It seems that Cullyhanna's finest has conducted a series of interviews with Paisley to be on the BBC Paisley:
Genesis To Revelation - Face To Face With Eamonn Mallie starts on BBC One NI on Monday 13 January at 22:35 GMT
Paisley has done as much as anyone to cause the mess we are in today. He used a lot of strong language the caused other eejits, without any of these nuances the Paisley himself would see, to take up the battle. But he is still a more complex individual than some of the monochrome drones on the Unionist side, so the documentary should be interesting.
Ssssshould be interessssting. Sssss...
Hopefully the **** hasn't much longer to live.
Paisley is easier to listen to than Eamonn Mallie
Quote from: Kidder81 on January 10, 2014, 11:03:37 AM
Paisley is easier to listen to than Eamonn Mallie
but ever so slightly more dangerous
The shows main headlines so far is that Paisley has said...
- Bloody Sunday was wrong and he welcomed the apology and that "some of the victims didn't have weapons". (The implication being that some did.)
- The denial of one man, one vote was wrong ( a dramatic about-turn)
And on the Dublin/Monaghan bombs, he says..
- "Who brought that on them? Themselves".
The words of Eugene Reavey recently on the 38th anniversary of the murders of his three brothers in their home made for sad reading the other day. To think that Paisley is still refusing to apologise for his accusations about Eugene says all that needs to be said about him.
Mallie is from Silverbridge, or so he says. I'd say there'd be a few up there who would rather he was from Cullyhanna.
QuoteAnd on the Dublin/Monaghan bombs, he says..
- "Who brought that on them? Themselves".
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000838043614/0ac084a421f6ea1597276331268ffa51_normal.jpeg) John Ó Néill @JJCONeill 2h
Paisley leading a loyalist march in Larne 7 days after Dublin-Monaghan bombings (from Irish Times, 27.5.74).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bdm0ioxCYAApWcD.jpg)
He's finally conceded that gerrymandering was wrong and against democracy. I'm sure he'll add a 'but' in there somewhere though.
Ah sure he wasnt a bad oul soul really.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 10, 2014, 12:15:18 PM
Ah sure he wasnt a bad oul soul really.
I wouldn't go that far ;D He stoked the flames of hatred and bigotry in this part of the world. He only 'changed' because it suited him and his ego.
Quote from: ziggysego on January 10, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on January 10, 2014, 12:15:18 PM
Ah sure he wasnt a bad oul soul really.
I wouldn't go that far ;D He stoked the flames of hatred and bigotry in this part of the world. He only 'changed' because it suited him and his ego.
Nail on the head as far as ego is concerned. It takes some sized ego for a man...
- To insist on being called Dr for receiving an honorary degree
- To form his own political party
- And best of all, to form his own Church.
Blair is said that "Blair also knew that he was desperate to become first minister and saw that he would reach almost any accommodation just to hold that position, even for a few months."
(The Guardian)As far as whether or not he has really "changed", I'm highly doubt it. His refusal to apologise to Eugene Reavey, his implication that some of the Bloody Sunday victims were armed, his claim that the Dublin/Monaghan bombs were "brought on themselves" etc etc....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25673999 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25673999)
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 10, 2014, 12:59:34 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on January 10, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on January 10, 2014, 12:15:18 PM
Ah sure he wasnt a bad oul soul really.
I wouldn't go that far ;D He stoked the flames of hatred and bigotry in this part of the world. He only 'changed' because it suited him and his ego.
Nail on the head as far as ego is concerned. It takes some sized ego for a man...
- To insist on being called Dr for receiving an honorary degree
- To form his own political party
- And best of all, to form his own Church.
Blair is said that "Blair also knew that he was desperate to become first minister and saw that he would reach almost any accommodation just to hold that position, even for a few months." (The Guardian)
As far as whether or not he has really "changed", I'm highly doubt it. His refusal to apologise to Eugene Reavey, his implication that some of the Bloody Sunday victims were armed, his claim that the Dublin/Monaghan bombs were "brought on themselves" etc etc....
Which is why I wrote 'changed' not changed ;)
Quote from: ziggysego on January 10, 2014, 01:20:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 10, 2014, 12:59:34 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on January 10, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on January 10, 2014, 12:15:18 PM
Ah sure he wasnt a bad oul soul really.
I wouldn't go that far ;D He stoked the flames of hatred and bigotry in this part of the world. He only 'changed' because it suited him and his ego.
Nail on the head as far as ego is concerned. It takes some sized ego for a man...
- To insist on being called Dr for receiving an honorary degree
- To form his own political party
- And best of all, to form his own Church.
Blair is said that "Blair also knew that he was desperate to become first minister and saw that he would reach almost any accommodation just to hold that position, even for a few months." (The Guardian)
As far as whether or not he has really "changed", I'm highly doubt it. His refusal to apologise to Eugene Reavey, his implication that some of the Bloody Sunday victims were armed, his claim that the Dublin/Monaghan bombs were "brought on themselves" etc etc....
Which is why I wrote 'changed' not changed ;)
Touché!
He was only ever interested in power.
It's easy saying certain things were wrong when you're 87 and haven't long to go.
A hateful auld cnut.
Nothing more need be said as far as I am concerned. He can reinvent all he wants be he'll always be a HAC to me.
Just a pity he never got cancer and suffered for years before dying - who said there is such a thing as Karma.
Quote from: Cold tea on January 10, 2014, 02:00:54 PM
Just a pity he never got cancer and suffered for years before dying - who said there is such a thing as Karma.
You wouldn't wish that on your worst enemy surely ?.
I take it you don't like Paisley.
Quote from: orangeman on January 10, 2014, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on January 10, 2014, 02:00:54 PM
Just a pity he never got cancer and suffered for years before dying - who said there is such a thing as Karma.
You wouldn't wish that on your worst enemy surely ?.
I take it you don't like Paisley.
The bastard caused many a death with his rhetoric. I would wish he would rot in hell, but he'll just die.
I suppose I should wait to judge the context of his reported comments on the Dublin Monaghan bombings but weren't similar comments called "nauseating" recently??
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 10, 2014, 11:47:47 AM
Mallie is from Silverbridge, or so he says. I'd say there'd be a few up there who would rather he was from Cullyhanna.
He's actually from Creggan, his family house is across the road from mine!
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 10, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 10, 2014, 11:47:47 AM
Mallie is from Silverbridge, or so he says. I'd say there'd be a few up there who would rather he was from Cullyhanna.
He's actually from Creggan, his family house is across the road from mine!
...and yiz both have the same accent :P
Quote from: 5 Sams on January 10, 2014, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 10, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 10, 2014, 11:47:47 AM
Mallie is from Silverbridge, or so he says. I'd say there'd be a few up there who would rather he was from Cullyhanna.
He's actually from Creggan, his family house is across the road from mine!
...and yiz both have the same accent :P
Says the man from Baaaayhollan!
He's 2 ends a **** by the way, Paisley not Mallie.
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Daniel o Connell, Michael davit, Redmond, duke of wellington( a Dublin man who brought catholic emancipation etc)
even his mate from trinity Carson
he is nowhere near the greatest politician this island produced,
he was not even a good one, don't let the last few years with sinn fein in power cloud a judgement
Paisley's rhetoric was nothing new. In fact it was centuries old rehashed religious bile. He wasn't particularly unique, he was simply a relic from another time. But when the troubles kicked off he was the right dinosaur in the right place at the right time, for some.
Seems to be a lot of revisionism that he's this doddering old benign grandad who's great muckers with wee marty and spends his days with cherubic children sitting on his knees ... the oul bastard basically started the Troubles and is swimming in the blood of the innocents, for him to blame Dublin for the UVF (i.e British-directed) bombs of 1974 is pathetic, but not surprising
Quote from: EC Unique on January 10, 2014, 01:12:48 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25673999 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25673999)
Mr Nesbitt said: "When we criticise the re-writing of history, this is precisely the type of comments which we mean.
Good man, Nesbitt.
"greatest politican this island has produced "
Lawnseed son, stop smoking what ever you are on, this man hadnt a clue. an extreme shit stirrer who took in a vast majority of the unionist population through scare mongering tactics, and the fools fell for it. When he did come into power he had no idea what way to run a country and at the finish the DUP had to get him out with Martin McGuinness running rings round him and making him look a deluded fool.
I remember Paisley for 1 particular reason, the 3 youngs lads that were killed in the fire in Ballymoney, he shit stirred the days before hand telling people to come out and there be blood on the streets before this fire bombing on a house believed to be Catholics happened. the b**tard hide from the media for days as the media basically saw him the cause of what happened
I blame him for what happened and him alone on this tragic event.
Is this creating much of a stir down south? Politicians falling over themselves to have a go a paisley?
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on January 10, 2014, 01:58:51 PM
A hateful auld cnut.
Nothing more need be said as far as I am concerned. He can reinvent all he wants be he'll always be a HAC to me.
Sums it up nicely.
