UVF calls end to terror campaign
The UVF declared a ceasefire 13 years ago
The paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force has declared that it is renouncing violence and will cease to exist as a terrorist organisation from midnight.
It also said it will keep its weapons, but has put them "beyond reach".
This means they will be stored in a number of arms dumps "under the control of the UVF leadership, but not accessible for use by members".
During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the UVF murdered more than 500 people.
Its campaign also claimed the lives of 33 people in bomb attacks in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974.
The statement was read by Gusty Spence, who helped found the modern day UVF in 1966.
It declared a ceasefire 13 years ago, but since then its members have been blamed for more than 20 murders.
Speaking in Fernhill House in west Belfast on Thursday, Gusty Spence said that from midnight, the UVF and its associated group, the Red Hand Commando, "will assume a non-military, civilianised role".
As part of this move, he said the organisation had implemented a number of measures to deal with what it called the "transformation from a military to a civilian organisation".
These include an end to all recruitment, training and targeting, and all so-called "active service units" have been de-activated.
'All possible instances'
On the issue of weapons, the statement said these had been put beyond reach and that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning led by General John de Chastelain had been informed.
However, it did not elaborate on what this means, or whether the general will be allowed to verify its claim.
The Progressive Unionist Party's Billy Hutchinson said: "The weapons have not been put beyond use, but they have been put beyond reach.
"People should be seeing this (statement) as a positive thing rather than a negative thing."
The statement also condemned any criminal activity by its members, and said they should "cooperate fully with the lawful authorities in all possible instances".
The UVF has accepted that "the IRA's war is over" and said it was making this move now because it was satisfied that Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom was now safe.
Gusty Spence made the statement in west Belfast
The statement said: "We have taken the above measures in an earnest attempt to augment the return of accountable democracy to the people of Northern Ireland and as such, to engender confidence that the constitutional question has now been firmly settled.
"In doing so, we reaffirm the legitimacy of our tactical response to violent nationalism, yet reiterate the sincere expression of abject and true remorse to all innocent victims of the conflict."
There was also a call to the government to tackle the threat from republican dissidents, and a warning that these activities could "provoke another generation of loyalists toward armed resistance".
BBC Northern Ireland home affairs correspondent Vincent Kearney said: "The government will welcome the fact that the UVF, which killed more than 500 people, has said it is now standing down as a terrorist organisation.
"But there will be disappointment that it has not announced a decision to decommission its weapons.
"The question the UVF will now be asked is simple: if it has accepted that the IRA's war is over, why does it need its weapons?
"Now that the organisation has said its campaign of violence is finally at an end, it will face growing pressure to dispose of the weapons it used to wage that campaign."
Dawn Purvis, the leader of the PUP, the UVF's political representatives, met Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in Dublin last week.
Yawn
they're a blight on their own community and i for one wouldn't care if they carried on shooting each other over who has the best bling, peddling drugs to their own children and pretending they are tony soprano in their own drinking dens.
clowns
They want to make a transition into a civilian community association = they want a deal like the UDA got for £3million or some ridiculous amount like that to pay their members to be community officers.
What a pile of crap.
Their guns should be destroyed. Their drug running operations should be shut down and their members should definitely not be given paid office rolls in communities!
Imagine the government paying the IRA.
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 10:41:53 AM
Yawn
they're a blight on their own community and i for one wouldn't care if they carried on shooting each other over who has the best bling, peddling drugs to their own children and pretending they are tony soprano in their own drinking dens.
clowns
100% correct.
Quote from: SammyG on May 03, 2007, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 10:41:53 AM
Yawn
they're a blight on their own community and i for one wouldn't care if they carried on shooting each other over who has the best bling, peddling drugs to their own children and pretending they are tony soprano in their own drinking dens.
clowns
100% correct.
Yis will forgive me for saying, but I think it's very sad that you both have that attitude.
That somehow the children who are also victims of their activities should bear the brunt.
I expected more from you, Sammy.
It will be actions, not words, that will be judged, and I for one (unlike 2 previous posters) don't take the attitude that they can carry on their existence, I hope this is the end.
Quote from: Tonto on May 03, 2007, 10:47:25 AM
Quote from: SammyG on May 03, 2007, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 10:41:53 AM
Yawn
they're a blight on their own community and i for one wouldn't care if they carried on shooting each other over who has the best bling, peddling drugs to their own children and pretending they are tony soprano in their own drinking dens.
clowns
100% correct.
Yis will forgive me for saying, but I think it's very sad that you both have that attitude.
That somehow the children who are also victims of their activities should bear the brunt.
I expected more from you, Sammy.
It will be actions, not words, that will be judged, and I for one (unlike 2 previous posters) don't take the attitude that they can carry on their existence, I hope this is the end.
To be fair they've had 15 years to end all this shite )which they should never have started in the first place) and they're getting worse not better. I hope I'm wrong and this really is the end but it just looks like a stunt to get their hands on some of Gordon Brown's peace dividend.
Re the assurance that the weapons are beyond reach and De Chastelain has been informed.
In otherwords they have been put away safely should they need them again,
Hardly reassuring now is it!
Jesus if Paisley were a republican he wouldnt be happy with that!
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
These clowns have had no moral standing, even in the eyes of their own people, for a very long time abd are thugs and gangsters pure and simple. Drug dealing and extortion have been their business for years, nothing whatsoever to do with the defence of the protestant people. if they were concerned with defending the protestant people they wouldn't be poisoning and blackmailing their own.
They've been in it for the money only for a long long time.
The same applies to the peace time provos who have squeezed every pound out of diesel laundering and dvd copying for the past 10 years.
They should disarm and disband. Now. There was no legitimate excuse for their existence as a terrorist organisation in the first place, and there's certianly none now.
the guns have been "put beyound reach"
what the f does that mean, on top of a cupboard out of the way, yeah dead on
Why worry about the guns? decommissioning weapons is a cosmetic exercise. there'l always be guns if someone wants them
The idea is that they don't have any use for them and don't feel that its acceptable to threaten their use
Quote from: Square Ball on May 03, 2007, 11:13:30 AM
the guns have been "put beyound reach"
what the f does that mean, on top of a cupboard out of the way, yeah dead on
Theres a really tall guy holding them up in the air.
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:15:36 AM
Why worry about the guns? decommissioning weapons is a cosmetic exercise. there'l always be guns if someone wants them
The idea is that they don't have any use for them and don't feel that its acceptable to threaten their use
Uladh, you should have told that to Paisley a few years back and we would be much further along in the peace process ;)
Paisley knows that as well as anyone. But then he has always been about "how it looks"
Very true
I really couldn't care less if the UVF decommission or not. If needs-be (and there never is), the guns will be found.
It's all about the UVF intentions and acts, that's what I'll judge them on. Unfortunately, judging from the pass, I don't hold much hope for this statement. They're just looking for some of Gordon's money and they'll be back doing what they do best..... terrorising their own community.
