Saw this on another forum. Is this fella mentally unstable??
Apparently he is organising busloads to go down to Dublin to see the Queen.
She's not making any official appearance to the general public as far as I know, so I don't know where they plan to see her.
He is obviously trying to stir up trouble. This guy should be sectioned or charged with incitement.
QuoteA report by Sean Murphy in todays Daily Star states that Unionist Leader(since when did he become a Leader)Willie Frazer said that tension surrounding the visit should not be used as an excuse to exclude them,he said a ban would result in protests and fresh violence."Heaven forbid anyone would attack her",if we were banned we would protest,the road to Dublin would be blocked".He also stated "We dont want trouble,but she is our head of State and her Citizens(Subjects Willie Loyal Subjects)should not be stopped from seeing her."If Protestants are told they cant go to Dublin,it would only provoke them to go down for trouble-and that would spark major riots".
Quote from: Tubberman on May 12, 2011, 12:30:14 PM
Saw this on another forum. Is this fella mentally unstable??
Apparently he is organising busloads to go down to Dublin to see the Queen.
She's not making any official appearance to the general public as far as I know, so I don't know where they plan to see her.
He is obviously trying to stir up trouble. This guy should be sectioned or charged with incitement.
QuoteA report by Sean Murphy in todays Daily Star states that Unionist Leader(since when did he become a Leader)Willie Frazer said that tension surrounding the visit should not be used as an excuse to exclude them,he said a ban would result in protests and fresh violence."Heaven forbid anyone would attack her",if we were banned we would protest,the road to Dublin would be blocked".He also stated "We dont want trouble,but she is our head of State and her Citizens(Subjects Willie Loyal Subjects)should not be stopped from seeing her."If Protestants are told they cant go to Dublin,it would only provoke them to go down for trouble-and that would spark major riots".
On the basis of that quote, Willie should be arrested and questioned in relation to Incitement to relicious hatred and incitement to violence. There would a viable case against the wee twat and it would be nice to see him squirm. Though it would give him another drum to bang but f**k it I'd love to see him getting his comeuppance. He and Rita could then chat over coffee how hard done by they are!
The good people of Dundalk will I'm sure give him a nice welcome as usual ! ;)
He obviously doesnt recognise the Border ::)
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 12:37:09 PMOn the basis of that quote, Willie should be arrested and questioned in relation to Incitement to relicious hatred and incitement to violence. There would a viable case against the wee t**t and it would be nice to see him squirm. Though it would give him another drum to bang but f**k it I'd love to see him getting his comeuppance. He and Rita could then chat over coffee how hard done by they are!
Why give him the platform he so clearly craves?
For if he were arrested and charged etc, his first "defence" would be to question why eg this shower are allowed to demonstrate with complete impugnity:
(http://img.u.tv/galleries/777/290x160/Easter%20Rising%20commemorations.jpg)
In the statement, the Real IRA describes Catholic members of the PSNI as "traitors".
"Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such," the statement says.
"The GAA, Catholic Church and constitutional nationalism will be unable to protect those who turn traitor.
"They are as liable for execution as anyone, regardless of their religion, cultural background or motivation".http://www.u.tv/news/RIRA-threatens-to-execute-officers/67c93213-673e-49d1-90d7-61c57c778215
And when you compare the danger posed by his bluster with that posed by their bombs and bullets etc, he'd have a point.
Frazer's clearly got "issues", but whether you sympathise with his mental state, or scorn him for his stirring etc, he's best ignored.
But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout, But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
For if he were arrested and charged etc, his first "defence" would be to question why eg this shower are allowed to demonstrate with complete impugnity:
(http://img.u.tv/galleries/777/290x160/Easter%20Rising%20commemorations.jpg)
WTF?! Do you mean that they never cease with the obloquy? :D
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:04:21 PM
But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout, But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,
Has anyone actually said he can't come down to look at the English Queer?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:04:21 PM
But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout, But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,
For someone who uses the phrase so emphatically, it's ironic you don't understand what "whataboutery" actually means.
"Whataboutery" is where someone tries to defend their wrongdoing, even claim that it is not wrong at all, on the basis that someone else did something worse.
If you had either the intelligence to comprehend, or the patience to read properly, what I actually posted, you would see that I was not trying to defend Frazer for what he is reported as saying.
Rather, I was giving my opinion on how best to respond. Clearly the guy has issues, which cause him to want to be in the papers etc every day. He's normally unsuccessful, since people either ignore him or laugh at him. As an instance, he has stood for election in the past and been embarrassed at how few votes he got.
However, if you were to arrest him over this statement and he ended up fined and bound over etc, he would question (legitimately, imo) why he was being arrested for issuing an idiotic Press Release, whilst those who murder PSNI officers are allowed to parade openly in paramilitary uniform and reiterate their threat to murder, without any action.
And since he (Frazer) would for once have a point, consequently others might then begin to give him the audience and credence he so desperately craves.
Unless, of course, you believe that the PSNI and Gardai haven't better things to be doing than wasting time on that prat... ::)
Willie should be fired out of a canon and lauched directly into Queen Elizibeths hotel room to great her on her return. (well thats what I'd tell him when I am pushing his head into the canon!)
Evil Genius
Its ironic that its wildly accepted the reason the PSNI didnt intervene in the idiotic raindance that took place in Derry was because the PSNI did not want to publicise their so called legitmacy and maybe win them over a few more sympathisers.
No more than Willie they need about as much publicity as a dwarf porn film.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 12, 2011, 01:05:54 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
For if he were arrested and charged etc, his first "defence" would be to question why eg this shower are allowed to demonstrate with complete impugnity:
(http://img.u.tv/galleries/777/290x160/Easter%20Rising%20commemorations.jpg)
WTF?! Do you mean that they never cease with the obloquy? :D
OK, drop the stray "g" and you'll see what I meant (though you doubtless did, anyhow).
Any comment on the topic of Frazer and his ranting?
No?
Oh well, you enjoy your little "victory" anyhow.
