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
The Troubles II?
Options
-
06-08-2013 10:05pm#1Are the DUP and the loyalists going to start the Troubles II like they did the first time in 1966?
All evidence unfortunately seems to be pointing in that direction.
1. DUP in an attempt to undermine the Alliance Party's growing influence and to take Naomi Long's seat in East Belfast stirs up sectarian tensions by mass leafleting to falsely suggest to loyalists that Union Jack and their British identity was under attack by the Alliance Party.
2. The protests against the British flag being flown on specific days in line with the rest of the UK instead being flown 365 days a year sparked off riots, violent protests and protests by loyalists.
3. DUP and unionist politicians rather than condemning and criticizing the loyalists for the violence criticizes the PSNI and other politicians instead.
4.Unionist politicians and community activists and leaders are continuing to scaremonger loyalists that their culture is under attack by Catholics, nationalists and non-dissident republicans. This had bred an extremely dangerous and volatile atmosphere in the loyalist communities.
5.We have seen the rise in support for more dissident unionists and loyalists opposed to the GFA. Such as Willie Frazer and the 'Protestant Coalition', Jim Allister and the TUV.
6.More loyalist paramilitary displays, such as at the Ulster Covenant commemoration and the attacks on PSNI.
7.The spread of Parachute Regiment flags by loyalists across the north, in particular in Derry because of the association with Bloody Sunday. The increasing volume of Union flags being erected in mixed areas.
8.The threat of dissident republicans combined with loyalism now is an extremely dangerous cocktail. Especially with the dissident parade coming up.
9.The approval of popular unionist politicians within loyalism in the DUP condoning the murder of Catholic, nationalist and republican publically elected representatives. (Ruth Patterson)
10. The failure of mainstream unionism to prevent loyalist aggression.
11. The week long rioting by loyalists over flute bands not being able to march completely down the Ardoyne due to the PC ruling.
12. The influx of police officers across the UK to contain the situation,
13. The Grand Master of the Orange Order of Belfast and the DUP calling for the Parades Commission to be disbanded,
14. The criticism by the DUP of the PSNI for arresting Ruth Patterson for her social media comments.
15. The recent attack of loyalists on the nationalist Lord Mayor of Belfast when he was opening a children's park.
16. Mainstream unionists stating that there is no problem burning the Irish flag on 11th bonfires.
It just looks things seem to be getting uglier and uglier in loyalism/unionism and I am afraid that it will get worse.
Is it just an irrational fear by me of potentially witnessing a repeat of the Troubles where innocent people will get killed just for what religion and political beliefs they have?
What do people think2
Comments
-
So Loyalists started the Troubles? it's a lot more complicated than that. This thread won't last long with loaded comments such as that.OCorcrainn wrote: »Are the DUP and the loyalists going to start the Troubles II like they did the first time in 1966?
All evidence unfortunately seems to be pointing in that direction.
DUP lost the seat to them, they used underhand tactics to deflect the blame onto someone else. Sadly it happens all the time in NI politics. The DUP claimed the Red Sky fiasco was sectarian because it was a Protestant company, yet the whistle was blown by a Presbyterian Minister and a DUP councillor. You'd be a fool to blindly believe anything a NI politician tells ya! Sinn Fein deploy the smokescreens just as well.OCorcrainn wrote: »1. DUP in an attempt to undermine the Alliance Party's growing influence and to take Naomi Long's seat in East Belfast stirs up sectarian tensions by mass leafleting to falsely suggest to loyalists that Union Jack and their British identity was under attack by the Alliance Party.
Optics. Belfast is no longer a strong unionist council, loyalists seen that as an attack on their culture. When in fact, it brought Belfast in line with other UK councils. Flying a flag all the time devalues it IMO. Sadly a view not shared by many in NI.OCorcrainn wrote: »2. The protests against the British flag being flown on specific days in line with the rest of the UK instead being flown 365 days a year sparked off riots, violent protests and protests by loyalists.
Sinn Fein are equally as guilty of this. The Belfast SF mayor was attacked today by loyalists, instead of condemning it, the DUP claim he shouldn't have been there, ie. it's his own fault. If a DUP councillor was attacked in a republican area, would they cry victimhood or admit they shouldn't of been there? It's understandable they are reluctant to speak out against the people who vote for them.OCorcrainn wrote: »3. DUP and unionist politicians rather than condemning and criticizing the loyalists for the violence criticizes the PSNI and other politicians instead.
Case in point, the Official Protestant Coalition. Nutjobs. If you haven't watched any of their videos(Willie Frazers in particular) do, they are hilarious. Again though, it's easier to play the sectarian card as a smokescreen for the politicians own failings. Sinn Fein are the second largest party in NI, yet when do they admit their failings? they blame everything on "the Brits".OCorcrainn wrote: »4.Unionist politicians and community activists and leaders are continuing to scaremonger loyalists that their culture is under attack by Catholics, nationalists and non-dissident republicans. This had bred an extremely dangerous and volatile atmosphere in the loyalist communities.
Likewise, the rise of Eirigi/RNU/32CSM and whatever other dissident republican grouping there is. Funny how before GFA, DUP and SF were the extremists. How times have changed, eh?OCorcrainn wrote: »5.We have seen the rise in support for more dissident unionists and loyalists opposed to the GFA. Such as Willie Frazer and the 'Protestant Coalition', Jim Allister and the TUV.
Was there not shots fired in Ardoyne yesterday, supposedly from the Republican side of the divide?OCorcrainn wrote: »6.More loyalist paramilitary displays, such as at the Ulster Covenant commemoration and the attacks on PSNI.
Stupid brain dead individuals. Did you watch that BBC3 docu last night? when the bandsmen were asked why they did particular things, all they could muster was "it's our culture". They couldn't elaborate as to why it was their culture.OCorcrainn wrote: »7.The spread of Parachute Regiment flags by loyalists across the north, in particular in Derry because of the association with Bloody Sunday. The increasing volume of Union flags being erected in mixed areas.
It proves there is no "shared culture" in NI. Unionists don't want to be exposed to any Nationalist/Republican expressions of their culture and past. Nationalists/Republicans don't want anything to do with the OO. A normal society, NI is not.OCorcrainn wrote: »8.The threat of dissident republicans combined with loyalism now is an extremely dangerous cocktail. Especially with the dissident parade coming up.
