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

Ian Paisley is in hospital...

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    For me I don't like calling any people caught up in the war/troubles in the six counties a terrorist, It was a difficult time for everyone, Anyway just a bit on the UR in which Rev Ian Paisley was a founding memeber.Ulster Resistance was formed as an armed wing to the Democratic Unionist Party in 1986.The group was set up in response to the Anglo-Irish agreement which it claimed was a sell out to Republicans.
    The group colluded with the UVF and UDA to import weapons into Ireland via sympathizers in South Africa.Many a innocent catholic was killed by them weapons imported.


  • Options
    #273
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    markesmith wrote: »
    The guy's a class-A troll who only ever gets involved in anti-Republic, pro-Unionist, pro-Rangers talk. You're just feeding a fire really.
    Please keep your accusations to yourself. I think everyone is entitled to a view on Ian Paisley. Some people like to look at the positives.

    Another thread you were criticising him though keith.


  • Options
    #274
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Another thread you were criticising him though keith.
    Yes I was and with good reasons. I wasn't a big fan of him on the political scene because I have different views than him on some things. But some people rightly praise him for the peace process.


  • Options
    #275
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Adams & McGuinness were far closer to being Terrorists than big Ian ever was, come to think of it Adams & McGuinness were in the PIRA, which is/was a prescribed Terrorist outfit, ergo "Adams & McGuinness were real Terrorists" if they were in the Provo's. Paisley on the other hand is/was a big mouthed Free Presbyterian ejit, who should have made his points, but without resorting to shouting all the bloody time.

    For not the first time - Ian Paisely was involved in the foundation of 3 - that's three - seperate "terrorist" groups. Any number of reliable sources, footage and documentation support this fact.


  • Options
    #276
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gatecrash wrote: »
    I have to admit that i wouldn't have much time for any of the 3 of them to be honest.

    Even though i would have the teensiest bit more time for McGuinness. At least he HAS acknowledged his past.
    Adams, i have no time at all for.

    Gerry has painted himself into a corner on that, certainly. I think he had the opportunity to engage in 'constructive ambiguity' on the subject in the mid 90's, but never took it. As it is now, he's in a no-win situation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Adams & McGuinness were far closer to being Terrorists than big Ian ever was, come to think of it Adams & McGuinness were in the PIRA, which is/was a prescribed Terrorist outfit, ergo "Adams & McGuinness were real Terrorists" if they were in the Provo's. Paisley on the other hand is/was a big mouthed Free Presbyterian ejit, who should have made his points, but without resorting to shouting all the bloody time.

    You are not seeing Paisley for what he really was and what he did to the North. He is the daddy of the troubles in NI. If he had never been born NI would be a very different place today.

    He is an awful human being. I don't forgive him now just because he smiled a bit at our Taoiseach, or because he entered power sharing, or even if he helped the odd catholic in his constituency. He caused far far more damage than he mended.


  • Options
    #278
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    woodoo wrote: »
    You are not seeing Paisley for what he really was and what he did to the North. He is the daddy of the troubles in NI. If he had never been born NI would be a very different place today.

    He is an awful human being. I don't forgive him now just because he smiled a bit at our Taoiseach, or because he entered power sharing, or even if he helped the odd catholic in his constituency. He caused far far more damage than he mended.
    Don't kid yourself. If Ian Paisley had not been born, the IRA would have still been invading Ulster in the 50s and trying its best to blow the place apart.


  • Options
    #279
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    realies wrote: »
    For me I don't like calling any people caught up in the war/troubles in the six counties a terrorist, It was a difficult time for everyone, Anyway just a bit on the UR in which Rev Ian Paisley was a founding memeber.Ulster Resistance was formed as an armed wing to the Democratic Unionist Party in 1986.The group was set up in response to the Anglo-Irish agreement which it claimed was a sell out to Republicans.
    The group colluded with the UVF and UDA to import weapons into Ireland via sympathizers in South Africa.Many a innocent catholic was killed by them weapons imported.

    Yea..all the terrorists in palistine are just having a laugh.


  • Options
    #280
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Don't kid yourself. If Ian Paisley had not been born, the IRA would have still been invading Ulster in the 50s and trying its best to blow the place apart.

    Absolutely and profoundly wrong....it was the reaction of Unionists to Paisley's roaring and racist fear mongering that allowed the IRA to re-establish themselves. The people of Derry had no stomach for violence until they were beaten into a corner by Paisleys bootboys.
    I look forward to honest and true appraisals of this man when he is gone, it will open many eyes to what really went on and will hopefully (I won't hope my breath) free a lot of Unionists to think straight without the hell and damnation bull**** overshadowing them.(which is so obvious to anybody with a free mind around the world) His religosity was like something from the dark ages. Good ridance to it.


