Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Options
1…1516182021…37

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Fiatach wrote: »
    Its not just me saying it. 'Brigadier' David Millar 'OBE' stated if he sacked members of the UDR because they were loyalist paramilitaries he would be left without a regiment.

    The report concerned was published in 1973 and regarded a single unit in which 15% were in Loyalists organisations. The vast majority concerned were in The UDA, a completely legal organisation at that time. Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations - much like The Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association that was involved in similar activities on The Nationalist side.

    I find it deliciously ironic that you would quote a report prepared by a British Army brigadier. LOL. Was he outside the 'collusionist loop'?


  • Options
    #513
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    so let me get this straight ..... you think that because loyalists think the HET are biased, then republicans shouldnt? Republicans think the HET is biased as well so that REALLy begs the question why the HET still exists, considering we all know they're biased.

    I personally dont have this tit for tat grudge mentality - the one your post seems to expect. I wouldnt listen to anything the HET came up with regardless who it concerned.
    junder wrote: »
    Quite a simple question really, loyalist paramilitary complaigned of the bias of the HET team seemingly only investigating loyalist crimes, since you also ironically agree with loyalist paramitarys about the HET team and will be disregarding any findings of the HET team be they investigating republicans or indeed loyalists?


  • Options
    #514
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    I find it amazing that you dont think a large chunk of the UDR were loyalist paramilitaries.

    "Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations" - hahahaha - yeah, like the f*cker that pulled his UDR gun out in the pub across from my house years back and started threatening all the taigs in the pub ... yeah, they were harmless alright. That eejit got the crap kicked out of him all the same.
    trendyvicar wrote: »
    The report concerned was published in 1973 and regarded a single unit in which 15% were in Loyalists organisations. The vast majority concerned were in The UDA, a completely legal organisation at that time. Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations - much like The Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association that was involved in similar activities on The Nationalist side.

    I find it deliciously ironic that you would quote a report prepared by a British Army brigadier. LOL. Was he outside the 'collusionist loop'?


  • Options
    #515
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    I find it amazing that you dont think a large chunk of the UDR were loyalist paramilitaries.

    "Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations" - hahahaha - yeah, like the f*cker that pulled his UDR gun out in the pub across from my house years back and started threatening all the taigs in the pub ... yeah, they were harmless alright. That eejit got the crap kicked out of him all the same.

    Got any more useless anecdotes? Amazing that the ruthless Loyalist gun man somehow failed to get a round off...


  • Options
    #516
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    no no no - he wasnt a 'ruthless Loyalist gun man', he was one of the ''stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations'.

    Just pointing out how rubbish your statement was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    Amazing that the ruthless Loyalist gun man somehow failed to get a round off...

    well, we are talking about the UDA, so its not that mind boggling.


  • Options
    #518
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    no no no - he wasnt a 'ruthless Loyalist gun man', he was one of the ''stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations'.

    Just pointing out how rubbish your statement was.

    Ye, I can see how your meaningless anecdote completely undermined everything I said. :rolleyes:

    Irish Nationalist discovers traffic warden is a suspected burglar therefore all traffic wardens are burglars and indeed the state itself must be actively organising burgalries...


  • Options
    #519
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    well, we are talking about the UDA, so its not that mind boggling.

    I do wish Nationalists like yourself would make up your minds about Loyalist terrorists. Are they ruthless, sadistic killers or harmless buffoons?

    Let the rest of the world know when you've managed to scrape a coherent analysis together...


  • Options
    #520
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Great idea - sidetrack.

    You claim UDA men were harmless 'stick' men'. You lie sir.


  • Options
    #521
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    I do wish Nationalists like yourself would make up your minds about Loyalist terrorists. Are they ruthless, sadistic killers or harmless buffoons?

    theres nothing more dangerous than someone who knows just enough to be harmful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    Great idea - sidetrack.

    You claim UDA men were harmless 'stick' men'. You lie sir.

    The vast majority were.

    "sir" - have we met before? Online I mean...


  • Options
    #523
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    theres nothing more dangerous than someone who knows just enough to be harmful.

    So that would put them closer to the 'ruthless killers' category, rather than the 'buffoons' you implied they were before.


  • Options
    #524
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    no we havent met - I totally disagree with your assertion that the majority of UDR men were harmless fellows more concerned with striking etc etc rather than being sectarian bullyboys. My own experiences (thats 'useless anecdotes' to you) tell me you are so far from the truth its laughable.


  • Options
    #525
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    maccored wrote: »
    so let me get this straight ..... you think that because loyalists think the HET are biased, then republicans shouldnt? Republicans think the HET is biased as well so that REALLy begs the question why the HET still exists, considering we all know they're biased.

    I personally dont have this tit for tat grudge mentality - the one your post seems to expect. I wouldnt listen to anything the HET came up with regardless who it concerned.

    i have not offered any opinion on the HET team only asked you some question about it. as for the alleged bias of the HET team some people might say that if both loyalists and republicans are against the HET team, then it must be doing something right


  • Options
    #526
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    So that would put them closer to the 'ruthless killers' category, rather than the 'buffoons' you implied they were before.

    Sectarian bullies is what I would call them.


