Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

when thatcher dies...

Is all killing the same then?

No.

Some death is fine. Lets start with the terrorists who killed so many in Bali. I approved of their funerals. That may even apply to Bush or Blair but not to Thatcher. It doesn't even apply to Scargill but that's a pity.
Much as I'm on record as totally opposed to everything that Mr Wiggy Scargill stands for, I would not agree with his murder or any attempt to kill him.
 
On the same subject.
If you agree that Thatcher is a legitimate political target for murder, you also have to agree that Scargill and anyone else on the left is the same.
So you replace the ballot box with the bomb and the gun.
Would that be an acceptable political situation for any country?
 
On the same subject.
If you agree that Thatcher is a legitimate political target for murder, you also have to agree that Scargill and anyone else on the left is the same.

Why? I dont remember the NUM occupying the Six Counties.
 
On the same subject.
If you agree that Thatcher is a legitimate political target for murder, you also have to agree that Scargill and anyone else on the left is the same.
No, wrong.

First, Thatcher is no longer a legitimate target. When she held power, though, she was. Scargill, whether I agree with him or not, never held power over armed forces. His say could not commence wars or unleash weapons of mass destruction.

No, Thatcher's death will be a cause for celebration, but will hold no political significance here and now; her bastard son and heir, Brown and his moral compass, is where the ire must be directed for now.
 
Thatcher+fuhrerrr.bmp


* I don't mind how much my Ministers talk, so long as they do what I say.

*I'm extraordinarily patient provided I get my own way in the end.


N8ooEi6Ikoyadh4qRKGCzqyao1_500.png
 
Some death is fine. Lets start with the terrorists who killed so many in Bali. I approved of their funerals.
Which makes your self-righteous condemnation of other people celebrating the death of their political hate figures somewhat hollow, doesn't it?
 
So you have seen death and destruction. Will you agree it's not justified?
No, I won't, because in some cases (and we can only really judge on a case by case basis unless you're a pacifist) death and destruction are sadly necessary.
If so, will you agree the IRA's attempt on Thatcher was equally not justified?
In terms of fulfilling a military objective (i.e. from a military strategic POV), the bombing of the Grand was probably the single most eminently justifiable military action the Provisional IRA ever carried out. If it had succeeded it would have had one of two effects: To cause escalation in Ulster that would have pissed off even the most hard-line Unionists and eventually caused withdrawal, or (less likely) have cause immediate attempts at ceasefire and withdrawal.
So, assuming you still believe murder of politicians is fine, how about Pak Harto in Indonesia. He had political 'enemies' killed. Was that OK?
If he'd stuck to killing actual political enemies it'd have been more justifiable than the wholesale massacres of anyone suspected of being a political enemy to his regime that actually occurred.
 
On the same subject.
If you agree that Thatcher is a legitimate political target for murder, you also have to agree that Scargill and anyone else on the left is the same.
Faulty logic. Thatcher was the Prime Minster of a nation of 55 million+ disparate souls, most of which she didn't (and refused to) represent. Scargill was the elected General Secretary of a trade union, most of whose members wanted him where he was. Scargill's position was, in terms of percentages, a lot more legitimate than that of Thatcher.
So you replace the ballot box with the bomb and the gun.
Would that be an acceptable political situation for any country?

It's the status quo in many countries, and the implicit threat of armed force to sway elections and engineer power grabs only (visibly) departed these fair shores in the mid 1980s, when Thatch had a word with her friends and their friends in the various right-wing cabals that had spent the 1960s and 1970s forming various paramilitary groups "in case the reds try to take over".
 
Tebbit turned out different to what I imagined on a personal level when our paths crossed one time.

He stood aside the car he was about to get into and did a wide, sweeping wave, with a large open grin on his face. Very odd.

Glad to hear he's well and likely to be ridiculed everytime he sends out a press release.
 
The likes of derf and stoat's contributions to this thread make me want to construct an effigy to be burned on that great day.

Everyone should build an effigy.
 
someone who, leaving aside her destructive social and economic policies for a moment, started a war that killed 907 and left the area littered with uncleared minefields.

Funny, I could have sworn that it was Argentina that invaded the Falklands.

I, for one, will mourn her passing. She isn't The Divine Margaret or anything, but she had an agenda, she was open about it, and she achieved it. Her politics are not my politics, but I respect her.
 
Funny, I could have sworn that it was Argentina that invaded the Falklands.

I, for one, will mourn her passing. She isn't The Divine Margaret or anything, but she had an agenda, she was open about it, and she achieved it. Her politics are not my politics, but I respect her.

Hitler had an agenda...

/godwin
 
Funny, I could have sworn that it was Argentina that invaded the Falklands.
"I baggsied it, I baggised it ages ago" :rolleyes:

I, for one, will mourn her passing. She isn't The Divine Margaret or anything, but she had an agenda, she was open about it, and she achieved it. Her politics are not my politics, but I respect her.
So you're a fucking moron then?
 
Back
Top Bottom