Twagt.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
"Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such," the statement says.
Someone arrest this man, he's in the Real IRA!
(http://img.rasset.ie/00008b3e10D.jpg)
Quote from: Ulick on May 12, 2011, 01:13:38 PM
Has anyone actually said he can't come down to look at the English Queer?
No, but he's getting his outrage in early, just in case....
Quote from: deiseach on May 12, 2011, 01:37:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
"Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such," the statement says.
Someone arrest this man, he's in the Real IRA!
(http://img.rasset.ie/00008b3e10D.jpg)
:D :D Took me a few seconds!
EG maybe you are right that Wee Willie is best ignored, the only problem is he gets air time and he is a hate filled, scaremongerer who has a lot of loose cannons. It would do no harm for him to be hauled in and put through the ringer because what he is spouting repeatedly is bordering on the illegal. There was no necessity for you to go to the bother of cutting and pasting pictures and postings about other idiots. And anyway where the f**k did the idea of a definition of "whataboutery" come into it. That sort of shite is the reason people can't move on and every action defended by someone like you, or Willie by saying well themmuns do it perpetuates the problem ad finitum hence my repetition of the words. Get over it and stop looking for a fight that isn't there. ::)
Hes a loon and a liability. In an ideal world hed be ignored, but it isnt ideal and some people will be lauding him for "telling it like it is". We saw the sorts that he has attracted before.
Im sure the queen will be awful disappointed if she missed meating him.
Quote from: nifan on May 12, 2011, 01:50:43 PM
Hes a loon and a liability. In an ideal world hed be ignored, but it isnt ideal and some people will be lauding him for "telling it like it is". We saw the sorts that he has attracted before.
Im sure the queen will be awful disappointed if she missed meating him.
Please tell me that is a misspelling of "meeting"? Or is that what they call it these days?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:44:40 PM
EG maybe you are right that Wee Willie is best ignored, the only problem is he gets air time and he is a hate filled, scaremongerer who has a lot of loose cannons. It would do no harm for him to be hauled in and put through the ringer because what he is spouting repeatedly is bordering on the illegal. There was no necessity for you to go to the bother of cutting and pasting pictures and postings about other idiots.
It's quite simple. If you ignore the likes of Frazer, they eventually go away. Would you suggest we take the same approach towards eg the Real IRA?
Which was only the point I was making.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:44:40 PMAnd anyway where the f**k did the idea of a definition of "whataboutery" come into it. That sort of shite is the reason people can't move on and every action defended by someone like you, or Willie by saying well themmuns do it perpetuates the problem ad finitum hence my repetition of the words.
As for "whataboutery", it was
you who introduced the concept, in order to attack me/my post. I merely pointed out that you don't even understand the term. Sadly, it appears you
still don't.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:44:40 PMGet over it and stop looking for a fight that isn't there. ::)
Actually, it is
Frazer who is "looking for a fight that isn't there"
If you could get over your habitual tendancy to attack the messenger, and instead actually address the message, you'd see I'm actually suggesting we don't give him one.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:44:40 PM
EG maybe you are right that Wee Willie is best ignored, the only problem is he gets air time and he is a hate filled, scaremongerer who has a lot of loose cannons. It would do no harm for him to be hauled in and put through the ringer because what he is spouting repeatedly is bordering on the illegal. There was no necessity for you to go to the bother of cutting and pasting pictures and postings about other idiots.
It's quite simple. If you ignore the likes of Frazer, they eventually go away. Would you suggest we take the same approach towards eg the Real IRA?
Which was only the point I was making.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:44:40 PMAnd anyway where the f**k did the idea of a definition of "whataboutery" come into it. That sort of shite is the reason people can't move on and every action defended by someone like you, or Willie by saying well themmuns do it perpetuates the problem ad finitum hence my repetition of the words.
As for "whataboutery", it was you who introduced the concept, in order to attack me/my post. I merely pointed out that you don't even understand the term. Sadly, it appears you still don't.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:44:40 PMGet over it and stop looking for a fight that isn't there. ::)
Actually, it is Frazer who is "looking for a fight that isn't there"
If you could get over your habitual tendancy to attack the messenger, and instead actually address the message, you'd see I'm actually suggesting we don't give him one.
Not sure you'd get any takers though regardless.
I'll not be standing in his way if he wants to go see Queen Elizabeth II of England. I hope he gets a front row seat as hopefully there'll not be too many Irish men and women in front of him.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:18:32 PM
"Whataboutery" is where someone tries to defend their (or someone else's) wrongdoing, even claim that it is not wrong at all, on the basis that someone else did something worse.
Which is
exactly what you did above, albeit in a rather circuitous way (claiming that
Frazer might say... yeah, right).
Yep, I couldn't be arsed commenting on the wee bollix's latest lunatic ravings, but you do present such an irresistible target most times you post! ;D
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2011, 01:04:21 PM
But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout, But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,But whatabout, but whatabout, but whatabout,
indeed it is - but did you expect anything else from that source !
the usual whataboutery and lond winded nothingness !
Let him down to meet the queen and blow the two of them up together.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 12, 2011, 01:22:32 PM
Willie should be fired out of a canon and lauched directly into Queen Elizibeths hotel room to great her on her return. (well thats what I'd tell him when I am pushing his head into the canon!)
Myles, in light of the sex scandals that have engulfed the Catholic Church in recent years, I don't think you should be encouraging such shocking practices involving members of the priesthood and vile little loyalist bigots :D
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 12, 2011, 04:16:23 PM
Let him down to meet the queen and blow the two of them up together.
LOLZ!!!! Good one, that one there.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 12, 2011, 02:50:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:18:32 PM
"Whataboutery" is where someone tries to defend their (or someone else's) wrongdoing, even claim that it is not wrong at all, on the basis that someone else did something worse.
Which is exactly what you did above, albeit in a rather circuitous way (claiming that Frazer might say... yeah, right).
