Thatcher'backstabbed' Sikhs by advising India on 1984 Golden Temple raid

First topic message reminder :

Britain's involvement in the massacre of hundreds of Sikh separatists in an Indian temple in 1984 will be urgently investigated, David Cameron has ordered.

Previously secret documents released by the Government have shown that a SAS officer was drafted in to help the Indian authorities with plans to remove dissident Sikhs from the Golden Temple at Amritsar, Sikhism's holiest shrine.

The plan was ordered with the full knowledge of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the documents say. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed in the attack.

Yesterday Sikh leaders said the revelations amounted to the British Government ‘backstabbing” and have called for all documentation surrounding the attack to be released.

In an operation called “Blue Star” Indian troops attacked the temple in June 1984 with an official death toll of 492 militants, pilgrims and soldiers. The country was plunged into some of the worst communal violence in its history following the attack. Sikh activists claim thousands died in the operation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10571223/Britain-backstabbed-Sikhs-by-advising-India-on-1984-Golden-Temple-raid.html

Not content with practically handing the Falkland Islands to Argentina on a plate a couple of years earlier costing hundreds of British lives to win them back she was colluding with India over the atrocity that took place at the Golden Temple at Amritsar in 1984.
Christ that was kept quiet but it's leaked out now of this country's involvement in something that cost hundreds if not thousands of lives in another country.

Absolutely shameful

Don't forget the tissues Fraud.

PhilDidge wrote:::sexbnan: 

More desperation and lying, no where do I call all liars, just you and sassy, you even worse for knowing she goofed up, that is why it is hilarious you back people when you know they were wrong.

Sums you up buddy

  


Thanks Irn has been fun watching you get so much into a fluster great entertainment tonight!

Better luck next time with your lame bashing of great leaders

You supported the military option and the use of guns instead of peace and reconciliation therefore you are a fraud and that is now beyond any shadow of doubt.

You made my day Didge and for that I am extremely grateful to you for you letting that gem fall into my hands.

Sassy wrote:Don't forget the tissues Fraud.

Thick one's at that lol

Yes I showed you had no case here and you know what it was very easy and as seen, now your views are solely about me


Checkmate

 :D

PhilDidge wrote:Yes I showed you had no case here and you know what it was very easy and as seen, now your views are solely about me


Checkmate

 :D

Not so.

Night night

Very much checkmate

 :D

Only because you are so stupid and egotistical you think that. Don't forget the tissues.

Oh, just before you go. Here's another one. Get the guns out instead of peace and reconciliation. You support that and that's a fact

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: :/pwn://: 

Sassy wrote:Only because you are so stupid and egotistical you think that.   Don't forget the tissues.

Never again will I listen to his nonsense that he supports peace and reconciliation when it's clear he will back military violence that will cause the deaths of thousands of people instead of seeking peaceful solutions.

He's turned out to be nothing more than a little fraud

I disagree on the little, think the word you are looking for is HUMUNGOUS lol

Sassy wrote:I disagree on the little, think the word you are looking for is HUMUNGOUS lol

I honestly don't think he realises just how many people died in that action and the thousands that lost their lives in the aftermath but I expect he'll be back tomorrow around 7:00 am crowing that it was a glorious success and it was all down to Mrs Thatcher.

So much for his peace and reconciliation.

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:I disagree on the little, think the word you are looking for is HUMUNGOUS lol

I honestly don't think he realises just how many people died in that action and the thousands that lost their lives in the aftermath but I expect he'll be back tomorrow around 7:00 am crowing that it was a glorious success and it was all down to Mrs Thatcher.

So much for his peace and reconciliation.

It was absolutely terrible and they were torturing children afterwards because their fathers had been Sikh and the things they did to the people in the Temple are indescribable.

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:Only because you are so stupid and egotistical you think that.   Don't forget the tissues.

Never again will I listen to his nonsense that he supports peace and reconciliation when it's clear he will back military violence that will cause the deaths of thousands of people instead of seeking peaceful solutions.

