Margaret Thatcher....

[Maguire01]

Where's the personal abuse there?

My SINCERE apologies Maguire01, I thought the word "bollix" was a stand alone comment aimed at me, but it seems it was not. This obviously upset you. Or maybe not. Maybe you are once again (weirdly) stalking me, in which case, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.

I don't need any apologies! And i've responded to a lot of posts on this board, so i'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're not that special to me. 

[Nally Stand]

Where's the personal abuse there?

My SINCERE apologies Maguire01, I thought the word "bollix" was a stand alone comment aimed at me, but it seems it was not. This obviously upset you. Or maybe not. Maybe you are once again (weirdly) stalking me, in which case, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.

I don't need any apologies! And i've responded to a lot of posts on this board, so i'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're not that special to me. 

[Myles Na G.]

Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?

War crimes? Did we not already establish that the Hague is hardly likely to be involved here? The IRA fought a guerrilla campaign, the shooting of unarmed combatants comes as part of such a campaign. In the case of non combatants then why would I condone that? Maybe these are questions you should be also seeking an answer to from the British government. Or does it's involvement in up to (according to the number of families who regard themselves as collusion victims) 900 sectarian murders (most of which of unarmed non-combatants) not bother you?

And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.

"Margaret Thatcher and the British Government have murdered my brother and his blood is on Margaret Thatcher's hands."
(Brother of Hunger Striker Francis Hughes)
The Hughes family are not the only family to feel this way. In such a complex thing you can open it to any interpretation you feel appropriate. I go along with the families in their view that thatcher put them into a position of hunger strike and forced them to see it through to the end. In my view that's murder. In your's it's not. I don't give a toss what way you look at it to be honest. I also don't see how it is sensationalist. Maybe if i took a leaf out of your book and drew a parallel between the entire british army campaign and the Dunblane massacre and said something like how the brits campaign was about bursting into Churches to shoot worshipers, I might have been sensationalist.

p.s. resorting to personal abuse? 

I know an elderly lady who thinks that MI5 have placed listening devices in her roof space, that the Housing Executive have cut into her oil pipe and rerouted it to one of her neighbours, that the PSNI have taken copies of her door keys, and that someone is coming into her house when she's out and is drinking her coffee. She's changed her locks 3 times in the past couple of months. I think she's wrong on all these things, but I'm giving it to you so that you can quote her in any future posts in which you wish to bash MI5 / PSNI /Housing Executive. She thinks it's true, ergo it's okay to quote her in support of your argument. No need to thank me. 

[Nally Stand]

Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?

War crimes? Did we not already establish that the Hague is hardly likely to be involved here? The IRA fought a guerrilla campaign, the shooting of unarmed combatants comes as part of such a campaign. In the case of non combatants then why would I condone that? Maybe these are questions you should be also seeking an answer to from the British government. Or does it's involvement in up to (according to the number of families who regard themselves as collusion victims) 900 sectarian murders (most of which of unarmed non-combatants) not bother you?

And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.

"Margaret Thatcher and the British Government have murdered my brother and his blood is on Margaret Thatcher's hands."
(Brother of Hunger Striker Francis Hughes)
The Hughes family are not the only family to feel this way. In such a complex thing you can open it to any interpretation you feel appropriate. I go along with the families in their view that thatcher put them into a position of hunger strike and forced them to see it through to the end. In my view that's murder. In your's it's not. I don't give a toss what way you look at it to be honest. I also don't see how it is sensationalist. Maybe if i took a leaf out of your book and drew a parallel between the entire british army campaign and the Dunblane massacre and said something like how the brits campaign was about bursting into Churches to shoot worshipers, I might have been sensationalist.

p.s. resorting to personal abuse? 

I know an elderly lady who thinks that MI5 have placed listening devices in her roof space, that the Housing Executive have cut into her oil pipe and rerouted it to one of her neighbours, that the PSNI have taken copies of her door keys, and that someone is coming into her house when she's out and is drinking her coffee. She's changed her locks 3 times in the past couple of months. I think she's wrong on all these things, but I'm giving it to you so that you can quote her in any future posts in which you wish to bash MI5 / PSNI /Housing Executive. She thinks it's true, ergo it's okay to quote her in support of your argument. No need to thank me. 

OK, so collusion is just a figment of the imagination to the families of the victims? Myles, it is about time Unionism faced up to a few inconvenient truths.

[Evil Genius]

Looking well, don't you think? 

[Gaffer]

Looking well, don't you think? 

Not exactly a stunner , is it?

[The Worker]

Looking well, don't you think? 

Not exactly a stunner , is it?

Should this not be for the new and improved hot ladies thread?

[ziggysego]

Looking well, don't you think? 

There's a likeness, isn't there

[Evil Genius]

Looking well, don't you think? 

Not exactly a stunner , is it?

Not what I'd call a "stunner", no.

Then again, she is 85...

[Nally Stand]

Here's a more accurate likeness

[The Real Laoislad]

She must have eaten a Snickers

[gallsman]

She must have eaten a Snickers

You like the old ones LL, don't you?

[Gaffer]

Looking well, don't you think? 

Not exactly a stunner , is it?

Not what I'd call a "stunner", no.

Then again, she is 85...

But will it see 86 ?

[Evil Genius]

Looking well, don't you think? 

Not exactly a stunner , is it?

Not what I'd call a "stunner", no.

Then again, she is 85...

But will it see 86 ?

More to the point, do you think she'll survive until 2016, and the (much-promised) reunification of Ireland?

Or will the readmission of the Free State into the United Kingdom be permanently blocked before then, on the basis that its debts make it more trouble than it's worth? 

[Arthur_Friend]

A short excerpt from an article by John Pilger.....what a lovely woman. You can read the full thing here.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/vietnam-the-last-battle-john-pilger-reports-from-saigon

"And when it was all over on May Day, 1975, Hollywood began its long celebration of the invaders as victims, the standard purgative, while revenge was policy.  Vietnam was classified as "Category Z" in Washington, which imposed the draconian Trading with the Enemy Act from the first world war. This ensured that even Oxfam America was barred from sending humanitarian aid. Allies pitched in. One of Margaret Thatcher's first acts on coming to power in 1979 was to persuade the European Community to halt its regular shipments of food and milk to Vietnamese children. According to the World Health Organisation, a third of all infants under five so deteriorated following the milk ban that the majority of them were stunted or likely to be.  Almost none of this was news in the west."