I didn't even know all of this stuff was still going on in NI. I thought it was all dealt with and everyone was just trying to find some kind of normality. Wishful thinking I suppose.

In the words of Mr Adams "They haven't gone away, you know".

Which you're entitled to. The majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland don't want to leave the UK and become part of Eire. And they are entitled to their opinion without some cowardly scum shooting or bombing them.

They don't need to leave the UK, they just need to leave Ireland.

If they choose not to leave, it's clear they are risking their lives.

Fine - and all the Whites leave Africa, and all the European settlers' descendants leave the Americas.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the majority of its people want to stay that way; despite the threats of violence from criminal terrorists their bigoted financial backers who like to pretend otherwise.

Ah, but you see violence and threats thereof as acceptable ways to settle political differences of course. Just like when some states tried to secede.

and the IRA finally agreeing to talks. The good people of America, who had funded the 'Freedom fighters' for so long had a taste of terrorism and the funding dried up. No money, no bombs.

I always thought the British government gave in to the IRA when they blew up the conservative government conference in Brighton and frightened Margaret Thatcher into surrender.

The IRA frightened Margaret Thatcher into surrender? Oh dear. Thatcher was defiant against terrorists, whether they were funded by the Iranians or by the Americans, and remained so. The weasel who replaced her might have had different ideas, as did Tony Blair who completed the capitulation. It might be useful to read some of Thatcher's speeches as Prime Minister in the years following Brighton.

Thatcher was supportive of the peace talks.

She was a hawk as were many in the IRA's leadership, but she like them realised that violence and conflict had failed.

What she said in public was like many things about thatcher, she said one thing but the truth was another matter.

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Violence is always the solution.

Political change can never be achieved without bloodshed.

Patriot's blood is the seed of freedom's tree.

Violence is always the solution.

Political change can never be achieved without bloodshed.

Patriot's blood is the seed of freedom's tree.

Do you support Hamas, PLO, ISIS, ETA, Ukrainian rebels, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Taliban and all the other terrorist organizations around the world? They must see themselves as patriots and freedom fighters too.

Or do you only support a murdering cowardly terrorist group if they happen to support your ideas?

What happens if one of these criminal groups wins - then get's democratically defeated in elections? Do you think they would accept that, put their guns away and become democratic citizens? Or do you think any group can simply take up arms to further it's own agenda - whatever that might be.

Anyone taking up violence like this, IMO, forfeits their human rights considerations, and should be terminated at the earliest opportunity. The Mossad used to be good at that. More of Gibraltar, Mogadishu, etc when dealing with terrorist murderers and wannabee killers.

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Was it the INLA who murdered Neave? They claimed responsibility although other theories exist. Anyway he was murdered, probably by Irish terrorists which I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would have noted.

You may view Thatcher how you want to, from an Irish perspective, but she took over a UK that had become the sick man of Europe being completely <deleted> up by trades unions that had been infiltrated by the extreme left. She was the medicine the UK needed at that time, however unpalatable that may have been. She was democratically elected, the longest serving PM of the 20th century and the only woman to hold that office. So, many did not support your view. Like many, she arguable went too far in the other direction.

Violence creates more violence as a response, which creates more violence. A vicious cycle. Once someone becomes embroiled it's hard to break out of. Adams still spouts the old rhetoric. He's held in check, and pushed south of the border. Understandable. McGuiness, has the intelligence and honesty to admit the wrong doings, on all sides, of the past and expresses correctly how things that seemed right at the time, can be seen to be so wrong later.

A deal was done, an agreement signed. There are dissidents and criminals hiding under political banners who still need dealing with. This warrant jumper is possibly an example. Peace anywhere is fragile - just look at how quickly violence has erupted all around the world.

One poster on this thread supports the idea of political violence, and even advocates it in support of a united Ireland, even though the majority in Ulster want to remain part of the UK. Whilst people think like that violence will always be just below the surface.

What happens if one of these criminal groups wins - then get's democratically defeated in elections? Do you think they would accept that, put their guns away and become democratic citizens? Or do you think any group can simply take up arms to further it's own agenda - whatever that might be.