Here is the sequence:
1. Frazer "goes off on one" (via a Press Release to a newspaper etc);
2. Broken Crossbar states he should be arrested etc;
3. I point out that doing so would (a ) be a waste of time/resources, (b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc; and (c ) would give a spurious "credibility" to Frazer's agenda;
4. On that basis, I formed the opinion he should not be arrested.
In other words, I was contesting Broken Crossbar's original point about the need to arrest him etc.
How does any of that constitute defending what Frazer originally said?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 07:35:29 PM
(b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc
How do they go unchallenged? The perpetrators haven't been caught which is hardly unchallenged. That's a bit of a slight on the PSNI there.
It is hardly a skewed sense of priorities when they arrest someone for breaking the law - do you expect that they down tools and don't arrest anyone for any crime until the real IRA are caught?
Poor poor post with little rationale except to just try and mention other "side" wrongdoings to try and get some cheap digs in.
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 12, 2011, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 07:35:29 PM
(b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc
How do they go unchallenged? The perpetrators haven't been caught which is hardly unchallenged. That's a bit of a slight on the PSNI there.
I was referring to the recent "Commemoration" in Derry, where the Real IRA were able to stage a paramilitary display without being challenged by the Security Forces, that's how.
And unless they (PSNI) were instructed to take no action by the Secretary of State (or someone), which is always a possibility, then I consider that to be a dereliction* of duty by them.
And such dereliction would be further heightened were they to arrest gombeens like Frazer for his latest rant, as Broken Crossbar advocates.
* - Or were you not disturbed, even outraged, at the sight of vermin like the Real IRA being able to publicly threaten more murders like that of Const. Kerr?
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 12, 2011, 07:49:51 PM
It is hardly a skewed sense of priorities when they arrest someone for breaking the law - do you expect that they down tools and don't arrest anyone for any crime until the real IRA are caught?
No.
Nor may that be reasonably inferred from my posts, either.
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 12, 2011, 07:49:51 PMPoor poor post with little rationale except to just try and mention other "side" wrongdoings to try and get some cheap digs in.
Who do you mean by "the other side", then?
I had hoped we were all on the same side when it comes to the Real IRA ::)
And whilst you may disagree with it, I fail to see how my original point (i.e. that it's best to ignore Frazer, until he goes away) constitutes a "cheap dig" at anyone (except, perhaps, Frazer himself?).
Sadly, you appear to be yet another of those Members of this Board who only have to see my name on a post to automatically ascribe a (pre-conceived) position or motive towards me, without bothering to read or understand what it is I'm actually saying. ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 12, 2011, 02:50:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:18:32 PM
"Whataboutery" is where someone tries to defend their (or someone else's) wrongdoing, even claim that it is not wrong at all, on the basis that someone else did something worse.
Which is exactly what you did above, albeit in a rather circuitous way (claiming that Frazer might say... yeah, right).
Here is the sequence:
1. Frazer "goes off on one" (via a Press Release to a newspaper etc);
2. Broken Crossbar states he should be arrested etc;
3. I point out that doing so would (a ) be a waste of time/resources, (b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc; and (c ) would give a spurious "credibility" to Frazer's agenda;
4. On that basis, I formed the opinion he should not be arrested.
In other words, I was contesting Broken Crossbar's original point about the need to arrest him etc.
How does any of that constitute defending what Frazer originally said?
Just to simplify it: 'whataboutery' (and the clue is in the term) is when someone responds against a particular allegation against someone or other with a 'What about... someone or other else'
Ergo, despite your elaborate attempt at a
mea innocentia, you did come back against BC1's assertion in the first instance that the wee madman be arraigned for incitement with:
For if he were arrested and charged etc, his first "defence" would be to question why eg this shower [RIRA] are allowed to demonstrate with complete impunity:...
Which can be neatly summarised as '
What about the RIRA...'
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 12, 2011, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 07:35:29 PM
(b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc
How do they go unchallenged? The perpetrators haven't been caught which is hardly unchallenged. That's a bit of a slight on the PSNI there.
I was referring to the recent "Commemoration" in Derry, where the Real IRA were able to stage a paramilitary display without being challenged by the Security Forces, that's how.
And unless they (PSNI) were instructed to take no action by the Secretary of State (or someone), which is always a possibility, then I consider that to be a dereliction* of duty by them.
And such dereliction would be further heightened were they to arrest gombeens like Frazer for his latest rant, as Broken Crossbar advocates.
* - Or were you not disturbed, even outraged, at the sight of vermin like the Real IRA being able to publicly threaten more murders like that of Const. Kerr?
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 12, 2011, 07:49:51 PM
It is hardly a skewed sense of priorities when they arrest someone for breaking the law - do you expect that they down tools and don't arrest anyone for any crime until the real IRA are caught?
No.
Nor may that be reasonably inferred from my posts, either.
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 12, 2011, 07:49:51 PMPoor poor post with little rationale except to just try and mention other "side" wrongdoings to try and get some cheap digs in.
Who do you mean by "the other side", then?
I had hoped we were all on the same side when it comes to the Real IRA ::)
And whilst you may disagree with it, I fail to see how my original point (i.e. that it's best to ignore Frazer, until he goes away) constitutes a "cheap dig" at anyone (except, perhaps, Frazer himself?).
Sadly, you appear to be yet another of those Members of this Board who only have to see my name on a post to automatically ascribe a (pre-conceived) position or motive towards me, without bothering to read or understand what it is I'm actually saying. ::)
I know very little about you as I generally avoid the political posts due to it turning into cheap point scoring exercises :) Simply pointing out your post was c**p and don't try to drag things in about me advocating this or that because of what I think of your post - I advocate none of it :)
Ye are all missing the point, would queen Elizabeth like a little Willie she comes to make her feel at home
EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him
Quote from: Pangurban on May 13, 2011, 02:05:37 AM
EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him
+1
Willie is coming with the sole intention of getting himself into a spot of bother. I'm certain he is hoping to be arrested and/or roughed up by the public at large so he can go back to his fellow loyalist loonies and scream bloody blue murder.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 13, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on May 13, 2011, 02:05:37 AM
EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him
+1
Willie is coming with the sole intention of getting himself into a spot of bother. I'm certain he is hoping to be arrested and/or roughed up by the public at large so he can go back to his fellow loyalist loonies and scream bloody blue murder.
