Mick Mac

Why do people insist upon comparing the ethics and conduct of 1) A terrorist organisation - who are "expected" to behave appallingly and damage people with 2) A democratic government - who we expect to protect the people If your best defence against the abuses of our UK government is to say "but the terrorists did this" we are on a sticky wicket.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/12/pat-finucane-report-david-cameron-apologises

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick, did you just set me a trap? If so, I don't > feel trapped. > ok - you made me laugh. :)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > But surely MM, the logical extension of your > > > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves > as > > > legitimate soldiers against the British > state, > > > then the British state would have equal > > > entitlement to use force in return, as they > would > > > any attacking army? > > > > Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing > of > > innocent people by the state? being the subject > of > > my post above. > > Of course not. > > But I do wonder how many of those being claimed as > 'innocent civilians' were actually members of the > IRA? And, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, I don't think the British Prime Minister would stand up in Parliament and make a public apology for the state collusion in the killing of a specific person, if there was even a hint of that person being a member of the IRA.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Err... no, even when it was planned Doh - if it's planned, then it's their plan, which you said it wasn't, ever.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever the mistakes the government and its > agents made, and dirty tricks, including murder, > that it is/was guilty of, murdering the innocents > was not, I suggest, ever its plan. Even when it was planned?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "snail farming is the oldest recorded farming > enterprise" > > Must have been a bugger to catch them, I bet the > farmers were fit ! They had snail dogs to do the rounding up

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely MM, the logical extension of your > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as > legitimate soldiers against the British state, > then the British state would have equal > entitlement to use force in return, as they would > any attacking army? Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing of innocent people by the state? being the subject of my post above.

Red Devil wrote>>>>> The question was asked in relation to MM's comment I extend that to all innocent victims of terrorism. Along with the British Army, British politicians, the Royal family etc, the IRA saw the police as legitimate targets, so I wanted to know if he felt that a policemen murdered by Republican terrorists during The Troubles should be classed as an innocent victim or not... Innocent victims of terrorism - yes. As in they themselves are not terrorists Whether those in the organisations named above all performed their roles with the honesty and fairness that all of the public should have a right to expect in a democracy is a very different matter. Whether those directing the members of these organisations, directed them to do illegal acts again is another matter. Whether they deliberately protected one part of the community whilst costing the lives of another part of the community is another. State collusion in terrorist killing of catholics has been the subject of a British enquiry, been proven, and furthermore the British Government has apologised publically. Yes publically. For example, when the British state, including the police force, army and probably MI5 colludes with British terrorists to kill a catholic solicitor then catholics rightly feel that the rule of law has broken down and feel threatened by the state. So, as you know, you are asking a very dumb question. "David Cameron has apologised to the family of the murdered Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane and agreed that there was state collusion between police officers and soldiers and his loyalist killers. Launching the De Silva report into one of the most divisive murders of the Northern Ireland Troubles, the prime minister said there were "shocking levels of collusion" in the killing. Cameron told the House of Commons that the depth of the co-operation between the security forces and Finucane's loyalist killers was "unacceptable". The prime minister admitted that the report made for "extremely difficult reading" in regard to Sir Desmond de Silva's findings, such as the revelation that 80% of the Ulster Defence Association's (terrorists) intelligence information came from official state sources." When the state is supplying the terrorists with the state's own intelligence, the line between state and terrorist obviously becomes blurred.

We know what you meant RD, no need to spell out the obvious message. This thread is not about Ireland.

Keith Palmer was a Charlton fan and will be honoured at this weekends game.

