When I say one group I mean of course the dissident republicans, whatever they call themselves and how many separate groups of them exist. They all have one thing in common, they want to drag us back to the dark days of the troubles of the seventies and eighties.
I don't have a hierarchy either, just a difference between innocent victims and guilty victims, unlike you I prefer to see the guilty party getting killed rather than the innocent.
I'm referring to the savages who killed the British corporals.
Just to clarify I won't be watching anything you post in your replies...it's nothing personal, Sharmini is always posting links and I never watch those either lol (sorry Shar). If you have a point to make you can make it in words, the old fashioned way and no matter what it is I'll reply (also in words).
@Phoenix. Could you keep your replies shorter and more concise? Yes indeed you do understand the provisions of the GFA and I was wrong to say you hadn't...there has to be a majority in the north to join with the south.(what you wrongly call a 'unionist veto') it's called democracy. Maybe there should be such a poll in the North, though the result would be a foregone conclusion and would have no effect on dissident republicans so I don't see what point it would serve?
As you say the consequences of Gibralter were terrible but that was only because the Brits didn't take adequete security, the backlash should have been predicted. They should have put Belfast on Lockdown, a curfew of sorts, just like the Israelis do with the Gaza strip. That would have prevented terrorist activity and the savages who killed those two unfortunate British corporals.
Just to sum up..... the vote that you want - the island voting as a whole, as one entity, on unity - will NEVER happen, not now not ever. For it to happen the GFA would have to be set aside and no party in the south (even SF) is prepared to do that. The only people who want that are the fringe (lunatic fringe!) republicans like RSF and 32CSM.
The GFA will never be set aside, the type of vote you want will NEVER happen, but still you keep propagandising on here for terrorists!
I don't think he should have worn it if he didn't want to, after all it's not compulsory!
If he had worn it it might not have gone down well in his home town, he's a young lad and nobody would want to put him in that position would they?
On that note, back in the eighties David O'Leary got a death threat from a small republican group after he wore a poppy publicly when he was manager of (can't remember the club).
Lol, you haven't read what I wrote! I said that if everything in the prisons was fine then the dissident republican campaign would continue anyway, so it's spurious to use that as an excuse, you've no answer to that.
Britain isn't 'in' NI, NI is part of the UK, that's what the people want, it's called democracy, you wouldn't understand.
On Loughall and Gibralter, lets stick to the facts? the SAS took out the terrorists before they had the chance to kill anyone, something the democratic state has the right to do. Your conspiracy theories about agents and so on have no relevance to that simple fact. Hopefully there will be a Loughall the next time the dissidents try to murder someone.
Even if everything was fine and dandy in the prisons the IRA would still try and kill cops and soldiers so your argument is spurious. I wonder what excuse you would come up with then?
No, the reason is because they are terrorists. If you have a problem with the way you are being treated in prison there are ways of going about making complaints - and it's not like they don't have supporters on the outside lobbying for them.
I wonder what excuses you'll come up with when the latest version of the IRA kill a cop or soldier?
It wasn't carried through because they realised just how difficult it was going to be....what made it difficult was that the two traditions in Ireland couldn't agree on what to do.
I can see this thread becoming politicised...which is a pity. I think people should just remember the men who died, even if they do not believe they should not have gone there or whatever.
No I'd dive at Kathy and push her out of the way of the truck....taking the full impact of it myself.....I'd sacrifice myself for her in other words.....I'm good like that....
Well I'm not sure either way really but I'll probably vote YES as I think it's right that kids in care for a long time should be able to be adopted even if their birth parents are against it.
An opinion poll last week showed a huge majority for the YES side in this referendum but if CS is anything to go by the NO side will win I think, should be interesting........Watch this space!
Admittedly no, I'm just going by her positions in the past, doesn't she have a rake of kids? (something like 9 I think) and is against euthanesia, she strikes me as one of these people who think 'The Family' is so sacred that kids should never be taken into care...a bit like the late Mine Bean Ui Cribbin.
Kathy Sinnot is a bit of a wing-nut, actually the only people campaigning for a no vote are the far right and the far left, I think I'll probably vote yes, though it's all probably irrelevant.
snowlynx Forum Posts (5,001)
RE: What Are Religious People Known For??