Get ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming

[muppet]

The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.

As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."

So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?

Wow #didnotknowthat

On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.

Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?

Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?

I have never mentioned the disappeared.

Oh so you were referring to something else completely when you mentioned the "elephant in the room". You haven't been too quick wither to mention to others trying to link the disappeared into the debate, to keep on topic. Anyway, this thread is turning into a bit of a farce with the likes of minder or rossman or yourself trying to change the subject at the first mention of the queen of england's army's activities in Ireland.

The 'elephant in the room' is Warrington. It is Birmingham and Guildford. It is Omagh twice. It is John Morley and Gerry McCabe. It is everyone who has been killed, kidnapped and injured in any way by those now taking the high moral ground about military activity and claiming a monopoly on being victims. Gerry Adams can go to London and sit in the Dáil because lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on.

[Nally Stand]

The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.

As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."

So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?

Wow #didnotknowthat

On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.

Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?

Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?

I have never mentioned the disappeared.

Oh so you were referring to something else completely when you mentioned the "elephant in the room". You haven't been too quick wither to mention to others trying to link the disappeared into the debate, to keep on topic. Anyway, this thread is turning into a bit of a farce with the likes of minder or rossman or yourself trying to change the subject at the first mention of the queen of england's army's activities in Ireland.

The 'elephant in the room' is Warrington. It is Birmingham and Guildford. It is Omagh twice. It is John Morley and Gerry McCabe. It is everyone who has been killed, kidnapped and injured in any way by those now taking the high moral ground about military activity and claiming a monopoly on being victims. Gerry Adams can go to London and sit in the Dáil because lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on.

Oh so now you have developed this "elephant in the room" metaphor? It's just, you seemed very specific in implying that the disappeared was the "elephant".
Did Gerry Adams or the IRA ever claim they weren't even a protagonist in the conflict?? No. Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims families? Yes. Has the British Army? No.

As I have repeatedly said, perhaps, when the British Army can do as the IRA did, and admit it's responsibility and apologise, then it's head may be more welcome than she currently is.

And enough with the condescending mature act bullshit of "lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on." Typical to insinuate that if you oppose this visit, you must be a dissident who can't move on. I have always supported the GFA.

[muppet]

Oh so now you have developed this "elephant in the room" metaphor? It's just, you seemed very specific in implying that the disappeared was the "elephant".

You can't even admit you got this wrong. I have not commented on the disappeared on this or the other Queenie thread. Not that it matters.

Did Gerry Adams or the IRA ever claim they weren't even a protagonist in the conflict?? No. Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cameron+apologises+ireland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims families? Yes. Has the British Army? No

See above link again. Not ideal granted but it answers your myopia.

As I have repeatedly said, perhaps, when the British Army can do as the IRA did, and admit it's responsibility and apologise, then it's head may be more welcome than she currently is.

See above quote.

And enough with the condescending mature act bullshit of "lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on." Typical to insinuate that if you oppose this visit, you must be a dissident who can't move on. I have always supported the GFA.

I have not insinuated anything of the sort. I complimented BrokenCrossbar1 for his post and respect that position even if it is not mine.

If you support the GFA then you support that what happened prior has been consigned to the past. You might find me more agreeable if this was about Margaret Thatcher visiting since she had executive authority during some of the worst of the troubles. But attacking a token figurehead is the same as blaming Paddy Hillary or Mary McAleese for Irish terrorist atrocities.

[Maguire01]

Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.

Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?

Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.

[Nally Stand]

Oh so now you have developed this "elephant in the room" metaphor? It's just, you seemed very specific in implying that the disappeared was the "elephant".

You can't even admit you got this wrong. I have not commented on the disappeared on this or the other Queenie thread. Not that it matters.

Did Gerry Adams or the IRA ever claim they weren't even a protagonist in the conflict?? No. Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cameron+apologises+ireland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims families? Yes. Has the British Army? No

See above link again. Not ideal granted but it answers your myopia.

As I have repeatedly said, perhaps, when the British Army can do as the IRA did, and admit it's responsibility and apologise, then it's head may be more welcome than she currently is.

See above quote.

And enough with the condescending mature act bullshit of "lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on." Typical to insinuate that if you oppose this visit, you must be a dissident who can't move on. I have always supported the GFA.

