A player on the PSNI gaelic team apparently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7397420.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7397420.stm)
QuoteOfficer hurt by booby-trap bomb
Map of Northern Ireland
An off-duty police officer has been injured by a booby-trap car bomb in County Tyrone.
The explosion happened at Drumnaby Road in Spamount village, outside Castlederg at about 2130 BST on Monday.
The officer, a Catholic, suffered serious leg injuries, however, they are not thought to be life-threatening.
He was rescued by a member of the public who dragged him from the car wreckage. Dissident republicans are being blamed for the attack.
The policeman, who is not stationed in the area, is understood to have been visiting someone.
Councillor Derek Hussey, who went to the scene, said the quick thinking of the member of the public saved the man's life.
"One of the first on the scene, a civilian, is understood to have opened the car door and taken the occupant out of the car," the UUP representative said.
Damaged car
Forensic teams are studying the damaged car
The former MLA praised "the actions and the courage of that particular individual".
Secretary of State Shaun Woodward has condemned the attack.
"The contrast between the PSNI officer, dedicated to serving the community, and those with no politics, no support and no principles, who carried this cowardly attack could not be clearer," he said.
"As Northern Ireland moves towards a new and better future, there remains a tiny minority of contemptible, criminal elements who have been rejected by the people, north and south.
"They will not be allowed to stand in the way of progress."
The police have been warning for some time that dissident groups have been trying to increase their activities and that they were actively targeting police officers.
In November, the Real IRA shot two officers in Londonderry and Dungannon, and in February police mounted a huge security operation across Northern Ireland because of fears that dissidents were planning another shooting or bombing.
If a newspaper said "GAA member in drugs bust" or something like that you'd be up in arms. So why is the title of this "Paramilitaries Still targetting GAA members" ?
Plus according to the article "Dissident republicans are being blamed for the attack"
It is a bit disengenuous, but how many times has the GAA got the short end of the stick? My favourite being the Sunday Mirror headline of many moons ago " Bushmills sponsors terrorism" because Gearoid Adams played on the Antrim team!
Quote from: Gnevin on May 13, 2008, 08:19:43 AM
If a newspaper said "GAA member in drugs bust" or something like that you'd be up in arms. So why is the title of this "Paramilitaries Still targetting GAA members" ?
Because that's what happened. Catholic gaa playing psni men are way higher up the dissidents list than Trevor Plod.
QuotePlus according to the article "Dissident republicans are being blamed for the attack"
Here's me thinking that they were paramilitaries. My bad. ::)
Quote from: passedit on May 13, 2008, 09:31:11 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on May 13, 2008, 08:19:43 AM
If a newspaper said "GAA member in drugs bust" or something like that you'd be up in arms. So why is the title of this "Paramilitaries Still targetting GAA members" ?
Because that's what happened. Catholic gaa playing psni men are way higher up the dissidents list than Trevor Plod.
QuotePlus according to the article "Dissident republicans are being blamed for the attack"
Here's me thinking that they were paramilitaries. My bad. ::)
I didn't see anything about his sporting preferences in the article
The headline is disingenuous at best, deliberately misleading at worst. Or does Passedit consider that this man was targeted because he is a GAA Member? And by his use of the word "still", does this imply that the people who committed this attack have in the past been responsible for attempting to murder GAA members? If this officer was also interested in e.g. Birdwatching, would this produce the headline: "Paramilitaries take to targeting ornithologists"?
What title would Passedit have used had the bomb gone off whilst this man had e.g. his children in the car? Or was giving some of his fellow GAA Members a lift to training? Or their children?
Quite simply, this man will have been targeted because he is a police officer. The fact that he is also RC and a GAA member may be a "bonus", in that intimidating members of that community from serving in the police is a first step towards isolating the police from the community which they seek to serve. Plus, of course, if he lives in a predominantly Nationalist community, or even a mixed one, his whereabouts and movements are more likely to be known to the perpetrators than if he lived in a predominantly Unionist area. And past experience has demonstrated that given a choice between a "soft" target which offers a good chance of escape, and a "harder" target which increases the chance of detection, terrorists invariably choose the former.
Anyhow, if we were ever to reach a stage where every RC/Nat/GAA member of the PSNI were either murdered or intimidated off the force, would the perpetrators then cease their campaign? Or would you be reduced to renaming your threads something like: "Paramilitaries Still targeting Soccer players", every time "Trevor Plod" gets blown up?
For years we had unionists telling us that the IRA targeted the RUC and UDR in border areas because they were Protestant, not because they were members of the members of Brit paramilitary forces. Now we have them telling us PSNI officers are being targeted because they are members of that organisation and not because of their religion or membership of other groups. Go figure...
Looks like they are no closer to understanding out the thinking outside their own community than they were 20 years ago.
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
For years we had unionists telling us that the IRA targeted the RUC and UDR in border areas because they were Protestant, not because they were members of the members of Brit paramilitary forces. Now we have them telling us PSNI officers are being targeted because they are members of that organisation and not because of their religion or membership of other groups. Go figure...
Looks like they are no closer to understanding out the thinking outside their own community than they were 20 years ago.
Now we have them When was EG elect official unionist spokesman? Congrats on the new job EG!!
Quote from: Gnevin on May 13, 2008, 12:13:54 PM
Now we have them When was EG elect official unionist spokesman? Congrats on the new job EG!!
EG isn't the only person to comment on this incident today, but as he's the most visible bigot round these parts, the point can be directed at him.