Unfortunately I dont see the scumbags going away anytime soon, they have been a gangster organisation for some time.
Quotethey're a blight on their own community and i for one wouldn't care if they carried on shooting each other over who has the best bling, peddling drugs to their own children and pretending they are tony soprano in their own drinking dens.
Id prefer they didnt propagate their like any more, and id hope that the kids of the areas they are in can get away from the scumbags rather than being customers for them.
this ceasefire (while welcome) is of no consequence really, these guys never had the stomach for fighting as they only ever went for innocent targets or when it was a turkey shoot - more importantly they needed the brit army/ruc/mi5 / mi6 to lead all such attacks - otherwise these gormless fools couldnt kill a butterfly (their pipe bombs exploding as they made them and 99% exploding before reaching their target locations proved that without brit army help these fools could do nothing themselves)
it was the brit gov's decision to stop assisting these people that has decommissioned them.
For their own safety they would be better off letting someone take the guns from them - otherwise they'll only harm themselves
(though I suppose they still could be used for their drug trade - scaring people by waving them about)
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh, with the Provos "ends" being to help administer British Rule in Ireland from Stormont, and the "means" including Claudy, Warrington, Enniskillen, Guildford, Bloody Friday, Kingsmill, Birmingham, La Mon, the Exiled/Disappeared/Knee-Capped/Tortured/Suicide etc etc etc?
Still, I guess it was worth it for the Armani Suits and Designer Sunglasses.
Anyway, weren't the UVF doing it "For God and Ulster"? Their only "crime" was "loyalty", after all.
And when it comes to it, Hitler was struggling for an ideal - namely, the establishment of a racially pure German Reich which would last for a Thousand Years.
"You've got to have a Dream,
If you don't have a Dream,
How you gonna Make your Dream come True?"
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh,
You must have stretched every one of your brain cells to make that inference from Ulaidh's post.
Do you have an itch that never ceases to need scratching?
"Anyway, weren't the UVF doing it "For God and Ulster"? Their only "crime" was "loyalty", after all"
Loyalty to imperialism EG, yes.
Didnt know you were a fan of theirs, but it does make sense. :D
Quote from: Main Street on May 03, 2007, 12:41:28 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh,
You must have stretched every one of your brain cells to make that inference from Ulaidh's post.
Do you have an itch that never ceases to need scratching?
Well, I'm scratching my head right now to come up with any interpretation other than that Ulaidh considers that the Provos were in some way mitigated or absolved in their actions since they were acting for a cause.
Or was it that their cause ("protecting" the Nationalist community) was somehow "nobler" than that of the UVF ("protecting the Loyalist community)?
Or maybe that the UVF had no "cause" in the first place?
And that's before we even come to the phrase: "Whatever the rights or wrongs". I'm afraid from where I'm sitting, I fail to see how the "rights" in any way go to balance the thousands who died, were imprisoned, terrified, intimidated, extorted, indoctrinated, beaten, abducted etc directly as a result of the Provos' campaign.
Still, Mussolini made the trains run on time, I suppose, and the Provos have done wonders for the value of holiday homes in Donegal...
(And before anyone jumps in, my contempt for the Provos in no way diminishes my contempt for the UVF/UDA etc - as far as I'm concerned, they're all an equal blight on the communities from which they derive)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 01:19:03 PM
"Anyway, weren't the UVF doing it "For God and Ulster"? Their only "crime" was "loyalty", after all"
Loyalty to imperialism EG, yes.
Didnt know you were a fan of theirs, but it does make sense. :D
I had hoped the use of inverted commas might give a clue as to my view of the UVF and the cause they claim to espouse. But if not, I hope my subsequent post* is clearer.
* - Clue: Contempt
You used inverted commas for "crime" too.
Strange that :-\
Why not just post your thoughts rather leave "clues" via inverted comma? ie. cut the bulshit.
The "causes" cant be equated. Nor should they be described purely as "protecting their community" on both sides as you have so conveniently described them.
You know this is bolloxtalk.
One cause = achieve freedom from imperialism
The other = maintaining imperialism
Please answer the following question with a one word, yes or no reply.
DO YOU APPROVE OF IMPERIALISM?
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 01:41:00 PM
You used inverted commas for "crime" too.
Strange that :-\
Why not just post your thoughts rather leave "clues" via inverted comma? ie. cut the bulshit.
The "causes" cant be equated. Nor should they be described purely as "protecting their community" on both sides as you have so conveniently described them.
You know this is bolloxtalk.
One cause = achieve freedom from imperialism
The other = maintaining imperialism
Please answer the following question with a one word, yes or no reply.
DO YOU APPROVE OF IMPERIALISM?
I do not approve of Imperialism.
Nor do I approve of the IRA or the UVF.
I do not consider that the IRA was fighting Imperialism, nor that the UVF was defending NI.
I consider that each organisation was serving its own end, neither of which I approve. Further, even if I did approve of either of the causes which they purport to have espoused, I don't consider either would have been worth the terror and misery involved in their respective campaigns.
Gandhi was opposed to Imperialism and was successful in defeating it, despite* his eschewing the use of violence. I admire Gandhi.
Is that all clear enough for you?
* - Arguably "because of".
Perfectly clear EG.
And I thank you for clarifying. :)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh, with the Provos "ends" being to help administer British Rule in Ireland from Stormont, and the "means" including Claudy, Warrington, Enniskillen, Guildford, Bloody Friday, Kingsmill, Birmingham, La Mon, the Exiled/Disappeared/Knee-Capped/Tortured/Suicide etc etc etc?
I give up
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh, with the Provos "ends" being to help administer British Rule in Ireland from Stormont, and the "means" including Claudy, Warrington, Enniskillen, Guildford, Bloody Friday, Kingsmill, Birmingham, La Mon, the Exiled/Disappeared/Knee-Capped/Tortured/Suicide etc etc etc?
I give up
I know what you mean
even after all this time he's still starting his quotes from the middle of the historical period ... ::)
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh, with the Provos "ends" being to help administer British Rule in Ireland from Stormont, and the "means" including Claudy, Warrington, Enniskillen, Guildford, Bloody Friday, Kingsmill, Birmingham, La Mon, the Exiled/Disappeared/Knee-Capped/Tortured/Suicide etc etc etc?
I give up
What you originally posted was this:
"Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
These clowns [the UVF] have had no moral standing, even in the eyes of their own people, for a very long time abd are thugs and gangsters pure and simple"I inferred two things from that:
1. You feel that the fact that the IRA were "struggling for an ideal", this in some way mitigated the "wrongs" of their campaign, leading to
2. Your conclusion that the IRA have a moral standing superior to that of the UVF.
If I have inferred incorrectly, please enlighten me.
Otherwise, I feel that the first inference is contemptible, since even if you do feel that any methods may be justifiable in the pursuit of a noble ideal (ethically debateable, to say the least), the extreme methods utilised were far in excess of any likely gain.
