Who counts as a victim?

Sunnyisland

FORMER Ulster Unionist Party leader Tom Elliot has said two South Derry men killed during the Troubles were ‘not real victims’ because they were not murdered by the IRA.

Speaking at a meeting held in Cookstown on Friday night, the MLA slammed money being spent into re-examining the murder of Bellaghy man Sean Brown, killed by loyalists in 1997, and Francis Bradley, shot dead by special forces in Toomebridge in 1986.

Mr Elliot said that the money being used should benefit the “real victims” of the Troubles - the friends and family of those murdered by the IRA.
He also urged those present to demand inquests into the IRA deaths of relatives to “choke the system up”.Mr Elliot added that he believed that if the “real victims” of the Troubles - relatives of those murdered by the Provisional IRA - could “band together”, they could “stop” the inquests from happening. In both cases questions remain over the deaths of both South Derry men.

20 year-old Francis Bradley was shot eight times by special forces at a paramilitary weapons store at a remote farm.

In the wake of the killing, the IRA denied the young Catholic was a member of the organisation.
Sean Brown, 61, was abducted by an LVF gang as he locked up the Wolfe Tones Gaelic Athletic Club in Bellaghy on May 12, 1997.
The father-of-six was shot several times in the head and his body was later found beside his burnt out car in Randalstown.

Alongside victims campaigner William Frazer, also present at the meeting, Mr Elliot said he would assist those who wanted the death of a loved one re-investigated by the Attorney General.

A former UUP leader coming out and saying that, its obvious he doesent care about NI,He cares only in keeping the communitys more divided as does the ::victims campaigner:: william frazer.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.midulstermail.co.uk/news/local/sean-brown-and-francis-bradley-not-real-victims-says-tom-elliot-1-4143334&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAAOABA96uPgQVIAVAAWABiBWVuLUlF&cd=3l6YE0bNN84&usg=AFQjCNHGKU4klUOqJtLVEHwbU01b3vswFQ

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Moved from 'Who cares about Northern Ireland' thread.

thecommietommy

realies wrote: »

A former UUP leader coming out and saying that, its obvious he doesent care about NI,He cares only in keeping the communitys more divided as does the ::victims campaigner:: william frazer.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.midulstermail.co.uk/news/local/sean-brown-and-francis-bradley-not-real-victims-says-tom-elliot-1-4143334&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAAOABA96uPgQVIAVAAWABiBWVuLUlF&cd=3l6YE0bNN84&usg=AFQjCNHGKU4klUOqJtLVEHwbU01b3vswFQ

Just the true face of unionism, the mask always slips eventually. The unionists are too bigoted and blind to see that the only ones to gain out of their blatant sectarianism is Sinn Fein. All this talk of Catholics becoming pro partition is just clutching at straws. The steps required for unionism to actually succeed in cultivating a catholic vote to be pro union are beyond what unionist parties would countenance as they would necessitate ending unionism’s war with all things Irish- sporting, language and culture- as well as requiring a willingness to accomodate and legitimise the Irish nationalist identity of those they seek to court.

junder

thecommietommy wrote: »

realies wrote: »

A former UUP leader coming out and saying that, its obvious he doesent care about NI,He cares only in keeping the communitys more divided as does the ::victims campaigner:: william frazer.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.midulstermail.co.uk/news/local/sean-brown-and-francis-bradley-not-real-victims-says-tom-elliot-1-4143334&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAAOABA96uPgQVIAVAAWABiBWVuLUlF&cd=3l6YE0bNN84&usg=AFQjCNHGKU4klUOqJtLVEHwbU01b3vswFQ

Just the true face of unionism, the mask always slips eventually. The unionists are too bigoted and blind to see that the only ones to gain out of their blatant sectarianism is Sinn Fein. All this talk of Catholics becoming pro partition is just clutching at straws. The steps required for unionism to actually succeed in cultivating a catholic vote to be pro union are beyond what unionist parties would countenance as they would necessitate ending unionism’s war with all things Irish- sporting, language and culture- as well as requiring a willingness to accomodate and legitimise the Irish nationalist identity of those they seek to court.

The definition of irony

thecommietommy

junder wrote: »

The definition of irony

Do you not think that Elliot is only helping Sinn Fein ?

junder

thecommietommy wrote: »

junder wrote: »

The definition of irony

Do you not think that Elliot is only helping Sinn Fein ?

Care to explain how he is the 'true face of unionism' ? Moreover try seeing it from the unionist perspective, seemingly every enquiry by the HET team is into the deaths of nationalists / republicans what about enquirys into Darkley, claudy etc what about the enquirys into atrocities carried out by Irish republicans?

thecommietommy

junder wrote: »

Care to explain how he is the 'true face of unionism' ? Moreover try seeing it from the unionist perspective, seemingly every enquiry by the HET team is into the deaths of nationalists / republicans what about enquirys into Darkley, claudy etc what about the enquirys into atrocities carried out by Irish republicans?