Peter Robinson recently said that for NI to remain part of the UK required the DUP to appeal to "unionist" catholics. Ruth Patterson is well regarded by the fleggers. If the DUP punish her, they risk alienating their mandate. If they don't, they'll alienate any potential Catholic voters. Catch 22 situation for them. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.OCorcrainn wrote: »9.The approval of popular unionist politicians within loyalism in the DUP condoning the murder of Catholic, nationalist and republican publically elected representatives. (Ruth Patterson)
Do you blame the threat of dissident republicanism on the failure of Sinn Fein?OCorcrainn wrote: »10. The failure of mainstream unionism to prevent loyalist aggression.
Optics, it's not hard to understand their mindset. They've walked the road for many years, now can't- of course they'll see that as an attack on their culture.OCorcrainn wrote: »11. The week long rioting by loyalists over flute bands not being able to march completely down the Ardoyne due to the PC ruling.
I'd argue that's the Chief Constable playing politics to try and increase his budget. How come this year is the first year they've needed support from across the water?OCorcrainn wrote: »12. The influx of police officers across the UK to contain the situation,
The majority of NI marches annually are PUL. Ergo it's only logical that the PC will restrict more of their parades than Nationalist/Republican parades. Republican parades generally stay in Republican areas so even less restrictions. Therefore they can argue that the PC impedes more PUL marches than republican ones, but they prefer to claim it's sectarian rather than explain why.OCorcrainn wrote: »13. The Grand Master of the Orange Order of Belfast and the DUP calling for the Parades Commission to be disbanded,
Ruth Patterson is popular with the people on the ground. Either alienate your voters, or try to deflect attention onto a side issue?OCorcrainn wrote: »14. The criticism by the DUP of the PSNI for arresting Ruth Patterson for her social media comments.
Covered that earlier. He's a Republican not a Nationalist though.OCorcrainn wrote: »15. The recent attack of loyalists on the nationalist Lord Mayor of Belfast when he was opening a children's park.
and yet, the same people claimed that the stealing of a Union flag from an OO hall last week was a hate crime. NI politicans being hypocrites? never!!OCorcrainn wrote: »16. Mainstream unionists stating that there is no problem burning the Irish flag on 11th bonfires.
If you don't learn from your mistakes your doomed to repeat them. Northern Ireland will never be a civilised society. On one side you have those wanting extra concessions to improve RoI/NI links, on the other those who want to improve NI/UK links and displays of their Britishness. Any advance by one side will inflame the other.OCorcrainn wrote: »It just looks things seem to be getting uglier and uglier in loyalism/unionism and I am afraid that it will get worse.
Is it just an irrational fear by me of potentially witnessing a repeat of the Troubles where innocent people will get killed just for what religion and political beliefs they have?
What do people think
Will the troubles happen again? I highly doubt it, nobody has the appetite for going back to violence, and too many people have vested interests.
One thing that has always bugged me about the Troubles is the sectarian card. Ultimately religion has nothing to do with the troubles in NI. Was anyone really killed because they used a different variation on the Lords Prayer, or their views on Communion? the tag was used as a ploy to put a spin on the competing political ideologies of Nationalism/Unionism and Republicanism/Loyalism.0 -
The problem with the Troubles, was that it was seriously mishandled by the British Government. Today Northern Ireland is a bit different, because both the British and Irish governments are more co-operative when it comes to the North, and seem to be cautious then in the past. Whatever troubles are being caused in Northern Ireland, the British and Irish governments will be a lot more effective in dealing with the issue then in the past.0
-
OCorcrainn wrote: »Are the DUP and the loyalists going to start the Troubles II like they did the first time in 1966?
All evidence unfortunately seems to be pointing in that direction.
2. The protests against the British flag being flown on specific days in line with the rest of the UK instead being flown 365 days a year sparked off riots, violent protests and protests by loyalists.
Yes but if you really look at those protests they didnt receive nearly the widespread support that some people would claim they did. Fair enough they got a good turnout of thugs on a few nights to cause trouble but nothing like the widespread support across the north they claimed to have. Many of the "protests" were just half a dozen dickheads with flags blocking a road and their weekly protest outside city hall in Belfast is an embarrassment. Their resolve for protesting every night until they got down Ardoyne also trickled out after less than a week.OCorcrainn wrote: »3. DUP and unionist politicians rather than condemning and criticizing the loyalists for the violence criticizes the PSNI and other politicians instead.
Par for the course with unionism really. It's all about being loyal to the state until the state says you will now be subject to the same rules as your nationalist neighbours. It's horrendous but it's nothing new.OCorcrainn wrote: »4.Unionist politicians and community activists and leaders are continuing to scaremonger loyalists that their culture is under attack by Catholics, nationalists and non-dissident republicans. This had bred an extremely dangerous and volatile atmosphere in the loyalist communities.
Again, yes, but it's not nearly as widespread as groups like the Protestant Coalition or the fleggers would have you believe.
On a side note, can someone explain to me what exactly this culture entails. For me culture is an expression of what you are, loyalist/unionist culture just seems to be an expression what you're not (catholic/Irish/sane)OCorcrainn wrote: »5.We have seen the rise in support for more dissident unionists and loyalists opposed to the GFA. Such as Willie Frazer and the 'Protestant Coalition', Jim Allister and the TUV.
Lets put this into context though. Allister scraped in on the 9th count with 4000 odd votes and was the only TUV representative across the north to even get close to being elected. His fellow TUV running mate notched up about 668 votes. This is in the unionist bible belt of north Antrim, just about the only place he could have anticipated some widespread support. As for Frazer and the Protestant Coalition, they really have nothing more on their side other than 6700 facebook likes, many of whom i suspect are people like myself who just liked the page because it is utterly hilarious. I genuinely hope they do run in the next elections though, that will be fun.OCorcrainn wrote: »6.More loyalist paramilitary displays, such as at the Ulster Covenant commemoration and the attacks on PSNI.
