nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DUP MP denies Parachute Regiment flags put up on the anniversary of the tragedy are a

weldoninhio

Following on from the Kingsmill thread where an MP shockingly put a loaf of bread on his head, I was surprised that no one had opened a thread about Gregory Campbell’s assertion that the erection of Parachute Regiment flags in Derry in the lead up to the anniversary of Bloody Sunday were “not sectarian”.

Now I know a flag depicting and celebrating the murderers of 14 innocent people is nowhere near as bad as a loaf of bread on the head, but the silence from the “we’d be outraged if a politician from any party did it, but we only post in SF are bad threads” brigade is palpable.

Why is there no outcry about this? These were 14 innocent people murdered and another 14 injured by the British Army. They were doing the opposite of the IRA (who were apparently the only wrongdoers of the troubles according to a lot on here) and protesting peacefully. Gregory Campbell is offending the families of all of these innocent people, brutally murdered.

It is a strange phenomena, similar to white guilt in US, where certain people from the ROI can only seem to criticise and become outraged at attacks carried out by the IRA, and have no opinion on Irish people murdered by the British, whether by collusion or in cold blood as on Bloody Sunday.

I can’t explain it, can anyone else??

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

El Tarangu

armaghlad wrote: »

The thing in the north for those who aren’t familiar, to be seen to be defending sectarian acts is political suicide - unless you’re in the DUP.

Sinn Féin politicians regularly attend commemorations for people involved in sectarian violence, so I don't think you are correct there.

It is interesting to contrast with the McElduff sag (and I predicted that this very episode would play out after he got suspended) where Sinn Fein took action, publicly distanced themselves from the sentiment some people felt he expressed

Several SF politicians defended McElduff immediately after the controversy came out, and it was only when the outrage reached a certain level that the party felt obliged to sanction him.

ohnonotgmail

El Tarangu wrote: »

Sinn Féin politicians regularly attend commemorations for people involved in sectarian violence, so I don't think you are correct there.

Several SF politicians defended McElduff immediately after the controversy came out, and it was only when the outrage reached a certain level that the party felt obliged to sanction him.

You mean SF dumped him when it was politically expedient to do so? that doesn't sound like SF at all.

mcmoustache

weldoninhio wrote: »

I can’t explain it, can anyone else??

Maybe we expect such idiocy from the unionists but expect better from the shinners?

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well excuse me if i'm not a regular reader of the belfast telegraph. Not everybody is.

Did you just whinge about the lack of a link, then whinge that you're not a regular reader of the link provided?

Just checking.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did you just whinge about the lack of a link, then whinge that you're not a regular reader of the link provided?

Just checking.

would it have killed the OP to include a link to a story that didnt make national news? If they expect us to be outraged at least let us know they expect us to be outraged about. Is that too complicated for you to understand? Just checking.

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would it have killed the OP to include a link to a story that didnt make national news? If they expect us to be outraged at least let us know they expect us to be outraged about. Is that too complicated for you to understand? Just checking.

yeah but without reading any link - I got plenty from the OP as to what the detail of the story was..

jimgoose

It's almost as if some people are chronic arseholes and some other people decide to show them up by ignoring them and holding themselves to a far higher standard.

ohnonotgmail

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah but without reading any link - I got plenty from the OP as to what the detail of the story was..

How do you do the detail provided was correct? People tend to paraphrase an article which can change it's meaning. I prefer to read the original source.

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would it have killed the OP to include a link to a story that didnt make national news? If they expect us to be outraged at least let us know they expect us to be outraged about. Is that too complicated for you to understand? Just checking.

I've lost count the amount of times someone on boards makes a claim with no source.

In my case I either use Google to see if I can verify/counter what is being said, or I ask for a source.

Occasionally I may question the impartiality or legitimacy of source provided (Belfast tele in this case can hardly fall into either category)

What I don't do is complain that I dont regularly read the source of the link provided. I would normally thank the poster for obliging me and then move on.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I've lost count the amount of times someone on boards makes a claim with no source.

In my case I either use Google to see if I can verify/counter what is being said, or I ask for a source.

Occasionally I may question the impartiality or legitimacy of source provided (Belfast tele in this case can hardly fall into either category)

What I don't do is complain that I dont regularly read the source of the link provided. I would normally thank the poster for obliging me and then move on.

