Renton

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"? The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law. no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks. Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts. So you think they are innocent civilians then Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion? You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest. I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too. So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs? No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ? After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country. Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything. I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose. Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain. you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens. If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie. How do you know what they're planning without a fair trial though? Are you some kind of psychic? You'd think so judging by your bizarre comments on Derrick Bird. Either you don't grasp the basic concepts of British law and justice (innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a fair trial), or you don't accept it. If it's the latter, why don't you pack your bags and go somewhere where the burden of proof is the other way round? I suggest Saudi, they like floggings and executions too.

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"? The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law. no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks. Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts. So you think they are innocent civilians then Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion? You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest. I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too. So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs? No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ? After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country. Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything. I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose. Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

Not exactly the ideal answer and I accept the discrimination was wrong but I think they should have considered emmigration to the South and beyond. I know you could say they should stay and fight for a united Ireland but if things were that bad on a day to day basis with not much hope of unification (as there still isn't now) I'd say they could have left. That's nonsense though. It would be completely unfeasible for the entire Catholic population to have emigrated to Eire or anywhere else for that matter. And why should they have had to leave their homes in any case? It sounds like a passive form of ethnic cleansing. Is that the answer to all countries with similar problems?

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"? The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law. no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks. Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts. So you think they are innocent civilians then Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion? You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest. I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too. So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"? The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law. no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks. Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts. So you think they are innocent civilians then Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion? You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

Tbf the Army were welcomed by catholics when they first came over but it soon transpired that their intentions certainly weren't to win hearts and minds, they're heavy handed tactics meant that they ended up losing the confidence of both sides of the community. I have a general question if anyone cares to have a go at answering it, what were the alternatives for Northern Irish catholics? They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice. I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done? Not a lot. It's a story that's repeated around the World. The whole creation of Northern Ireland was probably a mistake and then you can go further back it all comes down to British Imperialism. Violence was inevitable.

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. So presumably you'd prefer there was no peace in Northern Ireland then? Interesting. thats a daft statement. Does the sight of Adams and McGuiness as "statesmen" not make you squirm ? How's it daft though? There would be no peace in Northern Ireland without concessions to terrorist groups, do you seriously disagree with that? As for Adams and McGuiness, I can't say I particularly think about them. You'd clearly want them executed and the war to begin again though by the sounds of it.

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"? The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law. no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks. Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day? Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit? Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"? names ? Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever. Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck. So presumably you'd prefer there was no peace in Northern Ireland then? Interesting.

I'm getting a midge net, even if it does make you look like a twat.

That does sound shit considering the distance involved. Also I hear toonraider is head of a gang of 'grockle-bashers'.

aye, well its a shame that the murderous bastards on both sides in NI can't also stand up and apologise or be held to account for their actions too. I just don't get people like you, who hurl flak at people predominantly trying to keep law and order, and obeying orders, yet defend those with deliberate intentions to murder as many people enjoying a Saturday afternoon in a city centre as often as possible. or defend the circumstances and freedoms allowed to those with such intentions. And I'm not just talking about the IRA here. It would appear that Cameron apologising for something that others were responsible for [and he is correct to apologise] isn't enough. What must Adams and his cronies be thinking ? Are they big enough to do the same ? I doubt it, as they have never had the balls to stand up in the open in the first place. Will they take his lead ? The point about De Menzies is that if the intelligence had been correct [and they believed it to be correct] then they also believed they were doing the right thing at the time. Aye, back to form as usual. Find me one post I have ever made where I have defended any acts of terrorism, or the perpretrators of terrorism, let alone the slaughter of innocents 'on a Saturday afternoon'. If you can't find one are you going to apologise? Didn't think so. Trying to have a rational debate with you is impossible. Within a few posts you descend into a bizarre mix of hypothetical situations only you can see the relevance of; straw men fallacies; and when that doesn't work, it'll be insults.

I'm struggling to make sense of this gibberish. Why would Bird have been shot before shooting anyone? Why don't you just stick to the facts of the case in hand?

NJS brought up the De Menenzes incident because of the subsequent lies and cover up, not because of the manner of the shooting. What happened on Bloody Sunday was simply indefensible. That is what the Inquiry has found and that is what Cameron has stated. I can't see how anyone with a conscience can disagree. The actions of the IRA, or the actions of the security forces in other situations, are entirely irrelevant to this point.

If you reasonably believe that there's an immediate danger to anyone then you shoot , simple as that. What the report has said today was that there was no immediate danger to the army or anyone else. precisely. Fantastic use of bolding there. Why do you not see the seond part of the sentence as relevant (in italics now)?

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words. IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report. lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though. Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ? Just out of interest have you read, watched, or heard the results of the enquiry? there are lots of "enquiries" they could also conduct Renton. Would Adams and MCGuiness present themselves at any such "enquiries". I doubt it. Shall I take that as a no then? I get the impression you would defend the British security forces, at all levels, no matter what they had done.

question for you, and others like you, as you mention the Brazilian. What would your response have been if Derrick Bird had been shot before shooting any of those civilians 13 days ago, before being given a "chance to surrender" or "allowed to put his hands up [ie wait until he shoots first]". Would you be complaining they had shot "an innocent man". Apologies to anyone offended by this question, but seriously, some people have their heads so far up their arse its unbelievable. What a ridiculous comparison, even by your standards.

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words. IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report. lets hope they prosecute the murdering scumbags Adams and McGuiness too then. Somehow I doubt it though. Why are so many people so keen to point the finger at security services on so many occasions like this, and not the real scumbags ? Just out of interest have you read, watched, or heard the results of the enquiry?

It's not in the public interest to name them imo. Most of the people seem to be happy that the dead have been cleared of any wrongdoing and that Cameron has issued an apology, in fact they're very pleased with the PM's words. IIRC the soldiers were originally going to be named but got a court order to guarantee their anonymity, still doesn't prevent them from prosecution and the DPP is going to look at the report. Fair enough if that happens then.

Listened to some of the ITN news just now and from what I can make out the enquiry has found that some soldiers are probably guilty of cold blooded murder. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why should they be protected now? Does being in the army make them exempt? From experience I know that I don't want to get into a 'discussion' about this on here, but either I have misheard the news or I'm quite surprised at some of the attitudes shown on this thread.

An observation. From that article: From the previous article:

So basically the majority of the worlds leaders and their highly paid economic advisors are wrong and a few blogging economists are right. Go Figure. Did you have difficulty understanding that article CT?

Full stop in the wrong place?

Fucking hell!

Tut tut. Love Helvellyn, better from the East side though.