This is worrying, but without the support and aid of the state and the British Government, I doubt loyalist paramilitaries will be able to achieve anything beyond stirring up the odd riot and occasional attacks on their own people. Their drug dealing and other criminal activities will probably continue which, while unacceptable, is hardly a threat to peace in the wider sense.OCorcrainn wrote: »7.The spread of Parachute Regiment flags by loyalists across the north, in particular in Derry because of the association with Bloody Sunday. The increasing volume of Union flags being erected in mixed areas.
I think most people, while rightly being annoyed and offended by this stuff, can see it for the pathetic attempt at provocation it is. Hell, when even the parachute regiment doesnt want you flying their flag you know you're in bother.OCorcrainn wrote: »8.The threat of dissident republicans combined with loyalism now is an extremely dangerous cocktail. Especially with the dissident parade coming up.
Like I said, loyalism is largely confined within its own areas, dissident republicanism has managed to strike out on a few occasions but viewed on the whole their various campaigns have just been one long list of failures.OCorcrainn wrote: »9.The approval of popular unionist politicians within loyalism in the DUP condoning the murder of Catholic, nationalist and republican publically elected representatives. (Ruth Patterson)
Again, while all this is despicable I really dont see it adding up to the restart of the conflict. Most level headed people can see Ruth and her ilk for the dinosaurs they are.OCorcrainn wrote: »10. The failure of mainstream unionism to prevent loyalist aggression.
Got to agree with you here. In fact, far from preventing it they've constantly stirred it up.OCorcrainn wrote: »11. The week long rioting by loyalists over flute bands not being able to march completely down the Ardoyne due to the PC ruling.
Much like Drumcree, this will be a hot topic to start with but will burn out and become the norm.OCorcrainn wrote: »13. The Grand Master of the Orange Order of Belfast and the DUP calling for the Parades Commission to be disbanded,
14. The criticism by the DUP of the PSNI for arresting Ruth Patterson for her social media comments.
15. The recent attack of loyalists on the nationalist Lord Mayor of Belfast when he was opening a children's park.
16. Mainstream unionists stating that there is no problem burning the Irish flag on 11th bonfires.
Thugs being thugs, this has always been the case.OCorcrainn wrote: »It just looks things seem to be getting uglier and uglier in loyalism/unionism and I am afraid that it will get worse.
Is it just an irrational fear by me of potentially witnessing a repeat of the Troubles where innocent people will get killed just for what religion and political beliefs they have?
What do people think
It's certainly not an irrational fear, but I think what most of the things you have pointed out will do is stall or slow the peace process, they wont stop it or put it in reverse. I believe, unless a final settlement of sorts is reached that we will see conflict in the north again, but not for several generations.0 -
guttenberg wrote: »So Loyalists started the Troubles? it's a lot more complicated than that. This thread won't last long with loaded comments such as that.
So we should avoid the truth in the hopes of keeping the thread open? Lets not get bogged down in the history of the conflict but even the most cursory glance at history will point to the policies of consecutive British Governments, the corrupt stormont regime and the actions of unionism/loyalism as being the clear reasons behind the outbreak of violence. Whatever you think about the groups and actions that followed is a separate issue, it's perfectly clear who kicked things off.guttenberg wrote: »Sinn Fein are equally as guilty of this. The Belfast SF mayor was attacked today by loyalists, instead of condemning it, the DUP claim he shouldn't have been there, ie. it's his own fault. If a DUP councillor was attacked in a republican area, would they cry victimhood or admit they shouldn't of been there? It's understandable they are reluctant to speak out against the people who vote for them.
Sinn Fein are not equally guilty of this. There is no current comparable scenario. On he same day Mairtin O'Muilleoir was attacked DUP representatives were warmly welcomed in West Belfast.guttenberg wrote: »Case in point, the Official Protestant Coalition. Nutjobs. If you haven't watched any of their videos(Willie Frazers in particular) do, they are hilarious. Again though, it's easier to play the sectarian card as a smokescreen for the politicians own failings. Sinn Fein are the second largest party in NI, yet when do they admit their failings? they blame everything on "the Brits".
The brits have a hell of a lot to answer forguttenberg wrote: »Stupid brain dead individuals. Did you watch that BBC3 docu last night? when the bandsmen were asked why they did particular things, all they could muster was "it's our culture". They couldn't elaborate as to why it was their culture.
It was awful wasnt it. No harm to that wee girl who presented it but she clearly got the job because she has a pretty face. It certainly wasnt because of her journalistic ability or knowledge of what goes on in her own bloody country. She really came across as a moron, a pretty moron, but a moron nonetheless.guttenberg wrote: »It proves there is no "shared culture" in NI. Unionists don't want to be exposed to any Nationalist/Republican expressions of their culture and past. Nationalists/Republicans don't want anything to do with the OO. A normal society, NI is not.
Again, however, those two things are not comparable. Nationalist/republican expression is not overtly anti "the other side." The OO is.guttenberg wrote: »Peter Robinson recently said that for NI to remain part of the UK required the DUP to appeal to "unionist" catholics. Ruth Patterson is well regarded by the fleggers. If the DUP punish her, they risk alienating their mandate. If they don't, they'll alienate any potential Catholic voters. Catch 22 situation for them. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
The DUP's chances of attracting catholic unionists are nil. There are undoubtedly catholic unionists out there who would vote that way in a poll but election wise they'll go nowhere near the DUP. NI21 and Alliance will pick up any who dont vote SDLP.guttenberg wrote: »Do you blame the threat of dissident republicanism on the failure of Sinn Fein?
Not comparable. Sinn Fein has roundly condemned dissident violence, mainstream unionism has actively stirred up loyalist violenceguttenberg wrote: »Optics, it's not hard to understand their mindset. They've walked the road for many years, now can't- of course they'll see that as an attack on their culture.
This "culture" of theirs is a tricky thing to define isnt it? This "attack on their culture" is their perception. The reality is that nationalist communities are finally getting equal rights. Their perception should not be allowed to halt reality.guttenberg wrote: »Covered that earlier. He's a Republican not a Nationalist though.
