Tony Blair- is a comeback possible ?

[Johnuk123]

Nope. Omagh killed 29 people, the multiple car-bombing in Dublin and Monaghan killed 34.

Not that it's about counting up the bodies.

Considering no one has even been charged for that you have remarkable inside knowledge to know that the British army did it.
It isn't really surprising that the accusation came from the Irish Govt. one that has never been a friend of this country.

Accusations are one thing but proof is required and you don't have any.

So like your statement that plenty of our soldiers are terrorists it's yet another simple assumption that fits your agenda.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It isn't really surprising that the accusation came from the Irish Govt. one that has never been a friend of this country.

The "accusation" came from the Barron Report, which also went on to criticise, er, the Irish Government for covering it up.

But no, it must all be lies, lies lies. GAAAAAAAAH Beryl.

 

[AlterEgo]

Considering no one has even been charged for that you have remarkable inside knowledge to know that the British army did it.
It isn't really surprising that the accusation came from the Irish Govt. one that has never been a friend of this country.

Accusations are one thing but proof is required and you don't have any.

So like your statement that plenty of our soldiers are terrorists it's yet another simple assumption that fits your agenda.

Nobody ever got charged for the Manchester bombing either but that doesn't mean we can't look at the overwhelming body of evidence to point the finger at the IRA.

There is considerable evidence that there was British Army collusion with Dublin and Monaghan. Just because the accusation originally came from someone who you don't consider your friend doesn't make it untrue.

 

[Steveman]

Reading the last few posts it's pretty clear that this forum has some posters who will use any excuse to have a go at the armed services.

 

[Johnuk123]

Nobody ever got charged for the Manchester bombing either but that doesn't mean we can't look at the overwhelming body of evidence to point the finger at the IRA.

There is considerable evidence that there was British Army collusion with Dublin and Monaghan. Just because the accusation originally came from someone who you don't consider your friend doesn't make it untrue.

In your world then an accusation is sufficient, why bother with all that troublesome missing evidence when it's clear who did it because somebody said they did.

 

[AlterEgo]

In your world then an accusation is sufficient, why bother with all that troublesome missing evidence when it's clear who did it because somebody said they did.

No, in my world, I consider all of the available evidence.

There is someone in my own family who says Bloody Sunday was deliberate and the SAS were on the ground that day. This is a baseless statement based on the enormous bulk of evidence surrounding the events of the day, which points to it being a military and political catastrophe which can only be explained by viewing the event in the proper context.

The evidence for British Army collusion in Dublin and Monaghan is very extensive whether you like it or not, even if this collusion happened without knowledge of the Government or Army top brass.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nobody ever got charged for the Manchester bombing either but that doesn't mean we can't look at the overwhelming body of evidence to point the finger at the IRA.

Indeed. Gerry Adams was never convicted of being part of the IRA...

 

[Busaholic]

Indeed. Gerry Adams was never convicted of being part of the IRA...

He's always denied being a member of the IRA, but then Jimmy Savile always denied being a paedophile......

 

[bb21]

Reading the last few posts it's pretty clear that this forum has some posters who will use any excuse to have a go at the armed services.

The armed forces are not beyond criticism. If you have a problem with another forum member's arguments, try constructing your own to disprove what they claimed.

 

[fowler9]

The armed forces are not beyond criticism. If you have a problem with another forum member's arguments, try constructing your own to disprove what they claimed.

Indeed. I work with them on a daily basis and they aren't all a bunch of saints. I have friends of friends and relatives in the forces who also are not all saints.

I think some of the Britain First mob (I don't mean anyone on here) would be fascinated to know how many foreigners I speak to on average in the line of my work when they go on about our brave boys in a white anglo saxon protestant kind of way. Yesterday morning I didn't speak to a single native English speaker.

 

[90sWereBetter]

I swear Johnuk123, Railops and Steveman are all the same poster...

Definitely think the armed forces should not be above criticism.

 

[anme]

I assume that those here who disparage the peace process want to go back to the old days of the Troubles?

 

[AlterEgo]

Now would be a good time to point out to the poster so dissatisfied with the Good Friday Agreement, that said Agreement was ratified overwhelmingly with a referendum.