Doesn't the HET examine all unsolved murders regardless of carried it out ? And isn't there the Smithwick tribunal down here investigating the murder of the RUC's SuperIntendents Breen and Buchannan.

Chuck Stone

Just more pre-historic unionism with its 'Cowboys and Indians' view of the troubles. I'm not confident there'll ever be a fully neutral truth and reconciliation commission because it would involve Unionists and the British Government hanging out their dirty laundry.

You can't have 'higher ups' who collect state pensions being identified as treacherous facilitators of death and destruction. The brand must be protected at all costs.

whitelines

thecommietommy wrote: »

Just the true face of unionism, the mask always slips eventually. The unionists are too bigoted and blind to see that the only ones to gain out of their blatant sectarianism is Sinn Fein. All this talk of Catholics becoming pro partition is just clutching at straws. The steps required for unionism to actually succeed in cultivating a catholic vote to be pro union are beyond what unionist parties would countenance as they would necessitate ending unionism’s war with all things Irish- sporting, language and culture- as well as requiring a willingness to accomodate and legitimise the Irish nationalist identity of those they seek to court.

There's a difference between Catholics being 'pro partition' and voting for Unionist parties in routine elections. Given the nature of institutionalised tribal power sharing with a double veto it doesn't really matter how many nationalists or unionists are elected to Stormont, the outcome in practical terms is the same. Might I respectfully suggest that those Catholics who are obsessed with Irish sport, language and culture and who profess an Irish Nationalist identity are possibly not the type of Catholics ever likely to support a Unionist political party. Thankfully, there are other Catholics who don't fit that description.

Chuck Stone

whitelines wrote: »

Might I respectfully suggest that those Catholics who are obsessed with Irish sport, language and culture and who profess an Irish Nationalist identity are possibly not the type of Catholics ever likely to support a Unionist political party.

Obsessed? It's their culture not an obsession and, unlike the OO P/U/L people can join in if they wish. So called 'loyalists' marching through Catholic areas would be more indicative of 'obsession'.

Anyway, the Unionist parties are hardly courting the other tradition's vote when they appear to harbour attitudes such as those displayed in the OP.

SocSocPol

thecommietommy wrote: »

Just the true face of unionism, the mask always slips eventually. The unionists are too bigoted and blind to see that the only ones to gain out of their blatant sectarianism is Sinn Fein. All this talk of Catholics becoming pro partition is just clutching at straws. The steps required for unionism to actually succeed in cultivating a catholic vote to be pro union are beyond what unionist parties would countenance as they would necessitate ending unionism’s war with all things Irish- sporting, language and culture- as well as requiring a willingness to accomodate and legitimise the Irish nationalist identity of those they seek to court.

If Eliot and Frazier, and I don't believe for one moment that the are,the true face of unionism is it not equally valid for Unionists to say that RIRA/CIRA are the true face of Nationalism.
Your reaction and rush to tar all Unionists with the same brush does little to counter the perspective of some that all republicans are as bigoted as these two fools!

thecommietommy

SocSocPol wrote: »

If Eliot and Frazier, and I don't believe for one moment that the are,the true face of unionism is it not equally valid for Unionists to say that RIRA/CIRA are the true face of Nationalism.
Your reaction and rush to tar all Unionists with the same brush does little to counter the perspective of some that all republicans are as bigoted as these two fools!

When I say the just the true face of unionism, well I'd recommend reading Micheal Farrell's The Orange State which will give you an insight into sectarian bigotry of the unionists back in the ' good old days ' . Sure nowadays they are trying to put on a pleasenter image as the nationalist population is ever increasing. But the mask always slips. Not trying to bring the discussing off topic, but here for example is the TUV's Jim Allister whinging that boxing in the north is organised on sectarian lines when two nationalists from Belfast win medals at the Olmypics !!!! As for the DUP, the party that gave us Paisley, need any more be said.

“Boxing in Northern Ireland has to address the serious difficulties which members of the Unionist community face when trying to participate in the sport. "
http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/1606/sectarianism-in-boxing-needs-addressed

thecommietommy

SocSocPol wrote: »

If Eliot and Frazier, and I don't believe for one moment that the are,the true face of unionism is it not equally valid for Unionists to say that RIRA/CIRA are the true face of Nationalism.
Your reaction and rush to tar all Unionists with the same brush does little to counter the perspective of some that all republicans are as bigoted as these two fools!

So when did the the nationalist parties object to investigation of crimes commited against unionists by the HET, wouldn't surprise me if SF did, but if you have the evidence can you post it.