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
For years we had unionists telling us that the IRA targeted the RUC and UDR in border areas because they were Protestant, not because they were members of the members of Brit paramilitary forces. Now we have them telling us PSNI officers are being targeted because they are members of that organisation and not because of their religion or membership of other groups. Go figure...
Looks like they are no closer to understanding out the thinking outside their own community than they were 20 years ago.
In many cases, the Security Forces were targeted because they were just that. But in others cases, individuals were chosen because they were "soft" targets, preferred over other more "high-profile" or "spectacular" targets. These "soft" targets were often so because they were e.g. community police officers or traffic cops. Sometimes they were easier to get at because they lived in mixed, or even predominantly Nationalist areas. As such, these soft targets included a higher proportion of RC officers than elsewhere and as I acknowledged, their religion/background doubtless made than an ever more welcome target than the "average" peeler or squaddie, since it was a priority to drive a wedge between the Nationalist community and the security forces in the first instance, for both ideological and pragmatic reasons (i.e. allow the terrorists greater ease of movement etc).
But you can't acknowledge that without
also acknowledging that the IRA etc also deliberately targeted e.g. vulnerable Protestant members of the security forces, even including long retired ex-members, who happened to live in border areas. And when these were all either murdered or driven out, they then also turned on their Protestant neighbours with no connection whatever to the security forces. It happened along the border in Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh, just as it had done 80 years before in the southern border counties and places like West Cork.
As for this unfortunate individual last night, would you care to speculate on what you think would happen when the last RC police officer in Tyrone or Fermanagh was either murdered or intimidated out? Would they then turn on the Protestant officers, or leave them be? And if it were the former, what would happen when all the Prod officers were dead or driven out? Would the ordinary Prod members of the population be any safer? Or would their presence, as people who choose a different path from their fellow Irish neighbours, be so objectionable that they, too, would have to be driven out?
In the end, tactical considerations might dictate the order in which their opponents are attacked, but the terrorists's strategy remains the same, whether we are talking about the Provos or the Dissidents (or their "Loyalist" counterparts, for that matter). That is, use terror to destroy or drive out anyone who insists on pursuing a different political path. And anyone who doesn't believe that need only Google e.g. "Douglas Deering" of Rosslea. Or "Seamus McIlwaine". Or to save time, they could try this piece:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/genocidal-killer-who-got-up-close-and-personal-496465.html
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on May 13, 2008, 12:13:54 PM
Now we have them When was EG elect official unionist spokesman? Congrats on the new job EG!!
EG isn't the only person to comment on this incident today, but as he's the most visible bigot round these parts, the point can be directed at him.
So being the "most visible bigot round these parts" also makes me fair game as being representative of
all Unionists everywhere then, does it? How does the refrain go? "Sure themmuns is all the same, anyway..."
Physician Heal Thyself ::)
I think the likes of Nifan and Chrisowc have proved in their time here that the sad wee catchphrase repeated by a small few of "themmuns is all the same" is not quite the case, and the ones repeating it know this.
Face facts, its the guys stirring shite who get the abuse here, the other OWC guys who dont look for trouble and have a bit of manners get on fine.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
I think the likes of Nifan and Chrisowc have proved in their time here that the sad wee catchphrase repeated by a small few of "themmuns is all the same" is not quite the case, and the ones repeating it know this.
Try telling that to Donagh, then, for posting:
"For years we had unionists telling us that... ... Now we have them telling us..."
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2008, 02:06:55 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
I think the likes of Nifan and Chrisowc have proved in their time here that the sad wee catchphrase repeated by a small few of "themmuns is all the same" is not quite the case, and the ones repeating it know this.
Try telling that to Donagh, then, for posting:
"For years we had unionists telling us that... ... Now we have them telling us..."
Precisely, its the like of Nifan and Chris that prove "themmuns" is not all the same.
From the likes of yourself and Sammy, one would easily come to that conclusion.
Maybe "lots of themmuns is the same" is more accurate :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 03:05:13 PM
Maybe "lots of themmuns is the same" is more accurate :D
Or desperate... ::)
"Oh look, a thread has been here all day and it only has 15 replies. What does that tell you?"
What a nob!
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 04:03:25 PM
"Oh look, a thread has been here all day and it only has 15 replies. What does that tell you?"
What a nob!
Wouldn't like to speculate what is says about the other posters on this forum, but from your studied refusal even to acknowledge posts # 7, 9 and 10 of this thread, I'd say it tells everyone that
you don't like having to stick to the point when it proves inconvenient.
Much prefer to "lurk" elsewhere, in the hope of digging up something else to avoid the question? ::)
Evil Genius
Please in future if you are going to link to an article written by Jim Cusack could you please let us know in advance who has written it-just so I can avoid wasting a few seconds of my time. The man and truth are far removed. I can't be arsed listing the shite and lies he has written in the past.I'm sure somebody here might. I guess the "genodical killer" bit should have given it away. What happened in the north could never be referred to genocide. Same applies to the equally ridiculous claims of ethic cleansing along the Border.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 04:03:25 PM
"Oh look, a thread has been here all day and it only has 15 replies. What does that tell you?"
What a nob!
Wouldn't like to speculate what is says about the other posters on this forum, but from your studied refusal even to acknowledge posts # 7, 9 and 10 of this thread, I'd say it tells everyone that you don't like having to stick to the point when it proves inconvenient.
Much prefer to "lurk" elsewhere, in the hope of digging up something else to avoid the question? ::)
Just saying you'd need to be an awful dick to post something along those lines and then feel like an awful twat to have it thrown back in your face, twice. One would have thought an oul windbag forum slut would have known not to resort to such drivel after being so spectacularly shot the first time.
