- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
06 Jul 20
@no1marauder
So, just to clarify.
Do you think the Warrington bombings were (a) misguided, or (b) not.
No need for any long winded explanation. Just go for a or b.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
06 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidFirst quoted sentence. Bizarre. Where did I say it 'hurt my feelings'??
Than don't discuss it anymore if it hurts your feelings to do so.
That is real history, not the propaganda you peddle.
Second - what propaganda do you feel I 'peddle'? I haven't said much at all about the 'troubles', apart from being very critical of the Warrington bombing.
06 Jul 20
@blood-on-the-tracks saidNo, I won't play by such rules.
@no1marauder
So, just to clarify.
Do you think the Warrington bombings were (a) misguided, or (b) not.
No need for any long winded explanation. Just go for a or b.
The discussion was about the claim that the IRA were "terrorists" with the only evidence given the Warrington bombing (obviously not the one at the gas storage facility but in front of the Boots and McDonald's). IF the IRA gave the specific warnings it claims, then the action was a justifiable one under the rules of war and not a targeting of civilians (will you concede that?).
IF the warnings were as vague as the police and security forces claim, it was reckless behavior on the part of the IRA.
I don't have enough information to judge which is true.
06 Jul 20
@blood-on-the-tracks saidThe posts are deleted but you claimed the IRA were "terrorists".
First quoted sentence. Bizarre. Where did I say it 'hurt my feelings'??
Second - what propaganda do you feel I 'peddle'? I haven't said much at all about the 'troubles', apart from being very critical of the Warrington bombing.
That is propaganda.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
06 Jul 20
1 edit
@no1marauder saidFrom when? Absolute nonsense
The posts are deleted but you claimed the IRA were "terrorists".
That is propaganda.
I see you ignore the first bit of nonsense
06 Jul 20
@blood-on-the-tracks saidFrom the thread in "Site Announcements".
From when? Absolute nonsense
I see you ignore the first bit of nonsense
That was the entire issue; it's frustrating that the entire thread has been removed and all the posts deleted even from the Search function.
Of course, if you now want to concede the IRA weren't terrorists, then the discussion is moot.
06 Jul 20
@blood-on-the-tracks saidBOT: "then there is no further productive discussion to be had."
First quoted sentence. Bizarre. Where did I say it 'hurt my feelings'??
Second - what propaganda do you feel I 'peddle'? I haven't said much at all about the 'troubles', apart from being very critical of the Warrington bombing.
Hurt feelings, stubbornness, closed mindedness, call it what you will. You evinced a disinclination to discuss the matter at all because I don't agree with you.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
06 Jul 20
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI don't have time to be drawn into an IRA discussion now.
No, I won't play by such rules.
The discussion was about the claim that the IRA were "terrorists" with the only evidence given the Warrington bombing (obviously not the one at the gas storage facility but in front of the Boots and McDonald's). IF the IRA gave the specific warnings it claims, then the action was a justifiable one under the rules of war and not a target ...[text shortened]... reckless behavior on the part of the IRA.
I don't have enough information to judge which is true.
But...the IRA warnings (at best) seem to have been a 'game' of 'find where we are talking about'
Did they say 'there is a bomb in the shopping precinct at Warrington'?I
In any case, as you will have guessed, I prefer to believe the police etc version.
To change tack a little, what 'act of war' targets Warrington shopping mall? Had YOU ever heard of Warrington? It is a small place in NW England
Anyways, you start the IRA thread, and we can chat tomorrow
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
06 Jul 20
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThat will be BOTT, please
BOT: "then there is no further productive discussion to be had."
Hurt feelings, stubbornness, closed mindedness, call it what you will. You evinced a disinclination to discuss the matter at all because I don't agree with you.
No further discussion. You are intransigent. No hurt feelings. Just a waste of time.
(Explains why 'hurt feelings' is wrong)
06 Jul 20
Posts and threads regarding the Palestinian issue on this board long predate Duchess' infestation of it. MANY posters here have strongly supported that struggle and infantile, grandiose claims are typical of her style but she and Finnegan were no stronger supporters of that struggle than many here. I believe for a while we even had a Palestinian poster on Debates who's name escapes me at the moment.
Of course, that the sainted Finnegan would call someone else an "armchair terrorist" while he supported the Palestinian struggle, which has often used force including against civilians, is hypocritical.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
06 Jul 20
2 edits
@no1marauder saidI am 100% certain that I did not type a few days ago, 'the IRA were / are territorists
From the thread in "Site Announcements".
That was the entire issue; it's frustrating that the entire thread has been removed and all the posts deleted even from the Search function.
Of course, if you now want to concede the IRA weren't terrorists, then the discussion is moot.
Sorry that I cannot prove that by retrieving the 'lost tapes'
Anyway, start the thread. Let's see where it goes