SocSocPol

thecommietommy wrote: »

So when did the the nationalist parties object to investigation of crimes commited against unionists by the HET, wouldn't surprise me if SF did, but if you have the evidence can you post it.

I never said nationalists objected, why are you trying to derail the thread.

SocSocPol

thecommietommy wrote: »

When I say the just the true face of unionism, well I'd recommend reading Micheal Farrell's The Orange State which will give you an insight into sectarian bigotry of the unionists back in the ' good old days ' . Sure nowadays they are trying to put on a pleasenter image as the nationalist population is ever increasing. But the mask always slips. Not trying to bring the discussing off topic, but here for example is the TUV's Jim Allister whinging that boxing in the north is organised on sectarian lines when two nationalists from Belfast win medals at the Olmypics !!!! As for the DUP, the party that gave us Paisley, need any more be said.

“Boxing in Northern Ireland has to address the serious difficulties which members of the Unionist community face when trying to participate in the sport. "
http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/1606/sectarianism-in-boxing-needs-addressed

Why are you determined to pick quotes from what everone knows are a few extremists and link them with a historical situation to argue that they combine to represent the true face of the vast majority of Unionists today?
Seems to me that your posts show you to be as bigoted and sectarian as those you quote.
I'm out of this discussion now.

whitelines

The reality is that the only enquiries that seem to be conducted are those into the security forces - either involving killings by said forces, or involving allegations of collusion between said forces and Loyalist volunteers. Unionists generally are becoming increasingly bored with this.

What Unionists would like to see is a list of names of those involved in Kingsmill including the entire chain of command up to and including all those who knew in advance. They would also like to know what action was taken by PIRA/SARAF following Kingsmill regarding those who carried out the atrocity and those who authorised it, or those who turned a blind eye. After all, it was a sectarian massacre and surely a Republican army would have taken very strong action against those involved.

Obviously, this would also apply to 'Bloody Friday', Claudy, Le Mans, Birmingham, Enniskillen, and other mass murders of civilians by PIRA. This isn't to suggest that PIRA was entitled to murder soldiers or policemen, and indeed, the same process of naming and shaming could be conducted in massacres involving security force members.

thecommietommy

SocSocPol wrote: »

I never said nationalists objected, why are you trying to derail the thread.

Not trying to derail the thread, only stated regarding the OP that the reaction was typical of unionism and gave examples also of the TUV and DUP in the past. But that's the thing about the cringe some southern nationalists have when it comes to unionism, they have to come up with the misleading notion of ' balance ' to excuse blatant sectarianism by leading unionists.

SocSocPol wrote: »

Why are you determined to pick quotes from what everone knows are a few extremists and link them with a historical situation to argue that they combine to represent the true face of the vast majority of Unionists today?
Seems to me that your posts show you to be as bigoted and sectarian as those you quote.
I'm out of this discussion now.

Elliot is a former leader off the UUP, Jim Allister is the leader of the TUV and Paisely was the leader of the DUP. We're not talking about the opinions of some minor county councillor in these parties. Did you ask yourself, if they believe in justice, then what have they to fear from a state run body like the HET from finding out ?

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

The reality is that the only enquiries that seem to be conducted are those into the security forces - either involving killings by said forces, or involving allegations of collusion between said forces and Loyalist volunteers. Unionists generally are becoming increasingly bored with this.

What Unionists would like to see is a list of names of those involved in Kingsmill including the entire chain of command up to and including all those who knew in advance. They would also like to know what action was taken by PIRA/SARAF following Kingsmill regarding those who carried out the atrocity and those who authorised it, or those who turned a blind eye. After all, it was a sectarian massacre and surely a Republican army would have taken very strong action against those involved.

Obviously, this would also apply to 'Bloody Friday', Claudy, Le Mans, Birmingham, Enniskillen, and other mass murders of civilians by PIRA. This isn't to suggest that PIRA was entitled to murder soldiers or policemen, and indeed, the same process of naming and shaming could be conducted in massacres involving security force members.

So you don want the HET to only investigate crimes committed by the IRA, well that will go down nicely with nationalists wouldn't it. Fellas like you are cheer leaders for Sinn Fein. Some have said that when SF were involved in the talks that led to the Good Friday Agreement, the SFers wanted an agreement that would not stop the "ghettoisation" of politics in the six counties. Instead the GFA polarised them into two opposing camps as it's part of SF's agenda to keep relations between nationalists and unionists so as to keep animosity between both community's always simmering over - a trap that fellas like you are falling for.

