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

PhilDidge wrote:So basically your your whole response was based at me and none of my points

I have to say that made me just laugh at writing 3 paragraphs mainly about me and hardly anything on the debate

Priceless and woeful to say the least, basing no understanding of the event, cannot see that both sides played a part in unnecessary deaths and still poorly try to blame Thatcher

Your desperation for being the worst individual still trying to use the deaths of innocent people which both sides cause on Thatcher is beyond any contempt, it is again utterly pathetic. To even go on to me about knowing history when I have just posted information and used part of an article on the subject to show how poorly you understand something is again beyond belief!  

Not once have I denied wrongs done to Sikhs, but they also had extremists do wrong, you again as per usual try to pick a side when on both sides wrongs are done, it is an argument born from stupidity, you only see your view, not the view of the reality of what actually happened with both doing wrongs. There is no denying either why the rise of extremism happened because of wrongs done, but that makes none of the wrongs by the extremists right either.

As to hitting a nerve, please I am laughing at you Irn, because all you have is some poor guilt argument as per usual as if I am going to bow to such pathetic tactics. That is all you ever offer.   :D 


I am not a slippery coward such as yourself, I do indeed believe in helping those wishing to to seek help, sometimes it does not go right but as seen you look back after something goes wrong which both sides played a part in and then seek to blame Maggie, it does not get any dafter than that

Try again, and this time find any reason beyond doubt maggie approved the murder of innocent people with this plan?

You show me that evidence, because we both know you have none and this is some lame left wing commie attempt to bash again someone you are not able to emulate in greatness

PhilDidge wrote:Oh I missed the point on the Sikh community and what they had done for Britain, so what did the extremist Sikhs do for Britain Irn, as I have nothing against the Sikh community but have against extremists?

You think it is okay for extremists to kill and butcher?

I don', I also think the Indian Government was wrong in its treatments of Sikhs.

Do you even know why they asked the British here?


If you know why, it will give you an understanding they wanted to avoid as much innocent loss of life as possible, so can you think why?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Oh I missed the point on the Sikh community and what they had done for Britain, so what did the extremist Sikhs do for Britain Irn, as I have nothing against the Sikh community but have against extremists?

You think it is okay for extremists to kill and butcher?

I don', I also think the Indian Government was wrong in its treatments of Sikhs.

Do you even know why they asked the British here?


If you know why, it will give you an understanding they wanted to avoid as much innocent loss of life as possible, so can you think why?

By your logic Mandela was an extremist in fighting for the rights of the oppressed people in South Africa.

Further evidence that you are a fraud.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

By your logic Mandela was an extremist in fighting for the rights of the oppressed people in South Africa.

Further evidence that you are a fraud.

So in two counters now I am a fraud based on no evidence as my argument is crushing the wee man.


I do not believe Mandela used violence on innocent people, I believe he committed sabotage and this has always been my stance, care to check that? Even if he had of committed violence I would condemn that also, again his view which mad him great was reconciliation, so again the left try and use guilt again and make unfounded daft assertions 

I did laugh at all your posts here because they have no grounds or any bases to blame Maggie for something which no side predicted and my last post was trying to show you why you are very wrong on this and lets see if you care to go there because I will show you why they choose Britain and for what reasons to assist in planning.


So Do you even know why they asked the British for help on this?


If you know, then you know you have no case don;t you Irn


Take your time!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



So in two counters now I am a fraud based on no evidence as my argument is crushing the wee man.


I do not believe Mandela used violence on innocent people, I believe he committed sabotage and this has always been my stance, care to check that? Even if he had of committed violence I would condemn that also, again his view which mad him great was reconciliation, so again the left try and use guilt again and make unfounded daft assertions 

I did laugh at all your posts here because they have no grounds or any bases to blame Maggie for something which no side predicted and my last post was trying to show you why you are very wrong on this and lets see if you care to go there because I will show you why they choose Britain and for what reasons to assist in planning.