Yes - That's why I said it. Apparently they spoke about it. And irrespective of her private feelings, it was a great gesture by her. Martin McGuinness raised the issue of the murder of the Queen?s cousin Lord Mountbatten during their private talks last week. The Stormont deputy First Minister revealed that he addressed the 1979 IRA murder when he met the Queen in Belfast last Wednesday. The former IRA commander shared an historic handshake with the Queen at the city?s Lyric theatre, but their conversation took place during a private meeting at the venue. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167473/Martin-McGuinness-reveals-spoke-Queens-murdered-cousin-private-meeting.html#ixzz4c9LXAGkC Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Arlene Foster is going. Yes - haha - that really is not significant. I have to say, the person who I think comes out of the whole MM transition with greatest respect is the Queen.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still waiting for an eulogy for the terrorsist who > was shot outside the Houses of Parliament > yesterday..... For MM the praise from political leaders in NI and the rest of the U.K. And the wider world was almost unanimous- my comments are similar - Bill Clinton may attend his funeral and the Queen with whom he met several times, has written a personal message of codolence to his family. Quids - you are a different person from what I thought you to be and that is surprising and disappointing for our friendship

I extend that to all innocent victims of terrorism As for the personal insults this is not the place and not the intention of this thread - I'll respond on another thread

To all the victims of todays attack. RIP.

As I say, naming one atrocity after another by terrorists doesn't really equate to actions by the state against innocent civilians. I understand that for many British people it's hard to face up to the realities of why the troubles began, or even want to understand it. And this means going back before any of the atrocities listed above. Maybe reading the Guardian obituary above would be a good start. McGuinness himself was initially appalled by the beating of a local MP by the security forces at a civil rights march in 1968. http://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/1031-civil-rights-movement-1968-9/1034-derry-5-october-1968/319387-derry-civil-rights-demonstration/ As I said above, perhaps today is a day to reflect. But I'm not seeing a lot of evidence from the posts above, that this is likely to happen. The normal stubborn ingrained thinking always prevails. Whilst the current protection of the rights of immigrants into the UK seems high on everyone's agenda, perhaps shining the light on the treatment of our own citizens in the past is still relevant.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We can play tit for tat if you like: > > 'Lord Mountbatten, his grandson and other members > of his family party in Sligo, and 18 British > soldiers at Warrenpoint' Not really an attempt at a deeper analysis steveo. Although if I understand what you mean by tit for tat, you are responding to my OP above by comparing the killings of innocent people by state forces, with the killings of a terrorist organisation? The latter is clearly an illegal organisation, the former is one all people of the UK should have been able to trust?

McGuinness was still a teenager when fate propelled him into violent politics in his native Derry. Pictures in 1968 of Gerry Fitt, the Catholic MP for West Belfast, splashed with blood after being hit by police batons as he led a civil rights march, shocked him into activism. He took to the streets just as the IRA, having been stood down after abortive Border campaigns in the 1950s, was re-arming. IRA leaders saw him as capable of providing organisation in Derry to mirror what Gerry Adams was developing in Belfast. Within months McGuinness was second in command of the IRA Derry Brigade, the position he still held on 30 January 1972, Bloody Sunday, when British parachute regiment soldiers shot dead 13 unarmed Catholic demonstrators. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/martin-mcguinness-obituary

A man who spoke out against the abuses of a minority, who took up arms when talking failed, who killed horribly for a purpose he believed to be justified by abhorrent abuses by the state, who risked his life for a fair society and then risked his reputation for peace. Perhaps it's a day to reflect upon why this man of Derry became what he was, the situation that existed at the time, and how a UK government abused it's own people arguably to the point of genocide. Why the UK government apologised for one of the terrible abuses and why, in peace Martin McGuinness was allowed, and wanted to shake hands with the Queen.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tonight! > > I hope anyone who goes has a good time and comes > back with good reviews. Look forward to hearing > about it. I told you it was tonight.

Well done Quids. Quite surprising.

Agreed ????s - Guardian readers like a label as much as anyone else, if not more. In their eyes its an attractive label. An artistic/fair thinking/liberal label. Most of them have a load of money

They have to change the lists each year to make it interesting. So, apart from Dartford, most places will get a mention eventually.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bugger 5.30 - was on Pendra at 28/1 - beaten on > the line, was counting my money already. Bah This was as close to a winner as I got after day 1. I went on Friday and got nothing - an expensive day. But three winners on day one covered me for the first three days. there was that at least