User talk:CocaCola1996 - Revision history

CocaCola1996: Removing all content from page

2009-07-10T04:19:29Z

Removing all content from page

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:19, 10 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Do not screw up my page with your bullshit pro-IRA views, got it? I dunno about the other admins, but I take a very dim view of glorifying terrorists. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)~~

	~~When did I glorify them?~~
	~~If I wanted to glorify them I'd have called the "freedom-fighters".~~
	~~I didn't, because that's biased.~~
	~~I simply labelled them as what they were.~~
	~~Calling them "terrorists" is biased.~~

	:I know the Irish Republican movement sympathizers quite well. I've seen how much they screwed with the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA articles on Wikipedia. They do the same thing - insist on using the IRA's own terminology ("Volunteers", LOL) in an attempt to legitimize them. Anyway, yes, the IRA are terrorists. And so are the Loyalist scumbags (all of them). At the very least, if you wanted to be neutral, you would use a term like "members", but calling them "Volunteers" is an insult to my intelligence. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

	~~I'm Republican, that doesn't mean I'm supporting the Contos or anything, they've done fuck all.~~
	~~Violence isn't going to achieve anything, so if it makes you feel better you can use the word "members", but "terrorists" is biased.~~
	~~I didn't even call the Loyalists terrorists.~~

	:You really are an Irish Republican supporter? Tell me, do you really think Ireland would be a better place if it became a "32-county democratic socialist republic" under any of the A-Z IRAs/Sinn Feins? LOL.

	:You referred to the Loyalists as "criminals", which is hardly any more neutral. Not that I disagree that they're (mostly) criminals and sectarian thugs, but so are most of the Republicans. It's pretty obvious to most people what terrorists are. Also, I did a page for the German movie * ''[[Baader Meinhof Complex, The (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex)\|Der Baader Meinhof Komplex]]'' - do you think I should avoid references to the RAF as "terrorists" in that article, too? -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]

	~~Yeah, sorry about that, I just have a personal dislike towards Loyalists. I don't think you should call the R.A.F. terrorists.~~

	~~:But I have a personal dislike towards socialist and communist terror groups, the IRA and RAF included. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]~~

	~~Would you have the same objection towards the Official I.R.A.?~~

	~~::Yes, although they've been on "ceasefire" long enough to be declared clinically dead. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]~~

MT2008 at 04:17, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T04:17:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:17, 10 July 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Would you have the same objection towards the Official I.R.A.?		Would you have the same objection towards the Official I.R.A.?

			::Yes, although they've been on "ceasefire" long enough to be declared clinically dead. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]

CocaCola1996 at 04:13, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T04:13:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 10 July 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:But I have a personal dislike towards socialist and communist terror groups, the IRA and RAF included. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]		:But I have a personal dislike towards socialist and communist terror groups, the IRA and RAF included. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]

			Would you have the same objection towards the Official I.R.A.?

MT2008 at 04:09, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T04:09:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 10 July 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Yeah, sorry about that, I just have a personal dislike towards Loyalists. I don't think you should call the R.A.F. terrorists.		Yeah, sorry about that, I just have a personal dislike towards Loyalists. I don't think you should call the R.A.F. terrorists.

			:But I have a personal dislike towards socialist and communist terror groups, the IRA and RAF included. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]

CocaCola1996 at 03:59, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T03:59:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:59, 10 July 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:You referred to the Loyalists as "criminals", which is hardly any more neutral. Not that I disagree that they're (mostly) criminals and sectarian thugs, but so are most of the Republicans. It's pretty obvious to most people what terrorists are. Also, I did a page for the German movie * ''[[Baader Meinhof Complex, The (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex)\|Der Baader Meinhof Komplex]]'' - do you think I should avoid references to the RAF as "terrorists" in that article, too? -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]		:You referred to the Loyalists as "criminals", which is hardly any more neutral. Not that I disagree that they're (mostly) criminals and sectarian thugs, but so are most of the Republicans. It's pretty obvious to most people what terrorists are. Also, I did a page for the German movie * ''[[Baader Meinhof Complex, The (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex)\|Der Baader Meinhof Komplex]]'' - do you think I should avoid references to the RAF as "terrorists" in that article, too? -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]

			Yeah, sorry about that, I just have a personal dislike towards Loyalists. I don't think you should call the R.A.F. terrorists.