He's turned out to be nothing more than a little fraud

PMSL seems the two site commies are very upset after their sad little attempt to cast blame onto Thatcher failed and to now Irn coming out with the most daftest claims that now I do not support peace and reconciliation, because I approve of sending in the best in the world to advise how to end a siege if necessary if it comes to military action being needed if all else fails, where the least minimum casualties will happen. Sadly Irn thinks again that no negotiations happened. That is the measure of commies who as seen lie about making mistakes and then try to cover up for each other and then make absurd claims onto posters poor little wee man.

The general, Kuldip Singh Brar, said yesterday that allegations that the British government secretly helped Gandhi plan the Amritsar mission were fictitious. “All the plans [for Operation Blue Star] were laid and executed by Indian military commanders,” he said.

“There was no question of getting help from the British government and no suggestion or mention at any stage of a British officer who had come and advised. It was a last-minute operation because the prime minister was negotiating with the Sikh leaders to arrive at an amicable solution. As a last resort, she ordered the operation.”

Hence backing my view that it would not have been such a disaster if it had been planned by the SAS experts at ending sieges with  minimum causalities. So we know negotiations were exhausted and that mistakes happened on both sides but the commies as per usual hate looking at the facts and instead look to attack posters, so funny it shows the pathetic resolve of commies, they need to feed off each other's lies and mistakes because they get schooled in a debate.

 :/pwn://: 

Oh dear


 :D

Oh dear Didge, you mean the letter above are forgeries? You better get in touch with the authorities and tell them, after all, they are so worried at this information coming out and if they are forgeries and not telling the truth, and after all Didge being the font of all wisdom is the only one that knows that, you'd better let them know fast being Cameron starts the investigation he said he is going to.

Oh, and by the way, from your favourite Wiki, re the Libyan Embassy seige:

Following the shooting, the embassy was surrounded by armed police for eleven days, in one of the longest police sieges in London's history. Meanwhile, Gaddafi claimed that the embassy was under attack from British forces, and Libyan soldiers surrounded the United Kingdom's embassy in Tripoli in response.[11]

The British government eventually resolved the incident by allowing the embassy staff to leave the embassy and then expelling them from the country. The United Kingdom then ended all diplomatic relations with Libya. However, six British nationals were held as political hostages in Libya by a Revolutionary Committee following the shooting.[12] They were released after nine months of detention on 5 February 1985, four days after the unveiling of Fletcher's memorial in St. James's Square.[13]

Sassy wrote:Oh dear Didge, you mean the letter above are forgeries?   You better get in touch with the authorities and tell them, after all, they are so worried at this information coming out and if they are forgeries and not telling the truth, and after all Didge being the font of all wisdom is the only one that knows that, you'd better let them know fast being Cameron starts the investigation he said he is going to.

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Clearly you cannot read what the General said, I suggest you go back and read again

We sent the SAS there is no doubt of that, what did the General say?

Hilarious

Still going on about your gaff

 ://?roflmao?/: 
 ://?roflmao?/: 
 ://?roflmao?/: 
 ://?roflmao?/: 
 ://?roflmao?/: 

Lieutenant General (Retired) Kuldeep Singh Brar, who headed the Operation Bluestar in 1984, dismissed allegations that former Britain Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Government may have allegedly helped Indira Gandhi plan the attack on Golden Temple, and said that the military operation was planned and executed by the Indian army, without anyone’s assistance.

“No assistance was taken from anyone. Operation Bluestar was planned and executed by the Indian Army. Is that a genuine document? It has to be probed by the government. The basis of the document must be investigated,” he said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-operation-bluestar-in-charge-lt-gen-kuldeep-singh-brar-denies-reports-of-britain-s-aid-1951542

and knowledge of the SAS officers visit and his plan have been tightly held both here and in London ........     Just because he lead it doesn't mean he knew who planned it.   And if he lead it, he allowed his men to commit the most terrible atrocities, so I'm surprised he would even admit to it.

