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

st00pid Question??

ferdi

let me first say i'm not asking this question to stir **** up, its a genuine enquiery.

Why is there so much emphisis in the media put on the IRA/republics ending violence and criminal activity and so little directed at Loyalists? The other day people started going mad when the IRA made their announcment and yet no pressure whatsoever is put on loyalist groups to make commitments to peace.

how can this work?
why is it always "IRA this, IRA that, bla bla bla"?

It takes two to tango and it takes two groups of bigotted scumbags to create 30 years of bloodshed. no?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

A Dub in Glasgo

Politically, SF is much more a threat to the parties in the Republic than Loyalists and their (SF) rising support was eating into the established parties therefore the unrelenting campaign to try and smear SF and stop the rise.

Loyalists have the same ultimate view as some of the perps of SF bashing therefore they do not get bashed themselves.

There were actually 3 fundamental groups involved 1. Irish Republicans 2. NI Loyalist 3. British State. The border lines between 2 and 3 were often blurred when it appeared they were acting as one.

ferdi

the fact that you have a glasgow celtic sig makes me question the impartiality of your answer but i see what your saying and it makes sense.

sovtek

ferdi wrote:

let me first say i'm not asking this question to stir **** up, its a genuine enquiery.

Why is there so much emphisis in the media put on the IRA/republics ending violence and criminal activity and so little directed at Loyalists?

I rarely post about the IRA or SF as I'm not all that clued up on them..or the Troubles either.
But from my time spent in Ireland and watching RTE and BBC NI I always asked the same question.
Especially when everyday I would hear Trimble ranting on and on about IRA disarming...but then they would report killing of Catholics by Loyalists as well as Loyalist killing each other as if the two weren't related somehow....and maybe they aren't and I'm just missing something.

ferdi

sovtek wrote:

I'm just missing something.

well i'm living here all my life and i seem to be missing something too....

A Dub in Glasgo

ferdi wrote:

the fact that you have a glasgow celtic sig makes me question the impartiality of your answer but i see what your saying and it makes sense.

I am not impartial as I have an Irish Nationalist/Republican view. Most people here are not impartial either. The Celtic sig does not signify any partiality, it is just a recognition of the football club I love.

gandalf

ferdi of course you are right both sides are equally as childish as each other. But specifically my problem with Sinn Fein is they are involved in Politics in the republic and they have an illegal mafia type organisation behind them. There is no way I want people like these involved in politics down here.

Also I think at this stage our polictians have wasted enough time on Northern Ireland at the expense of the everyday running of our state. If these people cannot even get along with each other why the hell should we be expected to welcome them into the Republic with open arms.

[Deleted User]

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

it is just a recognition of the football club I love.

And probably the other one you hate too

Regarding the topic and the question.
All parties in the Republic of Ireland are subject to scrutiny now a days.
If its not transparent it's questioned.
SF are unfortunate in that it takes time for the living memory of the wrong doing of the PIRA to fade away.
It will eventually but it has to stop completely for that to happen.
Most people will associate what is in their living memory and done by the IRA with Sinn Féin, the latters move away from the former will take the same progression of time as it did for anyone else.

For decades most people in this country either voted for the Develara party or the Blueshirt party-people even generations of people have long memories instilled in them even from generation to generation.

So in essence in my view and the view of it would seem the most of the countries public representatives( and lets face it the non SF voters have given a 90% plus mandate to the parties not associated with the IRA ) is that once you stand for election in the 26 counties - you cant be associated with an active private Army.
From thus comes the emphasis on the IRA activity down here-the Unionists dont stand for election here...

I've always believed that the IRA whilst active is a millstone around SF's neck in the South-thats why you have perfectly reasonable people like Gandalf with such a distaste for them.
Sinn Féin as a stand alone with its current policies has a niche market in the electorate some of which it still has to mop up but I doubt if the selfish well to do Tiger oriented majority of the electorate are going to flock to hard left socialism anytime soon and thats irrespective of what party espouses it.

