, was to be installed as the new president in return for preferential oil rights to corporations affiliated to those involved with the coup. It received international media attention after the reported involvement of Sir Mark Thatcher in funding the coup.
delthedriver wrote: » Apologies, I was expressing my opinion. It was not my intention to appear like I was lecturing nor moderating. Perhaps we can simply move on?:) Kindest wishes
true wrote: » Over the decades of the troubles close to half a million people served in the security forces in N. ireland. More than that were targeted because they supplied the security forces, or were retired from it. Given the extemely low numbers of people killed by the security forces, relative to their numbers, and despite severe provocation / stress, nobody could claim it was a "terrorist" force, especially as it was the armed force of a democratically elected EC country. There were actually more Irish people in it than in the IRA. Terrorists they were not. As a visitor to N. I in the 80's and 90's I always found them friendly, professional and courteous anyway. More so than our own Gardai and customs and excise.
Lingua Franca wrote: » Yep, the Brits had and have no problem funding, arming and otherwise supporting insurgencies that work in their favour and calling them "rebels", so it is pretty much just semantics. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher#Equatorial_Guinea_couphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt Mammy paid his bail, of course.
Latchy wrote: » 2000 invited guests from all walks of life to attend funeral ,with some reports saying Thatchers funeral will cost something like £10 million ,when all around are struggling with new Tory austerity measures which in many ways , have their roots in Thatchers policy's of the 70s /and 80s and the dreaded poll tax of the 90s . The lady won't be turning in her grave .
General General wrote: » Cameron may be shooting himself in the foot here with this Tory state funeral.
Norwesterner wrote: » If it's costing the Brits 10 million to guard the Queen plus 2000 VIP's, can someone explain why it cost Irish taxpayers 35 million to guard just the Queen (on her own) in Dublin??
efb wrote: » Garda Overtime
Norwesterner wrote: » Oh, that's that cleared up so. English police working pro-bono are they?
Rascasse wrote: » Queens visit was 4 days. MT's funeral is probably 2 hours. Queen visited Dublin, Cork and Cashel. MT's funeral procession in 2 or 3 streets long. These thing's are always way overblown anyway. There was a former Met cop on the news saying that the reported costs for the funeral have risen since her death from £2m to £3m to £6m and now £10m. Most of these numbers are pulled out of a hat by the media with the real cost being fairly low, not that it matters anyway.
Norwesterner wrote: » London is a metropolis of over 15 million people receiving 2000 of the World's most important and influential political and business leaders. A who's who of Al Qaeda targets, and they'll all be staying overnight or longer, not just for 2 hours. Dublin is the size of a provincial English town like Coventry or Nottingham. Do you think it would cost 35 million for the Queen to visit Nottingham?? Just another example of the Govt throwing our money about like confetti.
efb wrote: » How much of a target is she in Nottingham?
Norwesterner wrote: » London is a metropolis of over 15 million people receiving 2000 of the World's most important and influential political and business leaders. A who's who of Al Qaeda targets, and they'll all be staying overnight or longer, not just for 2 hours.
Norwesterner wrote: » Dublin is the size of a provincial English town like Coventry or Nottingham. Do you think it would cost 35 million for the Queen to visit Nottingham?? Just another example of the Govt throwing our money about like confetti.