So Do you even know why they asked the British for help on this?


If you know, then you know you have no case don;t you Irn


Take your time!

Mandela was the leader of the ANC so by your logic he and the ANC were extremists.

India asked for help from the British government because they knew that Thatcher would go along with the military option. She should have offered diplomatic assistance to try and bring about peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with the peace and reconciliation solution therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it.

 

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Mandela was the leader of the ANC so by your logic he and the ANC were extremists.

India asked for help from the British government because they knew that Thatcher would go along with the military option. She should have offered diplomatic assistance to try and bring about peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with the peace and reconciliation solution therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it.

 

No that is your logic Irn not mine and it was the armed wing of the ANC Umkhonto we Sizwe that commit atrocities, so again your logic is shite!


Nope wrong again, what happened four years previous to this event that catapulted the SAS on to the world stage?

What event created an image so great that every country was seeking assistance to train not only their bodyguards but seek SAS assistance with sieges and terrorism?

Where in affect the SAS became a global export, so much so that many special forces around the world are modeled on the SAS.

Now if my point is starting to hit home, why would a nation seek the assistance of a know unit that had successfully carried out a plan to end a siege with minimum casualties?

So tell me Irn, why would you seek the best in hoping to plan something for you with their record on such methods where again minimum casualties happened?

That says to me the Indians never even used the SAS plan, unless you think their tactics and planning is poor?

Take your time on that one!


 :D 

Sassy wrote:So Mrs Ghandi approved the plan but never used it?   FGS, what planet do you live on.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



No that is your logic Irn not mine and it was the armed wing of the ANC Umkhonto we Sizwe that commit atrocities, so again your logic is shite!


Nope wrong again, what happened four years previous to this event that catapulted the SAS on to the world stage?

What event created an image so great that every country was seeking assistance to train not only their bodyguards but seek SAS assistance with sieges and terrorism?

Where in affect the SAS became a global export, so much so that many special forces around the world are modeled on the SAS.

Now if my point is starting to hit home, why would a nation seek the assistance of a know unit that had successfully carried out a plan to end a siege with minimum casualties?

So tell me Irn, why would you seek the best in hoping to plan something for you with their record on such methods where again minimum casualties happened?

That says to me the Indians never even used the SAS plan, unless you think their tactics and planning is poor?

Take your time on that one!


 :D 

Mandela was the leader of the ANC and makes no secret of his past by saying he was no saint so by your logic he was an extremist.

The reputation of the SAS was well known for effectiveness and they were the best but that is no excuse for Thatcher offering them up to advise and plan on a military solution instead of proposing a diplomatic mission to try and bring about peace and reconciliation through diplomacy and negotiation. You don't agree with the peace and reconciliation therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:So Mrs Ghandi approved the plan but never used it?   FGS, what planet do you live on.

He's a fraud. Don't ever listen to him again when he calls for peace and reconciliation because he doesn't stand for it and let's himself go with racially aggravated  language when the mask slips.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Mandela was the leader of the ANC and makes no secret of his past by saying he was no saint so by your logic he was an extremist.

The reputation of the SAS was well known for effectiveness and they were the best but that is no excuse for Thatcher offering them up to advise and plan on a military solution instead of proposing a diplomatic mission to try and bring about peace and reconciliation through diplomacy and negotiation. You don't agree with the peace and reconciliation therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it

Did he order the murder of innocents?

I see no evidence that he did, if he did I condemn that as stated, your argument has thus been rendered moot

Oh my god, the next point is

 ://?roflmao?/: 


The SAS are experts at sieges maintaining as minimal causalities as possible, hence why they would be asked to plan such an operation, something clearly which you know to be true and now try to worm out of.
That is why they were asked so that there would be an expert advising them on the best plans to prevent any unnecessary innocent deaths.

Give up the ghost Irn you know this point to be true, and to blame Maggie for sending the best in the world to help plan breaking a siege of armed extremists is a sound policy!

