Yes I do mean that one. You were suggesting in your post that for some reason people shouldn't criticise McGuiness or other Irishmen because the British have superior technology that has killed innocent civilians in wars.
So why not answer the question - who was the target of Omagh bomb?
Or if you prefer, who was the target of the pub bombings? Or the Manchester bomb? Or the Warrington bomb?

Don't waste your time Him.

Apparently the history of the British empire makes us all legitimate targets.

I reckon she should wait until McGuinness apologises for the cowardly murders of Tim Parry, Jonathan Ball, the wives and kids on the M62 bus and many others first.

I'm sorry but I couldn't help singing along:

"Oh the famous Wizeb's father went to Rome to see the Pope"

I see Liz wore green for the occasion, although there is a rumour that she was wearing orange drawers to appease the Unionists

A hefty fine, stitches in his head and a bad hangover I'm led to believe....Fooking eejit!

England [uis[/u, in general, pretty civilised, as is Ireland.
McGuinness isn't.
I don't blame the average Irishman for bombing England because I reckon most of them weren't in favour of killing and, by the same token, I don't blame the average Englishman (like, say, you or me) for bombing Iraq.

As for collateral damage, I do recall the IRA saying that the deaths of the children in Warrington were a regrettable cost of war (same weasel excuse as collateral damage) ... which was cynical bollox, who the hell did they expect to kill with a bomb outside a town centre McDonalds on a Saturday?

I dont know. why dont you ask the people who planted the bombs. I am sure they would have swapped them though, for a few tomohak cruise missiles or submarines and torpedoes.

to be honest it is Britains current actions which are making everyone in the UK a legitimate target.

happy to kill a million Iraqi civillians and now happy to fight and support proxy wars in Syria. Sod the poor syrians there all mussies anyway.

Quite happy to support British actions then you cannot complain when the chickens come home to roost.

without McGuiness there would have been NO good friday settlement. McG could deliver the vast majority of the IRA and Republican movement in a way Gerry Adams could not.

I do not really se much difference between McGuinness, Mandela and Begum. All terrorists who went down a different route

Do you model yourself on a character from Four Lions?

Cos that's exactly how you sound throughout this thread.

Rubber dinghy rapids, bro.

I'd agree with this.

But I would equally suggest that what was done in the name of all those people was often pretty dismal.

Are we really all saying that, in a comparable situation, we'd simply buckle under and, after it became clear that a political solution had been rejected, not think (at the least) about other means?

Fair enough, we're not talking in the same terms as apartheid, but we are talking about a state-sanctioned situation that had a direct, concrete – and negative – impact on the lives of a particular group of ordinary people.

If you have a quarrel with the actions of a state, then take aim at the machinery of the state by all means.

Slaughtering its defenceless civilians is never justifiable or defendable.

Agreed. Whether it was Harris blanket bombing Dresden. The 'shock and awe' of Iraq, or on a far tinier scale, innocents being blown to smithereens on the British mainland.

Mandela is a crusading hero, fighting against an oppressor.....McGuiness does the same thing and is seen as a villain....Only in Britain...



Personally, the only problem I had with the IRA was that their targets were very poorly chosen....Innocent civillians should never have been targeted, however, Mountbatten, the British government and British troops were all legitimate targets.

I really was made up about today, the Queen, McGuiness, and all involved in the peace process should be very proud of how far this whole thing has come, if only all those involved in the middle east could watch and learn.

Well to be fair they did give clear warning that a bomb had been planted 15 miles away from where it went off.

The Warrington bombing was a nasty, pointless attack. However, it was very much a 'revenge' attack brought on, unwittingly, by some of the Warrington public.

A couple of weeks earlier, they had failed to detonate a bomb at the gasworks on Winwick Road (about 400 yards from the HJ) - A few days later, I remember being sat in work reading the Warrington Guardian's letter page, where there were several letters openly mocking the seemingly incompetent bombers. A work colleague from Liverpool quite prophetically commented that the IRA wouldn't stand for being openly laughed at in an English paper...Sure enough, they returned.

I think that was half the problem with the IRA....Most of their attacks were simply flexing their muscles, with little point behind them....It was half the reason their campaign simply ran out of steam, in that even those they were supposedly fighting for, failed to see the point in all the bloodshed, when, most of the time, it was the blood of total innocents.

That's my view too.

The only problem with the IRA is they were murderers. The Protestant majority built a prosperous economy in NI, something the Irish themselves have always failed to do, except on the back of EU handouts and they blew that. Us British oppressors have hosted the Irish over here for generations. We have even let them collect in our pubs to fund their terrorism. To equate the British people with the IRA is frankly disgusting and shameful.

A significant impetus for the ending of NI terrorism came with the change in attitude of the US. I visited New York several times when collecting for 'Noraid' was seen as a jolly thing to do, and the terrorist acts in NI/UK as remote and part of some worthy cause backed up by jolly sing-songs (albeit either with murderous lyrics or bemoaning some British atrocity from years before).

After Oklahoma and the first attacks on the World Trade Centre attitudes changed considerably as the reality of what people were actually supporting - i.e. real people being blown to pieces and maimed - started to hit home. 911 killed such fundraising stone dead and forced US politicians to stop being mealy-mouthed about terorism in all its guises.

In any event, regardless of how odious an individual McGuinness or Adams may be, their role in enabling peace to hapen in NI has been huge. I'd far rather everyone buried the past - with as much gritting of teeth as is required - than have the previous 'situation' continue forever.

I agree. after 9/11 overt terrorism was an absolute no for the IRA (irrespective of the funding). That's what made the difference (even though the Good Friday agreement was signed). They are the same people with the same views it's just that they had to change from their preferred methods due to circumstances. Not people to ever be trusted.

Indeed, without the head-murderer agreeing that his organisation wouldn't murder any more, the murdering wouldn't stop.


Sorry, can't agree that McGuinness and Mandela were even similar.
Mandela was convicted of sabotage, he didn't randomly kill ordinary people and his struggle was against the apartheid regime to which the SA goverment were committed to continuing, whereas in NI, the deeply unjust electoral system was on its way out and Wilson was very sympathetic to achieving peace and equality.
These two situations were in no way comparable.

I bet Philip was told to be on his best behaviour.



What would have been some of the things he might have said?

'Nice to meet you Gerry.'