Originally posted by FMF Not giving them political status was a dyed-in-the-wool political response to the fact that they were the most toxic and overtly political prisoners in the UK at the time ~ everyone knew it, the general public knew it, the IRA knew it, and Thatcher and the Tories knew it.
Yes so if you know and understand his, why are you insisting that Duchess64 provide a direct quotation for it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Yes so if you know and understand his, why are you insisting that Duchess64 provide a direct quotation for it?
Because it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on. If you are happy to settle for the content of calculated statements to the media ~ rather than the political reality as, I think, was known and understood by all sides at the time, even if you may have forgotten ~ then where did Thatcher refer to Joe Mcdonnell, Francis Hughes. Raymond Mccreesh, Patsy O'hara, Kevin Lynch, Martin Hurson and Kieran Doherty as "common criminals". I don't think she did. She said it about Bobby Sands, but I think she was careful not to use the same sound bite again once the political crisis got deeper. I could be wrong. A quote would settle this point.
Originally posted by FMF Because it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on. If you are happy to settle for the content of calculated statements to the media ~ rather than the political reality as, I think, was know and understood by all sides ~ then where did Thatcher refer to Joe Mcdonnell, Francis Hughe ...[text shortened]... think she was careful not to use the same sound bite again once the political crisis got deeper.
Because it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on.
This does not explain why you were insisting on a direct quotation when you already knew and have acknowledged that they were not given political status but were treated as common criminals. No one is disputing the political reality but it seems that in your ardour to land a blow you have been caught insisting that Duchess64 produce a direct quotation for values that you very well know existed. Now why would you do that? Its very peculiar.
You tried to conflate something in speech marks (which as FMF points out, remains unrefferenced anyway) with the rest of your sentence which goes on to intimate that Thatcher also said or implied that these people deserved to die. It is you who are being dishonest, or at the very least, clumsy.
Where "trolling" comes into it is just in your vivid little imagination. No doubt I'll be a "pathological liar" shortly.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie On the contrary all you could find to say about the text was an insistence on a direct quotation where anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that one of the grievances of the hunger strikers was that they were not given political status and considered as common criminals. How you could fail to know or acknowledge this I have really no idea.
Obviously it is in your interest to rail on about this in the hope that the thread will veer away from religious child sacrifice and the notoriety of your religious organisations teachings on blood transfusions. 😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Because it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on.
This does not explain why you were insisting on a direct quotation when you already knew and have acknowledged that they were not given political status but were treated as common criminals. No one is disputing the ...[text shortened]... tion for values that you very well know existed. Now why would you do that? Its very peculiar.
Let's stay on topic, which is about people sacrificing their lives or permitting their children to sacrifice theirs, for their religious beliefs.
Do you know how many times the state has had to intervene to save a child's life when their Jehovah's Witness parents were denying them a life saving blood transfusion?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie This does not explain why you were insisting on a direct quotation ...
I think it does, in the circumstances. You should read my explanation again. If you don't accept it, that's ok by me. I don’t need you to agree with me.
Originally posted by FMF I think it does, in the circumstances. You should read my explanation again. If you don't accept it, that's ok by me. I don’t need you to agree with me.
I have read your explanation twice and it still makes no sense. I don't disagree with you I simply don't understand why you are asking for evidence for a value that you yourself have acknowledged was the case??? It would make more sense if you thought that the British governments stance was NOT to hold the hunger strikers as common criminals ( a deliberate ploy as you eloquently elucidate) rather than the political prisoners they clearly were.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I have read your explanation twice and it still makes no sense. I don't disagree with you I simply don't understand why you are asking for evidence for a value that you yourself have acknowledged was the case??? It would make more sense if you thought that the British governments stance was NOT to hold the hunger strikers as common criminals ( a de ...[text shortened]... iberate ploy as you eloquently elucidate) rather than the political prisoners they clearly were.
14 Oct '16 05:37
Jain Girl (Age 13) Dies After Fasting for 68 Days
Back to Top