In January 2012 I wrote this on another thread here on the board - I wanted to post it again, especially for the younger members of the board who did not experience the full brunt of Paisley's hatred - I did and I know we won't see the first part of the interview until Monday documentary, so comments about it must wait until it's aired - But I'd hope that what I have included below will help you avoid buying into any attempts he might make in re-writing history - When watching the show remember the sentence below where Leon Uris states that "If a man could be singled out as responsible for the tragic condition of Northern Ireland, no one has more to answer for than Ian Paisley"
"In 1973 Leon Uris, the author of Trinity, Exodus and some other notable novels wrote the text for a pictorial book his wife, Jill Uris was publishing entitled "Ireland – A Terrible Beauty" - In it he had the following to say regarding Ian Paisley "His most notable victory was attained in collapsing the O'Neil government over Civil Rights and getting himself elected to both Stormont and to Westminster. His political mentor, a standoffish barrister named Desmond Boal, cleaned up Paisley's act for the British Parliament; here he has shown himself to be a reasonable man with wit and mock candor that have hoodwinked thousands in Ulster, Britain and even Ireland. In support of a most remarkable Jekyll and Hyde charade, His Puritan Press runs overtime with a nonstop barrage of hate literature ............ Ian Paisley is not so naïve as not to learn from his chosen enemy. He has created his own papacy in some three dozen Free Presbyterian churches (Written in 1973, this number has grown significantly since then) ...... Paisley is the Moderator, a Protestant Pope complete with infallibility. Confession, the use of ministers in a role similar to that of Catholic priests, and many other adaptations are straight from Rome. He practices it all with a totalitarianism that few Catholic churchmen practice ........ If a man could be singled out as responsible for the tragic condition of Northern Ireland, no one has more to answer for than Ian Paisley"
I was very struck by that last sentence when I first read it many years ago because I knew in my heart that it was true
I had been aware of Paisley and his infant organization from the early 60's when he had "converted" a young Tyrone girl from Catholicism to his brand of Presbyterianism (I knew about it as I was friendly with one of the girl's neighbors) – During the Civil Rights area, I came to realize that Paisley was an evil person, especially after the incident at Burntollet Bridge – Ian Uris opens his piece on Paisley with this "The most diabolical by-product of three hundred and fifty years of the plantation of Ulster is a cancerous growth known as Paisleyism ....... Few men possess the power to hate with such magnitude, and more frightening, few have the energy and ability to transmit and infect fellow creatures with that hatred"
Jekyll and Hyde character alright.As Mallie says there are six different Ian Paisleys and promises a meeting with every one of them during this two part documentary
Quote from: ballela-angel on January 11, 2014, 03:11:37 AM
In January 2012 I wrote this on another thread here on the board - I wanted to post it again, especially for the younger members of the board who did not experience the full brunt of Paisley's hatred - I did and I know we won't see the first part of the interview until Monday documentary, so comments about it must wait until it's aired - But I'd hope that what I have included below will help you avoid buying into any attempts he might make in re-writing history - When watching the show remember the sentence below where Leon Uris states that "If a man could be singled out as responsible for the tragic condition of Northern Ireland, no one has more to answer for than Ian Paisley"
"In 1973 Leon Uris, the author of Trinity, Exodus and some other notable novels wrote the text for a pictorial book his wife, Jill Uris was publishing entitled "Ireland – A Terrible Beauty" - In it he had the following to say regarding Ian Paisley "His most notable victory was attained in collapsing the O'Neil government over Civil Rights and getting himself elected to both Stormont and to Westminster. His political mentor, a standoffish barrister named Desmond Boal, cleaned up Paisley's act for the British Parliament; here he has shown himself to be a reasonable man with wit and mock candor that have hoodwinked thousands in Ulster, Britain and even Ireland. In support of a most remarkable Jekyll and Hyde charade, His Puritan Press runs overtime with a nonstop barrage of hate literature ............ Ian Paisley is not so naïve as not to learn from his chosen enemy. He has created his own papacy in some three dozen Free Presbyterian churches (Written in 1973, this number has grown significantly since then) ...... Paisley is the Moderator, a Protestant Pope complete with infallibility. Confession, the use of ministers in a role similar to that of Catholic priests, and many other adaptations are straight from Rome. He practices it all with a totalitarianism that few Catholic churchmen practice ........ If a man could be singled out as responsible for the tragic condition of Northern Ireland, no one has more to answer for than Ian Paisley"
I was very struck by that last sentence when I first read it many years ago because I knew in my heart that it was true
I had been aware of Paisley and his infant organization from the early 60's when he had "converted" a young Tyrone girl from Catholicism to his brand of Presbyterianism (I knew about it as I was friendly with one of the girl's neighbors) – During the Civil Rights area, I came to realize that Paisley was an evil person, especially after the incident at Burntollet Bridge – Ian Uris opens his piece on Paisley with this "The most diabolical by-product of three hundred and fifty years of the plantation of Ulster is a cancerous growth known as Paisleyism ....... Few men possess the power to hate with such magnitude, and more frightening, few have the energy and ability to transmit and infect fellow creatures with that hatred"
He was the best recruiting officer the Provos ever had.
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Thats like you saying you are the greatest poster ever on the GAAboard. What a load of shite. This man should have been jailed for incitement to hatred on numerous occasions. He was the single biggest barrier to peace on the Island. He did nothing but increase his old power by instilling total fear of all things nationalist/republican/catholic and look what that has left us with. A perfect example is his behaviour with the pope. I may agree with him in his dislike of the pope but he had to know, given the divisions in the 6 counties, what the reaction on the ground would be to him roaring abuse at the pope on TV. He was playing to his own gallery and f**k the consequences. If you admire this man then you are really not well in the head.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Thats like you saying you are the greatest poster ever on the GAAboard. What a load of shite. This man should have been jailed for incitement to hatred on numerous occasions. He was the single biggest barrier to peace on the Island. He did nothing but increase his old power by instilling total fear of all things nationalist/republican/catholic and look what that has left us with. A perfect example is his behaviour with the pope. I may agree with him in his dislike of the pope but he had to know, given the divisions in the 6 counties, what the reaction on the ground would be to him roaring abuse at the pope on TV. He was playing to his own gallery and f**k the consequences. If you admire this man then you are really not well in the head.
The greatest barrier to peace this island.. ? I suppose the litany of useless 26 governments who turned their backs on the republican/nationalist minority here didnt contribute to the situation? You know the fellas who wined and dined the good doctor and his wife only a couple of years ago.. You know the "how can we afford ye lot?" brigade. The blame for the instability imo is in the 26 it always has been
Quote from: lawnseed on January 11, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Thats like you saying you are the greatest poster ever on the GAAboard. What a load of shite. This man should have been jailed for incitement to hatred on numerous occasions. He was the single biggest barrier to peace on the Island. He did nothing but increase his old power by instilling total fear of all things nationalist/republican/catholic and look what that has left us with. A perfect example is his behaviour with the pope. I may agree with him in his dislike of the pope but he had to know, given the divisions in the 6 counties, what the reaction on the ground would be to him roaring abuse at the pope on TV. He was playing to his own gallery and f**k the consequences. If you admire this man then you are really not well in the head.
The greatest barrier to peace this island.. ? I suppose the litany of useless 26 governments who turned their backs on the republican/nationalist minority here didnt contribute to the situation? You know the fellas who wined and dined the good doctor and his wife only a couple of years ago.. You know the "how can we afford ye lot?" brigade. The blame for the instability imo is in the 26 it always has been
So let me get this straight. The southern government who had no power to do f**k all were worse than Paisley who was out roaring fire and brimstone, inspiring his followers to burn out and murder catholics. He had no interest in sharing power with any catholic until he got the opportunity in later years for a bit of revisionism in the history books to allow him to be painted as some sort of peace maker. When a man gets old he starts thinking of his legacy after all.
I am no fan of southern governments of the time but to say what you have is just total horseshite and being controversial for the sake of it. Tell me, what would you have these southern governments do given that militarily and financially they were tiny in comparison to the UK government. Just because he charmed you in conversation doesnt mean he was any lesser a monster, I saw plenty of pictures of adolf hitler hugging babies too and I am sure he was a real charmer - he was also a murderous sc**bag. You are very easy to charm it seems Lawnseed.
Quote from: lawnseed on January 11, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Thats like you saying you are the greatest poster ever on the GAAboard. What a load of shite. This man should have been jailed for incitement to hatred on numerous occasions. He was the single biggest barrier to peace on the Island. He did nothing but increase his old power by instilling total fear of all things nationalist/republican/catholic and look what that has left us with. A perfect example is his behaviour with the pope. I may agree with him in his dislike of the pope but he had to know, given the divisions in the 6 counties, what the reaction on the ground would be to him roaring abuse at the pope on TV. He was playing to his own gallery and f**k the consequences. If you admire this man then you are really not well in the head.
The greatest barrier to peace this island.. ? I suppose the litany of useless 26 governments who turned their backs on the republican/nationalist minority here didnt contribute to the situation? You know the fellas who wined and dined the good doctor and his wife only a couple of years ago.. You know the "how can we afford ye lot?" brigade. The blame for the instability imo is in the 26 it always has been
Reiterating Paisley's "blame the south" agenda, you really are a the biggest gobshite/WUM on this board.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 11, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Thats like you saying you are the greatest poster ever on the GAAboard. What a load of shite. This man should have been jailed for incitement to hatred on numerous occasions. He was the single biggest barrier to peace on the Island. He did nothing but increase his old power by instilling total fear of all things nationalist/republican/catholic and look what that has left us with. A perfect example is his behaviour with the pope. I may agree with him in his dislike of the pope but he had to know, given the divisions in the 6 counties, what the reaction on the ground would be to him roaring abuse at the pope on TV. He was playing to his own gallery and f**k the consequences. If you admire this man then you are really not well in the head.
The greatest barrier to peace this island.. ? I suppose the litany of useless 26 governments who turned their backs on the republican/nationalist minority here didnt contribute to the situation? You know the fellas who wined and dined the good doctor and his wife only a couple of years ago.. You know the "how can we afford ye lot?" brigade. The blame for the instability imo is in the 26 it always has been
So let me get this straight. The southern government who had no power to do f**k all were worse than Paisley who was out roaring fire and brimstone, inspiring his followers to burn out and murder catholics. He had no interest in sharing power with any catholic until he got the opportunity in later years for a bit of revisionism in the history books to allow him to be painted as some sort of peace maker. When a man gets old he starts thinking of his legacy after all.
I am no fan of southern governments of the time but to say what you have is just total horseshite and being controversial for the sake of it. Tell me, what would you have these southern governments do given that militarily and financially they were tiny in comparison to the UK government. Just because he charmed you in conversation doesnt mean he was any lesser a monster, I saw plenty of pictures of adolf hitler hugging babies too and I am sure he was a real charmer - he was also a murderous sc**bag. You are very easy to charm it seems Lawnseed.