According to this BBC link, the HET " team, led by retired Metropolitan Police Commander David Cox, will re-examine a total of 3,268 killings between 1969 and the 1998 peace accord. " Why object to any investigation that wants to uncover the truth whether whoever caused the killings ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4636634.stm

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Some of the comments in this thread are getting way too personal. Please tone it down and play the ball, not the man.

junder

thecommietommy wrote: »

whitelines wrote: »

The reality is that the only enquiries that seem to be conducted are those into the security forces - either involving killings by said forces, or involving allegations of collusion between said forces and Loyalist volunteers. Unionists generally are becoming increasingly bored with this.

What Unionists would like to see is a list of names of those involved in Kingsmill including the entire chain of command up to and including all those who knew in advance. They would also like to know what action was taken by PIRA/SARAF following Kingsmill regarding those who carried out the atrocity and those who authorised it, or those who turned a blind eye. After all, it was a sectarian massacre and surely a Republican army would have taken very strong action against those involved.

Obviously, this would also apply to 'Bloody Friday', Claudy, Le Mans, Birmingham, Enniskillen, and other mass murders of civilians by PIRA. This isn't to suggest that PIRA was entitled to murder soldiers or policemen, and indeed, the same process of naming and shaming could be conducted in massacres involving security force members.

So you don want the HET to only investigate crimes committed by the IRA, well that will go down nicely with nationalists wouldn't it. Fellas like you are cheer leaders for Sinn Fein. Some have said that when SF were involved in the talks that led to the Good Friday Agreement, the SFers wanted an agreement that would not stop the "ghettoisation" of politics in the six counties. Instead the GFA polarised them into two opposing camps as it's part of SF's agenda to keep relations between nationalists and unionists so as to keep animosity between both community's always simmering over - a trap that fellas like you are falling for.

According to this BBC link, the HET " team, led by retired Metropolitan Police Commander David Cox, will re-examine a total of 3,268 killings between 1969 and the 1998 peace accord. " Why object to any investigation that wants to uncover the truth whether whoever caused the killings ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4636634.stm

Think he is quite clear in saying that HET should not be partisan in its enquirys. However he is also saying that HET is being partisan in its investigations, unionists of all shades (since we are in fact as diverse as any other community) are just as intitled to the truth as nationalist / republicans

Sunnyisland

under wrote: »

Think he is quite clear in saying that HET should not be partisan in its enquiries. However he is also saying that HET is being partisan in its investigations, unionists of all shades (since we are in fact as diverse as any other community) are just as entitled to the truth as nationalist / republicans

In a report last april A report from the University of Ulster has claimed soldiers are given favourable treatment and said the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) does not investigate the cases properly.Dr Patricia Lundy is a senior lecturer with the University of Ulster and spent more than two years reviewing how the cases are re-investigated.

She has produced a report which has questioned the independence of its work.
BBC News - Independence of HET comes under criticism


To be honest if all deaths aren't investigated then none should be and If people want to put Provos in jail, then they have to put British soldiers in jail along with them.Best to stop the pretence and admit the government needed some people taken out and the british troops were anything but an honorable neutral party. Of course it's a bit difficult sometimes when you have unionist eejits going around saying how noble the RUC, UDR and British Army were while the nationalists were all a bunch of treacherous, dirty bastards. Apart from Trimble saying the north was a cold place for Catholics, unionists have never acknowledged they were in the wrong, and probably never will. So yes, let's move forward. But don't pretend it was all the fault of nationalists, while completely whitewashing unionism.there was murkeyness on all sides and best to move on .The dead are still dead , we still exist .

SocSocPol

realies wrote: »

In a report last april A report from the University of Ulster has claimed soldiers are given favourable treatment and said the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) does not investigate the cases properly.Dr Patricia Lundy is a senior lecturer with the University of Ulster and spent more than two years reviewing how the cases are re-investigated.

She has produced a report which has questioned the independence of its work.
BBC News - Independence of HET comes under criticism


To be honest if all deaths aren't investigated then none should be and If people want to put Provos in jail, then they have to put British soldiers in jail along with them.Best to stop the pretence and admit the government needed some people taken out and the british troops were anything but an honorable neutral party. Of course it's a bit difficult sometimes when you have unionist eejits going around saying how noble the RUC, UDR and British Army were while the nationalists were all a bunch of treacherous, dirty bastards. Apart from Trimble saying the north was a cold place for Catholics, unionists have never acknowledged they were in the wrong, and probably never will. So yes, let's move forward. But don't pretend it was all the fault of nationalists, while completely whitewashing unionism.there was murkeyness on all sides and best to move on .The dead are still dead , we still exist .

Can you provide a link to a Unionist politican making that statement, otherwise would you consider withdrawing it or rephrasing it.

Sunnyisland

SocSo cPol wrote: »

Can you provide a link to a Unionist politician making that statement, otherwise would you consider withdrawing it or rephrasing it.

