Political Crossfire Forums

[mulberrymagnet]

thundertaker wrote: Isn't the IRA the reason why british service members were banned from wearing uniform off duty and off base? As opposed to the days back in WWII or national Service when service members went to the pub without changing into civilian clothes?

It was Thunders. For more years than I care to remember. The IRA couldn't achieve victory by attacking real men, so they attacked their families in their homes instead. If the aim of these people was to get money, or steal, there would be no defence. As it is, we see the same old lame excuses, that it was 'about politics', and that made their killing spree's all the more excusable. Dirty protests were about their limits of intelligence, they were filthy swine who deserved to live and die, in their own excrement. As it is, their war has died underneath them, and the people are realising what a crock of s**t they really were all along.

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: mulberrymagnet wrote:

See my previous post (above) to you.

You're talking complete and utter rubbish. '.. maximise the coverage in the media abroad'? :lol: The German and Dutch g'ments all but put a news embargo on IRA activity on their land. You're confusing the IRA 'bullet and the ballot box' phase with a mix of 'one more push' and 'green base' (the murdering dullards never could agree on strategy). When they murdered Ian Shinner and his mates in Roermond, it went almost unmentioned.

At least if you're going to come here and talk crap, don't try and assume people know less than you, which lets face it, appears to be pretty minimal.

I agree with the following statement:

Quote: It has been argued that this bombing campaign helped convince the British government (who had hoped to contain the conflict to Northern Ireland with its Ulsterisation policy) to negotiate with Sinn Fein after the IRA ceasefires of August 1994 and July 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

:-D
:-D

Yes, and the likes of you have argued it too :lol: . For some strange reason, that doesn't make it any more credible. I know which side of the story I'd believe. You carry on taking your intelligence from.. Wikipedia.

[thundertaker]

thundertaker wrote: Quote: In any wars children will die Mulberrymagnet, if you cannot accept this then I can't see what made you choose to serve your country.

What the hell made you choose to serve yours?!?

[Lucky Luke]

mulberrymagnet wrote:
".. we all have to understand that children will die". You sicko, of course children die, but they aren't always targeted. Does expressing regret make it better for you to sleep at night? I decided to serve my country for many reasons, having the chance to defeat sick scum like you was just a bonus.

I suggest you calm down and stop calling people names.

The IRA did not target the kid and the IRA released a statement explaining their action.

I would not have put out such statement because somehow it makes people believe that the kid died by accident. The kid did not, kids are killed during armed conflicts, entering such conflicts and claiming that kids won't die is ludicrous.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

mulberrymagnet wrote:

Yes, and the likes of you have argued it too :lol: . For some strange reason, that doesn't make it any more credible. I know which side of the story I'd believe. You carry on taking your intelligence from.. Wikipedia.

The facts are that in the late 70's to the 80's the IRA took their campaign to Britain, then in the late 80's to the 90's the IRA took their campaign anywhere in the world.

:-D
:-D

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: mulberrymagnet wrote:
".. we all have to understand that children will die". You sicko, of course children die, but they aren't always targeted. Does expressing regret make it better for you to sleep at night? I decided to serve my country for many reasons, having the chance to defeat sick scum like you was just a bonus.

I suggest you calm down and stop calling people names.

The IRA did not target the kid and the IRA released a statement explaining their action.

I would not have put out such statement because somehow it makes people believe that the kid died by accident. The kid did not, kids are killed during armed conflicts, entering such conflicts and claiming that kids won't die is ludicrous.

:-D
:-D

You missunderstand me Luke, I'm quite calm.. in fact, I'm better when I'm calm. :wink: And stop calling names? You have to remember Luke, that in a debate, sometimes innocent people get called names. That type of arguement ring a bell with you, you fragile hypocrite? Firstly, the IRA did not put out a statement 'explaining' their action, they put out a statement shedding crocodile tears.

Moving on, the enemy targetted their victims with all the cowardly ruthlessness you might expect. I saw the SOCO fots don't forget. The empty cases were found through the back window of the car (it was a VW Jetta). The first shots were fired at the father from 15 metres and the final ones from no more than 1-2 metres (perhaps your hero's thought the little girl would talk..?) There was a German 'baby on board' symbol on the back window and the baby seat rose quite obviously above the rear bench. From the angle of the rounds impacting through the full baby seat and where they entered the dashboard and the front seat (the car was right hand drive and the drivers seat was empty) it is estimated that the shots were fired by someone and leaning down over the boot.


And finally Luke, a quick one for you mate. 'The kid' as you put it, had a name. She was called Nivruit and she was just 6 months old. Do try and remember that would you?

