Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Spook_ie · 11-04-2013 11:14PM

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

Depends on if they routinely targeted civilians, I would imagine if any army routinely targeted civilians then the death toll would number somewhere along the lines of several thousand rather than dozens.

The BAs actions on BS weren't terrorist but they were criminal in that targets were clearly not identified before being shot at.

However, how much of that blame lies with the model of terrorist warfare employed in NI of targeting people in uniforms whilst wearing civilian clothing? or of murdering citizens of a country whom were not active participants such as Mary next door because Joe reckons she was talking to that soldier a bit more friendly than she ought to have been?

Another days or threads discussion perhaps....

end of the road · 11-04-2013 11:19PM

delthedriver wrote: »

The tone of Pro IRA , Anti British feeling in this thread is disgusting.

brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . not being sorry that a woman who was even hated by many of her own people is dead makes one anti british and pro IRA. fantastic, get a grip

Lingua Franca · 11-04-2013 11:19PM

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.:)

You may not think you are finger wagging, but you posted this:

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.

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.

K-9 · 11-04-2013 11:20PM

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.

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.

delthedriver · 11-04-2013 11:26PM

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.

What exactly is your point?. I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence.
Respectfully,

Lingua Franca · 11-04-2013 11:29PM

delthedriver wrote: »

What exactly is your point?. I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence.
Respectfully,

OP = Original post.

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.

You didn't add an opinion of your own, you just told people off for criticising her.

Happyman42 · 11-04-2013 11:29PM

delthedriver wrote: »

What exactly is your point?. I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence.
Respectfully,

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.

Fratton Fred · 11-04-2013 11:35PM

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.

Nothing to do with them putting bombs in pubs, restaurants and shopping centres then, it was just semantics?

delthedriver · 11-04-2013 11:37PM

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.

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.?

123balltv · 11-04-2013 11:40PM

Quinn is heading over next Wednesday
Rod Stewart has been asked to sing at Thatchers funeral but 'Wake up Maggie" may not be everyones favourite...

Happyman42 · 11-04-2013 11:42PM

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.?

You are admonishing people for having a view, or rather, a 'view' you don't like, on a thread that is explicitly for that purpose...the expression of views. Your objection to criticism of MT is between you and the mods...it is not an opinion on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, so it isn't relevant in here.

delthedriver · 11-04-2013 11:43PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

OP = Original post.

You didn't add an opinion of your own, you just told people off for criticising her.

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

Lingua Franca · 11-04-2013 11:45PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nothing to do with them putting bombs in pubs, restaurants and shopping centres then, it was just semantics?

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_coup

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

Mammy paid his bail, of course.

Lingua Franca · 11-04-2013 11:45PM

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

Of course.

Zebra3 · 11-04-2013 11:52PM

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.

What about the terrorists that the British security forces were arming and supplying with intelligence?

And what about the state sanctioned kidnappings and torture carried out by the RUC and British army?

Latchy · 11-04-2013 11:52PM

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 .

Happyman42 · 11-04-2013 11:53PM

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_coup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

Mammy paid his bail, of course.

The only reason it got any sustained notice is because Thatcher was involved, the British have been at this sort of stuff for centuries. I can't believe the Irish, of all people, continue to fall for the high moral ground they continue to take, considering the amount of times they have been caught doing it.

General General · 12-04-2013 12:36AM

Cameron may be shooting himself in the foot here with this Tory state funeral.

Weathering · 12-04-2013 01:10AM

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.

So you're saying over .5million people were targeted. Where is this proof for that statement stating over 500,000 people were targeted? Anyway you should be having this discussion with Kaiser not me,after all if you read my comment it clearly stated that by his own admission the british army meet his definition of a terrorist through acts they committed that was my only point.

There were atrocities committed on both sides, but it seems to me that atrocities committed by the British are swept under the carpet and a blind eye is turned to it by certain members,excuses made for it and trying to justify it to a few select extenuating circumstances. They colluded with protestant terrorist groups which in turn set off bombs in the Irish Republic. Not really acceptable actions for to quote you " the armed force of a democratically elected EC country"

Norwesterner · 12-04-2013 02:07AM

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 .

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??

Norwesterner · 12-04-2013 02:09AM

General General wrote: »

Cameron may be shooting himself in the foot here with this Tory state funeral.

I think it will be huge as there is great anger in Britain over the Death parties.

efb · 12-04-2013 02:19AM

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??

Garda Overtime

Norwesterner · 12-04-2013 02:22AM

efb wrote: »

Garda Overtime

Oh, that's that cleared up so.
English police working pro-bono are they?

Seachmall · 12-04-2013 02:28AM

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??

They're putting all the money into a big pot and setting it on fire.

The actual cost to guard the Queen is just €3.25.

efb · 12-04-2013 02:32AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Oh, that's that cleared up so.
English police working pro-bono are they?

She isn't seen as much of a target in her country.

Rascasse · 12-04-2013 02:33AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Oh, that's that cleared up so.
English police working pro-bono are they?

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 · 12-04-2013 02:45AM

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.

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 · 12-04-2013 02:48AM

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.

How much of a target is she in Nottingham?

Norwesterner · 12-04-2013 02:52AM

efb wrote: »

How much of a target is she in Nottingham?

How much of a target was Thatcher in Brighton.

I just find it rich, that Irish people find it obscene for the British to pay 10 million to guard 2000 VIP's, then make excuses for our Govt charging 3 times as much to guard one VIP.

There's no defence for it, and if you think there is justification...then you can't criticise the 10 million tab for next weekend.

Rascasse · 12-04-2013 03:02AM

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.

London is well used to these types of events. Only last week there was a G8 Foreign Ministers meeting. As it's not a state funeral most of the representatives will be ambassadors and the like. Short of Hilary Clinton and Tony Blair most of the attendees won't be well known names.

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.

I just looked up the costs for the Queens visit. RTE quote €20m and CNN $35m. Those are combined figures for Obama and the Queen. Thats a lot of cash but in the grand scheme of things I think it's acceptable. Normalising relations between UK and Ireland and showing the country off to two huge tourism markets is a good thing.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments