[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:49 am  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

It only works one way with Republicans, just think of the stink they still kick up about Loughgall.

Again you do not understand the issue.

If it was a war in NI Loughall was legitimate , if it was a law and order issue then it was not. Republicans accept this. They just do not accept the hypocrisy of British politicians.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:18 pm  

I love reading Durham Giant's nonsense. Whenever I feel a twinge of guilt about the behaviour of some individuals in the British Army, as soon as I get to the end of his first paragraph, all doubts are gone.

Here we have a guy born and brought up in England, and about as Irish as my last bowel movement, happily regurgitating a mixture of cut and pasted Wiki extracts and Republican nonsense as told to him by his inebriated Dad on a Friday night.

Then I remember, is this the same Durham Giant who was lead up the garden path a couple of seasons ago on the Virtual terrace page, when he fell hook line and sinker for the Classic Bailey thread?

I believe it is!

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:13 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I love reading Durham Giant's nonsense. Whenever I feel a twinge of guilt about the behaviour of some individuals in the British Army, as soon as I get to the end of his first paragraph, all doubts are gone.

Here we have a guy born and brought up in England, and about as Irish as my last bowel movement, happily regurgitating a mixture of cut and pasted Wiki extracts and Republican nonsense as told to him by his inebriated Dad on a Friday night.

Then I remember, is this the same Durham Giant who was lead up the garden path a couple of seasons ago on the Virtual terrace page, when he fell hook line and sinker for the Classic Bailey thread?

I believe it is!

and when you cannot deal with the arguements you resort to insults. Classic plastic Limey. Get back to your comics and drawing with crayons. Leave the debates to the adults.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:32 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I love reading Durham Giant's nonsense. Whenever I feel a twinge of guilt about the behaviour of some individuals in the British Army, as soon as I get to the end of his first paragraph, all doubts are gone.

Here we have a guy born and brought up in England, and about as Irish as my last bowel movement, happily regurgitating a mixture of cut and pasted Wiki extracts and Republican nonsense as told to him by his inebriated Dad on a Friday night.

Then I remember, is this the same Durham Giant who was lead up the garden path a couple of seasons ago on the Virtual terrace page, when he fell hook line and sinker for the Classic Bailey thread?

I believe it is!

This is your rebuttal? Pathetic!

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:55 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Yes it does.

It was a war . In a war targets are legitimate. It all depends on which side you are on.

Was Saddam Hussein a legitimate target, was Gaddafi a legitimate target

As government leaders, policy makers and the actual commanders of their armed forces, of course they were. The Queen is none of those. She's simply a figurehead. Attacking the Queen wouldn't be an act of war, it would just be an attack intended to cause nothing but fear and distress - that's known as terrorism.

And banging on about 'legitimate targets' is pretty irrelevant when they thought nothing of blowing up innocent people in any number of 'illegitimate' attacks. You can't ignore those crimes and support the attacks you decide you approve of according to your f*cked up moral compass.

Oh and I must have missed the bit where war was declared by both sides.

You saw Republicans as legitimate targets i saw their opponents as legitimate targets. simple. I supported Irish Freedom fighters, You supported British interests. In the same way i would support Palestinians, ANC, Tamil Tigers Iranian Fedayeen or the french resistance

And as for your rubbish about being trendy and right on, give your head a shake.

Oh no, of course not, nowt to do with being trendy: "Everyone look at me! I support freedom fighters! Right-on!"
You seem to have a problem with authority and an unhealthy and rather sad desire to be hip. Rebel without a clue perhaps?

Rubber dinghy rapids, bro.

100 stitches in my face being stabbed twice and shot at suggests i was a bit more than trendy and right on.

It suggests you weren't very good at it and it's a pity someone hadn't put in a few more hours down the firing range.

Your just a Plastic limey who sound like a Sun editorial.

Plastic limey?

I can only assume you don't understand the use of the word 'plastic'? You: plastic wannabe paddy. Me: actual limey.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:35 pm  

Cronus wrote:

As government leaders, policy makers and the actual commanders of their armed forces, of course they were. The Queen is none of those. She's simply a figurehead. Attacking the Queen wouldn't be an act of war, it would just be an attack intended to cause nothing but fear and distress - that's known as terrorism

.

of course it is terrorism and what is the dictionary definition of terrorism
Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.