Myles, why do you bother?
Quote from: muppet on January 11, 2014, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 11, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 11, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 10, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Ive been in the big mans company a couple of times hes very witty loves a good craic as does jnr.
No matter how you look at it hes the greatest politican this island has produced whether or not you share his view. He has the perfect blend of religion and politics perfect for his devoted following.
Thats like you saying you are the greatest poster ever on the GAAboard. What a load of shite. This man should have been jailed for incitement to hatred on numerous occasions. He was the single biggest barrier to peace on the Island. He did nothing but increase his old power by instilling total fear of all things nationalist/republican/catholic and look what that has left us with. A perfect example is his behaviour with the pope. I may agree with him in his dislike of the pope but he had to know, given the divisions in the 6 counties, what the reaction on the ground would be to him roaring abuse at the pope on TV. He was playing to his own gallery and f**k the consequences. If you admire this man then you are really not well in the head.
The greatest barrier to peace this island.. ? I suppose the litany of useless 26 governments who turned their backs on the republican/nationalist minority here didnt contribute to the situation? You know the fellas who wined and dined the good doctor and his wife only a couple of years ago.. You know the "how can we afford ye lot?" brigade. The blame for the instability imo is in the 26 it always has been
So let me get this straight. The southern government who had no power to do f**k all were worse than Paisley who was out roaring fire and brimstone, inspiring his followers to burn out and murder catholics. He had no interest in sharing power with any catholic until he got the opportunity in later years for a bit of revisionism in the history books to allow him to be painted as some sort of peace maker. When a man gets old he starts thinking of his legacy after all.
I am no fan of southern governments of the time but to say what you have is just total horseshite and being controversial for the sake of it. Tell me, what would you have these southern governments do given that militarily and financially they were tiny in comparison to the UK government. Just because he charmed you in conversation doesnt mean he was any lesser a monster, I saw plenty of pictures of adolf hitler hugging babies too and I am sure he was a real charmer - he was also a murderous sc**bag. You are very easy to charm it seems Lawnseed.
Myles, why do you bother?
I could never be convinced that you can't bate a square peg into a round hole.
Lawnweed has surpassed himself in fcukwittery on this subject.
I see his Israeli doppelgänger has shuffled off this mortal coil.
For the immature posters, here is the Paisley family in chat mode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY1l27wrXQA
Once a bad get always a bad get. There'll be no glowing obiturary from me when he dies. When he goes I'll say he wasn't worth a shite when he was alive and he's not worth a shite now when he's dead.
The plus point is that many in the 26 counties are at last beginning to see the real Paisley, who is far from the jovial chap who loves to crack a joke,which has been their perception to date,and for which he is and has always has been fawned over down there
Quote from: T Fearon on January 11, 2014, 08:14:53 PM
The plus point is that many in the 26 counties are at last beginning to see the real Paisley, who is far from the jovial chap who loves to crack a joke,which has been their perception to date,and for which he is and has always has been fawned over down there
He was always portrayed on RTE as an extremist intransigent bigot in the 1980s and 1990s, Tony. It wasn't hard. No no no.
Not the impression I got, with the family presenting a chat show with Brendan Grace,Garda joking with him on his regular early morning forays into Dublin to stick posters up,and Ian Og regularly on the Late Late Show
Quote from: T Fearon on January 11, 2014, 09:41:15 PM
Not the impression I got, with the family presenting a chat show with Brendan Grace,Garda joking with him on his regular early morning forays into Dublin to stick posters up,and Ian Og regularly on the Late Late Show
I'd say most people in the south wouldn't think of him very positively. He did a lot of damage and he was very anti catholic in the 1970s.
Quote from: armaghniac on January 11, 2014, 05:21:11 PM
For the immature posters, here is the Paisley family in chat mode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY1l27wrXQA
Didn't wee Rhona sue Big Ian once?
Please stop wishing cancer on this man, he is in his dotage and the best way you can remember his legacy is simply to ignore it.
Paisley has blood on his hands and he was a blowhard sc**bag who conned his constituents into believing he spoke for them, he never did that, he sought fame and power like most politicians and he succeeded based on the fuel he threw on the flames of their ignorance and bigotry.
He reminds me of thatcher in many ways, his love of bluster and economic use of the truth, his arrogance and deceit carried him far but it was his political ambiguities that will taint his legacy, he became a sellout whore of sorts, befriending shinners and people who he had no use for for 95% of his career, all in the name of first minister.
To admire this man borders on lunacy however, he was an excellent showman who got bigots to buy into his so called causes and vision for Ulster, Wullie is trying to do this, as is Bryson, say what you like about Paisley, but he could buy and sell those bastards, you can throw Seawright in there too.
When he goes I will simply frown, be glad he can do no more harm and hope that when he meets the real big man, he, like the rest of us get's what he deserves, I am thinking he will be really hot and uncomfortable for eternity but hey, that is not for me to decide, five seconds after he is dead I will simply refuse to honor his memory by giving him a single second of my time!
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on January 10, 2014, 07:56:37 PM
"greatest politican this island has produced "
Lawnseed son, stop smoking what ever you are on, this man hadnt a clue. an extreme shit stirrer who took in a vast majority of the unionist population through scare mongering tactics, and the fools fell for it. When he did come into power he had no idea what way to run a country and at the finish the DUP had to get him out with Martin McGuinness running rings round him and making him look a deluded fool.
I remember Paisley for 1 particular reason, the 3 youngs lads that were killed in the fire in Ballymoney, he shit stirred the days before hand telling people to come out and there be blood on the streets before this fire bombing on a house believed to be Catholics happened. the b**tard hide from the media for days as the media basically saw him the cause of what happened
I blame him for what happened and him alone on this tragic event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_brothers'_killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_brothers'_killings)
The M.P. for the area, Dr. Ian Paisley, visited the site of the attack and described the murders as "diabolical", "repugnant" and it "stained Protestantism".[7] However in an interview with ITN he stated that "The IRA have carried out worse murders than we had in Ballymoney over and over again"[8]
Quote from: From the Bunker on January 12, 2014, 01:15:14 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on January 10, 2014, 07:56:37 PM
"greatest politican this island has produced "
Lawnseed son, stop smoking what ever you are on, this man hadnt a clue. an extreme shit stirrer who took in a vast majority of the unionist population through scare mongering tactics, and the fools fell for it. When he did come into power he had no idea what way to run a country and at the finish the DUP had to get him out with Martin McGuinness running rings round him and making him look a deluded fool.
I remember Paisley for 1 particular reason, the 3 youngs lads that were killed in the fire in Ballymoney, he shit stirred the days before hand telling people to come out and there be blood on the streets before this fire bombing on a house believed to be Catholics happened. the b**tard hide from the media for days as the media basically saw him the cause of what happened
I blame him for what happened and him alone on this tragic event.
I seem to recall at the time the DUP trying to blame it on drugdealers etc. Everyone of those.cnuts is lower than a snakes belly. Didnt affect any of them in the long run though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_brothers'_killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_brothers'_killings)
The M.P. for the area, Dr. Ian Paisley, visited the site of the attack and described the murders as "diabolical", "repugnant" and it "stained Protestantism".[7] However in an interview with ITN he stated that "The IRA have carried out worse murders than we had in Ballymoney over and over again"[8]
He is a complete enigma.I'd bet any of his catholic constituents who sought his help to resolve problems wouldnt have a bad word to say about him for example.I'd also say his views about the Dublin bombings have been very clumsily expressed,and that he meant no harm to the actual victims themselves,though on the other hand his callous dismissal of the Reavey family and continued refusal to apologise is outrageous.
All in all the world would have been a better place without him,though undoubtedly if it hadn't been Paisley feeding unionist paranoia,someone else within that community would have done,though not as effectively
In fairness, I had heard that before about his constituents, but I suppose that's the parish pump politician in him, we know all about that down here.
As regards his image in the South, I think Shamrock Shore is a lot closer to the zeitgeist than Tony on this one.
Lads the only person here eulogising Paisley is not from the 26.
Paisley states that the Clontibret incursion was wrong and hinting that it was Robinson trying to take control of the DUP. Robinson, however, claims Clontibret was Paisley's idea and that he (Robbo) was only standing in because the leader had to attend a funeral.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/ian-paisley-and-peter-robinson-a-very-public-falling-out-29906880.html
Haven't a clue who's telling lies, but obviously neither man thinks the Clontibret stunt was particularly successful, otherwise they'd be falling over themselves in the rush to claim the credit!
SThe way I see it is.. Had the nationalist/republicans had a leader of half the charisma of ian paisley our aims would be alot closer than they are today. As for the 26 the only politician who could match paisley is carson theres been nothing there but a shower of mealy mouthed self serving traitors who are only notable by the amount of nepotism and nest feathering they managed to pull off before they were swapped for somebody equally as useless. Paisley for all his faults IS the greatest LEADER nobody even in the same league.
John hume.. Not a patch.. Gerry nah.. Gimp kenny? Dont even mention him .. A clown!
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 10, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 10, 2014, 11:47:47 AM
Mallie is from Silverbridge, or so he says. I'd say there'd be a few up there who would rather he was from Cullyhanna.
He's actually from Creggan, his family house is across the road from mine!
Wel, he says he's from Silverbridge, it must be a posher area.
I can't make up my mind whether to watch this or not. I'm not that fussed on Mallie who's own ego is nearly as big as Ian's. I am old enough to remember exactlt the part Paisley played in exacerbating the troubles in the '60's and '70's. He played on the seige mentality of working class loyalist communities, in much the same way that Wee Wullie and Wee Jamie are doing at the moment. The unreconstructed bigotry of his party still exists, surfacing every now and then in the likes of Ruth and Gregory. He hounded evry moderate Unionist leader as he sought to gain leadership of Unionism. His opposition to Sunningdale and the Ulster Workers Strike undoubtedly extended the duration of the "troubles".