He does have a valid point, that we should ignore Willie, he does in my view tend towards the whataboutery with his replyn in a somewhat proxy way but we'll let it slide. On the substantive point though I can understand why he says to ignore Willie. The thing is maybe it is time to start taking idiots like him out of the equation. We are supposed to be living in a civilised society yet lunatic fringes like him can still spout sectarian bile and ignore the law when it suits him. He is so determined to get his point across that he will never fade away. He has the medium of youtube to put his diatribes on so it doesn't even have to be through main stream media. I simply feel that the let it be attitude needs to change abd people need to stand against the extrtemities.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 13, 2011, 08:10:31 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 13, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on May 13, 2011, 02:05:37 AM
EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him
+1
Willie is coming with the sole intention of getting himself into a spot of bother. I'm certain he is hoping to be arrested and/or roughed up by the public at large so he can go back to his fellow loyalist loonies and scream bloody blue murder.
He does have a valid point, that we should ignore Willie, he does in my view tend towards the whataboutery with his replyn in a somewhat proxy way but we'll let it slide. On the substantive point though I can understand why he says to ignore Willie. The thing is maybe it is time to start taking idiots like him out of the equation. We are supposed to be living in a civilised society yet lunatic fringes like him can still spout sectarian bile and ignore the law when it suits him. He is so determined to get his point across that he will never fade away. He has the medium of youtube to put his diatribes on so it doesn't even have to be through main stream media. I simply feel that the let it be attitude needs to change abd people need to stand against the extrtemities.
You are dead right; we should try to ignore Willie and his likes. I certainly don't agree with everything that EG posts but I think he was right to mention the possibility that Willie will try and milk the occasion for what it's worth.
I mean that the said Willie isn't too fussed by the Queen's visit; his true motive is to get himself and his followers rough up by the security forces and, better still, to get themselves abused by other spectators.
You have to remember that he isn't looking for sympathy from the public at large. He is trying to drum up support from the loony Loyalist elements that share his views.
Yep, he is certain to have videos of his treatment put up on YouTube for his crowd to see.
I think it's reasonable to expect him to have a go at security forces north and south also.
Stuff the GFA!
Honest to goodness subjects of her Majesty can't turn up at a parade to show their support for their Gracious Sovereign without being roughed up while masked and armed Republican terrorists can freely walk about without interference from any quarter.
Nah, I know that's crazy—but so are Willy and his types. They don't need logic to stir the sh1t.
Your final point is equally valid; people have to stop letting it be. Evil will thrive whilst good people stand idly by—with apologies to both JFK and Jack Lynch.
(I think there is a mixture of quotes by the pair of them mixed up in there.) ;)
In the case of Willie and his antics, this is where the Unionist majority should stand up and be counted. I see no evidence so far to suggest that Unionists in general are showing any signs of disapproval of what he plans to do.
That's just not good enough.
That's where the spancil must be put on Willie & Co.
Back in Paisley's demagogic days, I'm told the vast majority of Unionists didn't approve of his behaviour but they didn't try and distance themselves publicly from him either.
It's a case of the Three Monkeys Syndrome, isn't it? ""See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil"
I accept what EG has to say about the need for Nationalists to reach out to their old enemies but this has to be a two-way process. Bridge building is best carried out from both ends of the chasm.
Until mainstream Unionism tells Willie to grow up and f**k off, we are going to have him and his likes causing trouble.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 13, 2011, 02:14:41 PM
In the case of Willie and his antics, this is where the Unionist majority should stand up and be counted. I see no evidence so far to suggest that Unionists in general are showing any signs of disapproval of what he plans to do.
That's just not good enough.
That's where the spancil must be put on Willie & Co.
Back in Paisley's demagogic days, I'm told the vast majority of Unionists didn't approve of his behaviour but they didn't try and distance themselves publicly from him either.
It's a case of the Three Monkeys Syndrome, isn't it? ""See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil"
I accept what EG has to say about the need for Nationalists to reach out to their old enemies but this has to be a two-way process. Bridge building is best carried out from both ends of the chasm.
Until mainstream Unionism tells Willie to grow up and f**k off, we are going to have him and his likes causing trouble.
So Unionists need to "stand up and be counted" over Frazer, do they?
Frazer stood for election to Westminster in his home Constituency of Newry & Armagh last year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/711.stm
And as you can see from the, ahem, count, out of a total turnout of 44,906 voters, Frazer received the grand total of 656 votes = 1.5% = Lost Deposit. (Or, out of a total of 14,978 Unionist voters, his share amounted to 4.4%.)
Meanwhile, the poll was topped by Conor Murphy with 18,857 votes = 42.0% (or 64.2% of the total Nationalist vote). Murphy is a former IRA member who served time for possession of explosives. We may safely assume that he didn't have these for dealing with troublesome tree stumps on his land:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4309568.stm
Now before anyone jumps on me with charges of "whataboutery" etc, my point is that Unionism has traditionally declined to vote for the more fringe, extreme elements of "Loyalism" [
sic], whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people.
As for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.
* - Achieved without so much as a 10th preference from me at any time, I am proud to add...
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
Now before anyone jumps on me with charges of "whataboutery" etc, my point is that Unionism has traditionally declined to vote for the more fringe, extreme elements of "Loyalism" [sic], whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people.
Ah, the old "only fenians vote for terrorists" myth. Haven't seen that in a while. Of course it conveniently overlooks the subtle "same but different" way in which unionism has always related to terrorism. While SF's association with the provos was never a secret, mainstream unionist parties have always worn a veneer of respectability when it comes to the use of force, but you only have to scratch the surface to see that the only major party in the north which has actively and 100% opposed violence since its inception is the SDLP.