He's the Mayor of Belfast. Like he said on the radio last night, "I'm not a republican mayor or a Sinn Fein mayor, Im the Belfast mayor."guttenberg wrote: »and yet, the same people claimed that the stealing of a Union flag from an OO hall last week was a hate crime. NI unionist politicans being hypocrites? never!!
I know there's this perception that whenever referring to the north on boards you have to throw in the whole "one side's as bad as the other" thing to appear balanced but the fact is it's just not true0 -
The problem with the Troubles, was that it was seriously mishandled by the British Government. Today Northern Ireland is a bit different, because both the British and Irish governments are more co-operative when it comes to the North, and seem to be cautious then in the past. Whatever troubles are being caused in Northern Ireland, the British and Irish governments will be a lot more effective in dealing with the issue then in the past.
The "Irish" government is feeding the trouble by its funding of the Orange Order for which they have received zero return as we saw clearly by the Order's behaviour this summer, Leinster house has been sending out the message to Loyalists that whatever you do its fine by us and there will be no reprecussions. How with the demographic changes and Sinn Fein's acceptance of the legitimacy of the British state and them being all around good boys can the British government seriously give in to Loyalist demands for a return to the old order of the first Stormount regime? They can but that would entail serious difficulties- therefore violence is inevitable.0 -
Advertisement
-
its all about the Benjamins0
-
So most of the aims of NICRA were not achieved by 1972 then, the IRA had no input in it lasting 30 odd years?Crooked Jack wrote: »So we should avoid the truth in the hopes of keeping the thread open? Lets not get bogged down in the history of the conflict but even the most cursory glance at history will point to the policies of consecutive British Governments, the corrupt stormont regime and the actions of unionism/loyalism as being the clear reasons behind the outbreak of violence. Whatever you think about the groups and actions that followed is a separate issue, it's perfectly clear who kicked things off.
Yes they do, but Sinn Fein currently hold a lot of power. The buck stops with them for quite a lot of Stormonts poor decisions.Crooked Jack wrote: »The brits have a hell of a lot to answer for
I think she made the mistake of dumbing it down too much. Many British viewers may not really understand NI, but she simplified things a bit too much for my liking. I can't wait for Ross Kemp's attempt at explaining NI:DCrooked Jack wrote: »It was awful wasnt it. No harm to that wee girl who presented it but she clearly got the job because she has a pretty face. It certainly wasnt because of her journalistic ability or knowledge of what goes on in her own bloody country. She really came across as a moron, a pretty moron, but a moron nonetheless.
I get your point, but can you understand the OO's anger against elected representatives commemorating those who spent the previous 30 years trying to kill them?Crooked Jack wrote: »Again, however, those two things are not comparable. Nationalist/republican expression is not overtly anti "the other side." The OO is.
I'm not so sure. Big Ian attracted a large catholic vote in his district because of his work on the ground. Many people vote based on the candidate rather than the antics of the wider party. On paper I'd vote SDLP, would I vote for my local candidates? not a chance.Crooked Jack wrote: »The DUP's chances of attracting catholic unionists are nil. There are undoubtedly catholic unionists out there who would vote that way in a poll but election wise they'll go nowhere near the DUP. NI21 and Alliance will pick up any who dont vote SDLP.
I was responding to the OP. Blaming mainstream unionism for Loyalism is akin to blaming mainstream Republicanism for dissidents. Neither feel the politican system is representing their views or acting for them, so where does the fault lie?Crooked Jack wrote: »Not comparable. Sinn Fein has roundly condemned dissident violence, mainstream unionism has actively stirred up loyalist violence
Oh I completely agree with you. The problem is trying to bridge the gap between perception and reality.Crooked Jack wrote: »This "culture" of theirs is a tricky thing to define isnt it? This "attack on their culture" is their perception. The reality is that nationalist communities are finally getting equal rights. Their perception should not be allowed to halt reality.
He was there in a Mayoral capacity yes. I was just correcting the OP that his views are that of a republican, not of a nationalist.Crooked Jack wrote: »He's the Mayor of Belfast. Like he said on the radio last night, "I'm not a republican mayor or a Sinn Fein mayor, Im the Belfast mayor."Crooked Jack wrote: »I know there's this perception that whenever referring to the north on boards you have to throw in the whole "one side's as bad as the other" thing to appear balanced but the fact is it's just not true
I'd disagree. There is two cultures in NI, the key to peace is for each to take into consideration the views of the other and try to respect them. The OO have some peaceful parades because they talk and compromise with residents. Other parades are quite contentious because the OO point blank refuse to engage with the other side. Similarly, how can the OO complain about memorials to Republican violence when some bands commemorate Loyalist violence? and vice versa. Both sides expect tolerance of their culture, yet don't show any to the other. As demonstrated by the burning of flags on bonfires.0 -
guttenberg wrote: »So most of the aims of NICRA were not achieved by 1972 then, the IRA had no input in it lasting 30 odd years?
That's a whole other issue. The OP was talking about how the conflict started. By 1972 it was too late to be giving people most of their civil rights. The war was on, the game had changed.guttenberg wrote: »Yes they do, but Sinn Fein currently hold a lot of power. The buck stops with them for quite a lot of Stormonts poor decisions.
Do they though? I mean, really, what powers has stormont? I dont like to denigrate the efforts that are being made there but until more real powers are devolved it will resemble a county council more than a real, functioning government.guttenberg wrote: »I think she made the mistake of dumbing it down too much. Many British viewers may not really understand NI, but she simplified things a bit too much for my liking. I can't wait for Ross Kemp's attempt at explaining NI:D
Yes, she dumbed a lot of stuff down (probably for herself as much as the viewers) but she also got a lot of stuff just blindly, completely wrong. Going back to our earlier question regarding the start of the conflict, did you hear how she described it? The IRA attacked the Brits and then the loyalists defended themselves. BBC3 must be broadcast in an alternate reality.guttenberg wrote: »I get your point, but can you understand the OO's anger against elected representatives commemorating those who spent the previous 30 years trying to kill them?
