Ian Paisley admitted to hospital

[The Herren]

History will show that the man was responsible for, or contributed to, some of the great pain and suffering of the troubles.
I hope history will also show, that this man, this unbending hateful bigot, saw that his way was wrong and tried to change it and do some good. You can say the same about Adams and Martin McG et al.

My point is there is hope, despite the minority factions that want to return to hate and murder, hope that 'we can all just get along'.
I wish him well and I hope some if not most people can forgive him his ways, because there is an awful lot of forgiveness required to make this nation whole.

I would not give that bastard the steam off my piss. Would you expect Jews who suffered under Hitler to have that kind of attitude if he was dying in a hospital in 1945? Cop on and grow up.

[The Herren]

There's a false dichotomy in the bolded part. He may have simply decided to feed of prejudice in order to moderte it and in order to achieve its reasonable ends. Some showboating could be justified in those circumstances.

What a load of abolute crap! Firstly I do not like over zealous Language usage/Grammar watchdogs on P.ie but you are getting on my nerves, so what is a "false"dichotomy" as opposed to a dichotomy? But my main point is you are raving mad to even contemplate that prejudice can be consciously used in order to acheve "reasonable ends". Even more stupid is your implication that Paisley was really a good guy all along but was just preaching hatred and inciting terorism because he knew it would all be for the best eventually. I have questioned your sanity recently in an earlier thread but now I am convinced you are either messing around or you need to see a shrink. I have my money on the latter.

[The Herren]

Is he nearly dead yet? Is he nearly dead yet?

[Toland]

Maybe if it hadnt of been for articles 2 and 3 and the concerted effort to destroy Ulster than involved a lot cold blooded murder he would have been civilized all along? Just something to think about.

In all fairness, a historical explanation for uncivilized behaviour is not an ethical justification. This is something the Shinners are also beginning to learn.

[Murph]

Dead Right Toland -history doesnt explain anything -thats why some people make it up as they go along -especially where their political opponent are concerned, eh!

[walrusgumble]

So because the community wants them dead they should be murdered?

I did not say that. You asked me for the relevancy of it. You rant and rave about speculating, yet, when I point to you that the community were silent on it, asked for your view and whether, objectively, it could be said, their was support for the death or a belief that she was a spie, you throw a hissy.

You answer your point, if that member of the community is responsible for the death and arrest of a fellow community member, by enemey forces, then unless you are thick, you know what the out come will be. That is all I am saying. I make no comment about whether it is right or wrong. It was not a game of tiddly winks they were involved in.

The community has accepted or at least tolerated the IRA rule as it was a lesser evil to the RUC, they knew what the story was if they disobeyed, so what do you expect?

You have yet to explain, in that case, why it is relevant.

I have, your blind, not my problem. Let others decide. I refuse to do so for the fourth time. You are too dishonest and you have intentionally distorted what I have said.

What is the relevance of any of this?

It has being explained more than 4 times. Are you thick or are your spoofing.

People down in the South would not have cared too much about this story had they known who she was and her background, they would not have thrown a hissy either if the people who leaked it did so to damage a political movement that was beginning to become a threat (leaks from a few cranks with axes to grind, who have not being cross examined on the veracity of their comments) to the established parties in the South (lord knows why) A lot of the Southerners would be thinking, ************************ them , they are all like that up there. The point of bringing it up, is many on these threads use this story, not out of genuine disgust, but the usual bashing of a movement. It is cynical and hypocritical.

A. Such as who?
B. Why is this relevant?

Who? Your either taking the piss, someone only delighted to see the Nationalist/Republican movement being attacked/you you had the head in the sand.

Some People (relations included), during internment, were arrested on the say so of so called members (who themselves had being picked up by RUC), who often picked out innocent people (him knowing that they would be found innocent and all would be fine) because he knew what would happen if he picked the real people.

Why is it relevant? You live in the community that has accepted or tolerated a group that had tried to defend you from attacks (be fair, pretty badly) , you accept another group is an enemy, your own family had gone to jail for that movement, and you spite in their faces by turning to the enemy?

Listen be honest, your clearly not on that side (that's your right etc) but don't give us any bull************************ about law and order etc. Would you be out to lynch a person who has being blamed for eg assisting in the assignation of a leader of your community?