The only difference between the unionist parties and the republican movement is that the unionists historically outsourced violence to organisations which were supposedly "out of their control", and hence they could strictly speaking wash their hands of it. But unionism has never been shy about using the threat of loyalist violence to advance its arguments. They've even flirted with direct involvement in violence and procurement of arms for loyalists.
(http://s3.hubimg.com/u/2415734_f248.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PqMWqcrdVHI/SmnUZB4AB7I/AAAAAAAAAJg/DGs7Rgi9LWQ/s320/Ulster-Resistance%5B1%5D.jpg)
(http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00001/6_1165t.jpg)
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2005/08/04/billy-wright_willie-McCrea.jpg)
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49082000/jpg/_49082629_wrightmcrea.jpg)
Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy. The idea of loyalist violence being a purely reactionary phenomenon has no basis in fact, yet that is the image that unionism has successfully painted of it. And any unionist condemnation of loyalist violence was always muted by comparison to their condemnation of republican violence. Oftentimes it was just used as a means of having a go at republicans, it was as if they were incapable of condemning the latest loyalist atrocity without having a go at republicans while they were at it. (I have to bring that up because we all know how important the practice of condemnation is to our unionist friends - it means a great deal to them.)
QuoteAs for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.
The exact same thing could be said of SF. They were always second fiddle to the SDLP until quite some time after the ceasefire. It took a long time for them to build the trust of nationalist voters in large numbers. Your slur on the nationalist community is completely bogus.
I fail to see what is the problem people have with EG.
He make points and backs them up with reasoned analysis. You may not agree with the analysis but see where hes coming from.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
Now before anyone jumps on me with charges of "whataboutery" etc, my point is that Unionism has traditionally declined to vote for the more fringe, extreme elements of "Loyalism" [sic], whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people.
Ah, the old "only fenians vote for terrorists" myth. Haven't seen that in a while. Of course it conveniently overlooks the subtle "same but different" way in which unionism has always related to terrorism. While SF's association with the provos was never a secret, mainstream unionist parties have always worn a veneer of respectability when it comes to the use of force, but you only have to scratch the surface to see that the only party in the north which has actively and 100% opposed violence since its inception is the SDLP.
The only difference between the unionist parties and the republican movement is that the unionists historically outsourced violence to organisations which were supposedly "out of their control", and hence they could strictly speaking wash their hands of it. But unionism has never been shy about using the threat of loyalist violence to advance its arguments. They've even flirted with direct involvement in violence and procurement of arms for loyalists.
(http://s3.hubimg.com/u/2415734_f248.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PqMWqcrdVHI/SmnUZB4AB7I/AAAAAAAAAJg/DGs7Rgi9LWQ/s320/Ulster-Resistance%5B1%5D.jpg)
(http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00001/6_1165t.jpg)
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2005/08/04/billy-wright_willie-McCrea.jpg)
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49082000/jpg/_49082629_wrightmcrea.jpg)
Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy. The idea of loyalist violence being a purely reactionary phenomenon has no basis in fact, yet that is the image that unionism has successfully painted of it. And any unionist condemnation of loyalist violence was always muted by comparison to their condemnation of republican violence. Oftentimes it was just used as a means of having a go at republicans, it was as if they were incapable of condemning the latest loyalist atrocity without having a go at republicans while they were at it. (I have to bring that up because we all know how important the practice of condemnation is to our unionist friends - it means a great deal to them.)
QuoteAs for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.
The exact same thing could be said of SF. They were always second fiddle to the SDLP until quite some time after the ceasefire. It took a long time for them to build the trust of nationalist voters in large numbers. Your slur on the nationalist community is completely bogus.
100% correct.
The problem with you eg is that you are always at the same shite, some loyalist sc**bag does something or says something and you come out with some shite totally unrelated to the issue at hand and make it out to be one is as bad as the other.
If this tr**p frazer is inciting rioting and hatred the peelers have a duty to arrest him, end of discussion. Just once i would like to see you write something and give your opioion without resorting to proving that fenians are just as bad.
Quote from: stew on May 13, 2011, 08:58:00 PM
If this tr**p frazer is inciting rioting and hatred the peelers have a duty to arrest him, end of discussion. Just once i would like to see you write something and give your opioion without resorting to proving attempting to prove that fenians are just as bad.
Fixed that for you.
It was asked on the first page and has been forgotten all about - Willie brought this up out of the blue, nobody has banned him or spoken about banning him from doing anything.
One suspects that his main objective is to find some way of causing trouble, end up arrested or turfed back up the motorway and then enjoy his airtime afterwards. Just ignore the little bollocks. We all know what a bigoted little p***k he is. Must have come from his da.
Oh and another thing. Unionists probably weren't as inclined to overtly support terrorism because they had instruments of the state (B-Specials, UDR, RUC) that could do more or less the same sort of work but with the added backup of the courts to enforce their will. That kind of work could be justified as "counter terrorism" operations. For the really dirty work then you just outsource that to the loyalist death squads, and let the forces of the state give them just enough collusion to help them get the job done, but keep it all under wraps of course.
Republicans didn't have that kind of taxpayer-funded infrastructure behind them, so they had to improvise a little.
The only thing that makes the loyalists better than the republicans (and that is the heart of the point that EG is trying to make after all) is that the forces of the state had nicer looking uniforms.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 13, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 07:31:33 PM...but you only have to scratch the surface to see that the only party in the north which has actively and 100% opposed violence since its inception is the SDLP.
Alliance? Greens?
I was thinking major parties actually, but yes. Point taken.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 09:32:32 PM
Oh and another thing. Unionists probably weren't as inclined to overtly support terrorism because they had instruments of the state (B-Specials, UDR, RUC) that could do more or less the same sort of work but with the added backup of the courts to enforce their will.
Not to forget the British Army. That is an issue that Unionists, by and large will never accept - that many nationalists see the forces of the British state no better than Unionists see the Provos.
