Willie Frazer threatens protests and riots if not allowed see Queen in Dublin

[Eamonnca1]

...but you only have to scratch the surface to see that the only party in the north which has actively and 100% opposed violence since its inception is the SDLP.

Alliance? Greens?

I was thinking major parties actually, but yes.  Point taken.

[gallsman]

Oh and another thing. Unionists probably weren't as inclined to overtly support terrorism because they had instruments of the state (B-Specials, UDR, RUC) that could do more or less the same sort of work but with the added backup of the courts to enforce their will.

Not to forget the British Army. That is an issue that Unionists, by and large will never accept - that many nationalists see the forces of the British state no better than Unionists see the Provos.

[Eamonnca1]

Oh and another thing. Unionists probably weren't as inclined to overtly support terrorism because they had instruments of the state (B-Specials, UDR, RUC) that could do more or less the same sort of work but with the added backup of the courts to enforce their will.

Not to forget the British Army. That is an issue that Unionists, by and large will never accept - that many nationalists see the forces of the British state no better than Unionists see the Provos.

Oh but "that's different", isn't it? I suppose it's okay to use terrorists as a threat to back up your political position as long as said terrorists have the backing of the forces of law and order and don't have to do everything themselves.

[Eamonnca1]

And another thing. One thing I have to give unionists credit for is their ability to use language to frame the debate.  (And I'm not just talking about the successful re-branding of Sinn Fein as "Sinn Fein/IRA" in the 1990s.) 

Ever notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"? 

Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"?  (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)

Shouldn't surprise anyone who can remember that the UDA wasn't banned until 1992.  What did the British government think the UDA was anyway? A neighbourhood watch scheme?

[Eamonnca1]

It was asked on the first page and has been forgotten all about - Willie brought this up out of the blue, nobody has banned him or spoken about banning him from doing anything.

One suspects that his main objective is to find some way of causing trouble, end up arrested or turfed back up the motorway and then enjoy his airtime afterwards. Just ignore the little bollocks. We all know what a bigoted little p***k he is. Must have come from his da.

Spot on. The guy is a total drama queen.

[Tony Baloney]

It was asked on the first page and has been forgotten all about - Willie brought this up out of the blue, nobody has banned him or spoken about banning him from doing anything.

One suspects that his main objective is to find some way of causing trouble, end up arrested or turfed back up the motorway and then enjoy his airtime afterwards. Just ignore the little bollocks. We all know what a bigoted little p***k he is. Must have come from his da.

Agree with this man.

[MW]

Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy. 

That's quite simply not true.

[trileacman]

"Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such," the statement says.

Someone arrest this man, he's in the Real IRA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBT4ZWy6Lm4&feature=player_detailpage

[MW]

Ever notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"? 

This is also quite simply not true. The IRA and INLA were often referred to as paramilitary groups: equally the UVF and UDA/UFF were often referred to as terrorists.

Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"?  (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)

Again, the PUP and UDP were often referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA, and SF alsoreferred to in ways other than the political wing of the IRA.

You really are just plucking these assertions from your own head.

[Eamonnca1]

Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy. 

That's quite simply not true.

Yes it is.

[Eamonnca1]

Ever notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"? 

This is also quite simply not true. The IRA and INLA were often referred to as paramilitary groups: equally the UVF and UDA/UFF were often referred to as terrorists.

Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"?  (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)

Again, the PUP and UDP were often referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA, and SF alsoreferred to in ways other than the political wing of the IRA.

You really are just plucking these assertions from your own head.

Your head's cut! Every word I said is true and you know it.

I even heard ITN referring to David Ervine and co. as "parties with the ear of loyalist paramilitary groups." Sounds like a genetic engineering experiment gone horribly wrong, which in the case of certain loyalists would explain a great deal.

[Lar Naparka]

So Unionists need to "stand up and be counted" over Frazer, do they?

IMHO, they sure do.
By you leave, I won't refer to Conor Murphy or the results of the last Westminster at all. That's "whataboutery" for me  and I don't find it necessary to say that condemning one is tantamount to supporting another in any diiscussion/row/free-fro-all or whatever I get involved in. For the purposes of discussing the matter in hand, Mr Murphy may have been trying out new wayys of lifting his spuds out of the ground for all I care..
We will have enough lunatics of our own in Dublin next week to worry about; we could   get along nicely without Willie and his buddies.
I accept that he has very little support in Unionist circles but most of us in the South  couldn't tell the difference between a Unionist and a Loyalist, up close, and wouldn't  give   a flying f**k about it either. I think the same goes for the vast international audience the visit will attract.
I would also say that he doesn't intend doing the cause of Unionism any favours when he shows up. He is hoping to play to the gallery back home and that means the 4.4%  that voted for him and to whoever else supports him in NI.
Now, it's all very well to say that ther vast majority of Unionists don't support him but that is not the point I'm trying to make. I've no doubt that most  people on 'your'' side of the fence do not support extremists but, equally, they never seem to go to any lengths to denounce them either.
Yep; I do take your point, "........whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people."
But I'm asking yo to accept one of mine in return:
I can't see how  the matter of Willie Frazer and his proposed appearence in Dublin next week comes into this.
He knows his actions are going to stir up ant-Unionist feelings in the Republic and elsewhere. I would suggest that it might help the cause of north-south reapproachment, and all that sort of stuff, if some prominent  Unionist spokeperson were to say that Willie is only a nutter. Maybe the phraseology would need to more refined than mine is in the present instance but the intent should be clear:
Willie does not represent Unionism.
That's not asking a lot, is it?