Firstly, that's not a true representation of what the IRA were about. Moving on from that, I can understand the OO not liking a parade commemorating IRA volunteers, what I cant understand is how a group can be so openly hypocritical. They have well over 3500 parades every year either commemorating or involving bands and banners commemorating loyalist paramilitaries, members of the british army and the RUC/B Specials. They've had almost 20 of these in Castlederg (a majority nationalist town that elects three times more SF representatives than any other party) this year alone (Im including apprentice boys, black perceptory, etc... in that) and yet one republican one is unacceptable. Surely we should all be able to commemorate our dead. If the OO are so keen on the right to march then that right has to apply to everyone.guttenberg wrote: »I'm not so sure. Big Ian attracted a large catholic vote in his district because of his work on the ground. Many people vote based on the candidate rather than the antics of the wider party. On paper I'd vote SDLP, would I vote for my local candidates? not a chance.
I've heard that about Paisley, that away from the camera he was a decent political representative. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing who voted for him and why. All I can say is I'd be surprised if many catholic unionists could bring themselves to vote DUP.guttenberg wrote: »I was responding to the OP. Blaming mainstream unionism for Loyalism is akin to blaming mainstream Republicanism for dissidents. Neither feel the politican system is representing their views or acting for them, so where does the fault lie?
But it's not because we have seen mainstream unionism whip up the violent loyalist element on numerous occasions. The fault lies with the people committing the violent acts but the difference is that Sinn Fein has openly condemned those doing so on the republican side, unionist politicians have done the exact opposite.guttenberg wrote: »Oh I completely agree with you. The problem is trying to bridge the gap between perception and reality.
That bridge will be about as difficult to build as the one at narrow water.guttenberg wrote: »He was there in a Mayoral capacity yes. I was just correcting the OP that his views are that of a republican, not of a nationalist.
Fair enoughguttenberg wrote: »I'd disagree. There is two cultures in NI, the key to peace is for each to take into consideration the views of the other and try to respect them. The OO have some peaceful parades because they talk and compromise with residents. Other parades are quite contentious because the OO point blank refuse to engage with the other side. Similarly, how can the OO complain about memorials to Republican violence when some bands commemorate Loyalist violence? and vice versa. Both sides expect tolerance of their culture, yet don't show any to the other. As demonstrated by the burning of flags on bonfires.
Absolutely, but that does not entail enforcing an artificial "balance" by feeling the need to add "both sides are as bad as each other" when one side is clearly at fault.
Nationalist/republican culture doesnt march where it is not welcome. It doesnt hold huge orgies of hate where flags and effigies are burned.0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »
What do people think
I think that the opening post looks like something that should have been signed P O'Neill.
Saddened to see such trite propaganda forming the basis of a thread on a supposedly serious political forum.0 -
Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »I think that the opening post looks like something that should have been signed P O'Neill.
Saddened to such trite propaganda forming the basis of a thread on a supposedly serious political forum.
So rather than address the issues raised and dismiss them, you opted to make some snide P. O'Neill comment?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moving on from that, I can understand the OO not liking a parade commemorating IRA volunteers, what I cant understand is how a group can be so openly hypocritical.
Unionism is intrinsically hypocritical. If you believe that other people are inferior to you then you remove any need for equivalent treatment.
There is no doubt that Republicans are also hypocritical in practice, but they at least are not hypocritical in theory and this can be used to critique their actions and this does lead to change.0 -
Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »I think that the opening post looks like something that should have been signed P O'Neill.
Saddened to such trite propaganda forming the basis of a thread on a supposedly serious political forum.1960–1969
Since 1964, civil rights activists had been protesting against the discrimination of Catholics and Irish nationalists by the Protestant and Unionist-dominated government of Northern Ireland. The civil rights movement called for: 'one man, one vote'; the end to gerrymandered electoral boundaries; the end to discrimination in employment and in the allocation of public housing; repeal of the Special Powers Act (which was used to intern nationalist and republican activists); and the disbanding of the B-Specials (an overwhelmingly Protestant reserve police force which was accused of police brutality against Catholics).[6]
1966
April Loyalist led by Ian Paisley, a Protestant fundamentalist preacher, founded the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC) to challenge the civil rights movement. It set up a paramilitary-style wing called the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV).[6]
21 May A loyalist group calling itself the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) issued a statement declaring war on the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The group claimed to be composed of "heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause".[7] At the time, the IRA was not engaged in armed action, but Irish nationalists/republicans were marking the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising. Some unionists and loyalists warned "that a revival of the IRA was imminent".[6]
May–June The UVF carried out three attacks on Irish Catholics and Catholic-owned property in Belfast. In the first, a Protestant civilian died when UVF members firebombed the Catholic-owned pub beside her house. In the second, a Catholic civilian was shot dead as he walked home. In the third, the UVF opened-fire on three Catholic civilians as they left a pub, killing one and wounding the others.[6]
1968
20 June Civil rights activists (including Stormont MP Austin Currie) protested against discrimination in the allocation of housing by illegally occupying a house in Caledon, County Tyrone. An unmarried Protestant woman (the secretary of a local Unionist politician) had been given the house ahead of Catholic families with children. The protesters were forcibly removed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).[8]
24 August Northern Ireland's first civil rights march was held. Many more marches would be held over the following year. Loyalists, especially the UCDC and UPV, organized counter-demonstrations to get the marches banned.[8]
5 October A civil rights march was to take place in Derry. When the loyalist Apprentice Boys announced its intention to hold a march at the same place and time, the Government banned the civil rights march. When civil rights activists defied the ban, the RUC baton-charged the crowd and injured over 100 people, including a number of MPs. This led to two days of serious rioting in Derry between Catholics and the RUC.