Sound familiar?

 

[Phil.]

The Geneva Convention changed after WW2. Were the likes of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, etc to happen today it would be a war crime. One wonders if Putin should be put on trial for Aleppo?

Don't forget the Battle of Britain. R.A.F. pilots had a shoot to kill policy.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Trog]

Don't forget the Battle of Britain. R.A.F. pilots had a shoot to kill policy.

Where do you draw the line?

At criticising the Germans apparently as there is no mention of the Spanish and Polish cities they bombed or the more famous victims such as Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc.

As for a Battle of Britain shoot to kill policy do you have any references for it, as it seems a bit of an odd thing to do. As all the shot down German pilots would have become POW's on landing. While the inevitable retaliation would affect pilots who on landing could be driven straight back to their airfield to fight again.

 

[Mag_seven]

Whats all this got to do with Tony Blair?

 

[Hornet]

Now would be a good time to point out to the poster so dissatisfied with the Good Friday Agreement, that said Agreement was ratified overwhelmingly with a referendum.

Sound familiar?

Eoghan Harris makes some salient points in today's Irish Independent re the GFA and Tony Blair's 'secret deal letters' regards known terrorist operators. There are many Irish commentators that now believe that the agreement was a 'get out' clause for Sinn Fein/IRA, as physical force Republicanism had all but been defeated before the GFA was negotiated. (The IRA were riddled with informers, one of which is alleged to be Martin McGuinness. Some believe even Gerry Adams was an informer, such was the weight of evidence against him regards his IRA activities). At that time Sinn Fein had only 2% support of the people of the ROI. It is also worth remembering that the IRA murdered more innocent Catholic civilians than any other organisation combined.

Blair and Ahern had the IRA by the short and curleys, yet by pushing the GFA, managed to divide NI into political extremes (DUP & SF), and give succour and strength to a revitalised SF in the ROI, (an organisation still headed by Adams and run by an unelected cabal in West Belfast). In many respects Blair and Ahern destroyed moderate politics (UUP, SDLP and to a lesser extent the AP) in NI, which allowed criminality to flourish in the Border areas and has led to large amounts of UK and EU money to be siphoned off into so called 'Community Projects'.

TBH apart from the end of the terrorist killing campaign, which was self defeating in the end, the GFA has not achieved much except embolden criminality in the Republican/Loyalist communities. It's not peace, it's a peace 'process'. ('Process' is the code that peace will not occur until a Marxist's State United Ireland, under SF/IRA control in accordance with it's 'Green Book' has occured). That will be Tony Blair's legacy under the GFA.

 

[Phil.]

At criticising the Germans apparently as there is no mention of the Spanish and Polish cities they bombed or the more famous victims such as Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc.

As for a Battle of Britain shoot to kill policy do you have any references for it, as it seems a bit of an odd thing to do. As all the shot down German pilots would have become POW's on landing. While the inevitable retaliation would affect pilots who on landing could be driven straight back to their airfield to fight again.

I cannot believe you have answered in such a naïve way. Denys "Kill 'em" Gillan stated that he always aimed for the cockpit in a dogfight. This was war, kill or be killed not computer games. B.O.B. - and later - fighter pilots didn't give a tuppeny sexual intercourse about the health and well being of enemy pilots as is the same with modern ones.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Blair and Ahern had the IRA by the short and curleys, yet by pushing the GFA, managed to divide NI into political extremes (DUP & SF), and give succour and strength to a revitalised SF in the ROI

Sinn Fein's new-found strength in the Republic has far more to do with the sheer dazzling ineptitude and corruption of both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael than anything else.

I don't think Northern Ireland is more extreme than it was during the troubles- you wouldn't see the likes of Bobby Sands getting elected as an MP these days- and the power of the extremists on both sides is waning.

The IRA were losing by the mid-90s, that much is true, but the GFA gave them a way out without being humiliated. I think that was the intelligent and pragmatic way of dealing with the situation. Backing them into a corner would just have made them become increasingly violent as they tried to cling on, the Manchester and Omagh bombings were the acts of an organisation that knew it was losing and felt it had nothing to lose by becoming increasingly extreme. We saw in Sri Lanka that the atrocities became increasingly extreme just before the Tamil Tigers lost the civil war there, it wouldn't have been any different in Northern Ireland.