Quote from: gallsman on May 13, 2011, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 09:32:32 PM
Oh and another thing. Unionists probably weren't as inclined to overtly support terrorism because they had instruments of the state (B-Specials, UDR, RUC) that could do more or less the same sort of work but with the added backup of the courts to enforce their will.
Not to forget the British Army. That is an issue that Unionists, by and large will never accept - that many nationalists see the forces of the British state no better than Unionists see the Provos.
Oh but "that's different", isn't it? I suppose it's okay to use terrorists as a threat to back up your political position as long as said terrorists have the backing of the forces of law and order and don't have to do everything themselves.
And another thing. One thing I have to give unionists credit for is their ability to use language to frame the debate. (And I'm not just talking about the successful re-branding of Sinn Fein as "Sinn Fein/IRA" in the 1990s.)
Ever notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"?
Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"? (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)
Shouldn't surprise anyone who can remember that the UDA wasn't banned until 1992. What did the British government think the UDA was anyway? A neighbourhood watch scheme?
Quote from: gallsman on May 13, 2011, 09:26:40 PM
It was asked on the first page and has been forgotten all about - Willie brought this up out of the blue, nobody has banned him or spoken about banning him from doing anything.
One suspects that his main objective is to find some way of causing trouble, end up arrested or turfed back up the motorway and then enjoy his airtime afterwards. Just ignore the little bollocks. We all know what a bigoted little p***k he is. Must have come from his da.
Spot on. The guy is a total drama queen.
Quote from: gallsman on May 13, 2011, 09:26:40 PM
It was asked on the first page and has been forgotten all about - Willie brought this up out of the blue, nobody has banned him or spoken about banning him from doing anything.
One suspects that his main objective is to find some way of causing trouble, end up arrested or turfed back up the motorway and then enjoy his airtime afterwards. Just ignore the little bollocks. We all know what a bigoted little p***k he is. Must have come from his da.
Agree with this man.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 07:31:33 PM
Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy.
That's quite simply not true.
Quote from: deiseach on May 12, 2011, 01:37:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
"Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such," the statement says.
Someone arrest this man, he's in the Real IRA!
(http://img.rasset.ie/00008b3e10D.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBT4ZWy6Lm4&feature=player_detailpage
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 10:32:24 PMEver notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"?
This is also quite simply not true. The IRA and INLA were often referred to as paramilitary groups: equally the UVF and UDA/UFF were often referred to as terrorists.
Quote
Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"? (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)
Again, the PUP and UDP were often referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA, and SF alsoreferred to in ways other than the political wing of the IRA.
You really are just plucking these assertions from your own head.
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2011, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 07:31:33 PM
Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy.
That's quite simply not true.
Yes it is.
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2011, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 10:32:24 PMEver notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"?
This is also quite simply not true. The IRA and INLA were often referred to as paramilitary groups: equally the UVF and UDA/UFF were often referred to as terrorists.
Quote
Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"? (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)
Again, the PUP and UDP were often referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA, and SF alsoreferred to in ways other than the political wing of the IRA.
You really are just plucking these assertions from your own head.
Your head's cut! Every word I said is true and you know it.
I even heard ITN referring to David Ervine and co. as "parties with the ear of loyalist paramilitary groups." Sounds like a genetic engineering experiment gone horribly wrong, which in the case of certain loyalists would explain a great deal.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
So Unionists need to "stand up and be counted" over Frazer, do they?
IMHO, they sure do.
By you leave, I won't refer to Conor Murphy or the results of the last Westminster at all. That's "whataboutery" for me and I don't find it necessary to say that condemning one is tantamount to supporting another in any diiscussion/row/free-fro-all or whatever I get involved in. For the purposes of discussing the matter in hand, Mr Murphy may have been trying out new wayys of lifting his spuds out of the ground for all I care..
We will have enough lunatics of our own in Dublin next week to worry about; we could get along nicely without Willie and his buddies.
I accept that he has very little support in Unionist circles but most of us in the South couldn't tell the difference between a Unionist and a Loyalist, up close, and wouldn't give a flying f**k about it either. I think the same goes for the vast international audience the visit will attract.
I would also say that he doesn't intend doing the cause of Unionism any favours when he shows up. He is hoping to play to the gallery back home and that means the 4.4% that voted for him and to whoever else supports him in NI.
Now, it's all very well to say that ther vast majority of Unionists don't support him but that is not the point I'm trying to make. I've no doubt that most people on 'your'' side of the fence do not support extremists but, equally, they never seem to go to any lengths to denounce them either.
Yep; I do take your point, "........whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people."
But I'm asking yo to accept one of mine in return:
I can't see how the matter of Willie Frazer and his proposed appearence in Dublin next week comes into this.
He knows his actions are going to stir up ant-Unionist feelings in the Republic and elsewhere. I would suggest that it might help the cause of north-south reapproachment, and all that sort of stuff, if some prominent Unionist spokeperson were to say that Willie is only a nutter. Maybe the phraseology would need to more refined than mine is in the present instance but the intent should be clear:
Willie does not represent Unionism.
That's not asking a lot, is it?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
As for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.?
With regard to Paisley, I really can't see much difference between calling him a demagogue or an out and out bigot.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," as Shakespeare opined.
I think we have established that I am appproximately ten years older than you are so I probably have a clearer recollection of events in the early stages of the Troubles than you.
I'd have no problem if he just thought like an out and out bigot but but he acted like one on a 24/7 basis. Keep in mind that the question of Civil Rights dominated proceedings in the period leading up to and following on from Burntollet.
I'm gently suggesting to you that Paisley, along with Ronald Bunting and Bill Craig, did more to bring on The Troubles than any number of individuals or actions from the Nationalist side. When British troops first appeared on the streets of Belfast, they were welcomed with open arms by Nationalists who thought the soldiers were there to protect them from Paisley and his followers.
The object of the Civil Rights Movement was not to bring down the state, its aim was merely to secure the same rights as everyone else in othe parts of UK.