The thing is that Willie is a tad mad and probably believes his own delusions, Paisley was playing the audience with things with things to wind them up, he could then change tune as required by Paisley.
As has been mentioned already, Paisley was the leader a large section of the unionist electorate were looking for. Similar to white south africa, plenty of "decent" people who had no conscience about keeping with the status quo. He aped the mood and demeanor of his electorate (people don't do stuff they subconsciously don't agree with) and its taken 50 years to achieve what was a very simple principle of having equality in the society up here. He's a bit like Worzel Gummidge the number of heads he had. Many will love his god loving one.
Quote from: theskull1 on January 13, 2014, 11:15:03 AM
As has been mentioned already, Paisley was the leader a large section of the unionist electorate were looking for. Similar to white south africa, plenty of "decent" people who had no conscience about keeping with the status quo. He aped the mood and demeanor of his electorate (people don't do stuff they subconsciously don't agree with) and its taken 50 years to achieve what was a very simple principle of having equality in the society up here. He's a bit like Worzel Gummidge the number of heads he had. Many will love his god loving one.
He aped the mood? I think he led them like sheep, scared the bejayus out of them.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2014, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 13, 2014, 11:15:03 AM
As has been mentioned already, Paisley was the leader a large section of the unionist electorate were looking for. Similar to white south africa, plenty of "decent" people who had no conscience about keeping with the status quo. He aped the mood and demeanor of his electorate (people don't do stuff they subconsciously don't agree with) and its taken 50 years to achieve what was a very simple principle of having equality in the society up here. He's a bit like Worzel Gummidge the number of heads he had. Many will love his god loving one.
He aped the mood? I think he led them like sheep, scared the bejayus out of them.
+1
Paisley knew what he wanted and he didn't care what he did on the way to make that happen.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2014, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 13, 2014, 11:15:03 AM
As has been mentioned already, Paisley was the leader a large section of the unionist electorate were looking for. Similar to white south africa, plenty of "decent" people who had no conscience about keeping with the status quo. He aped the mood and demeanor of his electorate (people don't do stuff they subconsciously don't agree with) and its taken 50 years to achieve what was a very simple principle of having equality in the society up here. He's a bit like Worzel Gummidge the number of heads he had. Many will love his god loving one.
He aped the mood? I think he led them like sheep, scared the bejayus out of them.
So regardless of partizan nature of this place for 300 years, you believe that Paisley led his electorate like dumb animals (although understanding religious congregations there may be a smidgen of truth there)? You're giving him too much credit IMO. He was a skilled rabble rouser of course, but he wouldn't have roused much rabble if the prejudices weren't there in the first place. That's my point.
Quote from: theskull1 on January 13, 2014, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2014, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 13, 2014, 11:15:03 AM
As has been mentioned already, Paisley was the leader a large section of the unionist electorate were looking for. Similar to white south africa, plenty of "decent" people who had no conscience about keeping with the status quo. He aped the mood and demeanor of his electorate (people don't do stuff they subconsciously don't agree with) and its taken 50 years to achieve what was a very simple principle of having equality in the society up here. He's a bit like Worzel Gummidge the number of heads he had. Many will love his god loving one.
He aped the mood? I think he led them like sheep, scared the bejayus out of them.
So regardless of partizan nature of this place for 300 years, you believe that Paisley led his electorate like dumb animals (although understanding religious congregations there may be a smidgen of truth there)? You're giving him too much credit IMO. He was a skilled rabble rouser of course, but he wouldn't have roused much rabble if the prejudices weren't there in the first place. That's my point.
They were and still are there to an extent, but like all prejudice they are based on fear. Fear that he adeptly manipulated and used. As for equality, there a way to go.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 10, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
The shows main headlines so far is that Paisley has said...
- Bloody Sunday was wrong and he welcomed the apology and that "some of the victims didn't have weapons". (The implication being that some did.)
- The denial of one man, one vote was wrong ( a dramatic about-turn)
And on the Dublin/Monaghan bombs, he says..
- "Who brought that on them? Themselves".
The words of Eugene Reavey recently on the 38th anniversary of the murders of his three brothers in their home made for sad reading the other day. To think that Paisley is still refusing to apologise for his accusations about Eugene says all that needs to be said about him.
You could say similar about Gerry Adams refusing to admit he was in the IRA
Quote from: lawnseed on January 12, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
SThe way I see it is.. Had the nationalist/republicans had a leader of half the charisma of ian paisley our aims would be alot closer than they are today. As for the 26 the only politician who could match paisley is carson theres been nothing there but a shower of mealy mouthed self serving traitors who are only notable by the amount of nepotism and nest feathering they managed to pull off before they were swapped for somebody equally as useless. Paisley for all his faults IS the greatest LEADER nobody even in the same league.
John hume.. Not a patch.. Gerry nah.. Gimp kenny? Dont even mention him .. A clown!
This word is thrown about a lot, Brian Lenihan was called one for the bank guarantee. I'd be no fan but to call someone a traitor is probably the greatest insult you can give an Irishman.
The definition of a traitor is:
a person who is not loyal to his or her own country : a person who betrays a country by helping or supporting an enemyUnless you've some evidence to back this up maybe you should stop critising people who have given a lot more to their country than some loudmouth keyboard warrior?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 02:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 10, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
The shows main headlines so far is that Paisley has said...
- Bloody Sunday was wrong and he welcomed the apology and that "some of the victims didn't have weapons". (The implication being that some did.)
- The denial of one man, one vote was wrong ( a dramatic about-turn)
And on the Dublin/Monaghan bombs, he says..
- "Who brought that on them? Themselves".
The words of Eugene Reavey recently on the 38th anniversary of the murders of his three brothers in their home made for sad reading the other day. To think that Paisley is still refusing to apologise for his accusations about Eugene says all that needs to be said about him.
You could say similar about Gerry Adams refusing to admit he was in the IRA
So the day after three innocent brothers were murdered through state collusion, Ian Paisley stands up in the House of Commons and falsely accuses another of their brothers by name (without a single mention of the three murders the previous day), of having taken part in the murders of 10 innocent people at Kingsmill; and that, in your mind, is the same as Gerry Adams denying he was in the IRA?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 12, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
SThe way I see it is.. Had the nationalist/republicans had a leader of half the charisma of ian paisley our aims would be alot closer than they are today. As for the 26 the only politician who could match paisley is carson theres been nothing there but a shower of mealy mouthed self serving traitors who are only notable by the amount of nepotism and nest feathering they managed to pull off before they were swapped for somebody equally as useless. Paisley for all his faults IS the greatest LEADER nobody even in the same league.
John hume.. Not a patch.. Gerry nah.. Gimp kenny? Dont even mention him .. A clown!
This word is thrown about a lot, Brian Lenihan was called one for the bank guarantee. I'd be no fan but to call someone a traitor is probably the greatest insult you can give an Irishman.
The definition of a traitor is:
a person who is not loyal to his or her own country : a person who betrays a country by helping or supporting an enemy
Unless you've some evidence to back this up maybe you should stop critising people who have given a lot more to their country than some loudmouth keyboard warrior?
As far as I'd be concerned, any Irishman who calls him/herself a republican but doesn't care about the partition of his/her country is
worse than a traitor.
I'd be pretty sure Kenny has never called himself a republican, I'm not sure about John Hume, thats two of the people Lawnseed named there.
So you dont think Gerry Adams is a coward for not admitting he played a leading role in an organisation that killed almost 2,000 (innocent) people?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
I'd be pretty sure Kenny has never called himself a republican, I'm not sure about John Hume, thats two of the people Lawnseed named there.
So you dont think Gerry Adams is a coward for not admitting he played a leading role in an organisation that killed almost 2,000 (innocent) people?
You avoided my question.... is paisley's action, (where he stood in westminster and publically and wrongly accused a man mourning the murders of his three brothers the previous day, of being involved in the murders of 10 innocent people at Kingsmill), the same thing as Adams not admitting he was in the IRA? Also, almost 2,000 innocent people? Aside from the fact that 2,000 is inflating the figure by almost 300 (according to Lost Lives), you are claiming that all of these victims were "innocent"? (At least you stopped short of FG's Charlie Flanagan who told us on primetime some weeks back that it was not even the IRA, but "Sinn Féin" who killed every single person in the troubles, or to use his quote, who "perpetrated murder on over 3,000 people". Of course, Miriam did't challenge him. Sure it's only three thousand lives, what odds... if we can get away with blaming it all on SF, then why wouldn't we eh?
I think Paisely and Gerry Adams are exactly the same just one opposite sides of an argument.
You avoided my question, care to answer it?
"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people during the Troubles up to 2001", so almost 2,000.
And yes I consider anyone that is murdered innocent
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
I think Paisely and Gerry Adams are exactly the same just one opposite sides of an argument.
You avoided my question, care to answer it?
"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people during the Troubles up to 2001", so almost 2,000.
And yes I consider anyone that is murdered innocent
You haven't answered my specific question relating to Paisley's specific action. You highlighted my original reference to it. If you are big enough to highlight it and reply to it, then don't conveniently avoid it now. Was publically and wrongly accusing Eugene Reavey, the day after he lost three brothers to collusion, of having murdering 10 innocent people at Kingsmill, the same thing as Adams denying he was in the IRA, as you have suggested in your reply at the start?
P.S. Were all Mick Collins' victims innocent?
Mayo ur talking shite here. As Ziggy said Paisley knew what he wanted and he got it.....fame & fortune.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
I think Paisely and Gerry Adams are exactly the same just one opposite sides of an argument.
You avoided my question, care to answer it?
"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people during the Troubles up to 2001", so almost 2,000.
And yes I consider anyone that is murdered innocent
You haven't answered my specific question relating to Paisley's specific action.
P.S. Were all Mick Collins' victims innocent?
I have answered your question, yes I consider those two actions to be exactly the same
Now will you answer mine?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
I think Paisely and Gerry Adams are exactly the same just one opposite sides of an argument.
You avoided my question, care to answer it?