As for the second inference, I cannot use the term "moral standing" with reference to either organisation, since I consider them to be equally amoral in their ends and means.
Of course, it is an unfortunate characteristic of extremists in each community to consider their own particular cause to be in some way morally superior to that of the other.
Then again, prisoners who e.g. burgle and terrorise pensioners in their own homes tend to consider themselves to be morally superior to e.g. child abusers.
Personally, I wouldn't like to be associated with either camp.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 03, 2007, 04:03:28 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
So the ends justify the means, then, eh, with the Provos "ends" being to help administer British Rule in Ireland from Stormont, and the "means" including Claudy, Warrington, Enniskillen, Guildford, Bloody Friday, Kingsmill, Birmingham, La Mon, the Exiled/Disappeared/Knee-Capped/Tortured/Suicide etc etc etc?
I give up
I know what you mean
even after all this time he's still starting his quotes from the middle of the historical period ... ::)
What do you mean by "the middle of the historical period"? ???
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
"Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
These clowns [the UVF] have had no moral standing, even in the eyes of their own people, for a very long time abd are thugs and gangsters pure and simple"
I inferred two things from that:
1. You feel that the fact that the IRA were "struggling for an ideal", this in some way mitigated the "wrongs" of their campaign, leading to
No brains.... They feel that they were struggling for an ideal.
"it is an unfortunate characteristic of extremists in each community to consider their own particular cause to be in some way morally superior to that of the other"
Its also an unfortunate characteristic of extremists from one side who know they dont have the moral high ground to suggest neither side have in a vain attempt to equalise the sides "causes"
Thats also a well know unionist trick.
I'm not an extremist by any means as my vote in the election will testify, but when it comes to moral highground between an imperialist empire versus the people struggling for liberation from imperialism, well its a no brainer.
And no I dont approve of many of the actions taken by both sides, so dont start that crap, this is about political ideals.
Even the unionists who "dont want to be liberated" realise they are their due to plantation of their earlier generations and cant take the high ground here.
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 04:52:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
"Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
These clowns [the UVF] have had no moral standing, even in the eyes of their own people, for a very long time abd are thugs and gangsters pure and simple"
I inferred two things from that:
1. You feel that the fact that the IRA were "struggling for an ideal", this in some way mitigated the "wrongs" of their campaign, leading to
No brains.... They feel that they were struggling for an ideal.
What you've posted just now is not what you posted originally.
Regarding your reworked version, it is true that IRA members felt they were acting in pursuit of an ideal.
In that respect, the UVF were no different; they felt their ideal was the protection of NI from the IRA. Indeed, the UVF's most prominent member, the late David Ervine, said that he joined them immediately after witnessing from a fourth floor Belfast window the direct effects of the IRA detonating 22 bombs around the city, with inadequate or no warning during three hours, resulting in the deaths of 9 innocent men, women and children, and the serious wounding of 130 others. It was known Bloody Friday, though it has never achieved the same notoriety as a certain other "Bloody" day in our Calendar.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bfriday/events.htm
Of course, as well as attempting to assassinate IRA members, many of them resorted to murdering innocent Catholics at random, on the basis that this would erode Catholic support for the IRA, if it was demonstrated that the IRA were incapable of protecting Catholic areas.
In that respect, I can see no difference in e.g. the IRA in South Armagh (under the guise of the Republican Action Force) murdering innocent Protestants in Kingsmills, in an effort to stop the activities of the UVF/UDA in the same area, or the machine-gunning of fleeing survivors from the Bayardo Bar bombing, by Brendan "Bik" McFarlane, successor to Bobby Sands as "OC" of the Provos in Long Kesh.
A plague on both their houses. >:(
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 05:11:40 PM
Even the unionists who "dont want to be liberated" realise they are their due to plantation of their earlier generations and cant take the high ground here.
I will answer for my own words and actions; I do not consider that anyone should ever be condemned
or praised for actions committed by people long dead; such fatuousness serves only to stoke the argument along the lines of:
"You Started it" "No,
you started it"
Worse than pointless... >:(
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 06:05:14 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 05:11:40 PM
Even the unionists who "dont want to be liberated" realise they are their due to plantation of their earlier generations and cant take the high ground here.
I will answer for my own words and actions; I do not consider that anyone should ever be condemned or praised for actions committed by people long dead; such fatuousness serves only to stoke the argument along the lines of:
"You Started it" "No, you started it"
Worse than pointless... >:(
To re-quote myself
"Its also an unfortunate characteristic of extremists from one side who know they dont have the moral high ground to suggest neither side have in a vain attempt to equalise the sides "causes""
I never suggested that northern unionists be condemned for the actions of people long dead.
Unless you mean condemned to a United Ireland, then I do ;)
Incidentally re the whole "you started it, no you started it" thing.
I have yet to hear anyone accuse the Irish of "starting" the whole Northern situation, its very black and white.
Theres a lot of greys in between, but not about the beginning.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 06:11:56 PM
Incidentally re the whole "you started it, no you started it" thing.
I have yet to hear anyone accuse the Irish of "starting" the whole Northern situation, its very black and white.
Theres a lot of greys in between, but not about the beginning.
As an aside, when do you think moving from Scotland (or England) to Ulster/Ireland and settling there (taking land by force at times), or indeed vice versa, became a 'no-no'?
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 05:11:40 PM
I'm not an extremist by any means as my vote in the election will testify, but when it comes to moral highground between an imperialist empire versus the people struggling for liberation from imperialism, well its a no brainer.
For me it's a no-brainer choosing between people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland, and a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent...
That's if you want to play your game ::)
Anyways, back to the point.
Cosmetic exercises don't cut it afaik. Sectarian terrorist thugs like that lot should hand over their guns and disappear off the 'stage', permanently.
Quote from: MW on May 03, 2007, 06:50:03 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 05:11:40 PM
I'm not an extremist by any means as my vote in the election will testify, but when it comes to moral highground between an imperialist empire versus the people struggling for liberation from imperialism, well its a no brainer.
For me it's a no-brainer choosing between people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland, and a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent...
That's if you want to play your game ::)
I couldnt even dignify that with a response, I am obviously dealing with an utter bigot
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 01:26:15 PM
Well, I'm scratching my head right now to come up with any interpretation other than that Ulaidh considers that the Provos were in some way mitigated or absolved in their actions since they were acting for a cause.
The scratching isn't exactly taxing the limits of rational thought to come with an alternative to that stereotypical emission. 'Mitigated or absolved' are words from your dictionary.
It's the absolute certainty of your 'flight of fancy' interpretation, it betrays the one dimensional viewpoint that make up your ability to utter such crap.
QuoteGandhi was opposed to Imperialism and was successful in defeating it, despite* his eschewing the use of violence. I admire Gandhi.