EG seeing as you are so annoyed that nobody has addressed your posts let me.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2008, 11:34:28 AM
The headline is disingenuous at best, deliberately misleading at worst. Or does Passedit consider that this man was targeted because he is a GAA Member?
I think it would be fair to say that Passedit labeled his post as above due to the fact that this is a GAA board. Yes this man was targeted because he was a Police Officer, but the majority of people on this board aren't really interested in the Police in general. We are interested, however, in any news affecting fellow gaels.
And by his use of the word "still", does this imply that the people who committed this attack have in the past been responsible for attempting to murder GAA members?
I don't think Passedit knows who committed this attack or precious ones so whats the point of your question? I think you read too much into too many posts on this board and are immediately on the counter attack without merit.
If this officer was also interested in e.g. Birdwatching, would this produce the headline: "Paramilitaries take to targeting ornithologists"?
Probably on an ornithologists website - yes.
What title would Passedit have used had the bomb gone off whilst this man had e.g. his children in the car? Or was giving some of his fellow GAA Members a lift to training? Or their children?
Maybe Dissidents target GAA man and his family/ Dissidents Target GAA men / Dissidents Target GAA coach and kids. How's that? Whats your point?
Quite simply, this man will have been targeted because he is a police officer.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
The fact that he is also RC and a GAA member may be a "bonus", in that intimidating members of that community from serving in the police is a first step towards isolating the police from the community which they seek to serve. Plus, of course, if he lives in a predominantly Nationalist community, or even a mixed one, his whereabouts and movements are more likely to be known to the perpetrators than if he lived in a predominantly Unionist area. And past experience has demonstrated that given a choice between a "soft" target which offers a good chance of escape, and a "harder" target which increases the chance of detection, terrorists invariably choose the former.
Anyhow, if we were ever to reach a stage where every RC/Nat/GAA member of the PSNI were either murdered or intimidated off the force, would the perpetrators then cease their campaign?
No they probably wouldn't. So again what is your point?
Or would you be reduced to renaming your threads something like: "Paramilitaries Still targeting Soccer players", every time "Trevor Plod" gets blown up?
I have marked my answers in red because you seem to see everything through tinted glasses. Not unionist glasses before you go off on that tangent, but just aggressive ones. You look for the bad in every post whether it is there or not simply to stir up shite. The very fact that you are on this board at all is a testament to that fact. Looking back over the majority of your contributions to discussions on here you seem to love arguments rather than discussion and I just wonder what your ultimate goal is?
Why do you feel the need to be a member of this discussion board?
What is your motivation?
Quote from: Boolerhead Mel on May 13, 2008, 04:41:28 PM
Evil Genius
Please in future if you are going to link to an article written by Jim Cusack could you please let us know in advance who has written it-just so I can avoid wasting a few seconds of my time. The man and truth are far removed. I can't be arsed listing the shite and lies he has written in the past.I'm sure somebody here might. I guess the "genodical killer" bit should have given it away. What happened in the north could never be referred to genocide. Same applies to the equally ridiculous claims of ethic cleansing along the Border.
You could have saved another few seconds of your time by not bothering to post the above, as well. So you don't like Cusack, or what he writes. Fine. I personally have no opinion on him either way, but I thought the individual piece I linked had a lot of merit.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 13, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
Why do you feel the need to be a member of this discussion board?
What is your motivation?
Allow me as EG will not give an honest and true answer, shockingly.
1) Revenge on Tony Fearon, this is why he joined in the first place.
2) to wind up the taigs on the GAA site while his fans on OWC holler and whoop about it.
(note I did not say everyone on OWC, before the decent posters from OWC protest)
Its funny how some people come over from OWC and get on fine with most posters (with the odd exception) yet some just seem to constantly argue with people.
He must be frustrated at this as it proves it isnt that he is a Unionist or OWC fan that earns him the reaction he gets, its his unpleasant personality.
In the words of BA Baracus, I pity the fool :D
Quote from: The Iceman on May 13, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
EG seeing as you are so annoyed that nobody has addressed your posts let me.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2008, 11:34:28 AM
The headline is disingenuous at best, deliberately misleading at worst. Or does Passedit consider that this man was targeted because he is a GAA Member?
I think it would be fair to say that Passedit labeled his post as above due to the fact that this is a GAA board. Yes this man was targeted because he was a Police Officer, but the majority of people on this board aren't really interested in the Police in general. We are interested, however, in any news affecting fellow gaels.
And by his use of the word "still", does this imply that the people who committed this attack have in the past been responsible for attempting to murder GAA members?
I don't think Passedit knows who committed this attack or precious ones so whats the point of your question? I think you read too much into too many posts on this board and are immediately on the counter attack without merit.
If this officer was also interested in e.g. Birdwatching, would this produce the headline: "Paramilitaries take to targeting ornithologists"?
Probably on an ornithologists website - yes.
What title would Passedit have used had the bomb gone off whilst this man had e.g. his children in the car? Or was giving some of his fellow GAA Members a lift to training? Or their children?
Maybe Dissidents target GAA man and his family/ Dissidents Target GAA men / Dissidents Target GAA coach and kids. How's that? Whats your point?
Quite simply, this man will have been targeted because he is a police officer.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
The fact that he is also RC and a GAA member may be a "bonus", in that intimidating members of that community from serving in the police is a first step towards isolating the police from the community which they seek to serve. Plus, of course, if he lives in a predominantly Nationalist community, or even a mixed one, his whereabouts and movements are more likely to be known to the perpetrators than if he lived in a predominantly Unionist area. And past experience has demonstrated that given a choice between a "soft" target which offers a good chance of escape, and a "harder" target which increases the chance of detection, terrorists invariably choose the former.