I never said a unionist politician said it, thats my own wording and I said unionist eejits.I will say then some Unionist eejits as there are some Republicans eejits as well.See there is some common ground

junder

realies wrote: »

under wrote: »

Think he is quite clear in saying that HET should not be partisan in its enquiries. However he is also saying that HET is being partisan in its investigations, unionists of all shades (since we are in fact as diverse as any other community) are just as entitled to the truth as nationalist / republicans

In a report last april A report from the University of Ulster has claimed soldiers are given favourable treatment and said the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) does not investigate the cases properly.Dr Patricia Lundy is a senior lecturer with the University of Ulster and spent more than two years reviewing how the cases are re-investigated.

She has produced a report which has questioned the independence of its work.
BBC News - Independence of HET comes under criticism


To be honest if all deaths aren't investigated then none should be and If people want to put Provos in jail, then they have to put British soldiers in jail along with them.Best to stop the pretence and admit the government needed some people taken out and the british troops were anything but an honorable neutral party. Of course it's a bit difficult sometimes when you have unionist eejits going around saying how noble the RUC, UDR and British Army were while the nationalists were all a bunch of treacherous, dirty bastards. Apart from Trimble saying the north was a cold place for Catholics, unionists have never acknowledged they were in the wrong, and probably never will. So yes, let's move forward. But don't pretend it was all the fault of nationalists, while completely whitewashing unionism.there was murkeyness on all sides and best to move on .The dead are still dead , we still exist .

I didn't portion blame to anybody ( thats your territory) I only said that unionist are as entitled to the truth as nationalists / republicans, whats your issue with that? As your source says 'unless ALL deaths are investigated then none should'

Sunnyisland

under wrote: »

I didn't portion blame to anybody ( that's your territory) I only said that unionist are as entitled to the truth as nationalists / republicans, whats your issue with that? As your source says 'unless ALL deaths are investigated then none should'

And all deaths are being investigated by the HET, ALL. so I dont have an Issue,But when you have a leading Unionist politician coming out and saying the above and the British government refusing to participate you/we would start to wonder is this not another white elephant which will lead nowhere,Goodnight.

whitelines

realies wrote: »

In a report last april A report from the University of Ulster has claimed soldiers are given favourable treatment and said the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) does not investigate the cases properly.Dr Patricia Lundy is a senior lecturer with the University of Ulster and spent more than two years reviewing how the cases are re-investigated.

She has produced a report which has questioned the independence of its work.
BBC News - Independence of HET comes under criticism


To be honest if all deaths aren't investigated then none should be and If people want to put Provos in jail, then they have to put British soldiers in jail along with them.Best to stop the pretence and admit the government needed some people taken out and the british troops were anything but an honorable neutral party. Of course it's a bit difficult sometimes when you have unionist eejits going around saying how noble the RUC, UDR and British Army were while the nationalists were all a bunch of treacherous, dirty bastards. Apart from Trimble saying the north was a cold place for Catholics, unionists have never acknowledged they were in the wrong, and probably never will. So yes, let's move forward. But don't pretend it was all the fault of nationalists, while completely whitewashing unionism.there was murkeyness on all sides and best to move on .The dead are still dead , we still exist .

I don't know where to start with that post.

"admit the government needed some people taken out". Why on earth would anyone admit to that? It was The UK State's policy to lock up paramilitary members, not get involved in selective assassinations (by parties unknown), which given how few people were actually killed by the security forces, would have achieved very little.

Might I also add, that given the pressure the security forces were operating under, that their conduct was indeed noble by any and all standards, with few exceptions, and that their neutral status was confirmed by the number of Loyalists who spent long terms in UK prisons.

Finally, there is no question that NI was a cold house for pro-Irish elements, but then so was The Free State/Republic for pro-British elements. Of course, both scenarios need to be placed in their full historical context. Perhaps FF/FG would like to make a public apology to The Republic's PUL community (what's left of it)?

Nodin

I don't recall the UDR, RUC special branch or certain other elements being known for their "nobility".

Chuck Stone

whitelines wrote: »

Finally, there is no question that NI was a cold house for pro-Irish elements, but then so was The Free State/Republic for pro-British elements.

Whataboutery.

Regardless, I don't remember seeing pro-British elements out marching for equal civil and political rights and being met with lethal force by state forces. As for the Unionist militias known as the RUC/UDR being neutral? Don't make me laugh.

If you're who I think you are we've gone over this ground before and you've been provided with reams of evidence to prove that they were not neutral. Oh, and don't bother coming back with your no true Ulster Scotsman tripe.

K-9

Keep it on topic, we don't need another who knows history best competition.

ardmacha

If Eliot and Frazier, and I don't believe for one moment that the are,the true face of unionism is it not equally valid for Unionists to say that RIRA/CIRA are the true face of Nationalism.

