Queen Meets Ex- IRA Commander

Killing Civilians? - Loyalist death squads and British Army - something your "heroes" continue to do today.

Loyalists death squads had no legitimate political agenda.

Sinn Fein are left wing and were the political wing of the IRA.

Killing Civilians? - Loyalist death squads and British Army - something your "heroes" continue to do today.

Loyalists death squads had no legitimate political agenda.

Sinn Fein are left wing and were the political wing of the IRA.

I would call sf centre left but not left.

Don't try too twist my words. You know I mean the UVF, UDA etc when said loyalists.

That includes politicians, spooks, soldiers, cops and loyalists!
Well any army, police, loyalist, or those who helped them where legitimate targets.

It's not about revenge it's about justice!

Apart from their numerous bombings of various pubs and places where lots of people congregate, they are also responsible for trying to kill Baroness Thatcher.

Baroness Thatcher would have been considered a political target and why not , she refused to help for an ELECTED MP who was on hunger strike in prison.

Of course many cowardly acts were committed which where totally wrong, but it was a war, and horrific things happen.

What does him being an elected MP have to do with anything?

Uncoils pull up many accounts from various sources supporting the collusion claim. However I am too lazy. Plus I don't see the point in it anyway as the chances are you won't be swayed anyway.

Did they serve in Ireland or was it somewhere else that they went to murder and plunder on orders from auld lizzie?

It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death , and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted. How does it not? It was a defining moment within the conflict here which sparked worlwide hostility towards the British Gvt, and and resulted in a huge increase in IRA membership. Honestly, your ignorance is embarrassing.

What I find utterly laughable is your conservative views on this , and they have absolutely no support here as seen in their complete lack of any representatives in local government. Of course the violence was necessary , otherwise we would still be suffering from the same conditions, if there was no resistance, why else would the sectarian government change?

NI government deliberately changed the system from proportional representation from to first past the post making it impossible for Catholics to gain seats, especially seen in Derry which is overwhelmingly catholic yet the city council was completely unionist so Gerrymandering was a much greater problem then your niche "Germany France border " example implies

It was inevitable that violence would ensue and it was about civil rights not "nationalism". Research Ivan Cooper, a protestant man protesting about the discrimination against catholics.

It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death

and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted.

It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death , and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted. How does it not? It was a defining moment within the conflict here which sparked worlwide hostility towards the British Gvt, and and resulted in a huge increase in IRA membership. Honestly, your ignorance is embarrassing.

Whether or not convicted IRA members should be treated as political prisoners or not is completely irrelevant. I was questioning your opinion that someone should be treated differently in prison because they are an MP.

As is your bigotry. You're not looking for any sort of progress towards peace, you think that peace is weakness. One reason you would have liked the granting of political status to the prisoners is that it would have prolonged the fight. Granted, it would have given the UVF and the UDA the motivation to become more militaristic and more violent leading to the deaths of more Republicans but it would have continued the fight.

Imagine - a Conservative with conservative views. I'm sure you're surprised.

Again, I repeat my point: there were plenty of minority groups in Britain which faced discrimination even within living memory. Only one of them started militarised violence which, even when those problems were fixed, continued. Why? Because it wasn't a campaign against discrimination, but a politicised campaign of nationalism.

I don't have a problem with a first past the post electoral system. Indeed, that's what we have here. Each system has its benefits and its flaws, and I could argue each for either side.

The Government tried force-feeding hungerstrikers on occasion. Not only is this extremely dangerous and unpleasant, it's also - to my mind - a complete abuse of their human rights. If they want to commit suicide, and are of (relatively) sound mind, then I have absolutely no moral problem with that.



I don't think there should have been such a status. But if there was then I think they should, if anything, have received worse treatment than your average criminal, seeing as their crimes were greater. This, of course, I apply to Loyalist paramilitaries as well as Republican ones.

You're hardly making a sound case for why people like you shouldn't have been strung up as traitors. Whilst I generally favour being a tad more liberal about things, it never ceases to startle me just how disgusted I can be with some members of the Irish Republican movement.

It's going to be difficult for the Queen but I am glad it is being done.