9 October About 2,000 students from Queen's University Belfast tried to march to Belfast City Hall in protest against 'police brutality' on 5 October in Derry. The march was blocked by loyalists led by Ian Paisley. After the demonstration, a student civil rights group—People's Democracy—was formed.[8]
1969
4 January A People's Democracy march between Belfast and Derry was repeatedly attacked by loyalists and off-duty police (RUC) officers. At Burntollet it was ambushed by ~200 loyalists and off-duty police armed with iron bars, bricks and bottles. The marchers claimed that police did little to protect them. When the march arrived in Derry it was broken up by the RUC, which sparked serious rioting between Irish nationalists and the RUC.[9]
March–April Loyalists—members of the UVF and UPV—bombed water and electricity installations in Northern Ireland. They hoped the attacks would be blamed on the dormant IRA and on elements of the civil rights movement, which was demanding an end to discrimination against Catholics. The loyalists intended to bring down the Unionist Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Terence O'Neill, who had promised some concessions to the civil rights movement. There were six bombings and all were immediately blamed on the IRA. As a response, British soldiers were sent to guard installations. Unionist support for O'Neill waned, and on 28 April he resigned as Prime Minister.[10]
17 April People's Democracy activist Bernadette Devlin became the youngest woman ever elected to Westminster.
14 July A 67-year-old Catholic civilian died after being attacked by RUC officers in Dungiven
12–14 August Battle of the Bogside – during an Apprentice Boys march, serious rioting erupted in Derry between Irish nationalists and the RUC. RUC officers, backed by loyalists, entered the nationalist Bogside in armoured cars and tried to suppress the riot by using CS gas, water cannon and eventually firearms. The almost continuous rioting lasted for two days.[12]
14–17 August Northern Ireland riots of August 1969 – in response to events in Derry, Irish nationalists held protests throughout Northern Ireland. Some of these became violent. In Belfast, loyalists responded by attacking nationalist districts. Rioting also erupted in Newry, Armagh, Crossmaglen, Dungannon, Coalisland and Dungiven. Eight people were shot dead and at least 133 were treated for gunshot wounds. Scores of houses and businesses were burnt-out, most of them owned by Catholics. Thousands of families, mostly Catholics, were forced to flee their homes and refugee camps were set up in the Republic.[13] The British Army was deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland, which marked the beginning of Operation Banner.
11 October Three people were shot dead during street violence in the loyalist Shankill area of Belfast. Two were Protestant civilians shot by the British Army and one was an RUC officer shot by the UVF. He was the first RUC officer to be killed in the Troubles. The loyalists "had taken to the streets in protest at the Hunt Report, which recommended the disbandment of the B Specials and disarming of the RUC".[14]
October–December The UVF detonated bombs in the Republic of Ireland. In Dublin it detonated a car bomb near the Garda central detective bureau and telephone exchange headquarters.[15] It also bombed a power station at Ballyshannon, a Wolfe Tone memorial in Bodenstown, and the Daniel O'Connell monument in Dublin.
December A split formed in the Irish Republican Army over how to respond to the violence, creating what was to become the Official IRA (OIRA) and Provisional IRA (PIRA).
1970
31 March Following an Orange Order parade, intense riots erupted on the Springfield Road in Belfast. Violence lasted for three days, and the British Army used CS gas for the first time in large quantities. About 38 soldiers and dozens of civilians were injured.[16]
27 June Following the arrest of Bernadette Devlin, intense riots erupted in Derry and Belfast. During the evening, loyalist paramilitaries made incursions into republican areas of Belfast. This led to a prolonged gun battle between republicans and loyalists. Seven people were killed.
3–5 July Falls Curfew – for three days the British Army imposed a curfew on the Falls Road area of Belfast as they searched for weapons. During the operation they came under attack from the Official IRA (OIRA) and republican rioters. Five civilians were killed, sixty were injured and three hundred were arrested by the British Army. Fifteen soldiers were shot by the OIRA.
2 August Rubber bullets were used for the first time.[17]
August Leading Nationalist party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) was formed. 1971
6 February Robert Curtis became the first British soldier to die in the Troubles when he was shot by the PIRA on New Lodge Road, Belfast.[18]
9 March Three off-duty Scottish soldiers are killed by the PIRA; 4000 shipyard workers take to the streets to demand internment in response.
23 March Brian Faulkner became the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
25 May The PIRA threw a time bomb into Springfield Road British Army/RUC base in Belfast, killing British Army Sergeant Michael Willetts and wounding seven RUC officers, two British soldiers and eighteen civilians.
8 July During street disturbances, British soldiers shot dead two Catholic civilians in Free Derry. As a result, riots erupted in the city and the SDLP withdrew from Stormont in protest.[19]
9 August Operation Demetrius (or Internment) was introduced in Northern Ireland. The security forces arrested 342 people suspected of supporting paramilitaries. During 9–11 August, fourteen civilians were shot dead by the British Army, and three security forces personnel were shot dead by republicans. In the following days, an estimated 7000 people fled their homes. The vast majority of the dead, imprisoned and refugees were nationalists and Catholics.[20]
9 - 11 August During the internment round-up operation in west Belfast, the Parachute Regiment killed 11 unarmed civilians in what became known as the Ballymurphy massacre.
September Loyalists formed the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). The group would quickly become the largest loyalist group in Northern Ireland.[21]
4 December McGurk's Bar bombing – the UVF exploded a bomb at a Catholic-owned pub in Belfast, killing fifteen Catholic civilians and wounding seventeen others. This was the highest death toll from a single incident in Belfast during the Troubles.
How is any of the above propaganda? So you are saying the loyalists did not start it?
1966 - Loyalists and security forces start attacking Civil Rights marchers and killing people.
1970 - The IRA start killing people in retaliation.
That is a four year gap. You were saying?0 -
Unionism is intrinsically hypocritical. If you believe that other people are inferior to you then you remove any need for equivalent treatment.
There is no doubt that Republicans are also hypocritical in practice, but they at least are not hypocritical in theory and this can be used to critique their actions and this does lead to change.
I doubt it. How?0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »How is any of the above propaganda? So you are saying the loyalists did not start it?
1966 - Loyalists and security forces start attacking Civil Rights marchers and killing people.
1970 - The IRA start killing people in retaliation.
That is a four year gap. You were saying?
Malachi o'doherty has an interesting take on the beginnings of the troubles
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/
"Many people will remember this week as the anniversary of a pogrom, an attack on Catholic homes by the massed ranks of the RUC, B Specials and Loyalist paramilitaries.
Two great lessons were assimilated by many Catholics from that experience, or that understanding of their experience. These were that the Northern Ireland state was hostile to them and that the IRA, which had failed to defend them, would have to be beefed up so that it could do a better job the next times the prods went doo lally and descended on them.