You know what i say is true, you just hate the fact I burst your poor attempts at bashing Maggie  

Sassy wrote:The only person who can't see what a total arse he has made of himself and gone back on everything you have said in other thread about diplomacy etc is you.   Totally, complete and utter fraud, and frankly not worth anyone's time.  

PhilDidge wrote:Oh here we go sassy not debating and now claims I talk rubbish an just slag me off


Debate clearly over and easily proven that some of the left use the deaths on innocents to make unfounded claims!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Did he order the murder of innocents?

I see no evidence that he did, if he did I condemn that as stated, your argument has thus been rendered moot

Oh my god, the next point is

 ://?roflmao?/: 


The SAS are experts at sieges maintaining as minimal causalities as possible, hence why they would be asked to plan such an operation, something clearly which you know to be true and now try to worm out of.
That is why they were asked so that there would be an expert advising them on the best plans to prevent any unnecessary innocent deaths.

Give up the ghost Irn you know this point to be true, and to blame Maggie for sending the best in the world to help plan breaking a siege of armed extremists is a sound policy!

You know what i say is true, you just hate the fact I burst your poor attempts at bashing Maggie  

He said he was no saint by your logic he was an extremist - clear as a bell.

She was warned of the consequences of a bloodbath and that is exactly what happened as it plunged the country in an orgy of killing that lasted almost 10 years. She ignored the diplomatic option therefore going for the military solution instead of peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with the peace and reconciliation therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

He said he was no saint by your logic he was an extremist - clear as a bell.

She was warned of the consequences of a bloodbath and that is exactly what happened as it plunged the country in an orgy of killing that lasted almost 10 years. She ignored the diplomatic option therefore going for the military solution instead of peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with the peace and reconciliation therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it.

He said he?

And people moan about my grammar   


No I know what you meant and no by your logic I do not see him as an extremist, you think I do by daft attempts and knowing you have no case here on the whole debate, you are just side tracking from being wrong.

Oh my goodness, answer this one question, if a Government asked you to help with planning to break a siege four years after the SAS pulled off the most daring siege breaking on live television, with minimum causalities, would you call the Americans so close also after the debacle of the  failed Iranian hostage crisis?

Take your time over that and stop avoiding the main point, the point is they asked for the best, because the best were the SAS in ending sieges and with minimum casualties, something you are now desperately ignoring, because it refutes your claim

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


He said he?

And people moan about my grammar   


No I know what you meant and no by your logic I do not see him as an extremist, you think I do by daft attempts and knowing you have no case here on the whole debate, you are just side tracking from being wrong.

Oh my goodness, answer this one question, if a Government asked you to help with planning to break a siege four years after the SAS pulled off the most daring siege breaking on live television, with minimum causalities, would you call the Americans so close also after the debacle of the  failed Iranian hostage crisis?

Take your time over that and stop avoiding the main point, the point is they asked for the best, because the best were the SAS in ending sieges and with minimum casualties, something you are now desperately ignoring, because it refutes your claim

I never moaned about your grammar so your comment is lost on me. And anyway what is wrong with He said he?

If a foreign government asked me to help break a siege then I would offer a diplomatic mission to try and negotiate and bring about peace and reconciliation. You don't agree with that and prefer the military option therefore you are a fraud in standing up for it.

Sassy wrote:You know Irn, he lives in his own little bubble, where he is a David slaying Goliaths' on ever side, going to bed in the sure and clear knowledge he saves the world every day.   Of course, everyone else knows he is a sanctimonious, unempathetic, fool, who people spend most of their time either laughing at or raising their eyebrows and thinking, what a bloody liar.

PS He said he was ......   or He said he is ......  is perfectly good grammar, the fact that Didge thinks it is wrong just shows him up further.

PhilDidge wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Yeah you go play along with all the other children sassy

Are you claiming there was no negotiations now with the Sikhs?