Anyhow, if we were ever to reach a stage where every RC/Nat/GAA member of the PSNI were either murdered or intimidated off the force, would the perpetrators then cease their campaign?
No they probably wouldn't. So again what is your point?
Or would you be reduced to renaming your threads something like: "Paramilitaries Still targeting Soccer players", every time "Trevor Plod" gets blown up?
I have marked my answers in red because you seem to see everything through tinted glasses.
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to my post. I guess the overall point I am making on this particular thread could best be summed up when I wrote:
"In the end, tactical considerations might dictate the order in which their opponents are attacked, but the terrorists' strategy remains the same, whether we are talking about the Provos or the Dissidents (or their "Loyalist" counterparts, for that matter). That is, use terror to destroy or drive out anyone who insists on pursuing a different political path"As I see it, this poor man was likely targeted primarily because he is a police officer, with the "bonus" being that he is also Catholic (i.e. drive a wedge). I would guess that it is a matter of (slight) regret to his would-be murderers that he is also a "Gael", since it makes it harder for them to maintain the fiction that their "war" is only with the "Brits" (irrespective of religion). Still, needs must... >:(
Anyhow, it is in this context that I originally questioned the title of the thread, since I find it disingenuous to the point of misleading.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 13, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
I have marked my answers in red because you seem to see everything through tinted glasses. Not unionist glasses before you go off on that tangent, but just aggressive ones. You look for the bad in every post whether it is there or not simply to stir up shite. The very fact that you are on this board at all is a testament to that fact. Looking back over the majority of your contributions to discussions on here you seem to love arguments rather than discussion and I just wonder what your ultimate goal is?
As for my posting style, perhaps I am overly aggressive. Then again, seeing as I get abused so starkly for daring to question the orthodoxy, then my only other resort is either to complain to the Mods etc, which I prefer not to (let's face it, no-one likes a sneak) or stop posting altogether and return to a more "natural" environment, which I think cowardly.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 13, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
Why do you feel the need to be a member of this discussion board?
What is your motivation?
I'm tempted to answer your first question with another of my own, namely, why should it be so unusual that an Irishman who is interested in sport and general affairs should want to post on an Irish forum which deals with, ahem, sport and general affairs? ;)
But I suppose a more accurate answer to both questions may be found here:
www.onesmallstepcampaign.org
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 13, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
Why do you feel the need to be a member of this discussion board?
What is your motivation?
Allow me as EG will not give an honest and true answer, shockingly.
1) Revenge on Tony Fearon, this is why he joined in the first place.
2) to wind up the taigs on the GAA site while his fans on OWC holler and whoop about it.
(note I did not say everyone on OWC, before the decent posters from OWC protest)
Its funny how some people come over from OWC and get on fine with most posters (with the odd exception) yet some just seem to constantly argue with people.
He must be frustrated at this as it proves it isnt that he is a Unionist or OWC fan that earns him the reaction he gets, its his unpleasant personality.
In the words of BA Baracus, I pity the fool :D
Had I known you were going to reply on my behalf, I'd not have bothered replying to The Iceman as I did (see #23, above). After all, you anticipated my reply better than I could - virtually word for word.
Well done, 10/10 for effort!
Paramilitaries = probably dissident republicans
Still targetting = since the start of the troubles paramilitaries have targetted gaa members (usually loyalists but i thought it was ironic that it's now republicans who feel they get bonus points for a fenian GAA member).
GAA members = the lad plays for the psni gaelic team so i thought it safe to assume he'd paid his subs.
I was going to post this in the GAA side, wish I had now.
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
For years we had unionists telling us that the IRA targeted the RUC and UDR in border areas because they were Protestant, not because they were members of the members of Brit paramilitary forces. Now we have them telling us PSNI officers are being targeted because they are members of that organisation and not because of their religion or membership of other groups. Go figure...
Looks like they are no closer to understanding out the thinking outside their own community than they were 20 years ago.
As the Provos killed more RC's than any other organisation during the troubles it wouldn't be fair to brand them purely sectarian. Sectarian certainly, but more bloodthirsty than anything else.
taken from the onesmallstep website as posted by Evil Genius. I have highlighted the parts in green which I think are significant:
QuoteOne Small Step Campaign Chairman, Trevor Ringland, explained: "A shared future where Northern Ireland can reach its full potential through everyone working together can only be achieved through the will of the community. Therefore we are asking people to think about what they can do personally to help bring an end to division and create a shared future. Anyone who has an idea for a small step can submit it for consideration for the book."
"With the new political settlement, we do have a major opportunity to move forward towards a shared future and the One Small Step Campaign is asking and challenging everyone in society to play their part. There are small steps taking place in the community all of the time to break down barriers and it is important that that process is continued and built upon. The fact is that although significant progress has been made, we do still live in a divided, post-conflict society.
So based on this Evil Genius I am going to stand up and call you a fraud.
Are you seriously saying that your 'one small step' is to post on a GAA website and aggravate Gaels??
Your posts definitely do not "break down barriers" - in fact most times they only cause further division.
So you still haven't truthfully answered my original question: What motivates you to post here?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 13, 2008, 05:44:41 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 13, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
Why do you feel the need to be a member of this discussion board?
What is your motivation?
Allow me as EG will not give an honest and true answer, shockingly.
1) Revenge on Tony Fearon, this is why he joined in the first place.
2) to wind up the taigs on the GAA site while his fans on OWC holler and whoop about it.