Ah yes the movie, don't confuse Gandhi's ideas with the ending of the Raj. At the time, Atlee acknowledged that the main reason for the fall of the Raj were the ideals of the militant Subhash Chandra Bose and the very violent Indian National Army.
Imo the closest equivalent of a Gandhi in the Irish national movement would have been John Redmond.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 07:39:10 PM
I couldnt even dignify that with a response, I am obviously dealing with an utter bigot
Is bigot your word of the day? How can being opposed to sectarian murder, on all sides, make you a bigot?
My final line was the only thing new in my last post. anything else was quoted directly from your post, so any inaccuracies are down to you brains.
Quote from: MW on May 03, 2007, 06:50:03 PM
For me it's a no-brainer choosing between people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland, and a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent...
That's if you want to play your game ::)
that sounds EXACTLY like what nationalists would have been saying in the late 1960's
(and then becoming republicans...)
so yer making a case for the IRA to have retailated then it seems...
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 05:57:56 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 04:52:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Uladh on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
"Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the IRA's campaign, they were struggling for an ideal.
These clowns [the UVF] have had no moral standing, even in the eyes of their own people, for a very long time abd are thugs and gangsters pure and simple"
I inferred two things from that:
1. You feel that the fact that the IRA were "struggling for an ideal", this in some way mitigated the "wrongs" of their campaign, leading to
No brains.... They feel that they were struggling for an ideal.
What you've posted just now is not what you posted originally.
Regarding your reworked version, it is true that IRA members felt they were acting in pursuit of an ideal.
In that respect, the UVF were no different; they felt their ideal was the protection of NI from the IRA. Indeed, the UVF's most prominent member, the late David Ervine, said that he joined them immediately after witnessing from a fourth floor Belfast window the direct effects of the IRA detonating 22 bombs around the city, with inadequate or no warning during three hours, resulting in the deaths of 9 innocent men, women and children, and the serious wounding of 130 others. It was known Bloody Friday, though it has never achieved the same notoriety as a certain other "Bloody" day in our Calendar.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bfriday/events.htm
Of course, as well as attempting to assassinate IRA members, many of them resorted to murdering innocent Catholics at random, on the basis that this would erode Catholic support for the IRA, if it was demonstrated that the IRA were incapable of protecting Catholic areas.
In that respect, I can see no difference in e.g. the IRA in South Armagh (under the guise of the Republican Action Force) murdering innocent Protestants in Kingsmills, in an effort to stop the activities of the UVF/UDA in the same area, or the machine-gunning of fleeing survivors from the Bayardo Bar bombing, by Brendan "Bik" McFarlane, successor to Bobby Sands as "OC" of the Provos in Long Kesh.
A plague on both their houses. >:(
quite easy to condemn it all now and even easier when it wasnt your own community that were under attack and subect to an apartheid-like regieme from all sides backed up by the establishment
::)
I heard this morning that one 'Irish' journalist has already likened Gusty Spence to Norn Iron's Nelson Mandela.
Jesus H Christ.
See a full page interview in today's Irish News with one Winston Churchill "Winky" Rea, allegedly a leading member of the now allegedly defunct UVF / Red Hand Commando. His unique name certainly rings a few bells, but I just can't place it.
Quote from: SammyG on May 03, 2007, 10:16:42 PM
Is bigot your word of the day? How can being opposed to sectarian murder, on all sides, make you a bigot?
Have I used the word bigot elsewhere today?
And if I have, does it matter? If the cap fits and all.
And I'm not calling him that for opposing sectarian murder on all sides.
That much is very obvious ::)
funny though, I thought you would jump to his defense :-*
Well maybe you could explain why you are calling me a bigot then?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 08:33:17 AM
Quote from: MW on May 03, 2007, 06:50:03 PM
For me it's a no-brainer choosing between people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland, and a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent...
That's if you want to play your game ::)
that sounds EXACTLY like what nationalists would have been saying in the late 1960's
(and then becoming republicans...)
so yer making a case for the IRA to have retailated then it seems...
No, old son, I'm making a case for peaceful democratic politics being preferable to terrorism.
And against the sort of crude sloganeering "his holiness" was indulging in.
Quote from: MW on May 04, 2007, 10:19:06 AM
Well maybe you could explain why you are calling me a bigot then?
In direct response to your post beforehand ::)
Any part in particular that struck you as "bigoted"? Or which provided justification for calling me an "utter bigot"?
None of it was, in fact. And that's even after me producing a fairy reductionist, simplistic argument to illustrate a point to you. (Hint: read my last sentence in that post)
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 04, 2007, 08:51:51 AM
I heard this morning that one 'Irish' journalist has already likened Gusty Spence to Norn Iron's Nelson Mandela.
Jesus H Christ.
While the statement is clearly bollix, it's no worse than the fcukwits (including many on here) who compare Gerry and the Peacemakers to Mandela.
Lynchbhoy
It's been a while and you've probably forgotten, but we're still waiting for details of this apartheid regime in NI. Sorry to be raking over old posts but as you've decided to bring it up again.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: SammyG on May 03, 2007, 10:16:42 PM
Is bigot your word of the day? How can being opposed to sectarian murder, on all sides, make you a bigot?
Have I used the word bigot elsewhere today?
And if I have, does it matter? If the cap fits and all.
And I'm not calling him that for opposing sectarian murder on all sides.
That much is very obvious ::)
funny though, I thought you would jump to his defense :-*
Not aware that I defended anybody. You called MW a bigot in response to a post where he condemned murders on both sides. I simply asked what he'd said that was bigoted as I couldn't see anything. If you can tell me what was bigoted then I'll comment on it and decide whether I agree or disagree.
No Sammy you already disagree, lets be honest and not waste any more time on it ::)
MW, in relation to the Moral highground of the whole NI issue you described one side as
"people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland"
and the other as "a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent..."
This is what I refer to as bigoted.
And dont say you meant the second reference to mean both sides, it was in opposition to the first ref about people wanting to remain part of their homeland ie Britain, thus quite obviously the Unionists.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 10:50:27 AM
MW, in relation to the Moral highground of the whole NI issue you described one side as
"people wanting to exercise their peaceful democratic right to remain part of their homeland"
and the other as "a terrorist murder gang blowing people up up shops and bars, and murdering people because of their nationality, political opinion, religion and job in a (failed) attempt to overthrow the principle of consent..."
This is what I refer to as bigoted.
Neither of those statements is "bigoted". The first is a pretty accurate summary of what the IRA did. The second is a very simplistic statement of the 'average' unionist position.
Quote
And dont say you meant the second reference to mean both sides, it was in opposition to the first ref about people wanting to remain part of their homeland ie Britain, thus quite obviously the Unionists.
The second reference was quite obviously to the IRA. (But would equally reflects my revlusion of the 'loyalist paramilitaries', since you mention it) The whole post was in response to this from you (I quoted it in my post, FFS!):
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 05:11:40 PM
I'm not an extremist by any means as my vote in the election will testify, but when it comes to moral highground between an imperialist empire versus the people struggling for liberation from imperialism, well its a no brainer.