:-D
:-D

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: mulberrymagnet wrote:

Yes, and the likes of you have argued it too :lol: . For some strange reason, that doesn't make it any more credible. I know which side of the story I'd believe. You carry on taking your intelligence from.. Wikipedia.

The facts are that in the late 70's to the 80's the IRA took their campaign to Britain, then in the late 80's to the 90's the IRA took their campaign anywhere in the world.

:-D
:-D

...and?

You're talking as if there was some grand plan they stuck to. There wasn't. They were a collection of thugs who blundered from one **** up to the next. They only went overseas when they managed to extort and steal enough money. Didn't do too well in Gib though did they, and the plan backfired. they drew revulsion across Europe for their methods.. the Germans were still reeling from Black September and Munich.

In a way, its just as well that the IRA leadership was as incompetent as it was.

You really need to read up on the history of Irish terrorism.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

mulberrymagnet wrote:

You missunderstand me Luke, I'm quite calm.. in fact, I'm better when I'm calm. :wink: And stop calling names? You have to remember Luke, that in a debate, sometimes innocent people get called names. That type of arguement ring a bell with you, you fragile hypocrite? Firstly, the IRA did not put out a statement 'explaining' their action, they put out a statement shedding crocodile tears.

Moving on, the enemy targetted their victims with all the cowardly ruthlessness you might expect. I saw the SOCO fots don't forget. The empty cases were found through the back window of the car (it was a VW Jetta). The first shots were fired at the father from 15 metres and the final ones from no more than 1-2 metres (perhaps your hero's thought the little girl would talk..?) There was a German 'baby on board' symbol on the back window and the baby seat rose quite obviously above the rear bench. From the angle of the rounds impacting through the full baby seat and where they entered the dashboard and the front seat (the car was right hand drive and the drivers seat was empty) it is estimated that the shots were fired by someone and leaning down over the boot.


And finally Luke, a quick one for you mate. 'The kid' as you put it, had a name. She was called Nivruit and she was just 6 months old. Do try and remember that would you?

:-D
:-D

I have no more reasons to remember this kid's name than to remember any other kids' names who died in this conflict or other armed conflicts since Mulberrymagnet.

If you want to debate the Irish troubles all around the death of a child, you are speaking to the wrong poster mate.

:-D
:-D

[Ssushi]

tiger_j000 wrote: GFA = Good Friday Agreement.

I think the main oppenents are the DUP, refusing to deal with Sinn Fein, but why?

And decommisioning with the IRA

Anyway, back on topic:

The DUP won't buy into the GFA as their leader is Ian Paisely, pure and simple. He's zero ability to be pragmatic and bend and he's been involved too long. The process needs new leadership where people without the baggage of history can negotiate this through.

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: mulberrymagnet wrote:

You missunderstand me Luke, I'm quite calm.. in fact, I'm better when I'm calm. :wink: And stop calling names? You have to remember Luke, that in a debate, sometimes innocent people get called names. That type of arguement ring a bell with you, you fragile hypocrite? Firstly, the IRA did not put out a statement 'explaining' their action, they put out a statement shedding crocodile tears.

Moving on, the enemy targetted their victims with all the cowardly ruthlessness you might expect. I saw the SOCO fots don't forget. The empty cases were found through the back window of the car (it was a VW Jetta). The first shots were fired at the father from 15 metres and the final ones from no more than 1-2 metres (perhaps your hero's thought the little girl would talk..?) There was a German 'baby on board' symbol on the back window and the baby seat rose quite obviously above the rear bench. From the angle of the rounds impacting through the full baby seat and where they entered the dashboard and the front seat (the car was right hand drive and the drivers seat was empty) it is estimated that the shots were fired by someone and leaning down over the boot.


And finally Luke, a quick one for you mate. 'The kid' as you put it, had a name. She was called Nivruit and she was just 6 months old. Do try and remember that would you?

:-D
:-D

I have no more reasons to remember this kid's name than to remember any other kids' names who died in this conflict or other armed conflicts since Mulberrymagnet.

If you want to debate the Irish troubles all around the death of a child, you are speaking to the wrong poster mate.

:-D
:-D

Then all the more shame on you. War has a face Luke and its the face of all those who it touches. You'd do well to remember that as you pontificate from afar. Mate.

[Ssushi]

De Bhaldraithe wrote: red dragon wrote:
As for the security forces, they wouldn't even be there if you two sides behaved like adults.


Why did you say that? You're a very annoying excuse for a human being! If you bastards hadn't have invaded the island 800 years ago, we wouldn't have had any trouble at all. Don't go down that road you walt!

We didn't invade, we were asked to come over and help one of the irish warlords fight another (who had the help of the vikings), the Normans (french) came over and stayed. So please refrain from re-writing history...