Are we talking about Thailand now?

And General Prayut?

Hang the coward git or even better tar and feather the bastatd

Hang the coward git or even better tar and feather the bastatd

For what?

He's not been convicted of anything.

<deleted> did ira need a confiction

He said he was set up/framed. so did the innocent

Birmingham bombers, the list is endless.

He said he was set up/framed. so did the innocent

Birmingham bombers, the list is endless.

That guy on the underground who was shot in the head 10 times would have claimed innocence too, if he had lived.

No wait, he was innocent. But he looked like a terrorist, so OK to shoot him.

<deleted> did ira need a confiction

I repeat what has he been convicted of?

He's wanted for questioning and should return to Ireland so it can happen.

However that is it.

Your desire to see him murdered because of this is just ridiculous.

At best.

Ive no doubt these links will get deleted

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-finds-sinn-f%C3%A9in-is-most-popular-party-in-state-1.1985132

http://www.sinnfein.org/documents/freedom.html

What happens if one of these criminal groups wins - then get's democratically defeated in elections? Do you think they would accept that, put their guns away and become democratic citizens? Or do you think any group can simply take up arms to further it's own agenda - whatever that might be.

Are we talking about Thailand now?

And General Prayut?

..................."Or do you think any group can simply take up arms to further it's own agenda".......................

Some people think it was ok for the ThaiRouge to do it !

Excuse me, PTP with Yingluck Shinawatra won the last democratic election. It was the Yellow Shirts that refused to accept people's vote.

Excuse me, PTP with Yingluck Shinawatra won the last democratic election. It was the Yellow Shirts that refused to accept people's vote.

A: PAD are the yellow shirts and were not involved in the protests.

B: The election result was not pleasing to many but they accepted it. What they did not accept was the attempt to put the interests of their backer first, above that of the country and amnesty him and many other criminals.

PAD renamed as PDRC.

And many Red Shirts were against the amnesty bill, too, they actually rallied against their own 'aristocratic' leadership (Thaksin & Co), so they are rather anti-elitarian than pro-Thaksin.

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Was it the INLA who murdered Neave? They claimed responsibility although other theories exist. Anyway he was murdered, probably by Irish terrorists which I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would have noted.

You may view Thatcher how you want to, from an Irish perspective, but she took over a UK that had become the sick man of Europe being completely <deleted> up by trades unions that had been infiltrated by the extreme left. She was the medicine the UK needed at that time, however unpalatable that may have been. She was democratically elected, the longest serving PM of the 20th century and the only woman to hold that office. So, many did not support your view. Like many, she arguable went too far in the other direction.

Violence creates more violence as a response, which creates more violence. A vicious cycle. Once someone becomes embroiled it's hard to break out of. Adams still spouts the old rhetoric. He's held in check, and pushed south of the border. Understandable. McGuiness, has the intelligence and honesty to admit the wrong doings, on all sides, of the past and expresses correctly how things that seemed right at the time, can be seen to be so wrong later.

A deal was done, an agreement signed. There are dissidents and criminals hiding under political banners who still need dealing with. This warrant jumper is possibly an example. Peace anywhere is fragile - just look at how quickly violence has erupted all around the world.

One poster on this thread supports the idea of political violence, and even advocates it in support of a united Ireland, even though the majority in Ulster want to remain part of the UK. Whilst people think like that violence will always be just below the surface.

What's wrong with the idea of a United Ireland?

PAD renamed as PDRC.

And many Red Shirts were against the amnesty bill, too, they actually rallied against their own 'aristocratic' leadership (Thaksin & Co), so they are rather anti-elitarian than pro-Thaksin.

Disagree with you on various points here but we are drifting off topic.

However I will agree with your call for a united Ireland.

There.

I'm back on topic.

He's away for a while. He's going to be back for a while too.

Why does Thailand open its doors to these types of people?

I'm sure with his attitude and mouth, he will get noticed very soon in BKK and someone will rat him in.

It's a pretty simple explanation.