Wrong also so no different matter idiot

Libyan Embassy

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Yeah you go play along with all the other children sassy

Are you claiming there was no negotiations now with the Sikhs?

Wrong also so no different matter idiot

Libyan Embassy

 ://?roflmao?/: 

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.

You're struggling and clutching at straws now - and it shows

PhilDidge wrote:No sassy you fucked up thinking the Iranian embassy was the Libyan embassy crisis

Never can admit you are wrong and proven

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:No sassy you fucked up thinking the Iranian embassy was the Libyan embassy crisis

Never can admit you are wrong and proven

1984 - Libyan Embassy in London
In April 1984, The SAS anti-terrorist team deploys to London and prepares to storm the Libyan embassy following an incident in which a British policewoman is killed by gunfire from within. In the end, a diplomatic solution is reached and the SAS are stood down.

Sassy wrote:Only person that is pathetic is you Didge, and what is completely pathetic is having an ego that doesn't let you see it.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

1984 - Libyan Embassy in London
In April 1984, The SAS anti-terrorist team deploys to London and prepares to storm the Libyan embassy following an incident in which a British policewoman is killed by gunfire from within. In the end, a diplomatic solution is reached and the SAS are stood down.

I know what happened Irn, thanks for sharing and not every siege ends peacefully, did the Iranian one?
You know the one sassy thought after us both debating the Iranian one, she thought was the Libyan one by then calling me an idiot when she was the idiot thinking I was wrong when she was

 ://?roflmao?/: 

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Only person that is pathetic is you Didge, and what is completely pathetic is having an ego that doesn't let you see it.

Are more points about me, here have a tissue, to help wipe that egg off your face

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

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.

You're struggling and clutching at straws now - and it shows

How do you know any of the full facts and now are claiming things you have no idea on negotiations and just making things up now
,  
They were asked for advice on planning to end a siege with military expertise, which we know not if they used the planning which as seen I very much doubt considering the loss of life

Clutching, mate you lost any straws that were left hanging, give it up, it is now pathetic

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

1984 - Libyan Embassy in London
In April 1984, The SAS anti-terrorist team deploys to London and prepares to storm the Libyan embassy following an incident in which a British policewoman is killed by gunfire from within. In the end, a diplomatic solution is reached and the SAS are stood down.

I know what happened Irn, thanks for sharing and not every siege ends peacefully, did the Iranian one?
You know the one sassy thought after us both debating the Iranian one, she thought was the Libyan one by then calling me an idiot when she was the idiot thinking I was wrong when she was

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Sassy wrote:Actually it was the Libyan Embassy and they tried negotiating first, it was impossible, and there where hostages involved, so quite a different matter.   Fucking idiot.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Only person that is pathetic is you Didge, and what is completely pathetic is having an ego that doesn't let you see it.

Are more points about me, here have a tissue, to help wipe that egg off your face

 :D 

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I know what happened Irn, thanks for sharing and not every siege ends peacefully, did the Iranian one?
You know the one sassy thought after us both debating the Iranian one, she thought was the Libyan one by then calling me an idiot when she was the idiot thinking I was wrong when she was

 ://?roflmao?/: 

So you screwed up in thinking that Sassy was on about the a different siege? Who mentioned eggs?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Are more points about me, here have a tissue, to help wipe that egg off your face

 :D 

Go and read your post to me and just remember that if you can't take then don't dish it out.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Actually it was the Libyan Embassy and they tried negotiating first, it was impossible, and there where hostages involved, so quite a different matter.   Fucking idiot.

Proof sass is lying, why say actually to a post by me debating the Iranian embassy when no mention is made of the Libyan one and then say negotiating was impossible when it was negotiating that resolved the Libyan one .


Busted and exposed as a whooping liar


Shall call you pinochio now

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So you screwed up in thinking that Sassy was on about the a different siege? Who mentioned eggs?

Another poor liar as well backing a liar, hilarious, the eggs are on both of you now after my last post