"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people during the Troubles up to 2001", so almost 2,000.
And yes I consider anyone that is murdered innocent
You haven't answered my specific question relating to Paisley's specific action.
P.S. Were all Mick Collins' victims innocent?
I have answered your question, yes I consider those two actions to be exactly the same
Now will you answer mine?
Staggering. In your mind, the IRA killed "almost two thousand innocent people"; and Gerry Adams denying he was in the IRA is as bad as Paisley wrongly accusing a man, in westminster, the day after he saw three brothers murdered, of himself having murdering 10 innocent people, thereby deliberately putting his life under direct threat from every loyalist paramilitary gang there was. I'd just love you to stand in front of Eugene Reavey ask him if he would agree with you.
Do I think Adams is a coward for not admitting he was in the IRA? Hardly. He has spend his entire life working under a threat of death from numerous sides. He has survived being shot (in the neck, shoulder and arm) and still kept going at his work. I'm sure he was in the IRA. I'd be very disappointed if he weren't. However, if he admitted he was in the IRA, then he'd have been thrown in jail. Thankfully, he wasn't and as a result, we have a peace process. Which simply wouldn't have happened without his work. Work for which his life remains under threat to this day. So no, hardly a coward.
Were Mick Collins' victims innocent?
Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.
Gerry Adams still maintains he wasnt in the IRA, I dont think he is in any danger of being thrown in jail now. So yes a coward.
Courage of your convictions and all that.
As for your comments about Eugene Reaveys, I'm sure the families of Inam Bashir and John Jeffries would have something similar to say to Gerry Adams, after he refused to condemn the IRA for the Canary Wharf bombings.
Like I say, Adams and Paisley are peas from the same pod
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.
Gerry Adams still maintains he wasnt in the IRA, I dont think he is in any danger of being thrown in jail now. So yes a coward.
Courage of your convictions and all that.
As for your comments about Eugene Reaveys, I'm sure the families of Inam Bashir and John Jeffries would have something similar to say to Gerry Adams, after he refused to condemn the IRA for the Canary Wharf bombings.
Like I say, Adams and Paisley are peas from the same pod
Typical and convenient.
PS You'd do well to be ignorant about the circumstances around Michael Collins and I'd find it staggering to believe that you don't know enough about it to make an assessment.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.
Brilliant!!
"Different period", "I wasn't there"!!! It's your own history. If you are happy to pronounce that "all" IRA victims were innocent, then man up and answer the question, were Mick Collins' victims "all innocent"?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
Gerry Adams still maintains he wasnt in the IRA, I dont think he is in any danger of being thrown in jail now. So yes a coward.
Yes there is. There's no amnesty. Anyone who admits IRA membership and who has not already been charged for it, will be charged for it.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
As for your comments about Eugene Reaveys, I'm sure the families of Inam Bashir and John Jeffries would have something similar to say to Gerry Adams, after he refused to condemn the IRA for the Canary Wharf bombings.
Adams' refusal to condemn an IRA operation is the same as publically accusing the victims family, a day afterwards, of having murdered ten people, and thereby putting their life in immediate danger? Unless Adams stood in a parliament the day after Canary Wharf and accused a brother of Inam Bashir or John Jeffries of having murdered ten people, then you are seriously talking through your ass.
I didnt say I was ignorant surrounding the circumstances of Micheal Collins, I said I wasnt in a position to comment, I'll stand by that.
I'm not sure how that is typical of me either, or indeed how convienent it is for me.
I would also doubt that GA would go to jail, buts thats just my opinion
And yes I do consider those actions to be exactly the same, refusing to condemn the murdering of two innocent people in London is wrong. Paisley accusing someone "of having murdered ten people" is equally wrong, just a different type of wrong.
I'll leave it with this, you're trying to get say that one act is more wrong than another. They are both despicable acts but there are people on here who would have Paisley lynched and Adams made Pope. My argument is that they are similar characters from opposite sides of an argument
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 04:06:02 PM
I didnt say I was ignorant surrounding the circumstances of Micheal Collins, I said I wasnt in a position to comment, I'll stand by that.
And you call Adam's a coward, answer the question or stop talking through your hole.
Why the obsessive need for Shinners to compare Adams to Mandela, Michael Collins or anyone that ever got any credit for anything ever?
FGers don't proclaim their leader to be anything in particular, FFers aren't constantly promoting anyone as great, even Dev. Unionists, from where I sit, aren't particularly eulogising Paisley (Lawnseed accepted) and Tories rarely bang the drum regarding the greatness of Cameron.
So what is the deal with the Shinners desperate need to persuade people who either are indifferent to Adams, or who hate him, that they have it all wrong and he is in fact a Saint?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 04:06:02 PM
I didnt say I was ignorant surrounding the circumstances of Micheal Collins, I said I wasnt in a position to comment, I'll stand by that.
I'm not sure how that is typical of me either, or indeed how convienent it is for me.
I would also doubt that GA would go to jail, buts thats just my opinion
And yes I do consider those actions to be exactly the same, refusing to condemn the murdering of two innocent people in London is wrong. Paisley accusing someone "of having murdered ten people" is equally wrong, just a different type of wrong.
I'll leave it with this, you're trying to get say that one act is more wrong than another. They are both despicable acts but there are people on here who would have Paisley lynched and Adams made Pope. My argument is that they are similar characters from opposite sides of an argument
Ah now come on, don't cop out of commenting on history "because you weren't around". Did you use that excuse to stand outside the classroom door during history classes in school? When you sat down to do a history exam, did you answer every question with "I can't possibly comment as i wasn't around at the time"?! I assume you have some basic knowledge of your own country's history, so don't just yellow out. Tell us whether or not you believe Mick Collins' victims were "all innocent".
And seriously....Adams not admitting he was in the IRA is as equally bad as Paisley falsely accusing triple murder victims' brother as being a sectarian murder, the day after his brothers were shot dead? Sorry to keep repeating my shock here, but on what plane of fantasy do you have to live on to genuinely believe this? Given the fate of Pat Finucane after being wrongly named and accused in Westminster in the same way Eugene Reavey was, then who's life was put in immediate danger by Adams' denial of IRA membership?
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
Why the obsessive need for Shinners to compare Adams to Mandela, Michael Collins or anyone that ever got any credit for anything ever?
FGers don't proclaim their leader to be anything in particular, FFers aren't constantly promoting anyone as great, even Dev. Unionists, from where I sit, aren't particularly eulogising Paisley (Lawnseed accepted) and Tories rarely bang the drum regarding the greatness of Cameron.
So what is the deal with the Shinners desperate need to persuade people who either are indifferent to Adams, or who hate him, that they have it all wrong and he is in fact a Saint?
On a thread where we are told that "
all" IRA victims were innocent and that a denial of membership of an organisation is equally as bad as publically and wrongly accusing a man of mass sectarian murder the day after his three brothers were shot dead, all you have to take issue with is a seemingly uncomfortable reference to Mick Collins? Yeah, how dare Shinners question our dearly held, and desperately needed hypocrisy. Mick Collins,
he was the saint.
Quote from: hardstation on January 13, 2014, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
Why the obsessive need for Shinners to compare Adams to Mandela, Michael Collins or anyone that ever got any credit for anything ever?
FGers don't proclaim their leader to be anything in particular, FFers aren't constantly promoting anyone as great, even Dev. Unionists, from where I sit, aren't particularly eulogising Paisley (Lawnseed accepted) and Tories rarely bang the drum regarding the greatness of Cameron.
So what is the deal with the Shinners desperate need to persuade people who either are indifferent to Adams, or who hate him, that they have it all wrong and he is in fact a Saint?
Aren't they just highlighting hypocrisy?
So it is all about hypocrisy awareness? ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
Why the obsessive need for Shinners to compare Adams to Mandela, Michael Collins or anyone that ever got any credit for anything ever?
FGers don't proclaim their leader to be anything in particular, FFers aren't constantly promoting anyone as great, even Dev. Unionists, from where I sit, aren't particularly eulogising Paisley (Lawnseed accepted) and Tories rarely bang the drum regarding the greatness of Cameron.
So what is the deal with the Shinners desperate need to persuade people who either are indifferent to Adams, or who hate him, that they have it all wrong and he is in fact a Saint?
On a thread where we are told that "all" IRA victims were innocent and that a denial of membership of an organisation is equally as bad as publically and wrongly accusing a man of mass sectarian murder the day after his three brothers were shot dead, all you have to take issue with is a seemingly uncomfortable reference to Mick Collins? Yeah, how dare Shinners question our dearly held, and desperately needed hypocrisy. Mick Collins, he was the saint.
quote]
On a thread where we are told that "
all" IRA victims were innocent and that a denial of membership of an organisation is equally as bad as publically and wrongly accusing a man of mass sectarian murder the day after his three brothers were shot dead,
all you have to take issue with is a seemingly uncomfortable reference to Mick Collins? Yeah, how dare Shinners question our dearly held, and desperately needed hypocrisy. Mick Collins,
he was the saint.
[/quote]
Are you serious?
You and others here constantly compare Adams to Collins, presumably to validate his violent past, but this is a past he vehemently denies over and over again.
Collins died fighting his war, while Adams says he was never part of his war. Part of the misguided reverence for Collins is as a result of his dying young (see how Brian Lenihan gets off quite lightly for his disastrous ministry),but I'm afraid Gerry doesn't qualify as a beneficiary of the sympathy vote by virtue of his still being with us.
Finally the comparison with Collins assumes that he was and is unequivocally revered ("Mick Collins,
he was the saint") by all in the South. This is nonsense. He was still a killer.
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2014, 05:25:01 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
Why the obsessive need for Shinners to compare Adams to Mandela, Michael Collins or anyone that ever got any credit for anything ever?
FGers don't proclaim their leader to be anything in particular, FFers aren't constantly promoting anyone as great, even Dev. Unionists, from where I sit, aren't particularly eulogising Paisley (Lawnseed accepted) and Tories rarely bang the drum regarding the greatness of Cameron.