Ludicrous sloganeering which airbrushes unionists and their identity (not to mention the principle of consent, which is labelled "imperialism") out of the equation and paints the IRA as "the people". As I made quite clear in my post, I was mirroring this simplistic and reductionist approach to make the point (not mirroring it very weel mind you, I didn't go to quite the same lengths as you did).
I've made my views on loyalist terrorism quite clear, by the way.
What you did was compared the worst of the nationalist side with the best of the unionist side.
Not very balanced!
"Ludicrous sloganeering which airbrushes unionists and their identity (not to mention the principle of consent, which is labelled "imperialism") out of the equation and paints the IRA as "the people""
It was very clear that we were comparing the "ideals" of the IRA with that of the UVF here.
The principle of consent is a convenient argument for the side which implants enough people to the land they occupy to obtain this!!!
Ask the Tibetans about the "principle of consent"
And I never labelled the IRA as "the people", this is cutting and pasting my words to your convenience.
I called them "the people struggling for liberation from imperialism"
Theres a big difference there.
hh - id agree that the ideals of the uvf may be very different from what they claim - they are simply drug dealing gangsters in my mind - but the problem is they claim to have an ideal, defending their communities against their enemies.
Obviously if this was their only concern they wouldnt be peddling drugs and extorting their own communities.
Good point NIFAN, and if we may all get back to the original point, I'm amazed that there isnt uproar at the fact that they are hanging on to the weapons should they need them again.
Jesus the stalling that went on over verification of the IRA weapons being "put beyond use" and requests for photographic proof etc etc. Now these guys say they are going to hang on to the weapons and all is quiet!
Weird :o
Quote from: nifan on May 04, 2007, 11:45:19 AM
hh - id agree that the ideals of the uvf may be very different from what they claim - they are simply drug dealing gangsters in my mind - but the problem is they claim to have an ideal, defending their communities against their enemies.
Obviously if this was their only concern they wouldnt be peddling drugs and extorting their own communities.
What has changed now?
Were they given an ultimatum to change just one thing, they decided to give up on the redundant defending idea but continue to peddle drugs?
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 11:41:02 AM
What you did was compared the worst of the nationalist side with the best of the unionist side.
Not very balanced!
Indeed, that was the whole point of my post.
Quote
"Ludicrous sloganeering which airbrushes unionists and their identity (not to mention the principle of consent, which is labelled "imperialism") out of the equation and paints the IRA as "the people""
It was very clear that we were comparing the "ideals" of the IRA with that of the UVF here.
Leaving aside the terror groups themselves, you have a very skewed interpretation of 'republicanism versus loyalism' if you start throwing in terms like 'imperialism' and 'liberation'.
Quote
The principle of consent is a convenient argument for the side which implants enough people to the land they occupy to obtain this!!!
Ask the Tibetans about the "principle of consent"
Ask the Americans, or the Canadians, or the Australians, or the Mexicans, or the Argentinians, or the South Africans, or various Arab nations, or the Russians, or the Irish, or the French, or... all nations and states to some extent based on population movements & settlements from centuries ago.
Quote
And I never labelled the IRA as "the people", this is cutting and pasting my words to your convenience.
I called them "the people struggling for liberation from imperialism"
Theres a big difference there.
It's no less biased or inaccurate. With that phrase you paint unionists who want their homeland, which they have lived in for centuries, to remain part of the nation-state to which they belong as "imperialists".
And the IRA, which was carrying out a terrorist campaign and murdering hundreds of people in cold blood because of, for example, their nationality or political opinion, as "struggling for liberation".
On the other hand, I'm happy to accept the legitimacy of all national identities and aspirations here, and to express my disgust at all the terrorist groups and their atrocities, as completely illegitimate and reprehensible.
Now, about me being an "utter bigot"...
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 10:38:57 AM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 04, 2007, 08:51:51 AM
I heard this morning that one 'Irish' journalist has already likened Gusty Spence to Norn Iron's Nelson Mandela.
Jesus H Christ.
Lynchbhoy
It's been a while and you've probably forgotten, but we're still waiting for details of this apartheid regime in NI. Sorry to be raking over old posts but as you've decided to bring it up again
:o
is this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
that the ira and retaliation just came about because the nationalists were bored?
:D
you are defo the king of all ostriches !
:D
(btw this implies that you have asked me this before... ???)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 11:50:21 AM
Good point NIFAN, and if we may all get back to the original point, I'm amazed that there isnt uproar at the fact that they are hanging on to the weapons should they need them again.
Well if it helps your peace of mind any, HH, I agree entirely that it is outrageous that murderous thugs like these insist on holding onto illegally obtained weapons following a cessation/truce/armistice (or whatever they term it).
In fact, I think it outrageous that they, or any other self-appointed paramilitary group, should ever have taken up arms in the first place, in order to impose their will, by a concerted campaign of terror and murder, both on their own and other communities.
Equally outrageous, imo, is when commentators attempt to make some sort of moral distinction between these various parasites, merely because some of them (i.e. the paramilitaries) purport to be acting in pursuits of an "ideal" which corresponds with their own (i.e. the commentators) particular political point of view.
To paraphrase a famous pacifist religious leader: "Murder is Murder is Murder".
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PM
is this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
Well, I'd never have taken you for a backsliding, liberal, hand-wringing apologist for Unionist excesses...
What's with the phrase "oppression/apartheid type regieme"? Or the "apartheid-like" term which you used in a previous post?
Whatever happened to the Lynchboy who previously fearlessly denounced the outright "genocide" and "apartheid" inflicted by Unionists on Nationalists in the six county failed, occupied statelet?
Have you been seduced into airbrushing history by the silver-tongued Dr. Paisley?
Outrageous! See Father Alex Reid straightaway, and beg forgiveness for having lapsed into revisionism...
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2007, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PM
is this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
Well, I'd never have taken you for a backsliding, liberal, hand-wringing apologist for Unionist excesses...
What's with the phrase "oppression/apartheid type regieme"? Or the "apartheid-like" term which you used in a previous post?
Whatever happened to the Lynchboy who previously fearlessly denounced the outright "genocide" and "apartheid" inflicted by Unionists on Nationalists in the six county failed, occupied statelet?
Have you been seduced into airbrushing history by the silver-tongued Dr. Paisley?
Outrageous! See Father Alex Reid straightaway, and beg forgiveness for having lapsed into revisionism...
still joking about it then
another way of attempthing to wash it all away ?
sure you know yerself all about the attempts at genocide in their apartheid ni stylie state
...otherwise you wouldnt be mentioning it!