Frazier is a lunatic. Eliot though is a recent leader of the second largest unionist party and an elected representative. It is not in any way equally valid to equate him with extreme republications who have very little support. It seems likely that he comes out with this stuff in the belief that it will encourage people to vote for him.

The entire existence of NI is predicated on the principle that there are two classes of people and that one should is more important than the other. It is obvious that many posters here also think this, so why shouldn't Eliot?

poeticseraphim

One of the reasons SF have been so successful in the north in comparison to other parties is because most Unionists are NOT sectarian and cannot bring themselves to unite or support a lot of the faces that support some of their other political views.

Moderate people in the unionist /protestant community cannot get behind such faces.

Whereas SF enjoys enduring loyal support ....because superficially at least they have different politics regarding 'being generous to unionists etc'.

It's probaby BS ...but it is easier for a moderate nationalist to support that image than it would be for a moderate unionist to support the image being sold to them of what Unionist politicans are. (Not all unionist politicians)

Yes they are shooting themselves in the foot...not only on this issue...but on gay rights often and been seen as overly religious.


Most unionists i believe do support civil rights ...i think most people in the North are moderates..but the nationalist moderates have a better represenatation. Whilst nobody caters to the moderate Unionist community.

Those are my thoughts anyway.

SocSocPol

Nodin wrote: »

I don't recall the UDR, RUC special branch or certain other elements being known for their "nobility".

Agreed, indeed there are very few parties to that conflict that could be described as noble.

SaoriseBiker

Maybe someone might be able to tell me, but was the HET set up by the demands of Sinn Fein in particuliar and the SDLP to a lesser extent as part of the Good Friday Agreeement or something ? Cannot see the unionist parties been enthusiastic about it's setting up, after all, they didn't want the RUC reformed or even the RUC cap badge replaced.

whitelines

poeticseraphim wrote: »

One of the reasons SF have been so successful in the north in comparison to other parties is because most Unionists are NOT sectarian and cannot bring themselves to unite or support a lot of the faces that support some of their other political views.

Moderate people in the unionist /protestant community cannot get behind such faces.

Whereas SF enjoys enduring loyal support ....because superficially at least they have different politics regarding 'being generous to unionists etc'.

It's probaby BS ...but it is easier for a moderate nationalist to support that image than it would be for a moderate unionist to support the image being sold to them of what Unionist politicans are. (Not all unionist politicians)

Yes they are shooting themselves in the foot...not only on this issue...but on gay rights often and been seen as overly religious.


Most unionists i believe do support civil rights ...i think most people in the North are moderates..but the nationalist moderates have a better represenatation. Whilst nobody caters to the moderate Unionist community.

Those are my thoughts anyway.

It's certainly fascinating that 'moderate' nationalists support SF - the former political wing of a gang of mass murderers. This might be connected to the historical process of former killers/directors of killers forming political parties across Ireland. Strange stuff indeed.

Moderate Unionists have no problems voting for UUP/DUP/TUV type parties if they can be bothered to vote at all - none of them were paramilitary fronts at any time. Their opinions on 'gay rights' are of little interest to most Unionists - one way or the other.

As I say - truly fascinating stuff.

whitelines

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Maybe someone might be able to tell me, but was the HET set up by the demands of Sinn Fein in particuliar and the SDLP to a lesser extent as part of the Good Friday Agreeement or something ? Cannot see the unionist parties been enthusiastic about it's setting up, after all, they didn't want the RUC reformed or even the RUC cap badge replaced.

Why wouldn't they be enthusiastic about finding out the names of those involved in 'Bloody Friday' or Kingsmills? Could be very embarrassing for certain Irish politicians...

SaoriseBiker

whitelines wrote: »

It's certainly fascinating that 'moderate' nationalists support SF - the former political wing of a gang of mass murderers. This might be connected to the historical process of former killers/directors of killers forming political parties across Ireland. Strange stuff indeed.

Moderate Unionists have no problems voting for UUP/DUP/TUV type parties if they can be bothered to vote at all - none of them were paramilitary fronts at any time. Their opinions on 'gay rights' are of little interest to most Unionists - one way or the other.

As I say - truly fascinating stuff.

We don't need the HET or anyone else to tell us that the DUP were invovled in a myriad of loyalist organisations such as the Ulster Protestant Volunteers and Ulster Resistance etc. As for the UUP, well they were invovled with Ulster Vanguard in the 70's.