So what is the deal with the Shinners desperate need to persuade people who either are indifferent to Adams, or who hate him, that they have it all wrong and he is in fact a Saint?
On a thread where we are told that "all" IRA victims were innocent and that a denial of membership of an organisation is equally as bad as publically and wrongly accusing a man of mass sectarian murder the day after his three brothers were shot dead, all you have to take issue with is a seemingly uncomfortable reference to Mick Collins? Yeah, how dare Shinners question our dearly held, and desperately needed hypocrisy. Mick Collins, he was the saint.
quote]
On a thread where we are told that "all" IRA victims were innocent and that a denial of membership of an organisation is equally as bad as publically and wrongly accusing a man of mass sectarian murder the day after his three brothers were shot dead, all you have to take issue with is a seemingly uncomfortable reference to Mick Collins? Yeah, how dare Shinners question our dearly held, and desperately needed hypocrisy. Mick Collins, he was the saint.
Are you serious?
You and others here constantly compare Adams to Collins, presumably to validate his violent past, but this is a past he vehemently denies over and over again.
Collins died fighting his war, while Adams says he was never part of his war. Part of the misguided reverence for Collins is as a result of his dying young (see how Brian Lenihan gets off quite lightly for his disastrous ministry),but I'm afraid Gerry doesn't qualify as a beneficiary of the sympathy vote by virtue of his still being with us.
Finally the comparison with Collins assumes that he was and is unequivocally revered ("Mick Collins,
he was the saint") by all in the South. This is nonsense. He was still a killer.
[/quote]
Not all about comparisons between Adams & Collins. That's just a scaled down representation of the more common argument, i.e. were the IRA's at either end of the centuries both freedom fighters or both criminal gangs? As for as your idea that Collin's isn't revered in the south, I'd suggest that he is. You quite easily call him a killer, but do also you call him a criminal? And his organisation, a "Criminal gang"? Because I'd also suggest that while most people in the south who would recoil in horror at the very idea of calling men who fought for their freedom "criminals", most of the same people would trip over themselves to call the men who fought for my freedom, "criminals".
Strange how Paisley doesn't remember saying things against Catholics, The Pope etc, yet his mind is clear as a bell about other quotes.
After watching the show on BBC1 2night i say Ian paisley has alot to answer for, this motherfucker one of the biggest causes of the troubles and denys any responsibility for it, hell even the English coudlnt get rid of the bollocks!
He's a liar. Disappointed.
QuoteHe's a liar. Disappointed.
Enough about Mallie, what about Big Ian?
Only a matter of time before Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley both deny having even heard of one another
Only comfort we all have is that his son will not be able to fill his ole mans boots. Seen enough of this evil man. Lets get back to laughin at wuile and james.
Was poor enough and I turned it off and went to bed midway through. Like most of these type of politicians they should have been ignored by people, how thick do these people look now looking back at actions they carried out after he "called them to arms" many an ex UVF/UFF/UDA prisoner has said in the past that they wished they never heard of Paisley.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
I think Paisely and Gerry Adams are exactly the same just one opposite sides of an argument.
You avoided my question, care to answer it?
"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people during the Troubles up to 2001", so almost 2,000.
And yes I consider anyone that is murdered innocent
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accomodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes. I grew up through this, members of my family and my wife's family were ethnically cleansed as a consequence of the anti catholic vitriol that he used. It is dead easy for people from the South to blame evrything on the IRA, and I for one do not condone the taking of even one life. However the cesspit that was NI after partition bred the IRA and Paisley and others of his ilk stirred the pot. The gerrymandering, bias and inequlity that Paisley now condemns was exactly how he wanted Catholic's treated back then. "Catholics breed like rabbits and multuply like vermin" nice words from a "man of God".
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.
Gerry Adams still maintains he wasnt in the IRA, I dont think he is in any danger of being thrown in jail now. So yes a coward.
Courage of your convictions and all that.
As for your comments about Eugene Reaveys, I'm sure the families of Inam Bashir and John Jeffries would have something similar to say to Gerry Adams, after he refused to condemn the IRA for the Canary Wharf bombings.
Like I say, Adams and Paisley are peas from the same pod
Mayo either you are a WUM or you need to read up on the history of NI since partition, I recommend Bonfires on the Hillsides by the late James Kelly a respected journalist with the IT and IN.
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
Why the obsessive need for Shinners to compare Adams to Mandela, Michael Collins or anyone that ever got any credit for anything ever?
FGers don't proclaim their leader to be anything in particular, FFers aren't constantly promoting anyone as great, even Dev. Unionists, from where I sit, aren't particularly eulogising Paisley (Lawnseed accepted) and Tories rarely bang the drum regarding the greatness of Cameron.
So what is the deal with the Shinners desperate need to persuade people who either are indifferent to Adams, or who hate him, that they have it all wrong and he is in fact a Saint?
Adams, Collins and Mandela all with one thing in common...considered terrorists at some stage of their lives by the British. Now granted Adams is no Mandela but at least he did't sign away part of his country to the British abandoning his own people to a sectarian statlet.
Appleisapples, I'm not a WUM at all. You come across as someone who genuinely engages in an argument (as opposed to the "they're the worst shower ever" brigade on here)
My point is that there is another point of view from the one we get here, people who think that Gerry Adams is the equivalent of IP and that himself and MMcG led a terrorist organisation which killed innocent members of their political side. Which is true.
I dont think you can get into an argument over which is worse, just because one spoke statements like "Catholics breed like rabbits and multuply like vermin", in my mind not condemning the murdering of innocent victims, be they British soliders, Prodestants, Catholics or English, is exactly the same as what Paisley has said, it sends out the same message IMO
For what its worth I have a lot more time for MMcG, I even voted for him as President. I have more respect for people who recognise and admit to their past and move on, its the only way things move forward. There has to be a recognition that there were atrocities from both sides and an attempt to forgive and forget if there is to genuinely be a united Northern Ireland.
And yes I do realise that its easy for me to say having be brought up in a peaceful area with no harassment, bombs or police. I lived in Belfast for a couple of years and saw from the lads I played football with that bitterness. But whats the alternative? Hang onto it? Paisley is a relic and the kind of hatred you see here only continues his relevance when he should have none
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 14, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Appleisapples, I'm not a WUM at all. You come across as someone who genuinely engages in an argument...
Coming from someone who says this?...
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 03:28:23 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
So you dont think Gerry Adams is a coward for not admitting he played a leading role in an organisation that killed almost 2,000 (innocent) people?
Were Mick Collins' victims innocent?
Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.
:o
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 14, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Appleisapples, I'm not a WUM at all. You come across as someone who genuinely engages in an argument (as opposed to the "they're the worst shower ever" brigade on here)
My point is that there is another point of view from the one we get here, people who think that Gerry Adams is the equivalent of IP and that himself and MMcG led a terrorist organisation which killed innocent members of their political side. Which is true.
I dont think you can get into an argument over which is worse, just because one spoke statements like "Catholics breed like rabbits and multuply like vermin", in my mind not condemning the murdering of innocent victims, be they British soliders, Prodestants, Catholics or English, is exactly the same as what Paisley has said, it sends out the same message IMO
For what its worth I have a lot more time for MMcG, I even voted for him as President. I have more respect for people who recognise and admit to their past and move on, its the only way things move forward. There has to be a recognition that there were atrocities from both sides and an attempt to forgive and forget if there is to genuinely be a united Northern Ireland.
And yes I do realise that its easy for me to say having be brought up in a peaceful area with no harassment, bombs or police. I lived in Belfast for a couple of years and saw from the lads I played football with that bitterness. But whats the alternative? Hang onto it? Paisley is a relic and the kind of hatred you see here only continues his relevance when he should have none
A couple of things, firstly I don't like Gerry Adams, I can't put my finger on it but he annoys me. That said he and McGuinness could only have brought us to where we are today by working from within, trying to reach accommodation. At no stage has anyone in the Republican movement condoned or encouraged the denial of housing, voting rights or their basic identity either British or Irish to a fellow citizen. Furthermore both and the Republican movement at large at no stage washed their hands of responsibility for their action in the way that Paisley continues to. Neither has any SF leader spout the vitriolic anti catholic sectarian bile that has come from Paisley. So therefore there is no equivalence. I would sy to you and other of our southern fellow countrymen. Read Kelly's book or Tim Pat Coogan's "The Troubles" then come back and argue from an informed position.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 02:35:06 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on January 12, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
SThe way I see it is.. Had the nationalist/republicans had a leader of half the charisma of ian paisley our aims would be alot closer than they are today. As for the 26 the only politician who could match paisley is carson theres been nothing there but a shower of mealy mouthed self serving traitors who are only notable by the amount of nepotism and nest feathering they managed to pull off before they were swapped for somebody equally as useless. Paisley for all his faults IS the greatest LEADER nobody even in the same league.
John hume.. Not a patch.. Gerry nah.. Gimp kenny? Dont even mention him .. A clown!
This word is thrown about a lot, Brian Lenihan was called one for the bank guarantee. I'd be no fan but to call someone a traitor is probably the greatest insult you can give an Irishman.
The definition of a traitor is:
a person who is not loyal to his or her own country : a person who betrays a country by helping or supporting an enemy
Unless you've some evidence to back this up maybe you should stop critising people who have given a lot more to their country than some loudmouth keyboard warrior?
As far as I'd be concerned, any Irishman who calls him/herself a republican but doesn't care about the partition of his/her country is worse than a traitor.
what would you call a shower who sold their countrymen down the line for a state pension or a brown envelope or went back on election promises.. traitors as well.. or a priest who buggers a kid is he not a traitor as well hes betrayed trust. paisley had a lot of things right
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accomodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
Next week's show should be a good one - i'm sure Robinson isn't looking forward to it - doesn't seem to be any love lost there any more.