PMSL, so he planned the attack and led the attack but you claim he would not know who planned it?

 ://?roflmao?/: 


Okay lets help sassy,  when was the attack on the temple?

When was the letter written?

Also are you denying they exhausted negotiations?

June, so what, most things are planned in advance.   What do you think that proves?

PS, it was planned with assistance, the first letter says Mrs Ghandi agreed to the plan.

Sassy wrote:June, so what, most things are planned in advance.   What do you think that proves?

PS, he says he lead the attack

Dear me so 4 months before the attack the letter was written, the attack happened only at the last moment after negotiations had failed, thus your argument is hanging by a thread.

That leaves many questions to your claim, in other words your claim has no grounds at all.

We even have someone involved who claims otherwise and clearly states it was themselves who planned it backing my point it was not the SAS as they would not have made such an error on a siege unless of course you think the SAS are incompetent?

As Mrs Ghandi agreed to the plan she would have kept it on the back boiler until she decided to go ahead. That's what normally happens in military planning, they don't take last minute decisions.

Dear me, show me anywhere in the letters that they used the plan? There is no evidence in any of the communication if the British plan was finally used for the June 1984 operation. The letter was written in Feb, thus no more correspondance was made after this, showing it was never used or why even wait four months something you fail to explain This lends weight to the view it never was because the SAS are experts at sieges and would not plan something creating many causalities, again you are claiming now the SAS are incompetent by your belief they plan this attack.

That is a disgrace to our armed forces.

It was approved. It was then put aside until it was needed, as plans are. The SAS might have planned it, they did not carry it out, the Indian forces did, and there was a lot of ill feeling involved, and a plan is only as good as those carrying it out. All this have nothing to do with what we were discussing, which is the fact the Mrs Thatcher should have said she was happy to provide a diplomat to help with negotions, but would not get involved with a military solution, as it was not our place.

You know Didge, negotiations, as you were saying was the only way on the West Bank thread. Fraud.

Sassy wrote:It was approved.   It was then put aside until it was needed, as plans are.   The SAS might have planned it, they did not carry it out, the Indian forces did, and there was a lot of ill feeling involved, and a plan is only as good as those carrying it out.   All this have nothing to do with what we were discussing, which is the fact the Mrs Thatcher should have said she was happy to provide a diplomat to help with negotions, but would not get involved with a military solution, as it was not our place.

You know Didge, negotiations, as you were saying was the only way on the West Bank thread.   Fraud.

So you admit it is only as good as the people who carry out thus taking away blame from the British, lol, .

Walked into that one


Again show me any correspondence where they say they used the plan?

You cannot because there is no evidence.

Your whole argument is some pathetic attempt for all to see to use the deaths of people to make political gain on others, it does not get any lower than that from the left.

The reality is that she approved of the plan, it does not mean she gave the go ahead for the plan to be used, which is evident because there were many casualties created by both sides. Also you think the SAS are incompetent because you believe they planned this, that is disgusting but then you are quite a sad individual happy to blame people with little or no evidence.

So put up the correspondence where they say the plan was to be used and was used?

take your time

Sassy wrote:Oh, and by the way, from your favourite Wiki, re the Libyan Embassy seige:

Following the shooting, the embassy was surrounded by armed police for eleven days, in one of the longest police sieges in London's history. Meanwhile, Gaddafi claimed that the embassy was under attack from British forces, and Libyan soldiers surrounded the United Kingdom's embassy in Tripoli in response.[11]

The British government eventually resolved the incident by allowing the embassy staff to leave the embassy and then expelling them from the country. The United Kingdom then ended all diplomatic relations with Libya. However, six British nationals were held as political hostages in Libya by a Revolutionary Committee following the shooting.[12] They were released after nine months of detention on 5 February 1985, four days after the unveiling of Fletcher's memorial in St. James's Square.[13]

You mean our master historian didn't know that?