Unless there is something logged on his Passport records to show he is a wanted man which would be flagged up at Immigration he would gain entry to Thailand just like everyone else,

In fact he would gain entry to nearly every country on the planet

So to summarize what is your point about somehow blaming Thailand for something that is the British Authorities fault for not confiscating or flagging his passport?

Do not you know it is always Thailands fault in some minds

I'm not blaming Thailand in a its all their fault way; not my point in context at all - I'm saying its a shame we get so many of these types coming here and they get through. Thailand seems to attract these idiots.

More than aware that other countries are just as useless with immigration control.

Firstly, I personally don't believe that Thailand gets proportionally more or less of "these types" than most other (developing) countries. People on the run generally tend to look to countries which take a relaxed view of upholding the law. I'm sure just about every third world/developing country falls into this category. In the worst case scenario, the police there can be paid to "look the other way".

Secondly, there's no point in blaming the immigration controls. If there are no outstanding arrest warrants for that particular person entering that particular country, then there is absolutely no reason for the immigration authorities to hold him/her. Just because there is an outstanding arrest warrant for a person in, let's say the UK, doesn't actually mean that that person will turn up on the German/Thai/Korean/Kenyan, etc. system. Arrest warrants can only be issued for a particular jurisdiction (let's say the UK). If the authorities believe that the criminal is residing in, let's say a Schengen Area country, to which neither the UK nor Republic of Ireland are members of, then the UK authorities would have to include the Shengen Area in its arrest warrant, otherwise the police in those countries have no right/mandate to arrest him.

If the suspect is believed to be residing in an Asian country (which is known as "Zone 7"), then the country issuing the arrest warrant would have to include that zone in the arrest warrant. Until such time, the (Thai) immigration/police have no reason to arrest him.

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Was it the INLA who murdered Neave? They claimed responsibility although other theories exist. Anyway he was murdered, probably by Irish terrorists which I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would have noted.

You may view Thatcher how you want to, from an Irish perspective, but she took over a UK that had become the sick man of Europe being completely <deleted> up by trades unions that had been infiltrated by the extreme left. She was the medicine the UK needed at that time, however unpalatable that may have been. She was democratically elected, the longest serving PM of the 20th century and the only woman to hold that office. So, many did not support your view. Like many, she arguable went too far in the other direction.

Violence creates more violence as a response, which creates more violence. A vicious cycle. Once someone becomes embroiled it's hard to break out of. Adams still spouts the old rhetoric. He's held in check, and pushed south of the border. Understandable. McGuiness, has the intelligence and honesty to admit the wrong doings, on all sides, of the past and expresses correctly how things that seemed right at the time, can be seen to be so wrong later.

A deal was done, an agreement signed. There are dissidents and criminals hiding under political banners who still need dealing with. This warrant jumper is possibly an example. Peace anywhere is fragile - just look at how quickly violence has erupted all around the world.

One poster on this thread supports the idea of political violence, and even advocates it in support of a united Ireland, even though the majority in Ulster want to remain part of the UK. Whilst people think like that violence will always be just below the surface.

... and the majority of people in the Republic want to see Ireland reunited again. So who do we listen to? The wishes of the people of Ulster or the people of the Republic? I know! Why don't we listen to what the "majority of people on the island of Ireland" want... both from Ulster and the Republic.

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Was it the INLA who murdered Neave? They claimed responsibility although other theories exist. Anyway he was murdered, probably by Irish terrorists which I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would have noted.

You may view Thatcher how you want to, from an Irish perspective, but she took over a UK that had become the sick man of Europe being completely <deleted> up by trades unions that had been infiltrated by the extreme left. She was the medicine the UK needed at that time, however unpalatable that may have been. She was democratically elected, the longest serving PM of the 20th century and the only woman to hold that office. So, many did not support your view. Like many, she arguable went too far in the other direction.

Violence creates more violence as a response, which creates more violence. A vicious cycle. Once someone becomes embroiled it's hard to break out of. Adams still spouts the old rhetoric. He's held in check, and pushed south of the border. Understandable. McGuiness, has the intelligence and honesty to admit the wrong doings, on all sides, of the past and expresses correctly how things that seemed right at the time, can be seen to be so wrong later.