As for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.?

With regard to Paisley, I really can't see much difference between  calling him a demagogue or an out and out bigot.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," as Shakespeare opined.
I think we have established that I am appproximately ten years older than you are so I probably have a clearer recollection of events in the early stages of the Troubles than you.
I'd have no problem if he just thought like an out and out bigot but but he acted like one  on a 24/7 basis. Keep in mind that the question of Civil Rights dominated proceedings in the period  leading up to and following on from Burntollet.
I'm gently suggesting to you that Paisley, along with Ronald Bunting and Bill Craig, did more to bring on The Troubles than any number of  individuals or actions from the Nationalist side. When British troops first appeared on the streets of Belfast, they were welcomed with open arms by Nationalists who thought the soldiers were there to protect them from Paisley  and his followers.
   The object of the Civil Rights Movement was not to bring down the state, its aim was merely to secure the same rights as everyone else in othe parts of UK. 
I am quite happy to hold that Paisley did more than anyone else to turn civilian unrest into armed sectarian conflict. For that, I award him demagogue status. Oh, by the way, he was an out and out bigot also.
I belong to the school of thought that maintains that, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck."
If,  during the onset of the Troubles, a single UUP spokesman or prominent church leader had come to the fore and denounced the actions of Paisley, subsequent events could well have turned out differently. It could have sent out a different signal to the 'other' side.
Who knows?
While I'm at it, I can't recall any constitutional Unionist politician, church big wig or personality of any sort, ever speaking out to condemn the actions of any Loyalist paramilitaries or their fellow-travellers  from Burntollet onwards to recent times.
I know that the vast majority of Unionists have no time for  the head cases in their midst but it might be nice, once in a while, to make this clear to all concerned. At the very least, it would be a tacit sign  of acknowledgement  that their Nationalist counterparts aren't the only ones who have to put up with loonies trying to act on their behalf.

[Lar Naparka]

[

Has anyone read this book?
In it, the author, Ed Moloney, gives a graphic account of Paisley's early political career.
He was (is?) the Northern Editor of the Irish Times and has written several books on his experiences while there.The best known of his books is " A Secret History of the IRA"  and  in it, he is highly critical of the role played by Gerry Adams in the Provos' campaign during the Troubles.
I feel his work on Paisley is objective journalism at its best.

[JUst retired]

I would totally agree with both posts, the most sensible I have read on here.

[MW]

Ever notice how republicans were always "terrorists" but loyalists were always "paramilitaries"? 

This is also quite simply not true. The IRA and INLA were often referred to as paramilitary groups: equally the UVF and UDA/UFF were often referred to as terrorists.

Ever notice how Sinn Fein was always "the political wing of the IRA" but the PUP and UDP were "parties close to the thinking of loyalist paramilitaries"?  (Quite a mouthful, but the media was happy to laboriously repeat this description every time.)

Again, the PUP and UDP were often referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA, and SF alsoreferred to in ways other than the political wing of the IRA.

You really are just plucking these assertions from your own head.

Your head's cut! Every word I said is true and you know it.

I even heard ITN referring to David Ervine and co. as "parties with the ear of loyalist paramilitary groups." Sounds like a genetic engineering experiment gone horribly wrong, which in the case of certain loyalists would explain a great deal.

You claimed that republicans were always referred to as terrorists, and loyalists as paramilitaries.

That is, quite simply, garbage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/loyalist-terrorist-groups-intent-on-a-bloody-year-1476751.html "Loyalist terrorist groups intent on a bloody year"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1399123/Loyalist-terrorists-have-tea-with-Ulster-minister.html "Loyalist terrorists have tea with Ulster minister"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/loyalist-terrorists-in-bomb-attacks-on-sdlp-politicians-blasts-display-uffs-increasing-sophistication-1486106.html "Loyalist terrorists in bomb attacks on SDLP politicians"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5217510.stm "A sister of former IRA informer Martin McGartland has been warned by police that details of her address have been obtained by republican paramilitaries"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8301241.stm "An Irish republican paramilitary group responsible for dozens of murders during Northern Ireland's Troubles has renounced violence."

As for your claims in relation to how the PUP and UDP weren't referred to as the political wings of the UVF and UDA:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/loyalists-sell-political-wing-a-pup-over-killing-14957753.html "Loyalists sell political wing a PUP over killing"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/03/police-shankill-road-murder ". The PUP is the political wing of the UVF"
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/clergy_meet_to_discuss_disturbances_1_1868028 "the UVF's political wing, the PUP"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4244082.stm "The UVF's political wing, the Progressive Unionist Party"
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/udas-nohope-political-wing-is-disbanded-327865.html "THE political wing of the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association was disbanded yesterday"
http://www.u.tv/News/UDP-disbands/ac314817-6679-47e8-8cb4-18760026a220 "Twelve years after its formation as the political wing of the Ulster Defence Association"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367285/Loyalist-warns-of-more-killings.html "John White, chairman of the Ulster Democratic Party, the political wing of the illegal UDA/UFF"

So we can safely say what you claimed was "true", was in fact drivel. Plenty more examples out there, just a Google search away.
Think you need to wipe that egg off your face.