Oh dear - and there he was crowing away that you had got it wrong lol

Eh, was I asked on this Irn?

No, this was a poor attempt from sassy to recover from a gaff she made and as seen now you are not even debating the points of the debate, all you have is poor claims to me


Love it!

You ar nearly as bad as smelly with debating sometimes

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:Eh, was I asked on this Irn?

No, this was a poor attempt from sassy to recover from a gaff she made and as seen now you are not even debating the points of the debate, all you have is poor claims to me


Love it!

You ar nearly as bad as smelly with debating sometimes

 :D 

No Didge. The gaff was all yours in not realising that there was a hostage situation with the Libyan Embassy siege. You just didn't know that so just man up and admit it and I'll cut you a bit of slack and let it go at that.

And seeing as you thought it appropriate to bring up Smelly for some reason I would say you both have a lot in common - you both believe in supporting the shooting of oppressed people rather than peace and reconciliation - you admitted that. The only reason you actually argue with him and several others over there is to try and convince them that you are better than them which can't possibly be true when the legacy you leave from this thread is that you support the military option and not a diplomatic solution therefore you do not stand for peace and reconciliation at all.

You've been faking it for a long time now but the mask slips when you 'lose it' and end up using racially aggravated language.

In other words - You're a fraud.

Boring now, you are just throwing your dummy out over the fact you have no evidence to back a claim she was behind or even supported the event in question!

So am bored of your poor guilt and poor claims of assumptions to what I believe in, they are failed counters, plain and simple. AS seen I have put first reconciliation and negotiation, when this fails I support military intervention if the need is required. As seen here which you ignore is that the letter was four months before the event. No correspondence states they used the plan or advice from the SAS, who as seen are experts. 4 months later after exhausting negotiations nothing is resolved and military action formed and planned by the Indians is implemented as backed by someone who actually ran the operation, who says no SAS or British involvement planned the attack. This would fit very well with the fact the SAS are experts at ending sieges and would not plan such a disaster as happened. Then the disaster happened with a combination of faults from both sides! As seen no SAS plan would revolve around the way this one was carried out!

You are just pissed you cannot blame Maggie for this, you are more interested in proving she is guilty than being actually bothered about the event of the disaster itself. That is the saddest part of your resolve


There is nothing more low of a poster to claim I approve of shooting innocent people and claim I am like smelly with his views, I joked at you debating skills, not over his views, you really are quite a poor low individual to say something as cheap as that, but am not suprised or bothered I expect no less of someone like you Irn

Didge, Mrs Ghandi approved the plan, she wan't likely to then take time to think up another one when she was busy negotiating.

Sassy wrote:Didge, Mrs Ghandi approved the plan, she wan't likely to then take time to think up another one when she was busy negotiating.

You think there is only ever one plan Sassy?

Seriously?

Case example, were their options in regard to taking out Bin Laden?

Yes, 3 actually.

1) Fire a missile

2) Inform Pakistan

3) Take him out with special forces

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Didge, Mrs Ghandi approved the plan, she wan't likely to then take time to think up another one when she was busy negotiating.

You think there is only ever one plan Sassy?

Seriously?

Case example, were their options in regard to taking out Bin Laden?

Yes, 3 actually.

1) Fire a missile

2) Inform Pakistan

3) Take him out with special forces

What has that got to do with it. If you are a Prime Minister, running a country in chaos, and you ask for assistance from the SAS and they give you a plan which you approve, you don't waste your time thinking up another one, when negotiations fail, you pick up the plan agreed.

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


You think there is only ever one plan Sassy?

Seriously?

Case example, were their options in regard to taking out Bin Laden?

Yes, 3 actually.

1) Fire a missile

2) Inform Pakistan

3) Take him out with special forces

What has that got to do with it.   If you are a Prime Minister, running a country in chaos, and you ask for assistance from the SAS and they give you a plan which you approve, you don't waste your time thinking up another one, when negotiations fail, you pick up the plan agreed.