I asked for a source. one was provided (but not by the OP who seems to have disappeared). I only commented that i didnt read the telegraph because the story clearly wasn't national news and hence the OP's outrage that others on here were not outraged was misplaced. I didnt think it was that difficult to understand.

jimgoose

Forty-seven pages of "Se ye, hi!!" "Shut yer fuckan moyth yer wee Orange BAWRSTAWRD!!" should sort this out, it always does. :pac::pac::pac:

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I asked for a source. one was provided (but not by the OP who seems to have disappeared). I only commented that i didnt read the telegraph because the story clearly wasn't national news and hence the OP's outrage that others on here were not outraged was misplaced. I didnt think it was that difficult to understand.

It wasn't difficult to understand. It was merely observed.

citytillidie

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How can there be an outcry if people haven't heard of it? Do you have a link to an article about it? no mention of it on the BBC.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-42885894

At least one is saying it is wrong

s7ryf3925pivug

weldoninhio wrote: »

a flag depicting and celebrating the murderers of 14 innocent people

This is the most horrifying thing, using pictures of people being killed as their flag

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your latin quote contradicts the first part of your post.

He who asserts must prove.
I made no assertion - only assertion made was in the OP.
Are you a DUP?

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

He who asserts must prove.
I made no assertion - only assertion made was in the OP.
Are you a DUP?

I'm very familiar with that latin phrase. You just used it in a reply to me that made no sense.

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How do you do the detail provided was correct? People tend to paraphrase an article which can change it's meaning. I prefer to read the original source.

Not to get all fake newsy and all that but 'orginal sources' are just someone else's paraphrasing too

ohnonotgmail

lawred2 wrote: »

Not to get all fake newsy and all that but 'orginal sources' are just someone else's paraphrasing too

Indeed they are but i would prefer the read the the paraphrasing of a newspaper like the telegraph than some randomer on the internet

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Indeed they are but i would prefer the read the the paraphrasing of a newspaper like the telegraph than some randomer on the internet

again - online editions of newspapers are often also just some 'randomer' on the internet

Foxhound38

This sort of silly stuff from both sides of that sectarian binfire is exactly why I think everyone is better off with the border exactly where it is.

Who would want to deal with that shyte?

ohnonotgmail

lawred2 wrote: »

again - online editions of newspapers are often also just some 'randomer' on the internet

They're really not. you cant really compare an article written by a named journalist for a respectable newspaper to a post on boards.ie . One has slightly more credibility than the other.

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They're really not. you cant really compare an article written by a named journalist for a respectable newspaper to a post on boards.ie . One has slightly more credibility than the other.

I'll agree that one has slightly more credibility.

McMurphy

lawred2 wrote: »

I'll agree that one has slightly more credibility.

Except around 9/10 articles penned by Paul Williams. I'll take the word of a random boards poster 90% of the time. :pac:

armaghlad

El Tarangu wrote: »

Sinn Féin politicians regularly attend commemorations for people involved in sectarian violence, so I don't think you are correct there.

Several SF politicians defended McElduff immediately after the controversy came out, and it was only when the outrage reached a certain level that the party felt obliged to sanction him.

Show me where Sinn Féin have condoned sectarian violence in the way Gregory Campbell has.

Show me where the DUP have sanctioned party members for being insensitive to Troubles victims? (Or for anything for that matter)

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Except around 9/10 articles penned by Paul Williams. I'll take the word of a random boards poster 90% of the time. :pac:

well i did say respectable newspaper

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well i did say respectable newspaper

cough

Belfast Telegraph

cough

RandomName2

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why is there no outcry about this?

No 1. DUP don't run candidates in this country.
No 2. I don't think any DUP members were ever part of the parachute regiment, but I'm open to correction on that. I don't research foreign political parties greatly.

Too long a thread title? That's a paddling.

NIMAN

Absolutely no surprise that there has been any condemnation from Unionist politicians on this.

They rarely condemn such actions.

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would it have killed the OP to include a link to a story that didnt make national news? If they expect us to be outraged at least let us know they expect us to be outraged about. Is that too complicated for you to understand? Just checking.

I never asked anyone to be outraged. And I explained everything in my OP. What more would a link provide? I explained fully in the OP what the thread was about.

"Gregory Campbell’s assertion that the erection of Parachute Regiment flags in Derry in the lead up to the anniversary of Bloody Sunday were “not sectarian”."

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I asked for a source. one was provided (but not by the OP who seems to have disappeared). I only commented that i didnt read the telegraph because the story clearly wasn't national news and hence the OP's outrage that others on here were not outraged was misplaced. I didnt think it was that difficult to understand.

Sorry I was at a funeral and not at your beck and call. I sincerely apologise.