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

Loyalists rioting again

Foxhound38

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/10234703/26-police-hurt-in-Belfast-riots.html

It seems nearly 30 people have been hurt so far. So why are they doing this? Surely attacking what is a british police force (I don't mean that in a bad way or anything - it just is) kinda goes against the whole "loyalism" thing?

And I'm not just referring to this incident, but more generally why are the loyalists acting up of late? Why now? What are they trying to achieve? Surely in many ways, they've won - NI is still part of the UK and looks to remain that way, all sides except a tiny headbanger dissident element have essentially accepted that.

So what have they got to complain about?

As an aside, is anyone else sick of this trouble surrounding parades for one side or another? How about this -ban all parades for 5 years until they learn to be mature about it and live & let live

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

swimming in a sea

One half of Northern Ireland will be celebrating on the streets tonight. Amazing result beating Russia.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It only takes one nut to throw a bomb, but the nuts get protected, as we have seen time and time again.

Where? When? How? Youre talking sh!te and just saying whatever ridiculous thing you can to invent some sort of counterbalance to unionist refusal to condemn the recent violence. avoid the issue, talk about themmuns!!

wazky

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It only takes one nut to throw a bomb, but the nuts get protected, as we have seen time and time again.

Its not protection if the PSNI/RUC are inept.

bilston

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Where? When? How? Youre talking sh!te and just saying whatever ridiculous thing you can to invent some sort of counterbalance to unionist refusal to condemn the recent violence. avoid the issue, talk about themmuns!!

Now come on, I don't think Unionist politicians are doing enough to stand up to the Loyalists but they most certainly have condemned the violence.

Jelle1880

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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

In north Belfast on Monday evening, five officers sustained minor injuries after a pipe bomb was thrown at them on the Crumlin Road.

Police said the device had been thrown from Brompton Park, in the nationalist Ardoyne area, at about 17:00 BST.

From the first link.

Pesky loyalists masquerading as nationalists :mad:

Foxhound38

[-0-] wrote: »

Sounds very Cromwellian. That's bigoted and sectarian.

They have a place in a United Ireland, all that is required is a little education.

I don't particularly want them on our patch - we have enough eejitry to be dealing with without their ilk to add to it.

A UI looks like a needless headache in general. Let the brits deal with it

Crooked Jack

Jelle1880 wrote: »

From the first link.

Pesky loyalists masquerading as nationalists :mad:

Convenient that you forget to mention the four blast bombs and multiple petrol bombs thrown by loyalists also mentioned in that article.
Of course, I'm not denying that a small number of attacks came from nationalist areas, I'm simply refuting a comment from a previous poster that the pipe bombs recently thrown at a police station are solely a republican move.
But again, apologists for these crowds, unable to address the actions of these clowns, have attempted to deflect from the issue by giving out about "themmuns."

Crooked Jack

bilston wrote: »

Now come on, I don't think Unionist politicians are doing enough to stand up to the Loyalists but they most certainly have condemned the violence.

A watery condemnation book ended with reasons as to why people are "frustrated" and "angered" and ultimately kinda justified in doing what they have done, followed by blistering condemnation of Sinn Fein doing this that and the other and the PSNI being heavy handed and the man in the moon being on the IRA army council and whatever else, is no condemnation at all.

Jelle1880

I didn't forget anything, you've done a great job in repeating those articles a few times now.

It does seem however that you're the one who chooses to continually highlight the attacks from loyalist areas, in the meantime downplaying whatever happens from the other side.
And if something does happen it's ok, because SF condemned it.

wazky

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I didn't forget anything, you've done a great job in repeating those articles a few times now.

It does seem however that you're the one who chooses to continually highlight the attacks from loyalist areas, in the meantime downplaying whatever happens from the other side.