It has everything to do with it. Military advisers say there plan is better an convince her, which is very normal to happen in the sovereign state of a nation. The SAS has given advice before and it has not been heeded.
She may have approved of multiple plans and only chosen one to use. The same is what happened with Bin laden, Obama approved of the 3 best options but went with only one in the end to use.

Again we have to look also at this with military sound knowledge that if the SAS would ever advise what actually happened at the event.

Thus there are two factors here which you need to understand

I understand them full well, that doesn't mean I agree. Anyway, it's going to be investigated, so I expect it will all come out.

PhilDidge wrote:Boring now, you are just throwing your dummy out over the fact you have no evidence to back a claim she was behind or even supported the event in question!

So am bored of your poor guilt and poor claims of assumptions to what I believe in, they are failed counters, plain and simple. AS seen I have put first reconciliation and negotiation, when this fails I support military intervention if the need is required. As seen here which you ignore is that the letter was four months before the event. No correspondence states they used the plan or advice from the SAS, who as seen are experts. 4 months later after exhausting negotiations nothing is resolved and military action formed and planned by the Indians is implemented as backed by someone who actually ran the operation, who says no SAS or British involvement planned the attack. This would fit very well with the fact the SAS are experts at ending sieges and would not plan such a disaster as happened. Then the disaster happened with a combination of faults from both sides! As seen no SAS plan would revolve around the way this one was carried out!

You are just pissed you cannot blame Maggie for this, you are more interested in proving she is guilty than being actually bothered about the event of the disaster itself. That is the saddest part of your resolve

The dummy didn't get thrown out of your pram because you are still in it. You went berserk when I posted that Thacher had approved that the military should travel to India and give advice instead of offering what I suggested should have been a diplomatic mission to try and bring about peace and reconciliation. You were in favour of the military option and supported that so you agreed with the collusion that took place so on that score so your stance on peace and reconciliation has been well and truly shown to be fake. It doesn't matter whether the Indian general thought the SAS plan was crap and didn't follow through with Mrs Ghandi's agreement to put it into place, the point is that Thatcher was supportive of the military option as were you instead of peace and reconciliation so your platform in standing up on that has crumbled under your feet.

You've been faking it for some time now so best you have a word with Smelly so that you can discuss matters of mutual interest to both of you.

See, you're a fraud

Bang bang - you're dead

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Boring now, you are just throwing your dummy out over the fact you have no evidence to back a claim she was behind or even supported the event in question!

So am bored of your poor guilt and poor claims of assumptions to what I believe in, they are failed counters, plain and simple. AS seen I have put first reconciliation and negotiation, when this fails I support military intervention if the need is required. As seen here which you ignore is that the letter was four months before the event. No correspondence states they used the plan or advice from the SAS, who as seen are experts. 4 months later after exhausting negotiations nothing is resolved and military action formed and planned by the Indians is implemented as backed by someone who actually ran the operation, who says no SAS or British involvement planned the attack. This would fit very well with the fact the SAS are experts at ending sieges and would not plan such a disaster as happened. Then the disaster happened with a combination of faults from both sides! As seen no SAS plan would revolve around the way this one was carried out!

You are just pissed you cannot blame Maggie for this, you are more interested in proving she is guilty than being actually bothered about the event of the disaster itself. That is the saddest part of your resolve

The dummy didn't get thrown out of your pram because you are still in it. You went berserk when I posted that Thacher had approved that the military should travel to India and give advice instead of offering what I suggested should have been a diplomatic mission to try and bring about peace and reconciliation. You were in favour of the military option and supported that so you agreed with the collusion that took place so on that score so your stance on peace and reconciliation has been well and truly shown to be fake. It doesn't matter whether the Indian general thought the SAS plan was crap and didn't follow through with Mrs Ghandi's agreement to put it into place, the point is that Thatcher was supportive of the military option as were you instead of peace and reconciliation so your platform in standing up on that has crumbled under your feet.