Glad we' have educated you somewhat! ;D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PMis this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
How can I have my head in the sand, when I don't know what you're on about? I have never seen or heard of an apartheid regime being practiced in NI (or even apartheid-type regime to use today's new phrase). I'm not denying that it happened or burying my head, I've genuinely never heard of it. I've asked you loads of times, going back about a year or 18 months, to tell me about it and you still haven't.
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PMis this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
How can I have my head in the sand, when I don't know what you're on about? I have never seen or heard of an apartheid regime being practiced in NI (or even apartheid-type regime to use today's new phrase). I'm not denying that it happened or burying my head, I've genuinely never heard of it. I've asked you loads of times, going back about a year or 18 months, to tell me about it and you still haven't.
Sammy,
Lynchboy has informed us several times in the past that both Apartheid
and Genocide were carried out against the Nationalist people in NI, so that should be good enough.
Please don't resort to that old Unionist trick of asking for evidence etc, since it only makes us look foolish, as well as ostrich-like... ::)
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PMis this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
How can I have my head in the sand, when I don't know what you're on about? I have never seen or heard of an apartheid regime being practiced in NI (or even apartheid-type regime to use today's new phrase). I'm not denying that it happened or burying my head, I've genuinely never heard of it. I've asked you loads of times, going back about a year or 18 months, to tell me about it and you still haven't.
I have used all sorts of 'apartheid' phrases
apartheid - esque -type -like
anyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this
tip of the iceberg but to keep you happy here is a small selection straight off...
oppression of nationalists - voting rights, voting constituences, professional employment only for non nationalists apart from on token occasions,
police/army/unionist & loyalist killing squads collusion, these same people/squads targetting innocent nationalists (mostly targetted as they played GAA or were a well known figure in the local communities) - no police protection obv arising from this and no reprimand from the known perportrators.
funnily enough there is still some elements of all of this today..I have recently been given info that there are still pockets of this kind of behaviour in Derry city from the 'establishment' towards the local nationalist community!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:33:09 PManyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this
For the umpteenth time, I'm not denying anything. I'm not aware of apartheid in NI and have never heard anybody else mention it. You keep mentioning it but won't tell me how it happened, when it happened, what form it took etc. Instead you go of on a rant about some unrelated topic. If you want to discuss housing or jobs or paramilitarism or collusion or whatever then fine but can we do that after we've finished the apartheid discussion.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2007, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PMis this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
How can I have my head in the sand, when I don't know what you're on about? I have never seen or heard of an apartheid regime being practiced in NI (or even apartheid-type regime to use today's new phrase). I'm not denying that it happened or burying my head, I've genuinely never heard of it. I've asked you loads of times, going back about a year or 18 months, to tell me about it and you still haven't.
Sammy,
Lynchboy has informed us several times in the past that both Apartheid and Genocide were carried out against the Nationalist people in NI, so that should be good enough.
Please don't resort to that old Unionist trick of asking for evidence etc, since it only makes us look foolish, as well as ostrich-like... ::)
EVIDENCE
:D :D
read all the books , reports etc
did we all imagine bloody sunday and the establishment 'welcoming the civil rights people ?
FFS
yer not ostriches
yer badgers tunnelling like mad away from daylight and reality/truth! :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:41:10 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2007, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PMis this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
How can I have my head in the sand, when I don't know what you're on about? I have never seen or heard of an apartheid regime being practiced in NI (or even apartheid-type regime to use today's new phrase). I'm not denying that it happened or burying my head, I've genuinely never heard of it. I've asked you loads of times, going back about a year or 18 months, to tell me about it and you still haven't.
Sammy,
Lynchboy has informed us several times in the past that both Apartheid and Genocide were carried out against the Nationalist people in NI, so that should be good enough.
Please don't resort to that old Unionist trick of asking for evidence etc, since it only makes us look foolish, as well as ostrich-like... ::)
EVIDENCE
:D :D
read all the books , reports etc
did we all imagine bloody sunday and the establishment 'welcoming the civil rights people ?
FFS
yer not ostriches
yer badgers tunnelling like mad away from daylight and reality/truth! :D
WTF has Bloody Sunday got to do with apartheid?
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:33:09 PManyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this
For the umpteenth time, I'm not denying anything. I'm not aware of apartheid in NI and have never heard anybody else mention it. You keep mentioning it but won't tell me how it happened, when it happened, what form it took etc. Instead you go of on a rant about some unrelated topic. If you want to discuss housing or jobs or paramilitarism or collusion or whatever then fine but can we do that after we've finished the apartheid discussion.
jobs
health
state sponsored oppression (leading to the state sponsored collusion death squads mentioned previously that you dont want to talk about - wonder why)
voting constituencies
maybe you should start to read some of the many books and indeed commissioned reports that detail this kind of thing
or do you deny that any such thing has happened?
am I completely wrong
was NI always a lovely safe peaceful place to live in? ::)
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:43:49 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:41:10 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2007, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 12:22:22 PMis this the head in the sand unionist/loyalist tactic of saying that 'oppression/apartheid type regieme never happened towards nationalists'?
How can I have my head in the sand, when I don't know what you're on about? I have never seen or heard of an apartheid regime being practiced in NI (or even apartheid-type regime to use today's new phrase). I'm not denying that it happened or burying my head, I've genuinely never heard of it. I've asked you loads of times, going back about a year or 18 months, to tell me about it and you still haven't.
Sammy,
Lynchboy has informed us several times in the past that both Apartheid and Genocide were carried out against the Nationalist people in NI, so that should be good enough.
Please don't resort to that old Unionist trick of asking for evidence etc, since it only makes us look foolish, as well as ostrich-like... ::)
EVIDENCE
:D :D
read all the books , reports etc
did we all imagine bloody sunday and the establishment 'welcoming the civil rights people ?
FFS
yer not ostriches
yer badgers tunnelling like mad away from daylight and reality/truth! :D
WTF has Bloody Sunday got to do with apartheid?
you are joking right?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:33:09 PManyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this
For the umpteenth time, I'm not denying anything. I'm not aware of apartheid in NI and have never heard anybody else mention it. You keep mentioning it but won't tell me how it happened, when it happened, what form it took etc. Instead you go of on a rant about some unrelated topic. If you want to discuss housing or jobs or paramilitarism or collusion or whatever then fine but can we do that after we've finished the apartheid discussion.
jobs
health
state sponsored oppression (leading to the state sponsored collusion death squads mentioned previously that you dont want to talk about - wonder why)
voting constituencies
maybe you should start to read some of the many books and indeed commissioned reports that detail this kind of thing
or do you deny that any such thing has happened?
am I completely wrong
was NI always a lovely safe peaceful place to live in? ::)
Lynchbhoy
I'm well aware of all the things you mentioned and have read loads of books and reports and studies etc. I'm also happy to discuss them, if you want to. NOT ONE of them mentions apartheid in any way shape or form and your list of things doesn't include apartheid.
We're going round in circles, can you either give me some details about this alledged apartheid or admit that you're talking bollix and just using the word for effect?