MT2008 at 03:55, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T03:55:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 10 July 2009
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Violence isn't going to achieve anything, so if it makes you feel better you can use the word "members", but "terrorists" is biased.		Violence isn't going to achieve anything, so if it makes you feel better you can use the word "members", but "terrorists" is biased.
	I didn't even call the Loyalists terrorists.		I didn't even call the Loyalists terrorists.

			:You really are an Irish Republican supporter? Tell me, do you really think Ireland would be a better place if it became a "32-county democratic socialist republic" under any of the A-Z IRAs/Sinn Feins? LOL.

			:You referred to the Loyalists as "criminals", which is hardly any more neutral. Not that I disagree that they're (mostly) criminals and sectarian thugs, but so are most of the Republicans. It's pretty obvious to most people what terrorists are. Also, I did a page for the German movie * ''[[Baader Meinhof Complex, The (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex)\|Der Baader Meinhof Komplex]]'' - do you think I should avoid references to the RAF as "terrorists" in that article, too? -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]]

CocaCola1996 at 03:39, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T03:39:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:39, 10 July 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:I know the Irish Republican movement sympathizers quite well. I've seen how much they screwed with the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA articles on Wikipedia. They do the same thing - insist on using the IRA's own terminology ("Volunteers", LOL) in an attempt to legitimize them. Anyway, yes, the IRA are terrorists. And so are the Loyalist scumbags (all of them). At the very least, if you wanted to be neutral, you would use a term like "members", but calling them "Volunteers" is an insult to my intelligence. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)		:I know the Irish Republican movement sympathizers quite well. I've seen how much they screwed with the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA articles on Wikipedia. They do the same thing - insist on using the IRA's own terminology ("Volunteers", LOL) in an attempt to legitimize them. Anyway, yes, the IRA are terrorists. And so are the Loyalist scumbags (all of them). At the very least, if you wanted to be neutral, you would use a term like "members", but calling them "Volunteers" is an insult to my intelligence. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

			I'm Republican, that doesn't mean I'm supporting the Contos or anything, they've done fuck all.
			Violence isn't going to achieve anything, so if it makes you feel better you can use the word "members", but "terrorists" is biased.
			I didn't even call the Loyalists terrorists.

MT2008 at 03:32, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T03:32:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:32, 10 July 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	I simply labelled them as what they were.		I simply labelled them as what they were.
	Calling them "terrorists" is biased.		Calling them "terrorists" is biased.

			:I know the Irish Republican movement sympathizers quite well. I've seen how much they screwed with the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA articles on Wikipedia. They do the same thing - insist on using the IRA's own terminology ("Volunteers", LOL) in an attempt to legitimize them. Anyway, yes, the IRA are terrorists. And so are the Loyalist scumbags (all of them). At the very least, if you wanted to be neutral, you would use a term like "members", but calling them "Volunteers" is an insult to my intelligence. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CocaCola1996 at 03:28, 10 July 2009

2009-07-10T03:28:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 10 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Do not screw up my page with your bullshit pro-IRA views, got it? I dunno about the other admins, but I take a very dim view of glorifying terrorists. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)		Do not screw up my page with your bullshit pro-IRA views, got it? I dunno about the other admins, but I take a very dim view of glorifying terrorists. -[[User:MT2008\|MT2008]] 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

			When did I glorify them?
			If I wanted to glorify them I'd have called the "freedom-fighters".
			I didn't, because that's biased.
			I simply labelled them as what they were.
			Calling them "terrorists" is biased.

MT2008: New page: Do not screw up my page with your bullshit pro-IRA views, got it? I dunno about the other admins, but I take a very dim view of glorifying terrorists. -~~~~

2009-07-10T03:23:35Z

New page: Do not screw up my page with your bullshit pro-IRA views, got it? I dunno about the other admins, but I take a very dim view of glorifying terrorists. -~~~~

New page

Do not screw up my page with your bullshit pro-IRA views, got it? I dunno about the other admins, but I take a very dim view of glorifying terrorists. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)