  • Options
    #281
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Don't kid yourself. If Ian Paisley had not been born, the IRA would have still been invading Ulster in the 50s and trying its best to blow the place apart.
    Me and you had different history books Keith. Could I borrow yours and I will send you mine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Absolutely and profoundly wrong....it was the reaction of Unionists to Paisley's roaring and racist fear mongering that allowed the IRA to re-establish themselves. The people of Derry had no stomach for violence until they were beaten into a corner by Paisleys bootboys.
    I look forward to honest and true appraisals of this man when he is gone, it will open many eyes to what really went on and will hopefully (I won't hope my breath) free a lot of Unionists to think straight without the hell and damnation bull**** overshadowing them.(which is so obvious to anybody with a free mind around the world) His religosity was like something from the dark ages. Good ridance to it.
    Unionism had been weary of Republicanism long before Ian Paisley started talking in public. Ian only started getting a big following when the conflict was well under war. Which by that time both sides had been killing each other.


  • Options
    #283
    locomo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭locomo


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    Me and you had different history books Keith. Could I borrow yours and I will send you mine.

    I think the history beaten in to us here in the Republic is often one sided anyway, if some of my teachers were anything to go by.


  • Options
    #284
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Unionism had been weary of Republicanism long before Ian Paisley started talking in public. Ian only started getting a big following when the conflict was well under war. Which by that time both sides had been killing each other.

    Nonsense and you know it, it is my experience that there is a deep shame among Unionists about what they did in those days and for what they did in the decades before the bubble burst. They have similar post traumatic stress to deal with that former white suprematists in America suffered from. Paisley departing the stage will help that healing.


  • Options
    #285
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    RichieC wrote: »
    Yea..all the terrorists in palistine are just having a laugh.


    :confused: What do you mean :confused:


  • Options
    #286
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Nonsense and you know it, it is my experience that there is a deep shame among Unionists about what they did in those days and for what they did in the decades before the bubble burst. They have similar post traumatic stress to deal with that former white suprematists in America suffered from. Paisley departing the stage will help that healing.
    It is true. If you don't want to accept the reality, that is your decision. Ian Paisley didn't have a huge following until the conflict got more serious and killing started. Some of the biggest demonstrations in Ulster came about well into the conflict with Ian at the forefront.

    Deny it all you want though. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #287
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Have a little bedtime reading Keith. Pay particular attention to why the Protestant Telegraph was set up and what it printed, also note the dates on both pages. Then shut up with the nonsense denial claptrap, you would do yourself more favours by hiding out for a while, the truth about Paisley's involvement is about to come out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Telegraph


  • Options
    #288
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Have a little bedtime reading Keith. Pay particular attention to why the Protestant Telegraph was set up and what it printed, also note the dates on both pages. Then shut up with the nonsense denial claptrap, you would do yourself more favours by hiding out for a while, the truth about Paisley's involvement is about to come out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Telegraph
    Look at Ian Paisley during the Ulster Workers' Council strike. Ian Paisley got his following from demonstrations well into the conflict. Posting his wikipedia page and a page to a paper he set up doesn't mean he had a big following.

    Hell, he set up his own Presbyterian chuch. Hardly a person with a big following early on.


  • Options
    #289
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Look at Ian Paisley during the Ulster Workers' Council strike. Ian Paisley got his following from demonstrations well into the conflict. Posting his wikipedia page and a page to a paper he set up doesn't mean he had a big following.

    Hell, he set up his own Presbyterian chuch. Hardly a person with a big following early on.

    Jesus H!

    More reading Keith
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/docs/boyd69.htm

    Small following?

    Again, read Chapter 11 and Note:

    on 24 February 1969 when Paisley, challenging Terence O’Neill came close to fulfliment at the Northern Ireland general election in the Bannside constituency, got 6,331 votes, almost forty per cent of the total poll. O’Neill, even though he held the exalted positions of Premier of Northern Ireland and Leader of the Unionist Party, got only 7,745 votes, about 47 per cent.


    Your argument/denial has no basis in FACT Keith.


  • Options
    #290
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Jesus H!

    More reading Keith
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/docs/boyd69.htm

    Small following?

    Again, read Chapter 11 and Note:

    on 24 February 1969 when Paisley, challenging Terence O’Neill came close to fulfliment at the Northern Ireland general election in the Bannside constituency, got 6,331 votes, almost forty per cent of the total poll. O’Neill, even though he held the exalted positions of Premier of Northern Ireland and Leader of the Unionist Party, got only 7,745 votes, about 47 per cent.