Lynchboy EG, Sammy and MW are here purely to annoy.
I've said it before, then induldged them a little.
No doubt they will seek written proof of this!!
Shit stirrers of the highest degree, but skilled debaters (well EG and Sammy)
And yes, BIGOTS!
And I have explained why on previous threads so dont even ask
I would like to say I wont induldge them any further but no doubt they tempt me back by either patronising me, insulting me, or poking fun at me.
I have no intentions on wasting any more of my time speaking to their kind (and no I dont mean unionist, or protestant so dont bother getting on your high horses)
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:50:01 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 02:33:09 PManyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this
For the umpteenth time, I'm not denying anything. I'm not aware of apartheid in NI and have never heard anybody else mention it. You keep mentioning it but won't tell me how it happened, when it happened, what form it took etc. Instead you go of on a rant about some unrelated topic. If you want to discuss housing or jobs or paramilitarism or collusion or whatever then fine but can we do that after we've finished the apartheid discussion.
jobs
health
state sponsored oppression (leading to the state sponsored collusion death squads mentioned previously that you dont want to talk about - wonder why)
voting constituencies
maybe you should start to read some of the many books and indeed commissioned reports that detail this kind of thing
or do you deny that any such thing has happened?
am I completely wrong
was NI always a lovely safe peaceful place to live in? ::)
Lynchbhoy
I'm well aware of all the things you mentioned and have read loads of books and reports and studies etc. I'm also happy to discuss them, if you want to. NOT ONE of them mentions apartheid in any way shape or form and your list of things doesn't include apartheid.
We're going round in circles, can you either give me some details about this alledged apartheid or admit that you're talking bollix and just using the word for effect?
they all have apartheid connoctations
obv you do not want this to be true and so are denying it - unbelieveably
ok
ensuring the voting boundaries are kept in a certain way to maintain that nationalists do not gain control of any particular place - eg Derry city
where the maj is massive yet the seats were apportioned almost equally
how so?
Accident? hmmmm
jobs /education
nationalists were not accepted in most professional jobs up until the 80's. Token taigs (I think they are called) were let in to 'prove' this was not the case, but the stats do not stack up 80-90% in professional jobs were prot yet the population were 60/40%.
Now I know that unionists/loyalists wanted to tell all and sundry that nationalists were basically thick and couldnt get those jobs, but as more and more managed to surmount the barriers of educational disadvantage, its hard to see how this was the case
so denying freedom of work, associating with other people and disallowing them from doing so - would that not be in the apartheid bracket ?
Most def this goes beyone oppression.
But feel free to endorse what your predecessors did. By default backing up the old establishment and its apartheid regieme, does this show that a lot of unionist/loyalists as we had feared, have not moved on and are not as moderate as they say they are.
Well the polarity in voting for dup would indicate this is the case.
yez are a disgrace
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 02:58:21 PM
Lynchboy EG, Sammy and MW are here purely to annoy.
I've said it before, then induldged them a little.
No doubt they will seek written proof of this!!
Shit stirrers of the highest degree, but skilled debaters (well EG and Sammy)
And yes, BIGOTS!
And I have explained why on previous threads so dont even ask
I would like to say I wont induldge them any further but no doubt they tempt me back by either patronising me, insulting me, or poking fun at me.
I have no intentions on wasting any more of my time speaking to their kind (and no I dont mean unionist, or protestant so dont bother getting on your high horses)
You're 100% correct. LB talks bollix and then tries to change the subject. I pull him up about it, and it's me who's shit-stirring. ::) You can't beat that sort of logic.
Lynchbhoy
As you're obviously not going to tell me when apartheid happened in NI, I'll try a different question. Can you tell what you think apartheid is?
Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:07:00 PM
Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.
He's wasting his time by talking bollix and refusing to back it up. If he can give me an example of apartheid then I'll happily discuss it. He has refused for 18 months and is still refusing. How in the name of fcuk can that be my fault?
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 03:09:16 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:07:00 PM
Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.
He's wasting his time by talking bollix and refusing to back it up. If he can give me an example of apartheid then I'll happily discuss it. He has refused for 18 months and is still refusing. How in the name of fcuk can that be my fault?
He already has, you just dont want to see it.
I'm off for a beer!
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:07:00 PM
Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.
I know I give a few examples of it and they refuse to acknowledge ::)
I mean attacking the civil rights march was not an act of apartheid...though similar attacks on south african and american civil rights marches are acknowledged worldwide and historically as being pard of an apartheid regieme - so obv the two in denial will go to the history books and start to claim that ther was no such thing as apartheid in South africa or america either! ::)
shortly these two bastions of loyalism will be pronouncing how the nationalists dreamt bloody sunday up and the six counties never had any problems until the bad old IRA for the heck of it decided to go after innocent woment and children and eat their dying bodies etc
true loyalist revisionism !
Its part of their mentality - the same one apartheid/opressive/bullying mindest that proved to be their downfall! :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:07:00 PM
Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.
I know I give a few examples of it and they refuse to acknowledge ::)
I mean attacking the civil rights march was not an act of apartheid...though similar attacks on south african and american civil rights marches are acknowledged worldwide and historically as being pard of an apartheid regieme - so obv the two in denial will go to the history books and start to claim that ther was no such thing as apartheid in South africa or america either! ::)
Are you some sort of mentalist or are you just on a wind-up. The attacks on civil rights marches (and the denial of civil rights in the first place) were 100% wrong/disgraceful/sickening/whatever word you want to use but they were in NO WAY connected to apartheid. I suggest that you get one of the many books on apartheid and then come back once you know what you're talking about.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:15:50 PM
shortly these two bastions of loyalism will be pronouncing how the nationalists dreamt bloody sunday up
You really are a fcukwit, I condemn bloody Sunday (and always have). I think the paras should have been tried for murder and I'm not a Loyalist in any way shape or form. But apart from that your sentence was perfect. Just because you can't back up your bollix about apartheid, you start throwing allegations about instead.
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 03:24:48 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:07:00 PM
Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.
I know I give a few examples of it and they refuse to acknowledge ::)
I mean attacking the civil rights march was not an act of apartheid...though similar attacks on south african and american civil rights marches are acknowledged worldwide and historically as being pard of an apartheid regieme - so obv the two in denial will go to the history books and start to claim that ther was no such thing as apartheid in South africa or america either! ::)
Are you some sort of mentalist or are you just on a wind-up. The attacks on civil rights marches (and the denial of civil rights in the first place) were 100% wrong/disgraceful/sickening/whatever word you want to use but they were in NO WAY connected to apartheid. I suggest that you get one of the many books on apartheid and then come back once you know what you're talking about.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:15:50 PM
shortly these two bastions of loyalism will be pronouncing how the nationalists dreamt bloody sunday up
You really are a fcukwit, I condemn bloody Sunday (and always have). I think the paras should have been tried for murder and I'm not a Loyalist in any way shape or form. But apart from that your sentence was perfect. Just because you can't back up your bollix about apartheid, you start throwing allegations about instead.
it wasnt part of apartheid - why because it was one of the first acknowledged acts ? :D
well one of the first recorded in history
good lad
yer just a wee daftie - the kind of mentality that I expected from you.