To say things are irrelevant clearly highlights, why the Northern problems went on for so long - people did not understand or were too pig headed in trying to understand what and why things were going on.

That's fine, but you are speaking in favour of internationally recognized war crimes. Good man yourself.

Who makes up the rules?

Lets see how successful we will be in dragging Britain into such a court for their work in Collusion. It has taken them over 30 years to partially accept responsibility for Bloody Sunday . Both London and Dublin don't want to know anything about the Dublin - Monaghan bombings - knowing damn well that they knew about potential threats but did nothing.

So let's not get on our high horses yeah.

I have no idea what this is meant to mean, but it is probably best we leave it at that, as you say.

Again, you would make a great politician.

I will explain, you have being extremely dishonest in your approach to this discussion. You have distorted and misinterpreted certain statement to suit your argument, despite repeated clarification. You refused / failed to answer any question for a while, and it took around 3-4 requests from you to actually give an answer. (you still did not answer my main question about the likely response to the deaths by others had they being aware of the background)

However, when you did finally answer, you at least gave your honest view, my issue only being why it had to be dragged out of you.

Good day

[bixter]

By that measure, any accident of birth means automatic relegation to the ranks of squalid despot.

Given the other part of your post is a tacit defence of Zimbabwean democracy, I'd say you're onto a loser with this post.

He's just saying that both mugabe and paisley initially attained their political positions through the democratic process of election whereas Queen Elizabeth II inherited her position by simply being the daughter of King George VI. In a nutshell: mugabe and paisley were elected by thwe people, the queen wasn't.

mugabe was a different person when he was first elected prime minister back in 1980. He actually represented the spirit of positive change and progress in Africa at the time. Shame to see he's just a petty tyrant now. So much wasted potential.

[Des Quirell]

What a load of abolute crap! Firstly I do not like over zealous Language usage/Grammar watchdogs on P.ie but you are getting on my nerves, so what is a "false"dichotomy" as opposed to a dichotomy?

A dichotomy is:

division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action.

That is sourced at dictionary.com. It is a standard use of the term to say that one has found oneself in a dichotomy; one has two possibly contradictory choices in the face of a decision.

A false dichotomy is a well attested logical fallacy which forces either/or choices when there are more choices.

The statement "Either one of Declan Kidney or Stephen Roche is gay." is an example. It implies that one or the other *must* be gay and that the other *must not* be gay. It ignores the possibilities that either both are gay or that neither are. It's what is commonly called a logical fallacy. It's commonly used in debates. Acquaint yourself with the full list of them. They're handy things to know.

But my main point is you are raving mad to even contemplate that prejudice can be consciously used in order to acheve "reasonable ends".

It is commonly "exploited" as a tool. Not just commonly but all of the time. Practically every national leader who has ever existed has appelaled to the extreme fringes in order to obtain the mandate that allowed them to become part of the process that eventually ended up delivering something usually far-delivered from the demands of that extreme. F.W. de Klerk our own Gerry Adams and Mrtin McGuinnes are among that number. Their journies ended in "reasonable ends".

Even more stupid is your implication that Paisley was really a good guy all along but was just preaching hatred and inciting terorism because he knew it would all be for the best eventually.

I don't recall being so specific as to have said that. My recall is that I said "He may have....".

I have questioned your sanity recently in an earlier thread but now I am convinced you are either messing around or you need to see a shrink. I have my money on the latter.

I now question your learning given that you weren't aware in the least of the most basic logical fallacies. You need a basic education in logic and in debating techniques. I'm speaking Ladybird book level if you've never encountered the false dichotomy. That's very basic stuff indeed.

You appear to be an idiot.

[newsjunkie9]

Agreed. Also, when the families of the protestant young(mainly) men whom he incited to terrorism and who died for HIS cause exhibit their respects I will do the same. Until then I cannot but hold him in utter contempt.

But for him and Adams and McGuinnes on the other side, there would be no peace in Northern Ireland today.
Can you imagine what it would be like living in the north where republicans and loyalists still maim and bomb each other with no hope for the future.
Like his erstwhile enemies, he too came in from the cold.
I wish him a speedy recovery and enjoyable retirement.

[Super Snooper]

Maguinness will be in bits his buddys dyin!!!!