What is carpet bombing in vietnam, firebombing in Dresden or Cruise missiles on Bagdad Terrorism or war it is all the same. I have no problem with terrorism as i have said it all comes down to which side you are on. I would support the CTs in Malaya, the mau mau in kenya and the Republicans in Ireland.

You support the Brits and America in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore you are suppportng the killing of
innocent civillians all the time. Dont talked to me about a f+cked up moral compass. You are the hypocrite.

And banging on about 'legitimate targets' is pretty irrelevant when they thought nothing of blowing up innocent people in any number of 'illegitimate' attacks. You can't ignore those crimes and support the attacks you decide you approve of according to your f*cked up moral compass.

Oh and I must have missed the bit where war was declared by both sides.

I made no differentiation about which acts of war or terrorism i sympathised with. I chose my side and in doing so i have to accept that some were legitimate and some were not. In war you have to accept the good with the bad. It is only the trendy and hip who try to differentiate.

I bet you supported Loughall but did not support Bloody sunday. That is the weasly position i would expect from you. If you support the troops yopu have no choice but to accepth the good and the bad. Whether that is Saddam Hussein or Baba Mousa.

Oh no, of course not, nowt to do with being trendy: "Everyone look at me! I support freedom fighters! Right-on!"
You seem to have a problem with authority and an unhealthy and rather sad desire to be hip. Rebel without a clue perhaps?

Rubber dinghy rapids, bro.

Get back to reading the SUN. And the fact that you keeping quoting 3 Lions out of context suggests you did not understand what the film was about

It suggests you weren't very good at it and it's a pity someone hadn't put in a few more hours down the firing range.

Plastic limey?

I can only assume you don't understand the use of the word 'plastic'? You: plastic wannabe paddy. Me: actual limey

.

I know exactly what the plastic bit means and i reckon that is what you are a real Limey whose biggest contribution to the British state is being a keyboard warrior . That is plastic. I would have lot more respect for you if you had actually put on a uniform and fired a gun. You would probably have peed your pants though. Plastic limey boy.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:11 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

of course it is terrorism and what is the dictionary definition of terrorism
Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.

What is carpet bombing in vietnam, firebombing in Dresden or Cruise missiles on Bagdad Terrorism or war it is all the same. I have no problem with terrorism as i have said it all comes down to which side you are on. I would support the CTs in Malaya, the mau mau in kenya and the Republicans in Ireland.

You support the Brits and America in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore you are suppportng the killing of
innocent civillians all the time. Dont talked to me about a f+cked up moral compass. You are the hypocrite.

Don't presume to know who or what I support.

Here's a simple definition. Military targets generally involve weakening the enemy's capabilities. Terrorism is aimed at spreading fear and intimidation by violence. The British and Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don't deliberately target civilians, whereas your 'freedom-fighter' heros celebrate blowing up kids.

I can only assume from the above that you were happy with 9/11, 7/7, Enniskillen, Pan-Am 103, Warrington, etc? You 'have no problem' with those acts? That's your f*cked up moral compass.

I made no differentiation about which acts of war or terrorism i sympathised with. I chose my side and in doing so i have to accept that some were legitimate and some were not. In war you have to accept the good with the bad. It is only the trendy and hip who try to differentiate.

You make no differentiation between acts yet you accept some were legitimate and some were not yet you accept the good with the bad? Make your mind up. You sound confused. I'm not sure you know what you accept, you just know you feel cool supporting freedom fighters.

I bet you supported Loughall but did not support Bloody sunday. That is the weasly position i would expect from you. If you support the troops yopu have no choice but to accepth the good and the bad. Whether that is Saddam Hussein or Baba Mousa.

'Support' is a strange word to use. Loughall was a well executed operation to destroy an IRA team and I have no sympathy for the IRA dead whatsoever. If you choose to carry out attacks with guns and explosives you can't complain. But I deplore the fact 2 civilians were caught up in the action.

Bloody Sunday was a terrible event. Simple. But I don't buy the paddy propaganda that everyone present that day was 100% innocent and no threats were directed at the Paras.

Get back to reading the son. And the fact that you keeping quoting 3 Lions out of context suggests you did not unbderstand what the film was about

Nah, you just remind me of the daft ones in the film.

Rubber dinghy rapids bro.