I am quite happy to hold that Paisley did more than anyone else to turn civilian unrest into armed sectarian conflict. For that, I award him demagogue status. Oh, by the way, he was an out and out bigot also.
I belong to the school of thought that maintains that, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck."
If, during the onset of the Troubles, a single UUP spokesman or prominent church leader had come to the fore and denounced the actions of Paisley, subsequent events could well have turned out differently. It could have sent out a different signal to the 'other' side.
Who knows?
While I'm at it, I can't recall any constitutional Unionist politician, church big wig or personality of any sort, ever speaking out to condemn the actions of any Loyalist paramilitaries or their fellow-travellers from Burntollet onwards to recent times.
I know that the vast majority of Unionists have no time for the head cases in their midst but it might be nice, once in a while, to make this clear to all concerned. At the very least, it would be a tacit sign of acknowledgement that their Nationalist counterparts aren't the only ones who have to put up with loonies trying to act on their behalf.
[(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/2194/paisley.png)
Has anyone read this book?
In it, the author, Ed Moloney, gives a graphic account of Paisley's early political career.
He was (is?) the Northern Editor of the Irish Times and has written several books on his experiences while there.The best known of his books is " A Secret History of the IRA" and in it, he is highly critical of the role played by Gerry Adams in the Provos' campaign during the Troubles.
I feel his work on Paisley is objective journalism at its best.
I would totally agree with both posts, the most sensible I have read on here.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 14, 2011, 12:57:06 AM
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2011, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 10:32:24 PMEver notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"?
This is also quite simply not true. The IRA and INLA were often referred to as paramilitary groups: equally the UVF and UDA/UFF were often referred to as terrorists.
Quote
Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"? (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)
Again, the PUP and UDP were often referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA, and SF alsoreferred to in ways other than the political wing of the IRA.
You really are just plucking these assertions from your own head.
Your head's cut! Every word I said is true and you know it.
I even heard ITN referring to David Ervine and co. as "parties with the ear of loyalist paramilitary groups." Sounds like a genetic engineering experiment gone horribly wrong, which in the case of certain loyalists would explain a great deal.
You claimed that republicans were
always referred to as terrorists, and loyalists as paramilitaries.
That is, quite simply, garbage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/loyalist-terrorist-groups-intent-on-a-bloody-year-1476751.html "Loyalist terrorist groups intent on a bloody year"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1399123/Loyalist-terrorists-have-tea-with-Ulster-minister.html "Loyalist terrorists have tea with Ulster minister"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/loyalist-terrorists-in-bomb-attacks-on-sdlp-politicians-blasts-display-uffs-increasing-sophistication-1486106.html "Loyalist terrorists in bomb attacks on SDLP politicians"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5217510.stm "A sister of former IRA informer Martin McGartland has been warned by police that details of her address have been obtained by republican paramilitaries"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8301241.stm "An Irish republican paramilitary group responsible for dozens of murders during Northern Ireland's Troubles has renounced violence."
As for your claims in relation to how the PUP and UDP weren't referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/loyalists-sell-political-wing-a-pup-over-killing-14957753.html "Loyalists sell political wing a PUP over killing"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/03/police-shankill-road-murder ". The PUP is the political wing of the UVF"
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/clergy_meet_to_discuss_disturbances_1_1868028 "the UVF's political wing, the PUP"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4244082.stm "The UVF's political wing, the Progressive Unionist Party"
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/udas-nohope-political-wing-is-disbanded-327865.html "THE political wing of the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association was disbanded yesterday"
http://www.u.tv/News/UDP-disbands/ac314817-6679-47e8-8cb4-18760026a220 "Twelve years after its formation as the political wing of the Ulster Defence Association"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367285/Loyalist-warns-of-more-killings.html "John White, chairman of the Ulster Democratic Party, the political wing of the illegal UDA/UFF"
So we can safely say what you claimed was "true", was in fact drivel. Plenty more examples out there, just a Google search away.
Think you need to wipe that egg off your face.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 14, 2011, 12:54:57 AM
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2011, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 13, 2011, 07:31:33 PM
Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy.
That's quite simply not true.
Yes it is.
Do you
really need me to make an idiot of you even further by trawling up more quotes?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 14, 2011, 08:47:11 PMWhile I'm at it, I can't recall any constitutional Unionist politician, church big wig or personality of any sort, ever speaking out to condemn the actions of any Loyalist paramilitaries or their fellow-travellers from Burntollet onwards to recent times.
I know that the vast majority of Unionists have no time for the head cases in their midst but it might be nice, once in a while, to make this clear to all concerned. At the very least, it would be a tacit sign of acknowledgement that their Nationalist counterparts aren't the only ones who have to put up with loonies trying to act on their behalf.
Are you seriously telling us that you can't actually recall any of the dondemnations of loyalist terrorism made by unionist politicians or Protestant church leaders? :-\
That beggars belief.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1570317.stm "The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and Upper Bann MLA, David Trimble condemned the murder and offered his sympathies to the O'Hagan family. "I am shocked and appalled by this cowardly act, which must be condemned by all right-thinking people."...
Hansard, 1 Nov 1993: Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in condemning without reservation all the murders that have been taking place in our land. There is no difference between the tears of Protestants and the tears of Roman Catholics. These murders come from hell and lead to hell and there can be no justification for them on any grounds whatever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1161711.stm The Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Trevor Morrow, has condemned the wave of recent pipe bomb attacks as a ''moral outrage''. He accused the pipe bombers of having a ''reign of terror'' and spoke of his disgust at the attacks. "This is black and white. This is not just wrong this is evil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1065133.stm Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry and Raphoe Dr James Mehaffey condemned the attack as "immoral and objectionable".
during the recent bomb attack in newtownhamilton there were very poor diversions in place and i had the misfortune to meet the boul willie on a single track road. i was in an artic and he was in his car he'd just passed a good wide entrance to a farm.. all he had to do was reverse about 30m. he sat in the middle of the road and turned the car off had to wait on the cops.. ::)
Quote from: lawnseed on May 16, 2011, 10:15:28 AM
during the recent bomb attack in newtownhamilton there were very poor diversions in place and i had the misfortune to meet the boul willie on a single track road. i was in an artic and he was in his car he'd just passed a good wide entrance to a farm.. all he had to do was reverse about 30m. he sat in the middle of the road and turned the car off had to wait on the cops.. ::)
He probably has a FAIR Media youtube video about you now!
