Loyalists rioting again

wazky wrote: »

If I tried to set up an organisation that only allowed members to be of a certain religion, that celebrated the deaths of an another religions people and then marched through the town with a drum and banners celebrating my Paramilitary heroes, I would be told where to go.

But this is the Orange Orders "culture" and its tradition to go wind up the uppity taigs and show them who owns them, so that's ok then.

I still don't get this argument against the OO.
It's clearly set up as a Protestant organisation. There's plenty of religious organisations out there that limit membership only to members of said religions.

Also, the OO itself doesn't celebrate any paramilitaries.

guttenberg wrote: »

The problem is the term Protestant is too easily interchangeable with Loyalist or Unionist with regards to the OO. The OO may on paper be a religious organisation, but do they sit in a Church debating the Bible, or march to commemorate "wars" that they've won against their Catholic neighbours? That's where the contention lies. The OO may not explicitly celebrate paramilitaries but there is some overlap. The other night at the Twadell march(the one they have every night to try to pass Ardoyne) the big drum used was a Brian Robinson memorial. The man was a loyalist paramilitary shot dead by the Army shortly after he killed an innocent catholic. By it's very nature, a lot of the PUL "culture" in NI can be considered offensive, yet is mainly tolerated. Excluding his views on the Orange Order, I actually agree with a lot that Awec has posted. There is a need for both sides to stop getting offended by the others "culture" when their own can be construed as equally offensive, or else confine their respective traditions to areas that are predominately their "own".

Seeing as Protestants don't go to church like Catholics would...

I know that during a lot of parades you will see bands that will have names of Loyalist paramilitaries on them or banners, but I don't think OO members would carry them.

That was my point, the OO as an organisation (despite, as you said marching in the same parades as those people) distance themselves from it.

Obviously the question remains whether it's genuine or just propaganda.

wazky: That's my point, said banners are seen in OO parades but not carried by OO members (at least, I don't think they are). They tend to be carried by flute bands or members of said bands.
But the example you mention doesn't seem to hold up, as a simple google for 'Old Boyne Island Heroes Orange Lodge' brings up a banner with people signing the Ulster Covenant, no names to be seen and another one with King William.

A tiny difference which will not mean much to many people (as they parade together with the OO), but still...

iDave: The whole purpose of religious organisations is to bring together people of the same fate. If you think that is discrimination then fine, for me it's only normal (although I'm not a fan of religion in general).

wazky wrote: »

But there was uproar a few pages back about Republicans honouring the dead Tyrone volunteers?

Yet the OO has LIVING loyalist terrorists who brutally murdered people with knives as members, but that's ok because they served some time.

I never said it was ok and if the OO really mean to distance themselves they wouldn't allow those guys to remain members, but legally there's nothing wrong with it, since like I said they have served their time.
Morally however, that's another thing.

Let me reply with a question:

Do you think the likes of Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness,... should resign their posts ?

wazky wrote: »

Well that says it all, murders marching past their victims home is highly offensive and sick but its not illegal.

This discussion is not about Republicans or Sinn Fein, but to answer the question, yes if Sinn Fein ever want to become a major political party in the South and want to be seen as progressive then Adams and McGuinness should resign.

As a SF member I agree that Adams would be better off resigning as leader. The party would almost immediately gain 3 or 4 % in popularity and probably a good bit more over time.

I don't agree on McGuinness though.

He is very good at his job and would be a big loss to the 6 county government

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I doubt they throw bombs at the local police station or let kids play with them either.

You're right, they prefer to throw them directly at officers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23322091

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/blast-bombs-thrown-at-ni-police-29421296.html

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Plenty of dog**** on both sides by the sound of things.

The difference is that Sinn Fein came out and condemned these clowns unreservedly. DUP/UUP/TUV have been making excuses for loyalist thugs since the fleg-heads came out in January.
Scumbags on the republican side are unreservedly condemned by most republicans (see riots, bonfires etc)
Scumbags on the loyalist side seem to have the acceptance if not the approval of the wider unionist community (see riots, bonfires etc)

Is there any way we can surgically remove the predominantly loyalist parts of N Ireland, and sew it to the east coast of Scotland?

They'd still have their land, and we'd be shot of them.

See, some people can make a career out of being a terrorist and end up with a state pension and if they're really lucky they might even get awarded a shiny medal from Liz Windsor.[/QUOTE]

You really think that Martin mcguinness will get a shiny medal. Bit far fetched no?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who cares who condemned what. Nationalists took it upon themselves to throw bombs at a police station, one of the bombs ended up I'm the hands of kids.

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened and it won't be the last.

And what happens when this scum get arrested? All the local republicans start a riot.

Fine if you want to accuse the loyalist community of behaving like human dog****, but it isn't something they have a monopoly on.

what do you mean "who cares who condemns it." The reaction of the community at large is a crucial component to the debate. When thugs claim to be acting in the name of republicanism the vast majority of the republican movement condemns them.
The same cannot be said of unionist thuggery which seems to be a lot more acceptable to the wider unionist community. How can you claim that's irrelevant.
It only takes one nut to throw a stone or pipebomb, it's how the community responds to that action that is the real telltale sign of wider attitudes.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Is this type of thing really all you have to add to the debate? Perhaps you'd be happier having an old rant on the Protestant Coalition facebook page.

Here's the link

https://www.facebook.com/officialprotestantcoalition?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

They sound just like you. Enjoy.
NS WATP FGAU GSTQ FTP KAT

Thanks but its ok with you I will just pass. Never been on it but you seem to know all about it for some reason.

You sound a bit like that wee shinner mla Barry from tyrone btw. But I'm sure you aren't him as you are from south Armagh apparently. You would probably really like him though. Google him sure.