Don't forget the Battle of Britain. R.A.F. pilots had a shoot to kill policy.

Where do you draw the line?

A "shoot to kill" policy against armed combatants who are actively fighting is perfectly acceptable. It's a war, not a game.

At criticising the Germans apparently as there is no mention of the Spanish and Polish cities they bombed or the more famous victims such as Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc.

The awkward truth is that the Allied killed more civilians in one week in Hamburg during Operation Gomorrah than the Nazis killed in a year during The Blitz. The intention of Operation Gomorrah was to raze Hamburg to the ground- the Biblical name given to the bombing raids gives us a teensy little hint as to the intention- and I think it is clearly a war crime.

That doesn't, of course, mean that the Nazis also didn't commit plenty of war crimes.

 

[Trog]

I cannot believe you have answered in such a naïve way. Denys "Kill 'em" Gillan stated that he always aimed for the cockpit in a dogfight. This was war, kill or be killed not computer games. B.O.B. - and later - fighter pilots didn't give a tuppeny sexual intercourse about the health and well being of enemy pilots as is the same with modern ones.

Ahh right I assumed you were suggesting that they were shooting German pilots after they had bailed out or something of that sort. Rather than shooting at them during combat, which I had assumed in my naivety was more or less the object of fighting with guns.

 

[miami]

I cannot believe you have answered in such a naïve way. Denys "Kill 'em" Gillan stated that he always aimed for the cockpit in a dogfight. This was war, kill or be killed not computer games. B.O.B. - and later - fighter pilots didn't give a tuppeny sexual intercourse about the health and well being of enemy pilots as is the same with modern ones.

1 bullet in a wing probably won't down a plane. 1 bullet it a cockpit probably will.

 

[fowler9]

1 bullet in a wing probably won't down a plane. 1 bullet it a cockpit probably will.

Indeed, running out of planes was one thing, running out of fully trained and experienced pilots was a completely different problem.

 

[miami]

Indeed, running out of planes was one thing, running out of fully trained and experienced pilots was a completely different problem.

If the plane got shot down then you lose a plane and a pilot (the latter becoming a pow), so that didn't really matter - either the plane and pilot made it back to fight another day, or the plane and pilot didn't meaning neither would fight another day. The pilot surviving made no difference to that, however a single bullet in the cockpit was more likely to being the plane down than a single bullet in the rest of the plane. The fact the pilot would die rather than eject was neither here nor there

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was surprised to learn that Jeremy Corbyn is only four years older than Tony Blair.

 

[fowler9]

If the plane got shot down then you lose a plane and a pilot (the latter becoming a pow), so that didn't really matter - either the plane and pilot made it back to fight another day, or the plane and pilot didn't meaning neither would fight another day. The pilot surviving made no difference to that, however a single bullet in the cockpit was more likely to being the plane down than a single bullet in the rest of the plane. The fact the pilot would die rather than eject was neither here nor there

In the Battle Of Brittain you didn't always loose the plane and the pilot, well the Luftwaffe did but the RAF didn't. Also a single bullet through the engine would be just as likely to bring the plane down. Read about the horrific burns to pilots after the engine which was just in front of them cooked up. Fortunately many pilots did survive bailing out

 

[Phil.]

In the Battle Of Brittain you didn't always loose the plane and the pilot, well the Luftwaffe did but the RAF didn't. Also a single bullet through the engine would be just as likely to bring the plane down. Read about the horrific burns to pilots after the engine which was just in front of them cooked up. Fortunately many pilots did survive bailing out

It was the main fuel tank which was located immediately in front of the pilot what did the damage. Imagine driving your car with an 85 gallon tank of 120 octane petrol where the engine is.
These are the two fuel tanks.

 

[Greenback]

Whats all this got to do with Tony Blair?

An excellent question. Please keep the discussion on topic. Any further off topic posts may be removed.