(note I did not say everyone on OWC, before the decent posters from OWC protest)
Its funny how some people come over from OWC and get on fine with most posters (with the odd exception) yet some just seem to constantly argue with people.
He must be frustrated at this as it proves it isnt that he is a Unionist or OWC fan that earns him the reaction he gets, its his unpleasant personality.
In the words of BA Baracus, I pity the fool :D
Had I known you were going to reply on my behalf, I'd not have bothered replying to The Iceman as I did (see #23, above). After all, you anticipated my reply better than I could - virtually word for word.
Well done, 10/10 for effort!
No problem, I though for one, it would at least be more truthful that whatever you would come out with, after all, it is a well know fact that Tony Fearon is the reason you came over here, surely even you wont deny that? And fair play, you have been shark like in jumping onto his every post in an attempt to ridicule his taunts. The irony is, for someone who calls himself a "genuis" I would have though it clear that nobody pays attention to Tonys numerous wind ups, but for the gullible few of which you are a member.
The link you posted (rather than actually answer in your own words) as a possible reason is of course quite clearly a joke as you have no intentions of breaking down barriers. You personally have caused more tension than anyone on here (with the exception of Tony) between Unionists and Nationalists.
So cut the crap, oh and dont be sending me any more pm's in reply to this, be a man and say what you have to say in the open.
Iceman, he has said himself previously that Tony Fearon is the reason he joined.
Who were the scummiest of the Loyalist paramilitaries?
My vote goes to the UDR.
Something extra freaky about those thugs walking around in uniforms, armed and paid by the State.
Never batted an eyelid when when one of them got blown away.
It was estimated by the British Army, that at any given time, some 15% (>1000) of them were members of the more extreme Loyalist paramilitaries the UDA and UVF
Quote from: passedit on May 13, 2008, 06:13:03 PM
Paramilitaries = probably dissident republicans
Still targetting = since the start of the troubles paramilitaries have targetted gaa members (usually loyalists but i thought it was ironic that it's now republicans who feel they get bonus points for a fenian GAA member).
GAA members = the lad plays for the psni gaelic team so i thought it safe to assume he'd paid his subs.
I was going to post this in the GAA side, wish I had now.
There's a few of us that got the irony I think, good thread title.
Quote from: Donagh on May 13, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
For years we had unionists telling us that the IRA targeted the RUC and UDR in border areas because they were Protestant, not because they were members of the members of Brit paramilitary forces. Now we have them telling us PSNI officers are being targeted because they are members of that organisation and not because of their religion or membership of other groups. Go figure...
Looks like they are no closer to understanding out the thinking outside their own community than they were 20 years ago.
Riiight...
A couple of questions:
1 - From where did you pick up EG's view of the murder/attempted murder of police officers during the Troubles?
2 - When did EG become 'them'?
You don't even bother attempting to veil your prejudice anymore ::)
Quote from: Main Street on May 13, 2008, 07:34:14 PMIt was estimated by the British Army, that at any given time, some 15% (>1000) of them were members of the more extreme Loyalist paramilitaries the UDA and UVF
No it wasn't.
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2008, 08:47:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 13, 2008, 07:34:14 PMIt was estimated by the British Army, that at any given time, some 15% (>1000) of them were members of the more extreme Loyalist paramilitaries the UDA and UVF
No it wasn't.
I would have thought it was about 50% of them.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 13, 2008, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2008, 08:47:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 13, 2008, 07:34:14 PMIt was estimated by the British Army, that at any given time, some 15% (>1000) of them were members of the more extreme Loyalist paramilitaries the UDA and UVF
No it wasn't.
I would have thought it was about 50% of them.
Drop a zero.
'Subversion in the UDR' (1973) said:
"It seems likely that a significant proportion (perhaps five per cent - in some areas as high as 15 per cent) of UDR soldiers will also be members of the UDA, Vanguard service corps, Orange Volunteers or UVF. Subversion will not occur in every case but there will be a passing on of information and training methods in many cases and a few subversives may conspire to 'leak' arms and ammunition to Protestant extremist groups"
A completely unacceptable situation. Which doesn't need to be over-egged by stating "15%" as the figure, saying "at any given time" rather than a snapshot in 1973 (when 'loyalist' paramilitary membership was at its height and vetting laxest) or ignoring the reference to the Orange Volunteers ('doomsday' group) and the VSC (Bill Craig's outriders, similar to Paisley's later 'Thrid Force) :-\
Pathetic, jumping in to make some pedantic correction to minimize the acceptable level of collusion by the hated militant vanguard of Unionists with their murder squads.
Would have thought it much higher at stages of 'the troubles'. Maybe 60-80%. Would not read much into figures released by British forces ::)
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2008, 10:24:46 PM
A completely unacceptable situation. Which doesn't need to be over-egged by stating "15%" as the figure, saying "at any given time" rather than a snapshot in 1973 (when 'loyalist' paramilitary membership was at its height and vetting laxest) or ignoring the reference to the Orange Volunteers ('doomsday' group) and the VSC (Bill Craig's outriders, similar to Paisley's later 'Thrid Force) :-\
Allied with the low-level intimidation (a very pertinent issue for GAA members) and the large number of terrorist convictions (circa 300) it makes for a sc**bag force. Being a "softie southerner" looking in I never agreed with the republican tarring of all an sundry in the British forces but these guys were beyond the pale.
/Jim.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 07:24:16 PM
Iceman, he has said himself previously that Tony Fearon is the reason he joined.
then why isn't he banned from the boards if he is only here to stir up shite?
mods?
He got a warning today Iceman.