The flaw in this version of August 1969 is that it takes no account of the plain fact that it was rioters in Ardoyne and the Falls Road – Catholics – who started the Trouble in Belfast that week, and it was very big trouble they started."0 -
Malachi o'doherty has an interesting take on the beginnings of the troubles
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/
"Many people will remember this week as the anniversary of a pogrom, an attack on Catholic homes by the massed ranks of the RUC, B Specials and Loyalist paramilitaries.
Two great lessons were assimilated by many Catholics from that experience, or that understanding of their experience. These were that the Northern Ireland state was hostile to them and that the IRA, which had failed to defend them, would have to be beefed up so that it could do a better job the next times the prods went doo lally and descended on them.
The flaw in this version of August 1969 is that it takes no account of the plain fact that it was rioters in Ardoyne and the Falls Road – Catholics – who started the Trouble in Belfast that week, and it was very big trouble they started."
I expected no less from you Junder. What about 1966?0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »I expected no less from you Junder. What about 1966?
Do any other sources back up O'Doherty's version of events because I've never seen them anywhere.
And if true, how does an attack on police in Belfast to ease the pressure on people in Derry justify the burning of Bombay Street by loyalist mobs?
And, as you pointed out, this is all three years into the violence.0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »I expected no less from you Junder. What about 1966?
I didn't write the articule, and Malachi is hardly known for being a stanch unionist, so why not discuss what he has written.
For those that know of him here is a little info about him
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_O'Doherty0 -
I didn't write the articule, and Malachi is hardly known for being a stanch unionist, so why not discuss what he has written.
For those that know of him here is a little info about him
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_O'Doherty
I know his work, although I would disagree with some of his assertions and historical claims, some of which I would find misleading and inaccurate.
But I have respect for him, in particular for some his work highlighting that there is humanity and compassion between the communities in the north that transcends the political and sectarian divide.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/protestant-who-pulled-virgin-mary-from-bonfire-shows-respect-still-survives-29417820.html#idc-cover
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/why-no-selfawareness-bodes-ill-for-shared-future-29472195.html0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »Are the DUP and the loyalists going to start the Troubles II like they did the first time in 1966?
All evidence unfortunately seems to be pointing in that direction.
1. DUP in an attempt to undermine the Alliance Party's growing influence and to take Naomi Long's seat in East Belfast stirs up sectarian tensions by mass leafleting to falsely suggest to loyalists that Union Jack and their British identity was under attack by the Alliance Party.
2. The protests against the British flag being flown on specific days in line with the rest of the UK instead being flown 365 days a year sparked off riots, violent protests and protests by loyalists.
3. DUP and unionist politicians rather than condemning and criticizing the loyalists for the violence criticizes the PSNI and other politicians instead.
4.Unionist politicians and community activists and leaders are continuing to scaremonger loyalists that their culture is under attack by Catholics, nationalists and non-dissident republicans. This had bred an extremely dangerous and volatile atmosphere in the loyalist communities.
5.We have seen the rise in support for more dissident unionists and loyalists opposed to the GFA. Such as Willie Frazer and the 'Protestant Coalition', Jim Allister and the TUV.
6.More loyalist paramilitary displays, such as at the Ulster Covenant commemoration and the attacks on PSNI.
7.The spread of Parachute Regiment flags by loyalists across the north, in particular in Derry because of the association with Bloody Sunday. The increasing volume of Union flags being erected in mixed areas.
8.The threat of dissident republicans combined with loyalism now is an extremely dangerous cocktail. Especially with the dissident parade coming up.
9.The approval of popular unionist politicians within loyalism in the DUP condoning the murder of Catholic, nationalist and republican publically elected representatives. (Ruth Patterson)
10. The failure of mainstream unionism to prevent loyalist aggression.
11. The week long rioting by loyalists over flute bands not being able to march completely down the Ardoyne due to the PC ruling.
12. The influx of police officers across the UK to contain the situation,
13. The Grand Master of the Orange Order of Belfast and the DUP calling for the Parades Commission to be disbanded,
14. The criticism by the DUP of the PSNI for arresting Ruth Patterson for her social media comments.
15. The recent attack of loyalists on the nationalist Lord Mayor of Belfast when he was opening a children's park.
16. Mainstream unionists stating that there is no problem burning the Irish flag on 11th bonfires.
It just looks things seem to be getting uglier and uglier in loyalism/unionism and I am afraid that it will get worse.
Is it just an irrational fear by me of potentially witnessing a repeat of the Troubles where innocent people will get killed just for what religion and political beliefs they have?
What do people think
Staggeringly you fail to mention the various new IRA umbrella groups who actually have murdered people and very recently have been involved in attempts to murder more.
It must be very limiting to see the world with such bias.
There will always be an element of sporadic violence in the North. I see it as inevitable for another few generations at least. The next potential flashpoint as I see it could come in and around the border poll. If SF do not get a positive result or at least a result they can sell as progress the hardliners will get itchy. If the loyalist terrorists, or less likely the NI security forces made any significant aggressive moves (i see it as almost impossible the security forces would go on the offensive) resulting in loss of life on the nationalist side, then yes, the dinosaurs might gain enough momentum to say "look, the ballot box has got you nowhere...etc etc"
This would need to be happen at a time of widespread economic suffering also, real losses in standard of living for the nationalist community, not necessarily in isolation.
I see it as unlikely as too much economic advantage has been secured from peace, even with the current recession, and people are enjoying their status as international icons of peace process implementation. No widescale discrimination exists as it did before. The loyalists would be short of targets, who would they launch their campaign against. They lose all of the legitimacy they claim to have (they have none before anyone accuses me of dignifying the scum!) by attacking the british state and lose all international standing by attacking the irish state. Murdering politicians will see them with 0% support and they would disappear from parliament at the next election.
Your post is a fantasy in which you characterise the entire unionist community of the north into one violent aggressor. It is childishly simplistic and inaccurate. The loyalist terrorists are drug gangs squabbling amongst themselves and provide no real security threat.
Unless you are suggestion that the bible thumping DUP grey hair brigade are going to arm themselves and storm the Alliance party offices burning effigies of John Alderdice?0 -
Unless you are suggestion that the bible thumping DUP grey hair brigade are going to arm themselves and storm the Alliance party offices burning effigies of John Alderdice?