It will be interesting to see whether the book (apparently in the pipeline) addresses some of the things missing from the televised interview - for example, what Paisley said about the Reavey family. 40 hours of interviews down to 2 hours of TV - would have been a difficult enough one to edit.
I see the DUP released statement saying not to red to much into a documentary which only picked up on bits and pieces. However their closing line that Dr Paisley always told them to keep things within the party is a bit of a parting shot to the 'Big Man'
I wonder what some of the Protestants / loyalists who threw the snowballs that he made so to speak think of these comments 30 to 40 years later? Would they feel duped?
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 14, 2014, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 14, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Appleisapples, I'm not a WUM at all. You come across as someone who genuinely engages in an argument...
Coming from someone who says this?...
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 13, 2014, 03:28:23 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 13, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
So you dont think Gerry Adams is a coward for not admitting he played a leading role in an organisation that killed almost 2,000 (innocent) people?
Were Mick Collins' victims innocent?
Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.
:o
He must be constructing some reply!
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accomodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
The difference is simple.. Ian paisley = brilliant politician who enjoyed the support of thousands and the support of a world superpower..
Gerry Adams = decent bloke who took an interest in politics and found himself as the face of republican movement.. With minuscule political muscel no funds, jailed and up against that same world superpower and all its dirty tricks. Not to mention paisley and his lot or various treacherous 'freestatus quo' governments who banned him from the media. Emmm.. Maybe Ger didn't do too bad?
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Well said.
Quote from: magpie seanie on January 15, 2014, 04:01:04 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Well said.
A bit of sense at last.
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.
Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 15, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.
Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.
I'd echo that, to credit the provos with the "relaxation of discriminatory policies" is something similar to crediting the success of the American civil rights movement solely to the action of the Black Panthers.
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 15, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.
Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.
It's not deluded to state that Adams and McGuinness tried to end the conflict and move things on. They participated in serious talks with the british government from the end of the 1980's. I presume the talks were about ending the conflict and the talks continued in earnest.
Around the same time, can you recall any positive statement from Paisley about ending the conflict? or is it more correct to state that most ALL of his actions and words were divisive and about continuing the conflict.
Quote from: trileacman on January 15, 2014, 08:18:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 15, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.
Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.
I'd echo that, to credit the provos with the "relaxation of discriminatory policies" is something similar to crediting the success of the American civil rights movement solely to the action of the Black Panthers.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong but the only time the British engaged was when bombs were going off in England. You only have to look at their attitude towards the recent talks. They couldn't care less.
My recollections of the peace process was of Adams & co inside talking whilst big Ian led a mob up to stormont.
Quote from: reddgnhand on January 16, 2014, 01:21:28 AM
Quote from: trileacman on January 15, 2014, 08:18:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 15, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.
Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.
I'd echo that, to credit the provos with the "relaxation of discriminatory policies" is something similar to crediting the success of the American civil rights movement solely to the action of the Black Panthers.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong but the only time the British engaged was when bombs were going off in England. You only have to look at their attitude towards the recent talks. They couldn't care less.
My recollections of the peace process was of Adams & co inside talking whilst big Ian led a mob up to stormont.
yes yes and yes the London bombs really hurt the brits. the thought of the same shite going on in the big cities of England put the shit sideways in the british public.
just like castlederg put the shit sideways in the marching orders of nordie land. the thoughts of thousand of republicans gathering to march around banging drums and mimicking the orange order all over the six counties especially with 2016 on the way is something they just cant handle.
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
This is generally correct but I would have a couple of issues.
I don't think people in the South are painting the troubles as exclusively 'being the fault of the IRA & SF'. Even the most biased or stupid down here would see the IRA's re-emergence as reactionary and could empathise to a certain extent with why it happened. Everyone has their limit.
As for those 'who laud Dev & Collins' & yet denigrate Northern Republicans: Dev & Collins were neither lauded nor thanked for their activities at the time. They were probably less popular with the wider Irish public in 1916 than the IRA is now. Comparing, on one hand hand, how history judges one set of revolutionaries with, on the other hand, how peers judge another set of revolutionaries is misleading. For example, if Collins was responsible for a Warrington equivalent, we wouldn't hear much about it nowadays but it would have been big news then.
History may judge them all similarly down the tracks, but then at least that would be a fair comparison.
DUP coming out to slam Paisley tonight before screening of second part of the documentary.
The Punt - "Rather than return insult for insult, let me bless him with the mercy of my silence and wish him well."
Apparently Paisley tells Mallie, "No matter about Robinson, I still have a wife and she loves me".
I wonder what this is in reference to...
its like the old joke about someone meeting Mrs Paisley coming out of the dentist
"How's the mouth"
"He's at home having his tea"
Quote from: ziggysego on January 20, 2014, 12:19:57 AM
Apparently Paisley tells Mallie, "No matter about Robinson, I still have a wife and she loves me".
I wonder what this is in reference to...
Dirty one by Paisley.
He's not so slow. He's 80 something and his ability to insult remains undiminished.
But fair play to Paisley for not lying down to the Punt ( this could have been another word ).
Quote from: muppet on January 18, 2014, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 14, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 14, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.
Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.
There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.
I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.
This is generally correct but I would have a couple of issues.
I don't think people in the South are painting the troubles as exclusively 'being the fault of the IRA & SF'. Even the most biased or stupid down here would see the IRA's re-emergence as reactionary and could empathise to a certain extent with why it happened. Everyone has their limit.
As for those 'who laud Dev & Collins' & yet denigrate Northern Republicans: Dev & Collins were neither lauded nor thanked for their activities at the time. They were probably less popular with the wider Irish public in 1916 than the IRA is now. Comparing, on one hand hand, how history judges one set of revolutionaries with, on the other hand, how peers judge another set of revolutionaries is misleading. For example, if Collins was responsible for a Warrington equivalent, we wouldn't hear much about it nowadays but it would have been big news then.
History may judge them all similarly down the tracks, but then at least that would be a fair comparison.
To be clear I'm speaking about current politicians, north and south when I refer to those who laud Dev and Collins.
Looks set to be an entertaining watch tonight!
Who do you believe, Paisley or the DUP?
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 07:21:34 PM
Looks set to be an entertaining watch tonight!
Who do you believe, Paisley or the DUP?
Paisley
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 07:21:34 PM
Looks set to be an entertaining watch tonight!
Who do you believe, Paisley or the DUP?
I'd take whatever Iris has to say.
She's one woman I'd love to have a long chat with. She could tell some stories I reckon.
Quote from: orangeman on January 20, 2014, 07:34:52 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 07:21:34 PM
Looks set to be an entertaining watch tonight!
Who do you believe, Paisley or the DUP?
I'd take whatever Iris has to say.
She's one woman I'd love to have a long chat with. She could tell some stories I reckon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUF4e-YRXno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUF4e-YRXno)
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 07:21:34 PM
Looks set to be an entertaining watch tonight!
Who do you believe, Paisley or the DUP?
We ve waiting all week for this then it's plastered all over the papers and radio today.
Why did they not just keep us waiting? Sure we know already what's going to be said.
We ve heard all the juicy stuff!
Quote from: Gaffer on January 20, 2014, 08:49:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 07:21:34 PM
Looks set to be an entertaining watch tonight!
Who do you believe, Paisley or the DUP?
We ve waiting all week for this then it's plastered all over the papers and radio today.
Why did they not just keep us waiting? Sure we know already what's going to be said.
We ve heard all the juicy stuff!
I agree - they've had too much of a preview for both shows.
All this talk about him, thought he had passed on.
Quote from: pullhard on January 20, 2014, 09:03:19 PM
All this talk about him, thought he had passed on.
That's Hayley from Corrie you re thinking about!
I wonder what the repercussions will be over with regards to Ian Junior within the party. What stance will he take?
Would love to see Willie McCrea getting a touch. Lol
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on January 20, 2014, 09:24:00 PM
I wonder what the repercussions will be over with regards to Ian Junior within the party. What stance will he take?
Would think he will not get selected in 2015 might stand as an independent and with the TUV standing as well,split the vote and let the Shinners take North Antrim :P :P
They were very hard on poor Paisley. Having lead a band of bigots for years, when he decided to do his bit for history they kept on being bigots rather than seeing his genius.
Quote from: glens abu on January 20, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on January 20, 2014, 09:24:00 PM
I wonder what the repercussions will be over with regards to Ian Junior within the party. What stance will he take?
Would think he will not get selected in 2015 might stand as an independent and with the TUV standing as well,split the vote and let the Shinners take North Antrim :P :P
That would be amusing. But I think he may jump before being pushed. Independent? UKIP?
Hasn,t changed my views on the man. May he rot in hell.
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 11:49:45 PM
Quote from: glens abu on January 20, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on January 20, 2014, 09:24:00 PM
I wonder what the repercussions will be over with regards to Ian Junior within the party. What stance will he take?
Would think he will not get selected in 2015 might stand as an independent and with the TUV standing as well,split the vote and let the Shinners take North Antrim :P :P
That would be amusing. But I think he may jump before being pushed. Independent? UKIP?
Whatever makes most financial sense.
Quote from: Gaffer on January 20, 2014, 09:34:50 PM
Would love to see Willie McCrea getting a touch. Lol
What sort of a touch ? Berry touch ?
Quote from: orangeman on January 21, 2014, 12:56:00 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on January 20, 2014, 09:34:50 PM
Would love to see Willie McCrea getting a touch. Lol
What sort of a touch ? Berry touch ?
A sports massage they tell me..
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 20, 2014, 11:49:45 PM
Quote from: glens abu on January 20, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on January 20, 2014, 09:24:00 PM
I wonder what the repercussions will be over with regards to Ian Junior within the party. What stance will he take?
Would think he will not get selected in 2015 might stand as an independent and with the TUV standing as well,split the vote and let the Shinners take North Antrim :P :P
That would be amusing. But I think he may jump before being pushed. Independent? UKIP?
and in my case praying.