Quote from: Main Street on May 13, 2008, 11:44:18 PM
Pathetic, jumping in to make some pedantic correction to minimize the acceptable level of collusion by the hated militant vanguard of Unionists with their murder squads.
What part of the words "competely unacceptable" do you not understand? ::)
Hardly pedantic either, given there was very little level of accuracy in your claim.
As for "pathetic", see your rush to have a go at the UDR on a thread about republican terrorists trying to murder a police officer who is also a member of the GAA.
Quote from: EC Unique on May 14, 2008, 11:21:54 AM
Would have thought it much higher at stages of 'the troubles'. Maybe 60-80%.
Which stages of the Troubles, do you think? This was 1973, when loyalist paramilitary mass membership was at its height. And vetting was at its laxest.
Quote
Would not read much into figures released by British forces ::)
The figures are from an internal intelligence report, they weren't "released by British forces".
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 14, 2008, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2008, 10:24:46 PM
A completely unacceptable situation. Which doesn't need to be over-egged by stating "15%" as the figure, saying "at any given time" rather than a snapshot in 1973 (when 'loyalist' paramilitary membership was at its height and vetting laxest) or ignoring the reference to the Orange Volunteers ('doomsday' group) and the VSC (Bill Craig's outriders, similar to Paisley's later 'Thrid Force) :-\
Allied with the low-level intimidation (a very pertinent issue for GAA members) and the large number of terrorist convictions (circa 300) it makes for a sc**bag force. Being a "softie southerner" looking in I never agreed with the republican tarring of all an sundry in the British forces but these guys were beyond the pale.
/Jim.
I take on board your perception and probable access to people's experiences but aren't you tarring all of them with the actions of the "subversives"?
Anyway, trying to turn this thread into a debate on the UDR. I just dislike the shoddy misuse of "evidence" such as above (reminded me of John O'Dowd using the report to claim the army had said "at least 15% of the were loyalist paramilitaries").
Quote from: MW on May 14, 2008, 10:37:03 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 13, 2008, 11:44:18 PM
Pathetic, jumping in to make some pedantic correction to minimize the acceptable level of collusion by the hated militant vanguard of Unionists with their murder squads.
What part of the words "competely unacceptable" do you not understand? ::)
Hardly pedantic either, given there was very little level of accuracy in your claim.
As for "pathetic", see your rush to have a go at the UDR on a thread about republican terrorists trying to murder a police officer who is also a member of the GAA.
No the twist was some OWC fxckwit trying to explain that he was targeted because he was a police man ;D
Which brought up a load of memories.
Then that fxckwit caught with his pants down, in a side step, tried to widen the debate.
All too predictible and hypocritical.
UDR were unionist scum, from its B Special beginnings to its end and from top to bottom.
Go take your moralising crusade somewhere else.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 14, 2008, 07:58:54 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2008, 07:24:16 PM
Iceman, he has said himself previously that Tony Fearon is the reason he joined.
then why isn't he banned from the boards if he is only here to stir up shite?
mods?
HHNB - I did not say that TF is "the reason I joined" - like most people, I was minded to join for a number of reasons, the chief of which was "One Small Step". As to why I continue, there are also a number of reasons, one of which is to counter Fearon's lies, fabrications and general propaganda against me and my fellow NI soccer supporters.
Iceman - For the record, I made a couple of posts on this thread (#5, #9) which dealt directly with the topic. You replied in kind (#20), which I happily acknowledged when I came back in the same spirit (#23). At this point, however, you ceased to address the subject and became personal, by trying to divert the subject onto me and my motivation for posting etc. That is bad enough, but for you then to start invoking the Mods etc, after egging on by HHNB, cheapens the debate considerably (imo). Or didn't you note when I posted that "nobody likes a sneak"?
Anyhow, if the Mods are not happy with my posting etc, then I'm sure they know how to find me. In the meantime, I don't have to answer to you (or HHNB) for my membership of this forum or for my motivation for posting, and I will try to resist descending to your level, even when called a "fraud" (by you), a "liar" (HHNB) or a "bigot" (Donagh) on this thread alone.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 11:51:52 AM
That is bad enough, but for you then to start invoking the Mods etc, after egging on by HHNB, cheapens the debate considerably (imo
What the f**k are you on about EG? How was I egging anyone on to alert the mods???
He asked why you were here, and I told him. And what I told him was consistant with the reasons you gave back when you joined.
I never suggested he get the mods involved, nor do I think joining to argue with Tony is reason enough to get them involved.
Incidentally dont act all victimlike over being called a "liar". The "one small step" reason you gave for joining is quite clearly I lie. Dont get all pissy britched for me pointing that out. Sure you have accused me (falsely) of telling lies on this site before too.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2008, 01:40:28 PM
He [Iceman] asked why you were here, and I told him. And what I told him was consistant with the reasons you gave back when you joined.
Incidentally dont act all victimlike over being called a "liar". The "one small step" reason you gave for joining is quite clearly I lie.
So you know why I joined the Board, then? You know all my motivations? Here is what I posted back in 2006, in reply to another poster who questioned my motives - in this particular case after I had made a (rare) post in the GAA Section:
"It's all a bit of a shame, really, since in the spirit of Trevor Ringland's "One Small Step", I took to reading this part of the Board specifically to try to understand better the thinking of GAA fans, but perhaps that simply won't work"You know, it's strangely ironic that certain individuals, who invariably profess to be in favour of a "united" [
sic] Ireland, find it so hard to accept it whenever an Irishman like myself posts on threads like these, from a perspective which does not conform to the Nationalist norm. Fair enough, I don't expect many (any?) posters to agree with my views, but my right to hold and express these views? This is an Irish forum, discussing Irish sport and other matters of general interest. I am an Irishman who is interested in sport and general affairs and providing I stick to the Rules etc, I have as much right to post here as you or anyone else.