"The Ulster Vanguard movement was essentially a political pressure group within unionism. It was formed on 9 February 1972 and was led by William Craig (former Minister of Home Affairs at Stormont); deputy leaders were the Rev. Martin Smyth and Captain Austin Ardill. Other members included David Trimble and Reg Empey. Ulster Vanguard advocated a semi-independent Northern Ireland. It was also the intention that Vanguard would provide an umbrella organisation for Loyalists. Ulster Vanguard had close links with, and strong support from Loyalist paramilitary groups. "

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/uorgan.htm

And as for the TUV, since they were only formed in 2007 they didn't get the chance to be invovled with the loyalists during the troubles, although their leader been Jim Allister a former DUPer would know plenty about flirting with loyalists.

whitelines wrote: »

Why wouldn't they be enthusiastic about finding out the names of those involved in 'Bloody Friday' or Kingsmills? Could be very embarrassing for certain Irish politicians...

True, but they wouldn't be the only ones now would they. Hence no politican should be telling the HET what they should and shouldn't investigate.

Chuck Stone

whitelines wrote: »

It's certainly fascinating that 'moderate' nationalists support SF - the former political wing of a gang of mass murderers.

And equally fascinating that 'moderate' Unionists chose to have meglomaniac Ian Paisley (inciter of murder against Nationalists and general scourge of the north) as the head of their principle political party.

Fascinating too that 'moderate' Unionists fought to retain the sectarian RUC militia that was effectively disbanded for being the vipers nest that it was.

Anyone for tennis?

whitelines

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

We don't need the HET or anyone else to tell us that the DUP were invovled in a myriad of loyalist organisations such as the Ulster Protestant Volunteers and Ulster Resistance etc. As for the UUP, well they were invovled with Ulster Vanguard in the 70's.

"The Ulster Vanguard movement was essentially a political pressure group within unionism. It was formed on 9 February 1972 and was led by William Craig (former Minister of Home Affairs at Stormont); deputy leaders were the Rev. Martin Smyth and Captain Austin Ardill. Other members included David Trimble and Reg Empey. Ulster Vanguard advocated a semi-independent Northern Ireland. It was also the intention that Vanguard would provide an umbrella organisation for Loyalists. Ulster Vanguard had close links with, and strong support from Loyalist paramilitary groups. "

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/uorgan.htm

And as for the TUV, since they were only formed in 2007 they didn't get the chance to be invovled with the loyalists during the troubles, although their leader been Jim Allister a former DUPer would know plenty about flirting with loyalists.


True, but they wouldn't be the only ones now would they. Hence no politican should be telling the HET what they should and shouldn't investigate.

The DUP'S connection with The UPV was vague at best. In any case, The UPV killed no body - not much of a paramilitary group. Ulster Resistance was set up by some senior DUP members, but they scarpered prior to UR importing arms. Vanguard (the political party) had no links with paramilitaries except for The UDA who were fully legal at that time (although they developed a military wing, The UFF). Loyalists have always criticised Unionist politicians for NOT backing them fully - describing Paisley as 'The Grand Old Duke of York'. It's all pretty weak fair and not to be confused with Sinn Fein's institutional links with PIRA - with PIRA calling the shots, at least until 1998.

ardmacha

It's all pretty weak fair and not to be confused with Sinn Fein's institutional links with PIRA - with PIRA calling the shots, at least until 1998.

The exact extent of unionism's links with paramilitaries is neither here nor there in establishing their bona fides. Who needs paramilitaries when you have the regular military to do the job? To be sure SF stand overs a variety of unsavoury things in the past, but unionism is entirely supportive of 400 years of invasion, ethnic cleaning, massacre, plantation and discrimination.

Nodin

whitelines wrote: »

The DUP'S connection with The UPV was vague at best. In any case, The UPV killed no body - not much of a paramilitary group. Ulster Resistance was set up by some senior DUP members, but they scarpered prior to UR importing arms. Vanguard (the political party) had no links with paramilitaries except for The UDA who were fully legal at that time (although they developed a military wing, The UFF). Loyalists have always criticised Unionist politicians for NOT backing them fully - describing Paisley as 'The Grand Old Duke of York'. It's all pretty weak fair and not to be confused with Sinn Fein's institutional links with PIRA - with PIRA calling the shots, at least until 1998.

And of course the "third force". Hardly the clean sheet for the DUP you were presenting earlier.

http://youtu.be/OMpV5jnZhq8
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/torgan.htm#tf

Theres also the fact that as the RUC and UDR were acting largely in line with Unionist party goals, why they'd be too desirous of paramilitary wings at all.

Sunnyisland

Come on whitelines, your not that much in denial ? Everyone that has looked at NI and the conflict knows all about the links that Unionist politicians had/have with the loyalist paramilitaries.One springs to mind very fast is Rev willie mccrea, He was a member of the Shankill Defence Association and in 1971 he was convicted of riotous behaviour in Dungiven,he shared a platform at a Portadown rally with the senior loyalist paramilitary Billy Wright in September 1996 etc etc

K-9

Could posters keep to the thread topic, 400 years of oppression and the Vanguard movement seems a little off topic!