A deal was done, an agreement signed. There are dissidents and criminals hiding under political banners who still need dealing with. This warrant jumper is possibly an example. Peace anywhere is fragile - just look at how quickly violence has erupted all around the world.

One poster on this thread supports the idea of political violence, and even advocates it in support of a united Ireland, even though the majority in Ulster want to remain part of the UK. Whilst people think like that violence will always be just below the surface.

... and the majority of people in the Republic want to see Ireland reunited again. So who do we listen to? The wishes of the people of Ulster or the people of the Republic? I know! Why don't we listen to what the "majority of people on the island of Ireland" want... both from Ulster and the Republic.

Ireland should be grateful that we're nicer in the UK towards terrorists than the Americans are. Otherwise we'd have just gone to war on Ireland to teach them how terrorists should have been dealt with. That process of listening to the needs of the British people would take approximately a week.

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Was it the INLA who murdered Neave? They claimed responsibility although other theories exist. Anyway he was murdered, probably by Irish terrorists which I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would have noted.

You may view Thatcher how you want to, from an Irish perspective, but she took over a UK that had become the sick man of Europe being completely <deleted> up by trades unions that had been infiltrated by the extreme left. She was the medicine the UK needed at that time, however unpalatable that may have been. She was democratically elected, the longest serving PM of the 20th century and the only woman to hold that office. So, many did not support your view. Like many, she arguable went too far in the other direction.

Violence creates more violence as a response, which creates more violence. A vicious cycle. Once someone becomes embroiled it's hard to break out of. Adams still spouts the old rhetoric. He's held in check, and pushed south of the border. Understandable. McGuiness, has the intelligence and honesty to admit the wrong doings, on all sides, of the past and expresses correctly how things that seemed right at the time, can be seen to be so wrong later.

A deal was done, an agreement signed. There are dissidents and criminals hiding under political banners who still need dealing with. This warrant jumper is possibly an example. Peace anywhere is fragile - just look at how quickly violence has erupted all around the world.

One poster on this thread supports the idea of political violence, and even advocates it in support of a united Ireland, even though the majority in Ulster want to remain part of the UK. Whilst people think like that violence will always be just below the surface.

... and the majority of people in the Republic want to see Ireland reunited again. So who do we listen to? The wishes of the people of Ulster or the people of the Republic? I know! Why don't we listen to what the "majority of people on the island of Ireland" want... both from Ulster and the Republic.

Ireland should be grateful that we're nicer in the UK towards terrorists than the Americans are. Otherwise we'd have just gone to war on Ireland to teach them how terrorists should have been dealt with. That process of listening to the needs of the British people would take approximately a week.

I'm afraid there seems to be a misunderstanding here: I was referring to the "people of Ulster and the Republic"... I really don't understand how you can refer to "terrorists" in your reply. Or do you simply assume that both are one and the same?

Considering the fact that for hundreds of years, various English kings, queens and governments tried, and failed, to deal with Ireland I find it amusing that you believe the British people would only take "approximately a week" to deal with this problem. Quite amusing really...

This is for all the Brits calling Irish Freedom Fighters cowardy scum, and this is only a top 10 of British crimes against humanity. The whole list of British cowardly acts would probably take 10 full pages here

http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

Every country on that list has benefitted considerably from international aid, famine relief, earthquake rescue etc from the tiny little country they hate and continue to blame for everything.

Back on topic; where's this left footer?

Lots of big talk here about dealing with so called IRA scum and what you would do with them. Why don't your bring this topic up with the next Irish man you meet and see what answer you get. There are plenty of Irish bars in Thailand where your bound to find a paddy. Go in and give it to the so called scum. And when your at it you might even find one of those jihadi scum who blew up your London buses. That would even be easier than finding an Irish man.

Soi 13/3 in Pattaya, is that your battlefield?

Unfortunately we don't have a photo showing yourself, but I think you're easy to pick: You're the one with the foam in his mouth, right?

i guess he prefers thai girls rather than white girls.