Ostriches/badgers etc etc your only crime was loyalty alright !
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:36:45 PMit wasnt part of apartheid - why because it was one of the first acknowledged acts ? :D
well one of the first recorded in history
It wasn't apartheid because it had f**k all to do with apartheid. I'll ask again, do you know what apartheid is?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:36:45 PM
good lad
yer just a wee daftie - the kind of mentality that I expected from you.
So condemning the event is what you expected, excellent now we're getting somewhere.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:36:45 PM
Ostriches/badgers etc etc your only crime was loyalty alright !
:D
WTF am I supposed to be 'loyal' to?
Few pints at lunchtime Sammy? ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 04:38:48 PM
Few pints at lunchtime Sammy? ;)
Unfortunately not. I had an operation, last week, so I can't drink. :-[
Bummer Sammy, all debating aside, get well soon eh!
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 02:58:21 PM
And yes, BIGOTS!
Utter nonsense. I don't agree with a lot of SammyG's conclusions about the nature of life in Northern Ireland, but there isn't a speck of bigotry on him.
SammyG states his points..... a LOT. I certainly don't agree with most of them, but I like to think that I can at least try to see his point of view. Never once did I think it was bigoted...... just ill-informed ;)
Quote from: ziggysego on May 04, 2007, 05:39:26 PM
SammyG states his points..... a LOT. I certainly don't agree with most of them, but I like to think that I can at least try to see his point of view. Never once did I think it was bigoted...... just ill-informed ;)
Okay, ill and informed.
If you need us to prepare your obituary Sammy, let us know, otherwise take it easy and get back to health in good time.
Quote from: Main Street on May 04, 2007, 05:56:30 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 04, 2007, 05:39:26 PM
SammyG states his points..... a LOT. I certainly don't agree with most of them, but I like to think that I can at least try to see his point of view. Never once did I think it was bigoted...... just ill-informed ;)
Okay, ill and informed.
If you need us to prepare your obituary Sammy, let us know, otherwise take it easy and get back to health in good time.
Aahh group hug. ;)
Thanks for your regards lads. I'm fine at the minute, I had a problem with an infection in my jaw and had to have an operation to sort it out, but I'm doing rightly and I'll be about for a while yet (hopefully).
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 02:58:21 PM
Lynchboy EG, Sammy and MW are here purely to annoy.
I've said it before, then induldged them a little.
No doubt they will seek written proof of this!!
Shit stirrers of the highest degree, but skilled debaters (well EG and Sammy)
And yes, BIGOTS!
And I have explained why on previous threads so dont even ask
I would like to say I wont induldge them any further but no doubt they tempt me back by either patronising me, insulting me, or poking fun at me.
I have no intentions on wasting any more of my time speaking to their kind (and no I dont mean unionist, or protestant so dont bother getting on your high horses)
Ah right. So because I think simplistic one-sided sloganeering is unhelpful, and because I'm disgusted with all sets of terrorist murderers, I'm a "bigot".
Can't fault that logic, eh.
Seems that as with the dearly departed Mr Fearon, to you the definition of "bigot" is "one of themmuns who I disagree with, or who disagrees with me".
Quote from: MW on May 04, 2007, 06:09:41 PM
[Ah right. So because I think simplistic one-sided sloganeering is unhelpful, and because I'm disgusted with all sets of terrorist murderers, I'm a "bigot".
Can't fault that logic, eh.
That wouldnt make someone a bigot, dont be stupid!
Well apparently it makes me a "bigot" to you? ???
Fearon is still here MW. ;D
Quote from: SammyG on May 04, 2007, 03:39:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:36:45 PMit wasnt part of apartheid - why because it was one of the first acknowledged acts ? :D
well one of the first recorded in history
It wasn't apartheid because it had f**k all to do with apartheid. I'll ask again, do you know what apartheid is?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:36:45 PM
good lad
yer just a wee daftie - the kind of mentality that I expected from you.
So condemning the event is what you expected, excellent now we're getting somewhere.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2007, 03:36:45 PM
Ostriches/badgers etc etc your only crime was loyalty alright !
:D
WTF am I supposed to be 'loyal' to?
I dont expect you and folks like you to , ever to admit that the oppression, genocide and apartheid were prevalent in the old statelet
I have humoured you and provided a few examples - I am sure anyone who could be bothered could write reams, but as you are going to stick yer head in the sand and deny it all, thats kind of pointless and a waste of time.All of those examples (and many many more) are most def part or parts of an apartheid.
if you deny that any of these things as listed below in the wikipedia definition of what the crime of apartheid entails
then it says it all about you really
scuttle back off and try deny something less cast in stone like a good wee chap
this will make your type squirm and uncomfortable but here goes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
The "crime of apartheid" is defined by the 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." It lists such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution.[1]
In 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA)[2] It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." It mentions racially based acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial group from "participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country" such as denying them "basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
Article 7: Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, 'crime against humanity' means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Statement by the President of Republican Sinn Féin Ruairí Ó Brádaigh
May 3, 2007
Todays UVF statement, if taken at face value can be given a qualified welcome. However, the fact that arms are to be retained and will continue to be available to its leadership remains a threat to the nationalist people against whom a relentless campaign of assassination has been carried out.
This menace also extends to the Unionist community, many of whose members have also been killed by the same UVF while others have suffered greatly at their hands. In particular uninvolved and innocent nationalists have been targeted by UVF death squads working in collusion with the British crown forces and their intelligence groupings.
Such a campaign against the nationalist population has been pursued ever since the first civilians both Unionist and Nationalist John Patrick Scullion, Peter Ward and Mrs Gould were killed by them in the summer of 1966. These and other deaths of uninvolved people were carried out deliberately and as a matter of policy.
The unionist working class would be much better served, provided such a campaign is at an end, by active representation in a nine-county Ulster Parliament such as has been proposed by Republican Sinn Fin as part of a new federation of the four provinces.
We look forward to such a development.
since when did Rory Brady support the handing in of arms?
And lynchboy- racial? are you saying the the conflict in the north was racial?
And will people stop posting wikipedia as if it were gospel- even the gospel isn't gospel and wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Speaking of "racial" and wiipedia.
That website is a farce, I searched for Jason Sherlocks new club Oliver Plunkets Eoghan Ruadh (probably spelt arseways) and the page about them was full of insults about them and referred to Sherlock as a "gook"
Disgraceful!
Cheers for the reply LB (although as heganboy says I wouldn't quote wiki as a reliable source). Now is there any chance you can tell me how any of your quote relates to the situation in Ireland (north or south)?