You've been faking it for some time now so best you have a word with Smelly so that you can discuss matters of mutual interest to both of you.

See, you're a fraud

Bang bang - you're dead

That is your view it should be a diplomatic situation but that is not what they were asked for to help plan with, was it?

Are you going to send a dustman to advise on brain surgery?

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

As seen, you have no case, no claim, and no evidence!

With the loyality Sikhs have shown to this country, what Irn and I are saying is when she was asked to send the SAS to help plan, she should have said no, but she would send a diplomat to help negotiate. Whether they used the plan or not has absolutely nothing to do with her sending the SAS, which she should not have done. The Sikhs has been loyal it us and helped us and fought for us in the war.

Sassy wrote:With the loyality Sikhs have shown to this country, what Irn and I are saying is when she was asked to send the SAS to help plan, she should have said no, but she would send a diplomat to help negotiate.   Whether they used the plan or not has absolutely nothing to do with her sending the SAS, which she should not have done.   The Sikhs has been loyal it us and helped us and fought for us in the war.

Have Hindus not also shown loyalty Sassy and with connections to India?

Again that is absurd to say Britain should not send what was asked for, a military adviser on ending a siege if it ever came to that.
This is the part both of you are not getting, and we have no idea if they also asked for negotiators, all we know is they asked for military expertise, hence most of the claims coming are based upon poor assumptions!

Many people have helped this nation, but again lets place this into perspective, that some of these Sikhs in the temple were extremists and had committed atrocities, yes atrocities had happened to Sikhs also, but you have a Government with a situation that seeks help against extremists. Now face some home truths here these extremists were committing atrocities, that is not justified because the Indian Government is also doing so, both are wrong!

Oh Whatever, going round and round and I simply can't be bothered, going to bed to read a good book!

All the best and enjoy your book!

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The dummy didn't get thrown out of your pram because you are still in it. You went berserk when I posted that Thacher had approved that the military should travel to India and give advice instead of offering what I suggested should have been a diplomatic mission to try and bring about peace and reconciliation. You were in favour of the military option and supported that so you agreed with the collusion that took place so on that score so your stance on peace and reconciliation has been well and truly shown to be fake. It doesn't matter whether the Indian general thought the SAS plan was crap and didn't follow through with Mrs Ghandi's agreement to put it into place, the point is that Thatcher was supportive of the military option as were you instead of peace and reconciliation so your platform in standing up on that has crumbled under your feet.

You've been faking it for some time now so best you have a word with Smelly so that you can discuss matters of mutual interest to both of you.

See, you're a fraud

Bang bang - you're dead

That is your view it should be a diplomatic situation but that is not what they were asked for to help plan with, was it?

Are you going to send a dustman to advise on brain surgery?

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

As seen, you have no case, no claim, and no evidence!

I've already told you what she should have done and with your views on peace and reconciliation you should be agreeing with it but you can't because you've been faking and suppressing your true views for some time now.

I'll remind you of what I have already said...

Negotiations with the British government, who had much influence with the Sikh community, should have been the option offered to bring about peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with that therefore you are a fraud.

See, you prefer the military solution. Never mind though, the cat's out the bag now and you can fee free to let yourself go and resort to using racially aggravated language any time you feel like just like you did before.

The game's up Didge - time to come clean.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

That is your view it should be a diplomatic situation but that is not what they were asked for to help plan with, was it?

Are you going to send a dustman to advise on brain surgery?

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

As seen, you have no case, no claim, and no evidence!

I've already told you what she should have done and with your views on peace and reconciliation you should be agreeing with it but you can't because you've been faking and suppressing your true views for some time now.
Again you have no idea if other people were asked of or even sent, so this statement is absurd by you as it is based upon assumptions of which you are not able to rule out if this happen

I'll remind you of what I have already said...