I have not insinuated anything of the sort. I complimented BrokenCrossbar1 for his post and respect that position even if it is not mine.

If you support the GFA then you support that what happened prior has been consigned to the past. You might find me more agreeable if this was about Margaret Thatcher visiting since she had executive authority during some of the worst of the troubles. But attacking a token figurehead is the same as blaming Paddy Hillary or Mary McAleese for Irish terrorist atrocities.

That entire post is more or less based around an apology for the 14 deaths of Bloody Sunday. I was under the impression that the British were responsible for more than 14 deaths. Did I ask has britain ever apologised for a small nuber of it's killings here? If I did, then your response above might be appropriate, but that wasn't was I asked. As well you know. Also, where in Cameron's apology did he accept that Britain was an active protagonist in the conflict and not a referee, like I originally mentioned? So hardly myopia, you just answered a question I didn't ask.

[Nally Stand]

Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.

Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?

Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.

So if you oppose the visit, then "slow" can also be added to the list of condescending terms of abuse from those who "are mature" and "can move on"?

[muppet]

That entire post is more or less based around an apology for the 14 deaths of Bloody Sunday. I was under the impression that the British were responsible for more than 14 deaths. Did I ask has britain ever apologised for a small nuber of it's killings here? If I did, then your response above might be appropriate, but that wasn't was I asked. As well you know. Also, where in Cameron's apology did he accept that Britain was an active protagonist in the conflict and not a referee, like I originally mentioned? So hardly myopia, you just answered a question I didn't ask.

This is what you said: "Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.

Apologising for murdering albeit some of the people is hardly claiming 'that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day' is it?

And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?

[Nally Stand]

That entire post is more or less based around an apology for the 14 deaths of Bloody Sunday. I was under the impression that the British were responsible for more than 14 deaths. Did I ask has britain ever apologised for a small nuber of it's killings here? If I did, then your response above might be appropriate, but that wasn't was I asked. As well you know. Also, where in Cameron's apology did he accept that Britain was an active protagonist in the conflict and not a referee, like I originally mentioned? So hardly myopia, you just answered a question I didn't ask.

This is what you said: "Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.

Apologising for murdering albeit some of the people is hardly claiming 'that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day' is it?

And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?

So Camerons apology for Bloody Sunday was an admittance of britain being a protagonist and not a peacemaker for the conflict??!! Why did Cameron himself, in his statement say "We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.....Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969-2007.....Our Armed Forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible...Without their work the peace process would not have happened.".

Funny way of admitting they were not "referees", or "peacemakers" and in fact were active willing protagonists on one side of a conflict, as you claim, would you not say?

And I did not start whataboutery by talking about IRA violence when the topic was violence of her majesty's forces. As for an apology from her, I have repeatedly stated that if the british army admitted it was a participant rather than a referee in the conflict (all of it, muppet, not just one day in Derry) and came clean on it's activities, then her visit would be less offensive.

[Maguire01]

Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.

Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?

Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.

So if you oppose the visit, then "slow" can also be added to the list of condescending terms of abuse from those who "are mature" and "can move on"?

You can add it if you think it fits. I didn't call anyone slow for opposing the visit, rather for not understanding the likely purpose of the visit. If that describes you, then yes, feel free to describe yourself as 'slow' on the uptake.

[Nally Stand]

Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.

Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?

Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.

So if you oppose the visit, then "slow" can also be added to the list of condescending terms of abuse from those who "are mature" and "can move on"?

You can add it if you think it fits. I didn't call anyone slow for opposing the visit, rather for not understanding the likely purpose of the visit. If that describes you, then yes, feel free to describe yourself as 'slow' on the uptake.

I'm asking if you think it fits. Seems you believe firmly that it should happen, and if anyone doesn't, they don't understand and are "slow". But sure backtrack away!

[muppet]

The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.

You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.

Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.

[Nally Stand]

The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.

You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.

Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.

No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.

[muppet]

The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.

You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.

Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.

No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.

So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?

Who decides how long?

[Nally Stand]

The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.

You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.

Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.

No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.

So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?

Who decides how long?

Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?

[muppet]

The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.

You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.

Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.

No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.

So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?

Who decides how long?

Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?

Go on, answer that yourself.