  • Options
    #527
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    'some people' would say eh? Pretty twisted people them 'some people' if thats the case.

    junder wrote: »
    i have not offered any opinion on the HET team only asked you some question about it. as for the alleged bias of the HET team some people might say that if both loyalists and republicans are against the HET team, then it must be doing something right


  • Options
    #528
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    btw - its pretty impolite to pose questions and never offer your own opinions.

    junder wrote: »
    i have not offered any opinion on the HET team only asked you some question about it. as for the alleged bias of the HET team some people might say that if both loyalists and republicans are against the HET team, then it must be doing something right


  • Options
    #529
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    maccored wrote: »
    btw - its pretty impolite to pose questions and never offer your own opinions.

    if you wanted my opinion you should have asked. Personly i have no issue witn the HET as long as they pursue thier enquirys equally. I would hate to think that the HET team would not pursue a case because a suspect may be a TD in Louth or a deputy First minister in Northern Ireland for example


  • Options
    #530
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    no we havent met - I totally disagree with your assertion that the majority of UDR men were harmless fellows more concerned with striking etc etc rather than being sectarian bullyboys. My own experiences (thats 'useless anecdotes' to you) tell me you are so far from the truth its laughable.

    I assume you mean UDA not UDR?

    I never claimed they weren't "sectarian bully boys" (there were plenty of them in both communities), what I claimed was that most of them weren't active terrorists - hence there presence within The UDR was hardly controversial in 1973.

    By the way, you are aware that one of the reasons The UDR was set up by The UK State was to provide a safety valve for angry Unionists who otherwise might have joined a militant Loyalist group? So it was inevitable that in those early years there would have been some crossover.


  • Options
    #531
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    maccored wrote: »
    Sectarian bullies is what I would call them.

    What would you have called PIRA?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Some people are thinking of the UFF when they mention the UDA. The military wing of the UDA.


  • Options
    #533
    Hannibal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭Hannibal


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Some people are thinking of the UFF when they mention the UDA. The military wing of the UDA.
    So what are you saying, the UDA was a politcal wing or something?
    The UDA were the largest loyalist paramilitary group and they used the pseudonym of UFF to claim attacks


  • Options
    #534
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Dotsey wrote: »
    So what are you saying, the UDA was a politcal wing or something?
    The UDA were the largest loyalist paramilitary group and they used the pseudonym of UFF to claim attacks
    Like people have said, the vast majority of people in the UDA never lifted a gun or fired a shot. The UFF was the branch which did that.


  • Options
    #535
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Like people have said, the vast majority of people in the UDA never lifted a gun or fired a shot. The UFF was the branch which did that.

    You don't see the double standard you're exhibiting here, no?


  • Options
    #536
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    karma_ wrote: »
    You don't see the double standard you're exhibiting here, no?
    Which is? Just pointing it out. I didn't say they had no links to the UDA. Just like Sinn Fein and the PIRA do.


  • Options
    #537
    Hannibal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭Hannibal


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Which is? Just pointing it out. I didn't say they had no links to the UDA. Just like Sinn Fein and the IRA do.
    Keith Sinn Fein are a fully legitimate political party and have been for over 100 years. The UDA are in no way, shape or form a political party on any level. They are a paramilitary group.

    To be a member of the UFF you are a member of the UDA. To be a member of the IRA you don't have to be a member of Sinn Fein that's the difference and a big one.


  • Options
    #538
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Dotsey wrote: »
    Keith Sinn Fein are a fully legitimate political party and have been for over 100 years. The UDA are in no way, shape or form a political party on any level. They are a paramilitary group.

    To be a member of the UFF you are a member of the UDA. To be a member of the IRA you don't have to be a member of Sinn Fein that's the difference and a big one.
    I didn't say the UDA was a political party but like it has been said, they set up road blocks and meetings etc. The vast majority of people in the UDA didn't fire a gun. The UFF (wing of the UDA) did that.

    I think that pretty much common knowledge.


  • Options
    #539
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    What would you have called PIRA?

    More accurate than those they were fighting.

    Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people

    621 (34%) of these casualties were civilians.

    British Army killed 305 people during Operation Banner.

    156 (~51%) were civilians.

    the UVF and RHC was responsible for 481 deaths

    412 85% civilian.

    Republican paramilitary 4%.

    I'd imagine firing blindly into a group of 481 randomly chosen people would return the same results.


  • Options
    #540
    Hannibal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭Hannibal


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I didn't say the UDA was a political party but like it has been said, they set up road blocks and meetings etc. The vast majority of people in the UDA didn't fire a gun. The UFF (wing of the UDA) did that.

    I think that pretty much common knowledge.
    The UFF was essentially a puppet with it's strings being pulled fully by the UDA, maybe in another way the UDA were a government and the UFF it's army. Now I can accept there's hawks and doves within every organisation and people within the UDA didn't fire a gun but they were complicit in everything they did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    More accurate than those they were fighting.

    Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people

    621 (34%) of these casualties were civilians.

    British Army killed 305 people during Operation Banner.

    156 (~51%) were civilians.

    the UVF and RHC was responsible for 481 deaths

    412 85% civilian.

    Republican paramilitary 4%.

    I'd imagine firing blindly into a group of 481 randomly chosen people would return the same results.

    What makes you say that as regards Loyalist paramilitaries?


Advertisement