Paisley spent a life time preaching sectarian hatred and has brain washed those all around him into believing that having anything to do with Catholics was wrong. He reaped what he had sown when he did the deal with Sinn Fein, those that he had brain washed now saw him as the lundy. Hi friend Boal disowned him, the Free P's unseated him, the DUP got shot of him and the worst of the lot his local church Martyr Memorial where he preached for 65 years wanted rid of him. Interesting that he described the atmosphere in Martyr memorial on the night he was deposed as sectarian. That sectarian atmosphere didn't appear out of the blue, that was his own brainwashing of people coming back to bit him.
The fall out from this could be interesting. Ian Junior's position is one element. Also Robo/Dodds seem keen to leave it that Paisley is doting in old age and they have the correct version of events, I hope the media keep probing on this and we get to see who is telling the truth here. Hopefully a lot more dirty linen to be washed before this is all over.
Quote from: amallon on January 21, 2014, 09:52:43 AM
Paisley spent a life time preaching sectarian hatred and has brain washed those all around him into believing that having anything to do with Catholics was wrong. He reaped what he had sown when he did the deal with Sinn Fein, those that he had brain washed now saw him as the lundy. Hi friend Boal disowned him, the Free P's unseated him, the DUP got shot of him and the worst of the lot his local church Martyr Memorial where he preached for 65 years wanted rid of him. Interesting that he described the atmosphere in Martyr memorial on the night he was deposed as sectarian. That sectarian atmosphere didn't appear out of the blue, that was his own brainwashing of people coming back to bit him.
The fall out from this could be interesting. Ian Junior's position is one element. Also Robo/Dodds seem keen to leave it that Paisley is doting in old age and they have the correct version of events, I hope the media keep probing on this and we get to see who is telling the truth here. Hopefully a lot more dirty linen to be washed before this is all over.
There'll be a few of them hoping that he leaves shortly and save further embarassment and more revelations.
Interesting that he said that he still has a wife who loves him.
Big Ian won't be lying down but he has plenty of skeletons in his own cupboard and it will be a matter now of keeping as many of them in their respective closets as is possible.
I only managed to catch a snippet of it last night as seriously couldnt stand much more of it from either Mallie or Paisley, but one line from the wife I found genuinely interesting. It was the part where the DUP ones were uncomfortable with the relationship of IP and SF espeically Martin McGuiness, which she described as a friendship? Surely not?
Quote from: johnneycool on January 21, 2014, 08:51:43 AM
Quote from: orangeman on January 21, 2014, 12:56:00 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on January 20, 2014, 09:34:50 PM
Would love to see Willie McCrea getting a touch. Lol
What sort of a touch ? Berry touch ?
A sports massage they tell me..
Is that not the
alleged subject of a super-injunction?
There was a particular clip from a few years back of our current finance minister standing behind paisley. It's fair to say the same boy has been smartened up and polished up quite significantly from the gum chewing, heavy weight 'minder' he seems to have been back then.
Quote from: amallon on January 21, 2014, 09:52:43 AM
Paisley spent a life time preaching sectarian hatred and has brain washed those all around him into believing that having anything to do with Catholics was wrong. He reaped what he had sown when he did the deal with Sinn Fein, those that he had brain washed now saw him as the lundy. His friend Boal disowned him, the Free P's unseated him, the DUP got shot of him and the worst of the lot his local church Martyr Memorial where he preached for 65 years wanted rid of him. Interesting that he described the atmosphere in Martyr memorial on the night he was deposed as sectarian. That sectarian atmosphere didn't appear out of the blue, that was his own brainwashing of people coming back to bit him.
The fall out from this could be interesting. Ian Junior's position is one element. Also Robo/Dodds seem keen to leave it that Paisley is doting in old age and they have the correct version of events, I hope the media keep probing on this and we get to see who is telling the truth here. Hopefully a lot more dirty linen to be washed before this is all over.
Is that the same man who is now running into planning issues around car parking for the City air-port at IKEA?
Quote from: Aristo 60 on January 21, 2014, 12:46:46 PM
There was a particular clip from a few years back of our current finance minister standing behind paisley. It's fair to say the same boy has been smartened up and polished up quite significantly from the gum chewing, heavy weight 'minder' he seems to have been back then.
There was no mention of our previous finance minister. He seems to be waiting to see what way the wind blows.
Some interesting stuff here from Paisley's biographer:
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/comment-paisley-revelations-have-roots-in-2007-interview-1-5821304#.Ut5DyPA__0g.twitter
Quote from: NAG1 on January 21, 2014, 12:33:18 PM
I only managed to catch a snippet of it last night as seriously couldnt stand much more of it from either Mallie or Paisley, but one line from the wife I found genuinely interesting. It was the part where the DUP ones were uncomfortable with the relationship of IP and SF espeically Martin McGuiness, which she described as a friendship? Surely not?
I remember McGuinness describing him as a good or true friend.
Caught a bit of the Nolan show last night and I was amazed at how Nolan and a few were surprised at the vitriol and hatred in Paisley and his wife in their attacks on Peter Robinson.
Why would they be surprised as his tongue has been coming out of similar over the decades but was mostly directed at papists and not his own creed?? Maybe that was the difference!
At least Eamon McCann put him in perspective as someone who kept the troubles going for almost 20 years more than it should have by undermining any unionist leader who showed the slightest modicum of respect for their nationalist neighbours..
He was no leader, he didn't lead from the front, made the balls for the loyalist masses to throw and get sucked in, whilst disowning them when it suited also pointed out by Jim the 'community worker'.
QuoteWhy would they be surprised as his tongue has been coming out of similar over the decades but was mostly directed at papists and not his own creed?? Maybe that was the difference!
Terence O'Neill, Brian Faulkner or even David Trimble would not have been surprised that Paisley would lash out if you opposed him. Paisley found a party and a church as vehicles for his projects and he was always going to be forthright in criticising those who took these away from him.
Is there anywhere online where we can watch these interviews?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 23, 2014, 05:45:11 PM
Is there anywhere online where we can watch these interviews?
Part One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xNHqJB6vI)
I'm sure Part Two will be added to this account before long.
It was weird watching him neither confirm or deny various vitriolic statements he was reported as having made. Those pre-camera phone days and pre-youtube days must have given the bigot great freedom to speak freely to whatever audience he had in front of him.
Is he suffering from Political Alzheimer's? He was a vile bigot who did more than anyone to drive a wedge between workingclass Protestants and Catholics. He's now for "one man, one vote"? A little shift from his actions during the Armagh Civil Rights March where his blackthorn-wielding minions were more inclined to believe in "one man, one thump."
He personified hatred and terror in my childhood.
lovely to see how hurt his is and bitter from his own stabbing him in the back.
his political party, the church he made up - his former friends and allies
his current 'friends' are mostly his former arch enemies!!
he is reaping what he sowed.
comments very unbecomming (by paisley and his wife) from 'good christian people' - when discussing robinson , his missus and sundry !
glossing over history like he was mother theresa and not the warmongering apatheid aping neanderthal sly oul bustard he was (and still is but is hiding it better these days).
he wanted power, he wanted to keep th prod/loyalist/unionists in power.
he wanted to keep the catholic/nationalist/Irish/republicans trampled down and was indignant when they started to cry foul (and fight back - politically, peacefully then militarily)
im not paying much atention to the programmes but ive heard no mention of his 'militia' the 3rd reaction force, brandishing their guns on mount slemish (if I recall correctly)
a bad oul bustard he was.
but the media while never portraying him as a saint, certainly depicted him in a better light than the John humes and Seamus mallons (until nearer the GFA) let alone how the media portrayed republican spokespeople and then SF.
good enough for paisley. hope he continues to agonise for a while yet, and his continued existence remain a thorn in the side of unionism/loyalism/oo and all that gang - as they are all one and he same.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 24, 2014, 03:52:59 PM
lovely to see how hurt his is and bitter from his own stabbing him in the back.
his political party, the church he made up - his former friends and allies
his current 'friends' are mostly his former arch enemies!!
he is reaping what he sowed.
comments very unbecomming (by paisley and his wife) from 'good christian people' - when discussing robinson , his missus and sundry !
glossing over history like he was mother theresa and not the warmongering apatheid aping neanderthal sly oul bustard he was (and still is but is hiding it better these days).
he wanted power, he wanted to keep th prod/loyalist/unionists in power.
he wanted to keep the catholic/nationalist/Irish/republicans trampled down and was indignant when they started to cry foul (and fight back - politically, peacefully then militarily)
im not paying much atention to the programmes but ive heard no mention of his 'militia' the 3rd reaction force, brandishing their guns on mount slemish (if I recall correctly)
a bad oul bustard he was.
but the media while never portraying him as a saint, certainly depicted him in a better light than the John humes and Seamus mallons (until nearer the GFA) let alone how the media portrayed republican spokespeople and then SF.
good enough for paisley. hope he continues to agonise for a while yet, and his continued existence remain a thorn in the side of unionism/loyalism/oo and all that gang - as they are all one and he same.
here here
Lynchboy,did you like him? :)
Best recruiting sergeant ever for both loyalist and republicans.
He has clearly got bad news and or realises he's not far from the brown box and is trying to prepare a way for The Lord and make peace.
He'd have done anything and said anything without even considering the consequences.
His hands and mind are blood covered.
No and I mean NO amount of backtracking, weasel words will save him from the very hot environment that awaits him.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 23, 2014, 05:45:11 PM
Is there anywhere online where we can watch these interviews?
BBC Iplayer regional NI
I love to see the Shinners who would claim redemption for ex-combatants, refuse to give Paisley any credit for his role in the latter stages of the peace process or being an ex-combatant himself. Distasteful and vile as his previous self was, it appears to me like Adams and McGuiness he needed to bring that element with him. It would appear though not to successfully.
Documentary on now on BBC...he was one bad oul bastard
Quote from: theskull1 on September 22, 2014, 09:37:14 PM
Documentary on now on BBC...he was one bad oul b**tard
f**k him, he's gone and I've seen enough of him.