UVF Give up but keep the Guns

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

I heard this morning that one 'Irish' journalist has already likened Gusty Spence to Norn Iron's Nelson Mandela.

Jesus H Christ.

[saffron sam2]

See a full page interview in today's Irish News with one Winston Churchill "Winky" Rea, allegedly a leading member of the now allegedly defunct UVF / Red Hand Commando.  His unique name certainly rings a few bells, but I just can't place it.

[his holiness nb]

Is bigot your word of the day? How can being opposed to sectarian murder, on all sides, make you a bigot?

Have I used the word bigot elsewhere today?
And if I have, does it matter? If the cap fits and all.

And I'm not calling him that for opposing sectarian murder on all sides.
That much is very obvious 

funny though, I thought you would jump to his defense 

[MW]

Well maybe you could explain why you are calling me a bigot then?

[MW]

For me it's a no-brainer choosing between people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland, and a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent...

That's if you want to play your game

that sounds EXACTLY like what nationalists would have been saying in the late 1960's
(and then becoming republicans...)

so yer making a case for the IRA to have retailated then it seems...

No, old son, I'm making a case for peaceful democratic politics being preferable to terrorism.

And against the sort of crude sloganeering "his holiness" was indulging in.

[his holiness nb]

Well maybe you could explain why you are calling me a bigot then?

In direct response to your post beforehand 

[MW]

Any part in particular that struck you as "bigoted"? Or which provided justification for calling me an "utter bigot"?

None of it was, in fact. And that's even after me producing a fairy reductionist, simplistic argument to illustrate a point to you. (Hint: read my last sentence in that post)

[SammyG]

I heard this morning that one 'Irish' journalist has already likened Gusty Spence to Norn Iron's Nelson Mandela.

Jesus H Christ.

While the statement is clearly bollix, it's no worse than the fcukwits (including many on here) who compare Gerry and the Peacemakers to Mandela.

Lynchbhoy

It's been a while and you've probably forgotten, but we're still waiting for details of this apartheid regime in NI. Sorry to be raking over old posts but as you've decided to bring it up again.

[SammyG]

Is bigot your word of the day? How can being opposed to sectarian murder, on all sides, make you a bigot?

Have I used the word bigot elsewhere today?
And if I have, does it matter? If the cap fits and all.

And I'm not calling him that for opposing sectarian murder on all sides.
That much is very obvious 

funny though, I thought you would jump to his defense 

Not aware that I defended anybody. You called MW a bigot in response to a post where he condemned murders on both sides. I simply asked what he'd said that was bigoted as I couldn't see anything. If you can tell me what was bigoted then I'll comment on it and decide whether I agree or disagree.

[his holiness nb]

No Sammy you already disagree, lets be honest and not waste any more time on it 

[his holiness nb]

MW, in relation to the Moral highground of the whole NI issue you described one side as
"people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland"
and the other as "a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent..."

This is what I refer to as bigoted.

And dont say you meant the second reference to mean both sides, it was in opposition to the first ref about people wanting to remain part of their homeland ie Britain, thus quite obviously the Unionists.

[MW]

MW, in relation to the Moral highground of the whole NI issue you described one side as
"people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland"
and the other as "a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent..."

This is what I refer to as bigoted.

Neither of those statements is "bigoted". The first is a pretty accurate summary of what the IRA did. The second is a very simplistic statement of the 'average' unionist position.

And dont say you meant the second reference to mean both sides, it was in opposition to the first ref about people wanting to remain part of their homeland ie Britain, thus quite obviously the Unionists.

The second reference was quite obviously to the IRA. (But would equally reflects my revlusion of the 'loyalist paramilitaries', since you mention it) The whole post was in response to this from you (I quoted it in my post, FFS!):

I'm not an extremist by any means as my vote in the election will testify, but when it comes to moral highground between an imperialist empire versus the people struggling for liberation from imperialism, well its a no brainer.

Ludicrous sloganeering which airbrushes unionists and their identity (not to mention the principle of consent, which is labelled "imperialism") out of the equation and paints the IRA as "the people". As I made quite clear in my post, I was mirroring this simplistic and reductionist approach to make the point (not mirroring it very weel mind you, I didn't go to quite the same lengths as you did).

I've made my views on loyalist terrorism quite clear, by the way.

[his holiness nb]

What you did was compared the worst of the nationalist side with the best of the unionist side.
Not very balanced!

"Ludicrous sloganeering which airbrushes unionists and their identity (not to mention the principle of consent, which is labelled "imperialism") out of the equation and paints the IRA as "the people""

It was very clear that we were comparing the "ideals" of the IRA with that of the UVF here.
The principle of consent is a convenient argument for the side which implants enough people to the land they occupy to obtain this!!!
Ask the Tibetans about the "principle of consent"

And I never labelled the IRA as "the people", this is cutting and pasting my words to your convenience.
I called them "the people struggling for liberation from imperialism"
Theres a big difference there.

[nifan]

hh - id agree that the ideals of the uvf may be very different from what they claim - they are simply drug dealing gangsters in my mind - but the problem is they claim to have an ideal, defending their communities against their enemies.

Obviously if this was their only concern they wouldnt be peddling drugs and extorting their own communities.

[his holiness nb]

Good point NIFAN, and if we may all get back to the original point, I'm amazed that there isnt uproar at the fact that they are hanging on to the weapons should they need them again.
Jesus the stalling that went on over verification of the IRA weapons being "put beyond use" and requests for photographic proof etc etc. Now these guys say they are going to hang on to the weapons and all is quiet!

Weird