    Your argument/denial has no basis in FACT Keith.
    That actually proves my point. Consider the size of the vote back then and the Unionist vote at that. That is rather small and he still didn't win. There is many examples of this now.


    It wasn't until the conflict did start getting under way in which Ian Paisley started picking up more votes. He even went ahead the following year in 1970 and won that seat. So it is not a good argument to say he was popular at that time by using his 1969 election for bannside.


  • Options
    #291
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    That actually proves my point. Consider the size of the vote back then and the Unionist vote at that. That is rather small and he still didn't win. There is many examples of this now.


    It wasn't until the conflict did start getting under way in which Ian Paisley started picking up more votes. He even went ahead the following year in 1970 and won that seat. So it is not a good argument to say he was popular at that time by using his 1969 election for bannside.

    You are in deepest darkest denial Keith....good luck with that!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sage words which some may have missed..........
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76951748&postcount=169


  • Options
    #293
    kumate_champ07
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,150 ✭✭✭kumate_champ07


    it's funny how he ended up being correct about the roman catholic church!
    he did alot of bad but I admire how he changed recently. we've all come a long way.


  • Options
    #294
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Jesus H!

    More reading Keith
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/docs/boyd69.htm

    Small following?

    Again, read Chapter 11 and Note:

    on 24 February 1969 when Paisley, challenging Terence O’Neill came close to fulfliment at the Northern Ireland general election in the Bannside constituency, got 6,331 votes, almost forty per cent of the total poll. O’Neill, even though he held the exalted positions of Premier of Northern Ireland and Leader of the Unionist Party, got only 7,745 votes, about 47 per cent.


    Your argument/denial has no basis in FACT Keith.

    This description from that piece is the best i've seen on paisley: "a half-demented exhibitionist" :D


  • Options
    #295
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    kumate_champ07 wrote: »
    it's funny how he ended up being correct about the roman catholic church!
    he did alot of bad but I admire how he changed recently. we've all come a long way.

    He hasn't come along way because he has neither apologised for or addressed his part in the shaping of the troubles. So you have to assume he still believes what he did was justified.
    As a leader he has responsibility, he abjectly failed as there are still deluded bigots running around inciting and reciting his bile.


  • Options
    #296
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    woodoo wrote: »
    This description from that piece is the best i've seen on paisley: "a half-demented exhibitionist" :D

    I think he underestimated him....'full demented exhibitionist!' :D


  • Options
    #297
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are in deepest darkest denial Keith....good luck with that!
    The arguments you put forward are very weak. The argument with his 6 thousand votes in the 1969 bannside election is weak because he actually lost. He didn't have a huge support in Ulster overall at this time.

    I would not consider 6 thousand votes a big following.


  • Options
    #298
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    The arguments you put forward are very weak. The argument with his 6 thousand votes in the 1969 bannside election is weak because he actually lost. He didn't have a huge support in Ulster overall at this time.

    I would not consider 6 thousand votes a big following.

    In one constituency.....when the most high profile political figure got just a 1000 votes more?????? You aren't much of a political pundit are you?
    Try running those figures through every constituency!! I think he could muster more than a busload!.


  • Options
    #299
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    In one constituency.....when the most high profile political figure got just a 1000 votes more?????? You aren't much of a political pundit are you?
    Try running those figures through every constituency!! I think he could muster more than a busload!.
    It doesn't mean he had a big following. The fact he lost proves he didn't have a big following and only started really growing as a politician in the 70s.


  • Options
    #300
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    It doesn't mean he had a big following. The fact he lost proves he didn't have a big following and only started really growing as a politician in the 70s.

    He had a considerable following. He was spewing his racist bile from the mid 50's on, you can still hear it at flashpoints all over the North, because he saw to it that it was endemic in the Unionist/Loyalist mindset. Him, nobody else spouted that nonsense on a public platform so effectively and for so long. He instilled fear and incited hate. Get real and stop trying to rewrite history to sanctify this bigot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    He had a considerable following. He was spewing his racist bile from the mid 50's on, you can still hear it at flashpoints all over the North, because he saw to it that it was endemic in the Unionist/Loyalist mindset. Him, nobody else spouted that nonsense on a public platform so effectively and for so long. He instilled fear and incited hate. Get real and stop trying to rewrite history to sanctify this bigot.

    You had Keith beaten long ago on this argument.

    When Paisley dies it will all come out then.


Advertisement