SaoriseBiker

whitelines wrote: »

The DUP'S connection with The UPV was vague at best. In any case, The UPV killed no body - not much of a paramilitary group. Ulster Resistance was set up by some senior DUP members, but they scarpered prior to UR importing arms. Vanguard (the political party) had no links with paramilitaries except for The UDA who were fully legal at that time (although they developed a military wing, The UFF).

SF, RSF, IRSP etc could claim the same ..... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Loyalists have always criticised Unionist politicians for NOT backing them fully - describing Paisley as 'The Grand Old Duke of York'. It's all pretty weak fair and not to be confused with Sinn Fein's institutional links with PIRA - with PIRA calling the shots, at least until 1998.

Well the relationship of the main unionist parties to the loyalists can be be summed up with " We're with you, but if you get caught we don't know you. " But then you could say the same about the ' loyalists ' from the safety of Glasgae' who claim to support them back in Ulster

ardmacha

Moving on swiftly from 400 years of oppression. The basic point here is what while it struggles with it and often only plays lip service, nationalism has taken on board to some extent the republican notion of everyone being equal and has directed this into the parity of esteem concept, however flawed the implementation of this may be. Unionism doesn't have an equality concept, which it why it is ultimately doomed.

SocSocPol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And equally fascinating that 'moderate' Unionists chose to have meglomaniac Ian Paisley (inciter of murder against Nationalists and general scourge of the north) as the head of their principle political party.

Fascinating too that 'moderate' Unionists fought to retain the sectarian RUC militia that was effectively disbanded for being the vipers nest that it was.

Anyone for tennis?

Or that moderate nationalist chose a party led by the man personally responsible for the murder of Jean McConville?
Bowls anyone?

SaoriseBiker

SocSocPol wrote: »

Or that moderate nationalist chose a party led by the man personally responsible for the murder of Jean McConville?
Bowls anyone?

News to me. Did the HET find who killed her ? I'm sure they have investigated it and will do so again if they think they have any new leads. And correct me if I'm wrong, has anyone from SF, SDLP, FG, Labour or any other major Irish party say her death should not be investigated ?

SocSocPol

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

News to me. Did the HET find who killed her ? I'm sure they have investigated it and will do so again if they think they have any new leads. And correct me if I'm wrong, has anyone from SF, SDLP, FG, Labour or any other major Irish party say her death should not be investigated ?

Ask Doloures Price , I'm sure she can help you.

K-9

Enough of the scoring points please. There is an issue here in that it appears to some Unionists that IRA etc. incidents aren't getting attention or investigated, there is no need to bring up Jean McConville to point score, there is plenty to debate without cheapening it with one liner posts. It's a shame Elliot used the case of the young lad, as far as I know that was one of the cases investigated by the Stalker Inquiry into Shoot to Kill.

junder

K-9 wrote: »

Enough of the scoring points please. There is an issue here in that it appears to some Unionists that IRA etc. incidents aren't getting attention or investigated, there is no need to bring up Jean McConville to point score, there is plenty to debate without cheapening it with one liner posts. It's a shame Elliot used the case of the young lad, as far as I know that was one of the cases investigated by the Stalker Inquiry into Shoot to Kill.

Jean mcconville is a case that highlights the flaw in the HET enquirys Gerry Adams name has Ben mentioned numerous times in relation to the case yet he is yet to face questioning over his alleged involvement, nor is he likely to. Martin mcgunniess was a senior ira man who allegedly sanctioned numerous ira operations would the deputy first minister ever face questioning?

whitelines

Nodin wrote: »

And of course the "third force". Hardly the clean sheet for the DUP you were presenting earlier.

http://youtu.be/OMpV5jnZhq8
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/torgan.htm#tf

Theres also the fact that as the RUC and UDR were acting largely in line with Unionist party goals, why they'd be too desirous of paramilitary wings at all.

The Third Force killed nobody. The role of The UDR and RUC was to keep the rule of law, as with security forces everywhere. Of course, individual UDR and RUC members held their own personal political views - which they were entitled to.

whitelines

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

SF, RSF, IRSP etc could claim the same ..... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Well the relationship of the main unionist parties to the loyalists can be be summed up with " We're with you, but if you get caught we don't know you. " But then you could say the same about the ' loyalists ' from the safety of Glasgae' who claim to support them back in Ulster

The relationship between SF and PIRA, RSF and CIRA and IRSP and INLA was nothing like the relationship between UUP/DUP and Loyalist paramilitaries.

I don't know about Glasgow Loyalists (I don't live there), but I do know that The ROI (especially Dublin) has always had an unhealthy amount of bar stool Republicans cheering on The IRA from the safety of The Free State - you probably know quite a few like that, I'm sure.