Anyhow, just as it was my decision to join this forum, for my own reasons, it will be my decision, from my own reasons, should I ever decide to leave. And in the meantime, I shall try to stick to the message, rather than the messenger, even if you won't.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2008, 01:41:01 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2008, 08:02:28 PM
He got a warning today Iceman.
What for Ziggy?
Yeah, who got the warning and what for? Because if it was me, as your original comment implies, then it's news to me. ???
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 11:51:52 AM
Iceman - For the record, I made a couple of posts on this thread (#5, #9) which dealt directly with the topic. You replied in kind (#20), which I happily acknowledged when I came back in the same spirit (#23). At this point, however, you ceased to address the subject and became personal, by trying to divert the subject onto me and my motivation for posting etc. That is bad enough, but for you then to start invoking the Mods etc, after egging on by HHNB, cheapens the debate considerably (imo). Or didn't you note when I posted that "nobody likes a sneak"?
Anyhow, if the Mods are not happy with my posting etc, then I'm sure they know how to find me. In the meantime, I don't have to answer to you (or HHNB) for my membership of this forum or for my motivation for posting, and I will try to resist descending to your level, even when called a "fraud" (by you), a "liar" (HHNB) or a "bigot" (Donagh) on this thread alone.
EG your posts in #5 and #9 as you were so gracious to label for us did not deal directly with the topic. You were addressing your own agenda, as you do with the majority of your posts. You try to direct everything to your usual tune and think everyone else can't see what you are up to. Nobody likes a sneak right?
I addressed all of your questions. But you are not the only one who can ask questions on this forum EG. I think I adequately exposed all of your comments as pointless and then proceeded to ask why they were posted in the first place?
I think you have made it quite clear why you continue to post on this forum. Despite your fraudulent claims that you post in the spirit of the onesmall step campaign everyone else knows why you are here - I invoked the mods because it is time they did something about it -and I didn't need any egging on from anyone. And I didn't PM them, I openly stated my opinions on the board - so why imply I'm a sneak?
If you were genuinely here to learn more about the GAA and the opinions and feelings of other "Irish men and women" then why continue to annoy and aggravate us? Why continue to post comments that you know only serve to wind people up? I'll tell you why - because you are not here in the spirit of any one small step campaign - you are here in the spirit of a "ten steps back" campaign and instead of building bridges you are just another member of a minority of people on this island who liked things as they used to be.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2008, 03:27:50 PM
EG your posts in #5 and #9 as you were so gracious to label for us did not deal directly with the topic. You were addressing your own agenda, as you do with the majority of your posts. You try to direct everything to your usual tune and think everyone else can't see what you are up to. Nobody likes a sneak right?
I addressed all of your questions. But you are not the only one who can ask questions on this forum EG. I think I adequately exposed all of your comments as pointless and then proceeded to ask why they were posted in the first place?
I think you have made it quite clear why you continue to post on this forum. Despite your fraudulent claims that you post in the spirit of the onesmall step campaign everyone else knows why you are here - I invoked the mods because it is time they did something about it -and I didn't need any egging on from anyone. And I didn't PM them, I openly stated my opinions on the board - so why imply I'm a sneak?
If you were genuinely here to learn more about the GAA and the opinions and feelings of other "Irish men and women" then why continue to annoy and aggravate us? Why continue to post comments that you know only serve to wind people up? I'll tell you why - because you are not here in the spirit of any one small step campaign - you are here in the spirit of a "ten steps back" campaign and instead of building bridges you are just another member of a minority of people on this island who liked things as they used to be.
You don't agree with, even like, what I post. You don't accept my stated motives for posting. You consider you have "rumbled" me. Fine. The self-same "free world" which allows you to speak your mind also allows
me to do the same. Get used to it.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2008, 01:40:28 PM
He [Iceman] asked why you were here, and I told him. And what I told him was consistant with the reasons you gave back when you joined.
Incidentally dont act all victimlike over being called a "liar". The "one small step" reason you gave for joining is quite clearly I lie.
So you know why I joined the Board, then? You know all my motivations? Here is what I posted back in 2006, in reply to another poster who questioned my motives - in this particular case after I had made a (rare) post in the GAA Section:
"It's all a bit of a shame, really, since in the spirit of Trevor Ringland's "One Small Step", I took to reading this part of the Board specifically to try to understand better the thinking of GAA fans, but perhaps that simply won't work"
You know, it's strangely ironic that certain individuals, who invariably profess to be in favour of a "united" [sic] Ireland, find it so hard to accept it whenever an Irishman like myself posts on threads like these, from a perspective which does not conform to the Nationalist norm. Fair enough, I don't expect many (any?) posters to agree with my views, but my right to hold and express these views? This is an Irish forum, discussing Irish sport and other matters of general interest. I am an Irishman who is interested in sport and general affairs and providing I stick to the Rules etc, I have as much right to post here as you or anyone else.
Anyhow, just as it was my decision to join this forum, for my own reasons, it will be my decision, from my own reasons, should I ever decide to leave. And in the meantime, I shall try to stick to the message, rather than the messenger, even if you won't.
So you are Irish then, not british when it suits you but Irish, and Irish all the time?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 02:53:48 PM
You know, it's strangely ironic that certain individuals, who invariably profess to be in favour of a "united" [sic] Ireland, find it so hard to accept it whenever an Irishman like myself posts on threads like these, from a perspective which does not conform to the Nationalist norm. Fair enough, I don't expect many (any?) posters to agree with my views, but my right to hold and express these views? This is an Irish forum, discussing Irish sport and other matters of general interest. I am an Irishman who is interested in sport and general affairs and providing I stick to the Rules etc, I have as much right to post here as you or anyone else.