Sand

Especially when everyday I would hear Trimble ranting on and on about IRA disarming...but then they would report killing of Catholics by Loyalists as well as Loyalist killing each other as if the two weren't related somehow....and maybe they aren't and I'm just missing something.

Sovtek, I imagine youre generally upset and worried about the connection between politicians and corporate backers. Now how worried would you be if George Bush's backers werent oil barons but were a terrorist group that stands ready to go back to murdering people whenever it doesnt get its way?

Beyond your understandable desire to remark on moral equivalence between corporations and terrorist groups to make George Bush look bad, youll have to recognise that the concept of an American SF/IRA would have you in screaming for the good old days of Ronald Reagan. Ireland is only 82 years old - up until the Second World War politics and militant groups were practically inseperable here, and was only broken by internment. I do not want to see a return of this gun and ballot box disease to Irish politics. Dub In Glasgow isnt concerned about what the future of Irish politics is, because despite decrying the concept of British rule in Northern Ireland hes quite happy to live under British rule himself. Cant be that bad, can it Dub?

And if anyone wants to whinge about one rule for SF/IRA and one for everyone else theyre insane. Firstly theyre the ones advocating one rule for SF/IRA and one for everyone else - theyre the ones justifying the terrorist group with seats in government! Would it be okay for the PDs to go out and start a paramilitary group to abduct, torture and murder people? To carry out crinimal acts? Secondly, SF/IRA are the only terrorist grouping to win significant electoral gains north or south of the border so theyre the only ones who are a concern at this present time.

SF/IRA always whinge about their mandate. No one is disputing their mandate. But why isnt their mandate enough for them? Why must they maintain a terrorist army as well if their mandate is so significant?

Raskolnikov

Earthman wrote:

And probably the other one you hate too

I can't speak for ADIG, however, being a Celtic supporter does not require a pre-requisite in anti-Britishness or being a bigot. Many of us have been life-long Celtic supporters (before the skangers jumped on the bandwagon) and have merely supported the club for its Irish roots (the club was founded by Sligo/Donegal immigrants). I'd view Rangers as a rival club, nothing more.

true

Raskolnikov wrote:

I can't speak for ADIG, however, being a Celtic supporter does not require a pre-requisite in anti-Britishness or being a bigot. Many of us have been life-long Celtic supporters (before the skangers jumped on the bandwagon) and have merely supported the club for its Irish roots (the club was founded by Sligo/Donegal immigrants). I'd view Rangers as a rival club, nothing more.

Have you heard the songs at a Celtic match ? Really hard core IRA songs.

How is it when other nationalities go to other countries eg British or French or German people go to America, they assimilate and integrate in to society. When us Irish go to Britain, the more extreme of us form and follow Celtic, (which was established to be a Catholic club ), and sing IRA songs, and afterwards get drunk in Irish pubs?

ferdi

ok, i see now why there is more emphisis on the IRA disarming etc. but no-one has explained the reason for the fact that there is practically zero pressure on any of the loyalist groups to commit to peace!

how can you expect a group of thugs who want to "save" the island from british rule to give up their arms when nobody says anything about a rival group of thugs who are responsible for just as much suffering as they are?

if both dont disarm simultainiously, the one who does disarm will always feel their enemies are getting the better of them.

Raskolnikov

true wrote:

Have you heard the songs at a Celtic match ? Really hard core IRA songs.

Not recently. My first ever Celtic game (an Old Firm derby) about four years ago I seem to remember mention of IRA chanting from one section, about eight matches later, nothing at all.

true wrote:

How is it when other nationalities go to other countries eg British or French or German people go to America, they assimilate and integrate in to society. When us Irish go to Britain, the more extreme of us form and follow Celtic, (which was established to be a Catholic club ), and sing IRA songs, and afterwards get drunk in Irish pubs?

That's not true at all. You need only look at the amount of English MP's (mostly Labour) of Irish descent who consider themselves completely English. As for Scotland? You must never have visited the place at all, I don't know a single Scot of Irish descent that considers themselves more Irish than Scottish.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Dub In Glasgow isnt concerned about what the future of Irish politics is

Wrong.