Quote from: lawnseed on May 16, 2011, 10:15:28 AM
during the recent bomb attack in newtownhamilton there were very poor diversions in place and i had the misfortune to meet the boul willie on a single track road. i was in an artic and he was in his car he'd just passed a good wide entrance to a farm.. all he had to do was reverse about 30m. he sat in the middle of the road and turned the car off had to wait on the cops.. ::)
i just hope you've done your CPE training to keep the class 1 licence ya boy ya or willie will report ya
Quote from: MW on May 15, 2011, 11:19:55 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 14, 2011, 08:47:11 PMWhile I'm at it, I can't recall any constitutional Unionist politician, church big wig or personality of any sort, ever speaking out to condemn the actions of any Loyalist paramilitaries or their fellow-travellers from Burntollet onwards to recent times.
I know that the vast majority of Unionists have no time for the head cases in their midst but it might be nice, once in a while, to make this clear to all concerned. At the very least, it would be a tacit sign of acknowledgement that their Nationalist counterparts aren't the only ones who have to put up with loonies trying to act on their behalf.
Are you seriously telling us that you can't actually recall any of the dondemnations of loyalist terrorism made by unionist politicians or Protestant church leaders? :-\
That beggars belief.
Actually, I was.
I did not, at the time of writing, recall any such condemnations.
That may come across as a case of pedantic semantics to you but that was not my intention at all. The honourable gentlemen you mentioned may have issued other statements during the course of a thirty years conflict but they seemed to make no impression on the public mood. Words were not followed by actions.
I try not to get involved in whataboutery of any sort but I will mention that the same can be said of numerous representatives on the Nationalist side; pious platitudes followed by lack of action.
I did recall your quote from Paisley but I chose to ignore it. As he never accepted his part in the violence that led to British troops being called in to restore order, I took it with a pinch of salt.
I accept he proved his credential as a man of peace in the negotiations that led to the GFA and in the period since but at that time, his condemnation sounded hollow. Gerry and Marty; they and a good number of others have never admitted their involvement in sectarian strife and, until thy do, there will be hurt felt by people on the Unionist side.
I had written: "I've no doubt that most people on 'your'' side of the fence do not support extremists but, equally, they never seem to go to any lengths to denounce them either."
I do recall an incident at Hillsborough where David Trimble and a number of other Unionist representatives were being interviewed. I think it happened in the lead up to negotiations that were to set up the Peace Process but a t this remove in time, I can' be sure.
Anyway, it was instructive to watch the face of David Trimble as he stood in the background while one of the paramilitary spokesmen was talking to the interviewer. The body language told a lot.
He loathed the guy and all that he stood for.
It was picked up by the media in the south and internationally also.
The general consensus was that, while Trimble and those he represented would hold no truck with Loyalist paramilitaries, the great pity was that he never, publicly at least, went no further than pious platitudes.
Tomorrow, the Queen is due in Dublin.
I feel that the vast majority of people down here welcome her arrival. Maybe there is no wild enthusiasm evident but I'd say most are waiting to hear what she is going to say before rushing to judgement.
Given that, she is arriving on the anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and that she is going to visit Croke Park, the expectation is that she is going to make some move to improve relations between both countries.
Unfortunately, the likelihood is that there will be trouble.
You may take it that the public here don't want the likes of Eirigi and the Real IRA causing trouble.
If Willie shows up to provide a counterweight to those loonies, it will be evident to all that, for some, the GFA is dead in the water. Obviously, there are only a tiny percentage of the people on this island who think like that but they do exist and they are to be found in both communities.
If representatives of mainstream Unionism publicly disassociated themselves from Willie & Co. it would help to keep the peace.
Quote from: Banana Man on May 16, 2011, 11:03:25 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 16, 2011, 10:15:28 AM
during the recent bomb attack in newtownhamilton there were very poor diversions in place and i had the misfortune to meet the boul willie on a single track road. i was in an artic and he was in his car he'd just passed a good wide entrance to a farm.. all he had to do was reverse about 30m. he sat in the middle of the road and turned the car off had to wait on the cops.. ::)
i just hope you've done your CPE training to keep the class 1 licence ya boy ya or willie will report ya
if he ever meets mrs lawnseed he should kneel down and thank her.. before i got married i wouldnt have been as polite as i am now >:(
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 16, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
I accept that unlike Eamonnica1, you're not setting up false dichotomies to "confirm" some paranoid and prejudiced worldview. But I think there is a tendency in NI for memory to become subject to a "confirmation bias".
I would accept that at times unionist politicians have been too close in word or event to loyalist terrorists or their spokesmen. They should never have done so. However a look back at any newspaper from the times of various loyalist murders would demonstrate regular condemnations of loyalist terrorism. (I have to say I was particularly surprised by the fact you couldn't remember condemnations of loyalist terrorism by Protestant church leaders – these have been particularly forthright and consistent).
I'm sure there is just the same "confirmatory bias" tendency from unionists as regards nationalist politicians and parties too.
I think strangely enough in NI some events and words tend to get forgotten quickly, while others that probably never actually happened become "fact" and even make it into the history books ("IRA I ran away" graffiti in 1969 for one) – who now remembers the Orange Order responding to the "Harryville protest" by staging a counter-demonstration beside the church with the banner "Orangemen support civil and religious liberty for all"...?
Quote from: MW on May 15, 2011, 11:13:47 PM
You claimed that republicans were always referred to as terrorists, and loyalists as paramilitaries.
Okay then, they were
predominantly referred to as such. There, happy now?