They don't need, they just stir loyalist yobs to do it.Staggeringly you fail to mention the various new IRA umbrella groups who actually have murdered people and very recently have been involved in attempts to murder more.8.The threat of dissident republicans combined with loyalism now is an extremely dangerous cocktail. Especially with the dissident parade coming up.
Are you blind or what?0 -
Advertisement
-
OCorcrainn wrote: »
Are you blind or what?
The UK government tightened things up a lot in order to stop electoral fraud in the occupied counties in 2001 believing that it would halt the progress of the DUP and PSF....and well LOL. There is blindness and unwillingness to see.0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »I know his work, although I would disagree with some of his assertions and historical claims, some of which I would find misleading and inaccurate.
But I have respect for him, in particular for some his work highlighting that there is humanity and compassion between the communities in the north that transcends the political and sectarian divide.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/protestant-who-pulled-virgin-mary-from-bonfire-shows-respect-still-survives-29417820.html#idc-cover
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/why-no-selfawareness-bodes-ill-for-shared-future-29472195.html
Hardly a discussion of his articule, I'm guessing you where not there at Bombay street, since he was that atleast gives him the benefit of being an eye witness to the unfolding events, which gives him a credabilty about what he is saying, where as you have to relay only on second hand historical accounts0 -
Hardly a discussion of his articule, I'm guessing you where not there at Bombay street, since he was that atleast gives him the benefit of being an eye witness to the unfolding events, which gives him a credabilty about what he is saying, where as you have to relay only on second hand historical accounts
The problem there is that are vastly more eye-witness accounts of what happened that do not corroborate with his own rendition of events.0 -
Hardly a discussion of his articule, I'm guessing you where not there at Bombay street, since he was that atleast gives him the benefit of being an eye witness to the unfolding events, which gives him a credabilty about what he is saying, where as you have to relay only on second hand historical accounts
Roman Catholics will never understand how people like those who vote for PUP think- they actually believe that being compromising will make them softer when it only confirms them in their vile hatred and aggression.0 -
SoulandForm wrote: »The "Irish" government is feeding the trouble by its funding of the Orange Order for which they have received zero return as we saw clearly by the Order's behaviour this summer, Leinster house has been sending out the message to Loyalists that whatever you do its fine by us and there will be no reprecussions. How with the demographic changes and Sinn Fein's acceptance of the legitimacy of the British state and them being all around good boys can the British government seriously give in to Loyalist demands for a return to the old order of the first Stormount regime? They can but that would entail serious difficulties- therefore violence is inevitable.
1. I believe the funding was done in good faith. To try and at least show respect, by catering to the Unionists. Unfortunately Unionists/Loyalist are hard to deal with, so it doesn't always comes back as desired. That being said of course I seriously doubt the Irish government is telling loyalist that they can do whatever they want, and it's fine by them. The Republic has played a big role in the peace process, and the continuation of peace in the north thus far. For the Troubles start again would undo all the good work that has been done since. Nobody wants the return of the wild west again(or should I say wild north).
2.Either way, I do believe both the Irish and British governments will at least try to do something. They're not just going to sit outside the fence and watch Northern Ireland go to hell. If violence is inevitable, then hopefully something was learned from the Troubles, and they deal with it in a better way. But I still think there is hope for peace, and that this is just fear mongering brought on paranoia. The same paranoia that have people up in arms over dissident republicans.0 -
SoulandForm wrote: »Roman Catholics will never understand how people like those who vote for PUP think- they actually believe that being compromising will make them softer when it only confirms them in their vile hatred and aggression.
And what has that got to do with Malachi other then he was born in the Roman Catholic community?0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »The problem there is that are vastly more eye-witness accounts of what happened that do not corroborate with his own rendition of events.
But yours isn't one of them, which means your not in a position to dimiss him out of hand. Malachi as he points out himself in the articule, is trying to step out side the usual propoganda0 -
But yours isn't one of them, which means your not in a position to dimiss him out of hand. Malachi as he points out himself in the articule, is trying to step out side the usual propoganda
I didn't dismiss him, I merely said that the vast majority of the eye-witness accounts and social commentary from neutral parties contradict his claim. Take from that what you will. Historical sources and testimonies from people who participated in the loyalist rioting also contradict his version of events.
To elaborate further, this is not my version of events as you claim, it is the historical truth which is supported by historical facts and further validated by the accounts of vast majority of people who were actually there.
I know you prefer Malachi's account of what apparently happened because it suits your loyalist narrative perfectly.0 -
And what has that got to do with Malachi other then he was born in the Roman Catholic community?
That is exactly the point- he is showing the exact same psychology that Seamus Heaney showed during the fleg protests. Its a dishonest and utterly condescending one that does no one any good. The fact that you cannot see the game he is playing was my point but carry on.0 -
Advertisement
-
OCorcrainn wrote: »I didn't dismiss him, I merely said that the vast majority of the eye-witness accounts and social commentary from neutral parties contradict his claim. Take from that what you will. Historical sources and testimonies from people who participated in the loyalist rioting also contradict his version of events.
To elaborate further, this is not my version of events as you claim, it is the historical truth which is supported by historical facts and further validated by the accounts of vast majority of people who were actually there.
I know you prefer Malachi's account of what apparently happened because it suits your loyalist narrative perfectly.
I havernt voiced an opinion on it either way only offered it up as an alternative viewpoint from somebody who was there. And since Malachi is not a unionist he is not so easily dimissed as having pro-unionist bias.
On a anecdotal note I was recently watching a show on the history channel called the soldiers story, in which soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland from the beginning of the troubles to the end had thier story's told. In the early part of the programme showing a film clip taken during the 1960's was shown in it you saw a hillman Imp type car loaded up with the family's possessions, what ever furniture they could get out was strapped to the roof as they fled their house before they where burnt out, thing is, and this goes against the usual republican narrative, this was a unionist family, fleeing thier home, how did I know this, it was down to the union flag they had flying from thier car as they fled. It was only a 5 second clip and was only shown to give context to the story of The soldier telling his story of Belfast Descending into chaos.0
Advertisement