Negotiations with the British government, who had much influence with the Sikh community, should have been the option offered to bring about peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with that therefore you are a fraud.
Again who is to say that did not happen? We have no access to all the papers do we, again basing your utterly pathetic claim accusing me based upon utter bollocks. I never even disagreed that negotiations should happen, your absurd view is that we should send a diplomat when asked for military help, I think the Indians would have been insulted at that, when they asked for military expertise. If they wanted a diplomat, of which we have no idea if they also did, they would have asked for one

See, you prefer the military solution. Never mind though, the cat's out the bag now and you can fee free to let yourself go and resort to using racially aggravated language any time you feel like just like you did before.
Oh my it is comical now and like speaking to Mentor when debating Islam, all I read is " Iam a dalek, I am a dalek, with you making absurd claims thinking because you say them that it makes them valid, that again is absurd to say the least, showing your whole counter is more again centered around me and my views than the debate. I have no hesitation in using military action if needed as I have made plain from the start, so no matter how many times you seek to make utterly absurd notions about me, I will keep coming back proving your whole argument now is more about me than the event, showing you hate more than anything coming on stuck in a debate. You basically have repeated yourself over and over and offered little evidence or counters to the many points I have raised. It seem its is more important to you now that you think you can prove to the forum if I am a fraud, that is laughable and embarrassing on your part, as people can see you have near enough accepted you have no case, but seek to continue some futile attempt at my character

The game's up Didge - time to come clean.

So I suggest you have a nice cup of Rose lee and think again over your methodology of debating, as seen it is either guilt and absurd assumptions

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I've already told you what she should have done and with your views on peace and reconciliation you should be agreeing with it but you can't because you've been faking and suppressing your true views for some time now.
Again you have no idea if other people were asked of or even sent, so this statement is absurd by you as it is based upon assumptions of which you are not able to rule out if this happen

I'll remind you of what I have already said...

Negotiations with the British government, who had much influence with the Sikh community, should have been the option offered to bring about peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with that therefore you are a fraud.
Again who is to say that did not happen? We have no access to all the papers do we, again basing your utterly pathetic claim accusing me based upon utter bollocks. I never even disagreed that negotiations should happen, your absurd view is that we should send a diplomat when asked for military help, I think the Indians would have been insulted at that, when they asked for military expertise. If they wanted a diplomat, of which we have no idea if they also did, they would have asked for one

See, you prefer the military solution. Never mind though, the cat's out the bag now and you can fee free to let yourself go and resort to using racially aggravated language any time you feel like just like you did before.
Oh my it is comical now and like speaking to Mentor when debating Islam, all I read is " Iam a dalek, I am a dalek, with you making absurd claims thinking because you say them that it makes them valid, that again is absurd to say the least, showing your whole counter is more again centered around me and my views than the debate. I have no hesitation in using military action if needed as I have made plain from the start, so no matter how many times you seek to make utterly absurd notions about me, I will keep coming back proving your whole argument now is more about me than the event, showing you hate more than anything coming on stuck in a debate. You basically have repeated yourself over and over and offered little evidence or counters to the many points I have raised. It seem its is more important to you now that you think you can prove to the forum if I am a fraud, that is laughable and embarrassing on your part, as people can see you have near enough accepted you have no case, but seek to continue some futile attempt at my character  

The game's up Didge - time to come clean.

So I suggest you have a nice cup of Rose lee and think again over your methodology of debating, as seen it is either guilt and absurd assumptions

Didge, you supported the military option and not the diplomatic one to try and bring peace and reconciliation - that is an undeniable fact.

You supported this...



Wriggle wriggle wriggle. The game is up. You do not stand for peace and reconciliation. You're a fake.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

So I suggest you have a nice cup of Rose lee and think again over your methodology of debating, as seen it is either guilt and absurd assumptions

Didge, you supported the military option and not the diplomatic one to try and bring peace and reconciliation - that is an undeniable fact.

You supported this...