I know exactly what the plastic bit means and i reckon that is what you are a real Limey whose biggest contribution to the British state is being a keyboard warrior . That is plastic. I would have lot more respect for you if you had actually put on a uniform and fired a gun. You would probably have peed your pants though. Plastic limey boy.

What? What on earth are you waffling on about? I'm a 'real limey', then I'm a 'plastic limey'? Make your bleedin' pathetic plastic paddy mind up.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:16 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Don't presume to know who or what I support

.

I thought so. Plastic Limey Keyboard warior

Here's a simple definition. Military targets generally involve weakening the enemy's capabilities. Terrorism is aimed at spreading fear and intimidation by violence. The British and Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don't deliberately target civilians, whereas your 'freedom-fighter' heros celebrate blowing up kids.

Spreading fear and intimidation is also about weakening the enemies capabilities. It is the principle of modern warfare. You ahve heard of shock and Awe havent you. that is about spreading fear and intimidation. Was the bombing of Dresden designed to reduce Germany's military capabilities or was it to spread Fear and Intimidation to the whole of the German population.

In any war people regret the killing of innocent civillians. The IRA never celebrated killing Kids. They made mistakes strategically and practically and acknowlegded it. Unlike the British who have killed a million more kids than Irish Republicans ever had. Except to you they dont count because they were all wogs, mussies or fuzzie wuzzies.

I can only assume from the above that you were happy with 9/11, 7/7, Enniskillen, Pan-Am 103, Warrington, etc? You 'have no problem' with those acts? That's your f*cked up moral compass

.


i try understand them. That is where you fall down. You think a bit of condemnation will solve everything. Understanding why these things happen is more likely to lead to a solution to those problems.You again sound like a Sun editorial , criminal acts, mindless barbarism blah blah blah. Nothing intelligent just some ignoramnt emotional rant. Maybe you are a taxi driver and just think based on blind prejudices. Maybe you are too stupid to have a moral compass

You make no differentiation between acts yet you accept some were legitimate and some were not yet you accept the good with the bad? Make your mind up. You sound confused. I'm not sure you know what you accept, you just know you feel cool supporting freedom fighters

.

No i accept that in any war some acts are more regrettable than others but i have to accept that if you choose a side in a war or in a conflict actions will happen which impact on the innocent. You cannot pick and choose which ones you feel comforatble with.

If you support the troops in Iraq and the war in Iraq then you have to accept some reponsibility for the outcome in Iraq. You cannot say i like the removal of Hussein, i support the killing of his troops i support the giving of power to the Shias and then say, ooh i dont like the killing of the civillians today, or i dont like those radical shias i only like the nice friendly ones. You choose your side and have to accept the good and the bad. That is not confused that is accepting responsibility.
Except you are too weasley to accept that. What do you do read the paers and the military briefings and then decide which bits you are hapy with and which bits you are not

'Support' is a strange word to use. Loughall was a well executed operation to destroy an IRA team and I have no sympathy for the IRA dead whatsoever. If you choose to carry out attacks with guns and explosives you can't complain. But I deplore the fact 2 civilians were caught up in the act

ion.

But was it a Law and order issue in which case shoot to kill without warnings was illegal or was it just a spectacularly successful military engagement. No complaints from me or the Republican movement just pointing out the inconsistency in British propaganda. Would you accept that warrenpoint was a well executed operation to destroy a para company.

Bloody Sunday was a terrible event. Simple. But I don't buy the paddy propaganda that everyone present that day was 100% innocent and no threats were directed at the Paras

.

Whereas you just believe British propaganda.

Nah, you just remind me of the daft ones in the film.

Rubber dinghy rapids bro.

Are these the daft ones who were based on the 7/11 bombers. Yes you really did not understand that film at all.

What? What on earth are you waffling on about? I'm a 'real limey', then I'm a 'plastic limey'? Make your bleedin' pathetic plastic paddy mind up

.

A real Limey by Birth and a Plastic Limey by actions You plastic Limey.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:37 pm  

Can someone tell me what a plastic limey is please?

Thanks in advance.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:59 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Can someone tell me what a plastic limey is please?

Thanks in advance.

A limey is a Brit as referred to by an American. Plastic means not a real one, someone who pretends to be one. It could be someone who was born in a country or someone whose ancestors were born there.