I have a lot more interest and concern than quite a few of the folk living in Ireland. If I had been a national of almost any other European country, I would not have been totally cut off from the political situation in the country had I left.

because despite decrying the concept of British rule in Northern Ireland hes quite happy to live under British rule himself.

If I lived in the US, I would still object to the invasion of Iraq. If I lived in France, I would still object to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. If I lived in Russia, I would still object to the Russian involvment in Checnya. If I lived in China, I would still object to their involvment in Tibet.

It is true that I pay my taxes to the UK government and I have let my local MP, Councillor, MEP and MSP know how I feel about certain things. I resent paying towards the upkeep of the parasites in Buckingham Palace though.

You see Sand, you can dislike British policy in Ireland and at the same time not dislike the British people.

Cant be that bad, can it Dub?

As an economic immigrant into Britain, no it is not that bad. Generally, the people are absolutely fantastic (even the hard core Rangers fans that I work with). You get the same ned element as you get anywhere. Politically, the Tories ruled here when I came and I got involved in the Poll Tax protest (another reason to dislike MT!) but Blair is doing his utmost to replicate himself into another MT.

When I left Dublin, the place was the pits and you could get a reasonable house in a reasonable area for a reasonable price. Now, you need to have tons of cash behind you to afford something reasonable in a bad area!!

It looks as if I chose the wrong time to leave Dublin!

ferdi

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It looks as if I chose the wrong time to leave Dublin!

i think you got out just in time mate. some people are richer but the majority of people are just greed driven dickheads now.

Zombrex

ferdi wrote:

ok, i see now why there is more emphisis on the IRA disarming etc. but no-one has explained the reason for the fact that there is practically zero pressure on any of the loyalist groups to commit to peace!

Not quite sure where you are getting this from. My understanding of the situation in the north is that some of the loyalist groups have gone on cease fire and some have not. The ones that have not have had any political wings allowed to join any democratic forms of government. This is exactly the same as Sinn Fein.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "pressure". No one is forcing SF to do anything. What they have been told is if you want to enter democracy you cannot have an associated terrorist organisation behind you. Exactly the same thing was said to all the unionist political parties. People are calling for SF and the IRA to stop all forms of terrorism and criminality only because SF are demanding to be part of the peace process. SF are putting pressure on themselves.

Are you under the impression that political parties with ties to Unionist terrorist who are not on cease fire have been allowed further down the process to democratic representation than SF, because as far as I know this is not the case.

ferdi

go poo in a shoe.

Zombrex

ferdi wrote:

go poo in a shoe.

Is that directed at me? :mad:

Johnny_the_fox

Wicknight wrote:

Not quite sure where you are getting this from. My understanding of the situation in the north is that some of the loyalist groups have gone on cease fire and some have not. The ones that have not have had any political wings allowed to join any democratic forms of government.

In theory there are two loyalist groups -> UDA and LVF

UDA have not been on ceasefire in years...

bbc
Towards the end of September 2001 the Secretary of State Dr John Reid gave the UDA one last chance to turn away from violence. Earlier in the year the UDA/UFF had withdrawn its support for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Despite the warning UDA orchestrated attacks against Catholics continued and on 12th October Dr John Reid declared their ceasefire over.

and neither has the LVF

bbc
Despite its "ceasefire" the LVF continued its sectarian murder campaign under the guise of the Red Hand Defenders, a badge of convenience used also by the UDA. When the LVF was linked to the murder of journalist Martin O' Hagan at the end of September 2001, the Secretary of State was moved to declare on 12th October that the government no longer recognised their ceasefire.

and with regards a political wings -> PUP is linked to the UVF

true

I remember loyalist guns being handed in and actually cut up in front of television cameras. It was on the news years ago. It sure beats not even allowing a photo to be taken.