Wriggle wriggle wriggle. The game is up. You do not stand for peace and reconciliation. You're a fake.

I think all can see now your argument is now just about me, not even the topic, you have reached desperation levels, where you are unable to counter my points or in fact back your absurd claims onto me.
So again you shouting I do not stand for something all can see is just your way of saying you have no counter left!

That was evident 2 pages ago!

Ciao



[/quote]

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge, you supported the military option and not the diplomatic one to try and bring peace and reconciliation - that is an undeniable fact.

You supported this...



Wriggle wriggle wriggle. The game is up. You do not stand for peace and reconciliation. You're a fake.

I think all can see now your argument is now just about me, not even the topic, you have reached desperation levels, where you are unable to counter my points or in fact back your absurd claims onto me.
So again you shouting I do not stand for something all can see is just your way of saying you have no counter left!

That was evident 2 pages ago!

Ciao

[/quote]

No Didge. You started the argument about me so if you can't take it then don't dish it out.

The discussion is about Thatcher's support for military action. You just happened to support that instead of peace and reconciliation so you walked into it with your eyes wide open and crashed.

Keep wriggling

Here we go again, nothing to counter my points and more about me!

Game over unless you can come back with something real about the events, not your absurd notions about me.

Good luck!

PhilDidge wrote:Here we go again, nothing to counter my points and more about me!

Game over unless you can come back with something real about the events, not your absurd notions about me.

Good luck!

The discussion is about Thatcher's support for military action which you supported rather than peace and reconciliation and that is an undeniable fact which you cannot counter therefore you are a fraud for trying to stand on it.

You hurl out abuse and personal insults like confetti and then play the victim card when you get a response that you don't like. Sorry, that act has been rumbled as well as your fake stance on supporting peace and reconciliation.

The game is up Didge and it's time to come clean and let yourself go like you do when resorting to the use of racially aggravated language.

Keep wriggling

        


Here are the points again that Irn failed to answer:

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

PhilDidge wrote:        


Here are the points again that Irn failed to answer:

That again is absurd, they were asked to help plan an event around the removal of extremists if it came to that and as seen this was 4 months before the event happened, showing they did use many methods of negotiating, which was exhausted. They brought thus the SAS in as a possible eventuality. Seriously have you never studied history of of an understanding of war even to understand people plan contingencies. One of these contingencies would be if all else failed to take military action. Seriously I am finding it hard to believe you do not even understand that, something as basic as that! Saying I am this and that just shows you have no argument because let me make it clear to you as nothing you say will sway what I believe in, even if this is all you poorly have to counter with, I stated if there was no other options I would support military action against extremists, that means all avenues have been exhausted from trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. No where have I stated what happened was even right, in fact I have condemned both sides for the participation in what led to civilians dying. You seem to think you can carry on with some mindless pathetic claim about me as if this proves your view right on Maggie, it does not, your whole argument now is centered on the fact of poor claims of me, that is how pathetic you are. Again Thatcher was not supportive of any military action, where did it say that? She was supportive of sending an expert to advise if all else failed they would need to take military action, being the fact she had o do so herself and used the best in the world to end a siege which was a great success. So no matter how poorly you try Irn, I do not support shooting innocent people or back military action before people have tried to resolve it, so you are just now embarrassing yourself over now making the most absurd claims on me.

More waffling, more wriggling.

You supported Thatcher's response for assistance in military action (the subject of the debate) when the response should have been to send a diplomatic mission to try and bring about a peaceful end through peace and reconciliation - the very platform you claim to stand on. These are the undeniable facts and the record is written here so it's time to come clean in that it's all been an act and that you have been faking this image that you have been trying to present for some time now. That's all been rumbled now as has your victim status when you get a response to the personal insults and racially aggravated language that you resort to when you get a response that you don't like. It's all out in the open now Didge so there is no point in you trying to deny it any longer.

You have been faking it but it's all over now.

Keep wriggling

Oh, and good morning to you.