[Ssushi]

red dragon wrote: My god your a teacher :shock: :shock: :shock:

f***ing hell, what the hell is this world coming to when an apologist like you can hold such a position!!! Iam genuingly shocked and mortified by this revelation. Shows that this new agency supposedly set up to protect children obviously doesn't work. I can only shake my head in shame and think suffer the poor children.

In fairness Michael McGuiness became Minister of Eduction for Eire...

[Lucky Luke]

mulberrymagnet wrote:

...and?

You're talking as if there was some grand plan they stuck to. There wasn't. They were a collection of thugs who blundered from one **** up to the next. They only went overseas when they managed to extort and steal enough money. Didn't do too well in Gib though did they, and the plan backfired. they drew revulsion across Europe for their methods.. the Germans were still reeling from Black September and Munich.

In a way, its just as well that the IRA leadership was as incompetent as it was.

You really need to read up on the history of Irish terrorism.

:-D
:-D

The IRA is stronger today than it has ever been, some unionists are very worried that the British government has sold them out years ago. I tend to agree with them.

:-D
:-D

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: mulberrymagnet wrote:

...and?

You're talking as if there was some grand plan they stuck to. There wasn't. They were a collection of thugs who blundered from one **** up to the next. They only went overseas when they managed to extort and steal enough money. Didn't do too well in Gib though did they, and the plan backfired. they drew revulsion across Europe for their methods.. the Germans were still reeling from Black September and Munich.

In a way, its just as well that the IRA leadership was as incompetent as it was.

You really need to read up on the history of Irish terrorism.

:-D
:-D

The IRA is stronger today than it has ever been, some unionists are very worried that the British government has sold them out years ago. I tend to agree with them.

:-D
:-D

:lol: Sorry for laughing. Cred now.. zero.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Ssushi wrote: tiger_j000 wrote: GFA = Good Friday Agreement.

I think the main oppenents are the DUP, refusing to deal with Sinn Fein, but why?

And decommisioning with the IRA

Anyway, back on topic:

The DUP won't buy into the GFA as their leader is Ian Paisely, pure and simple. He's zero ability to be pragmatic and bend and he's been involved too long. The process needs new leadership where people without the baggage of history can negotiate this through.

It is the end for the Unionist movement, the only enemy left for them to fight is the British government and they are not going to win.

The GFA is an agreement between the IRA and the British government.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

mulberrymagnet wrote:

Then all the more shame on you. War has a face Luke and its the face of all those who it touches. You'd do well to remember that as you pontificate from afar. Mate.

The face of this conflict is certainly not this child Mulberrymagnet.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

mulberrymagnet wrote:

:lol: Sorry for laughing. Cred now.. zero.

:-D
:-D

You tell me what organisation is leading the changes for a better future in Northern Ireland today if it isn't the IRA.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Ssushi wrote:

We didn't invade, we were asked to come over and help one of the irish warlords fight another (who had the help of the vikings), the Normans (french) came over and stayed. So please refrain from re-writing history...

Come on Ssushi the same silly argument was given for Scotland losing it's language, it's people and it's destiny.

:-D
:-D

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: mulberrymagnet wrote:

Then all the more shame on you. War has a face Luke and its the face of all those who it touches. You'd do well to remember that as you pontificate from afar. Mate.

The face of this conflict is certainly not this child Mulberrymagnet.

:-D
:-D

What are you so ashamed of Luke? Why are you so worried? You killed that 6 month old girl.. if she wasn't the face of your struggle, why did she have to be murdered in its name? What did it achieve? She had no choice in the matter, the IRA did. If they can't live with the consequences of their actions, they shouldn't murder babies. Sleep soundly tonight Luke. I wonder if her mother knows that almost 20 years on, sick minds are still defending the part her daughter's murder played, and that her death, and not her life is still being justified as worthwhile by an ill man on the internet.

Peter Hain is probably the most dynamic member of the g'memt Luke. He's doing a lot more for the British people of NI than those who saw reducing it to rubble as a way of improving things. You need to get up to date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4917646.stm

Have we not moved on? Yes, we have, and Brits in NI have.. but it seems you haven't Luke. This is my last exchange with you on this matter. I hope we can continue cordial debate elsewhere.

Get well soon.

:-D
:-D

[Ssushi]

Clearly, the British should infact leave Ireland, they've over stayed their welcome and the country isn't theirs. On the other hand, the island was populated by other animals first and some of them (snakes for example) were driven out by a religious fanatic who couldn't stand their slithering ways... I say that the snakes should return to inhabit Eire and homosapiens should leave and return to their own country!

:-D