Zombrex

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

In theory there are two loyalist groups -> UDA and LVF
UDA have not been on ceasefire in years...

and neither has the LVF

Do either group have political wings in the assembly?

Johnny_the_fox

Wicknight wrote:

Do either group have political wings in the assembly?

well.. saying there is no assembly... then no.

but if there was one. David Irvine was elected...

i forgot about the UVF.

Villain

Loyalists??? lol what threat are they to FF and the PD's in the next election.

People on here are afraid of the rise of SF thats why they dominate the forum, I mean so what if the Loyalists continue to kill they will never take seats off the parties down here. Politics is a deadly game, and IMO if anyone here thinks McDowell and his like are more concerned about the peace process than winning votes in the next election they need to wake up.

Loyalists, who are they!!!

Johnny_the_fox

you can read about at the loyalist/republican groups dealings from this IMC report (nov 2004*) here

*more up-to-date

Johnny_the_fox

cain
The Red Hand Defenders (RHD), and the Orange Volunteers (OV), have claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against Catholics in recent years. Many of these attacks have taken the form of 'pipe-bombs'. The three Loyalist paramilitary groups that were supposed to be on ceasefire, the UDA, the UVF, and the LVF, have also engaged in violence in recent years. During the summer of 2001 there was evidence that elements within the UDA / UFF, and LVF, were carrying out attacks but using the RHD, and OV, as a covername. On 12 September 2001 all three groups were "specified" by the British government, which meant that the government considered their ceasefires to be at an end. On 22 February 2003 the UDA declared a 12 month period of "military inactivity" (ceasefire).

As shown from the above links - the loyalist are just as active if not more active then their republican counterparts...

true

Neither of the major Unionist parties - the DUP or UUP - supports or supported a terrorist organisation. The same cannot be said of Sinn Fein, which has / had certain ties with the provos. ( An armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other ). The provos also had / has by far the giggest arsenal of all the terror groups on the island, thanks mainly to Mr. Gadaffi. By and large, the loyalist terrorists are not as well organised or as well armed as the republicans, and they generally do not go around robbing banks, training FARC men in bird watching etc.

Its not just the PD's that are concerned about Sinn Fein / IRA, its the ordinary man in the street, who dare not speak out.

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

the loyalist terrorists are not as well organised or as well armed as the republicans, and they generally do not go around robbing banks, training FARC men in bird watching etc.

...its the ordinary man in the street, who dare not speak out.

therefore its ok for the loyalist to exist then.. ? because they are not as well organised as the 'ra... they maynot be involved in the some of the above but they still terrorise people and communities in the north. for example : in south belfast - Sandy Row, loyalists handed out anti-catholic leaflets because catholics were buying apartments... and if it not catholics they are against, it a racist attacks in south belfast.

the ordinary man on the street wants peace - with an end to all terrorists groups...

[Deleted User]

irish1 wrote:

Loyalists??? lol what threat are they to FF and the PD's in the next election.

People on here are afraid of the rise of SF thats why they dominate the forum,

With respect that is patent nonsense.
It implies that a typical PD voter could swing to SF ie become a socialist overnight...
patent nonsense.
SF are more of an electoral threat to Joe Higgins and the socialist party if anything and to the core vote of Labour T.D's who used to be members of Democratic Left.

Zombrex

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

well.. saying there is no assembly... then no.

but if there was one. David Irvine was elected...

i forgot about the UVF.

well I stand corrected. I cannot say why a terrorist organisation not on cease fire would be allowed have their political wing in the general assembly. I don't follow the North that closely. Someone want to explain the details

Villain

Earthman wrote:

With respect that is patent nonsense.
It implies that a typical PD voter could swing to SF ie become a socialist overnight...
patent nonsense.
SF are more of an electoral threat to Joe Higgins and the socialist party if anything and to the core vote of Labour T.D's who used to be members of Democratic Left.

Bertie became a socialist overnight!!

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Bertie became a socialist overnight!!

LOL and if he threw a dress on he'd call himself a woman as well !!!!