Eg, just to clarify, I have never said you dont have the right to post on here and express your views. Of course you do. As I have the right to question WHY you post certain things.
Nothing to do with a non nationalist view, theres other guys on here with non nationalist views.
I just happen to think that you and Sammy G seem to be more concerned with provoking a row.
That said, you are entitled to do that, as I am entitled to speak my mind when you do.
The beauty of free speech. ;)
Quote from: stew on May 15, 2008, 04:15:41 PM
So you are Irish then, not british when it suits you but Irish, and Irish all the time?
No, what suits me is that being Irish and British is not incompatible or mutually exclusive. In the same way as it is possible to be English and British/Scottish and British/Welsh and British. That is how Unions tend to work.
For the record, I am Irish born and bred, from simliar stock going back hundreds of years. More specifically, I am Northern Irish, the designation I am most comfortable with out of the many which I might apply to myself. That is because it also allows me, a Unionist, to be British i.e. a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It also allows me to describe myself as "European" i.e. resident within the European Union, in common with my fellow Irishmen and women who live in the Irish Republic.
Anyhow, to get this thread back on topic and away from me (fascinating though I appear to some of you!), how do you suppose the poor police officer who was maimed the other day would describe himself? Undoubtedly "Irish", and a "Gael", possibly "Northern Irish" (i.e. member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland). But "British"? Possibly not. Mind you, I've no doubt those brave, patriotic Irishmen who tried to murder him would describe him as a "Brit" :o
P.S. I believe you live in the USA. Ever met any "Irish Americans" out there? If so, ever thought to ask them how that works, then? ;)
Quote from: stew on May 15, 2008, 04:15:41 PM
So you are Irish then, not british when it suits you but Irish, and Irish all the time?
What a f**king stupid post? Of course people are Irish all the time, they're also British all the time and European all the time. They're not mutually exclusive.
We should have given ye lot a different name altogether, like Madland or something. Then there'd be no confusion. When people say they are 'Irish', most assume they mean Irish in the Tricolour, Dublin is the Capital, 32 county sort of way. They don't think you mean it in relation to a piece of land called the island of Ireland.
Then they get confused when you say you are British as well. It's the assumption that Irish relates to the ROI, rather than the island. They get how you can be Scottish and British, Welsh and British, English and British, but not Irish and British. If ye said Northern Irish and British, it would be easier for most people to understand. But it's confusing, hence 'Madland'. Then you could say you were Mad AND British, and we'd all be clear :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 03:36:15 PM
You don't agree with, even like, what I post. You don't accept my stated motives for posting. You consider you have "rumbled" me. Fine. The self-same "free world" which allows you to speak your mind also allows me to do the same. Get used to it.
= cop out
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2008, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 03:36:15 PM
You don't agree with, even like, what I post. You don't accept my stated motives for posting. You consider you have "rumbled" me. Fine. The self-same "free world" which allows you to speak your mind also allows me to do the same. Get used to it.
= cop out
Congratulations, you win. Now try not to get cum stains on your keks. ::)
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2008, 05:41:20 PM
We should have given ye lot a different name altogether, like Madland or something. Then there'd be no confusion. When people say they are 'Irish', most assume they mean Irish in the Tricolour, Dublin is the Capital, 32 county sort of way. They don't think you mean it in relation to a piece of land called the island of Ireland.
So if I say I'm European would people automatically assume I was French?
p.s. Before I get accused of having a sense of humour failure, I know you were taking the piss.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2008, 05:41:20 PM
We should have given ye lot a different name altogether, like Madland or something. Then there'd be no confusion. When people say they are 'Irish', most assume they mean Irish in the Tricolour, Dublin is the Capital, 32 county sort of way. They don't think you mean it in relation to a piece of land called the island of Ireland.
Then they get confused when you say you are British as well. It's the assumption that Irish relates to the ROI, rather than the island. They get how you can be Scottish and British, Welsh and British, English and British, but not Irish and British. If ye said Northern Irish and British, it would be easier for most people to understand. But it's confusing, hence 'Madland'. Then you could say you were Mad AND British, and we'd all be clear :D
"When Ali Met Sammy" - 2 mins. 27 secs. in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCNG5UeKMZw
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2008, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 15, 2008, 03:36:15 PM
You don't agree with, even like, what I post. You don't accept my stated motives for posting. You consider you have "rumbled" me. Fine. The self-same "free world" which allows you to speak your mind also allows me to do the same. Get used to it.
= cop out
Congratulations, you win. Now try not to get cum stains on your keks. ::)
I do win.
You try to take the all knowing high ground with people in your posts when really you know mr Shit, first name Jack.
And if you want to think about men cumin in their keks then hit up a different site
Quote from: stew on May 15, 2008, 04:15:41 PM
So you are Irish then, not british when it suits you but Irish, and Irish all the time?
The ID that had the RUC salivating in the 80's was British passport with South African residency.
You could be pissed drunk in charge of a vehicle, be pulled over and they would stand to attention and salute you.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2008, 05:41:20 PMIt's the assumption that Irish relates to the ROI, rather than the island. They get how you can be Scottish and British, Welsh and British, English and British, but not Irish and British. If ye said Northern Irish and British, it would be easier for most people to understand.
Pretty much how I would see things there. I wouldn't tend to identify myself as Irish.