Loyalists have been for some time struggling to keep the Iron Fist that ruled NI for years from loosing its grip, the fleg protests, where they tried to disrupt everyday life in NI with roadblocks and such, and the recent rioting is a mixture of the usual drunken fools that come out every year and the Loyalist Paramilitaries whipping up young impressionable types as a show of force, but all it is showing is how weak Loyalism is now and they are terrified that they are going to end up as the "minority" in their own country.

Crooked Jack

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I didn't forget anything, you've done a great job in repeating those articles a few times now.

Well if certain posters would stop ignoring or distorting the facts in front of them I wouldn't need to, would I?

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It does seem however that you're the one who chooses to continually highlight the attacks from loyalist areas, in the meantime downplaying whatever happens from the other side.

Is it just me or is this thread called "Loyalists rioting again." If you want to focus on republican violence start a thread and I will be happy to contribute to it.
This thread is about loyalist parades, which are not comparable to republican ones. That is not my opinion, that is blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at the facts.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

And if something does happen it's ok, because SF condemned it.

Clearly, that's not what I said, and you wonder why I'm being constantly forced to repeat myself. My point was that violence from a minority in the republican side receives widespread condemnation, indicating that those small numbers of people engaging in these acts are not representative of the wider community.
The recent violence we've seen from loyalists has been danced around by the mainstream unionist parties who refuse to flatly condemn it and openly supported by smaller unionist groups. Surely the wider attitudes of the community in either accepting or rejecting the violence we have seen from both sides is key to this debate.

[-0-]

Foxhound38 wrote: »

I don't particularly want them on our patch - we have enough eejitry to be dealing with without their ilk to add to it.

A UI looks like a needless headache in general. Let the brits deal with it

Again, you don't have a say as to who can be here or not.

They were put here ages ago, with the sole purpose of being sectarian.

However, they are as Irish as anyone else (shocking as it is to them).

Needless headache? Every one of you boards.ie folk need to wake the hell up and realize there's a civil rights issue up there, and there's thousands of Irish being discriminated against on a daily basis. The fact that you turn a blind eye to this, is, quite frankly, the height of ignorance.

Jelle1880

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well if certain posters would stop ignoring or distorting the facts in front of them I wouldn't need to, would I?

That's not what's happening, you keep posting the same links over and over again.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, but you see it as some sort of proof that loyalists are the only ones acting in a violent manner.
When it's pointed out by other people that both sides have idiots who commit violent acts it's brushed aside by some claim that those on the republican side are condemned by their politicians.

First of all, I've yet to see proof of widespread condemnation you're talking about. A quote from a Sinn Fein representative here and there isn't exactly 'widespread'.

Secondly, I have seen proof of Unionist Leaders (Mike Nesbitt, for example) condemning any and all violence done by Loyalists. Sure, you have the more hardcore elements too who say they condemn it but then start rambling about how evil the Parades Commission is, but they're hardly speaking for the majority.

Is it just me or is this thread called "Loyalists rioting again." If you want to focus on republican violence start a thread and I will be happy to contribute to it.
This thread is about loyalist parades, which are not comparable to republican ones. That is not my opinion, that is blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at the facts.

You can't have a thread about Loyalism without people talking about both sides of the conflict.
I'm sure you would love to keep the focus solely on one side of the divide, but that's not how it works.

Clearly, that's not what I said, and you wonder why I'm being constantly forced to repeat myself. My point was that violence from a minority in the republican side receives widespread condemnation, indicating that those small numbers of people engaging in these acts are not representative of the wider community.
The recent violence we've seen from loyalists has been danced around by the mainstream unionist parties who refuse to flatly condemn it and openly supported by smaller unionist groups. Surely the wider attitudes of the community in either accepting or rejecting the violence we have seen from both sides is key to this debate.

If you keep repeating that violence by republicans is widely condemned every time it's brought up then it does seem like that's what you're saying.
Why ? Because it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if people condemn it, that happens from both sides but the fact is that the violence still happens from either side.

iDave

Why is someone from Belgium so keen to defend Loyalist intolerance. Didnt know there was such anti-Irish feeling there

Jelle1880

iDave wrote: »

Why is someone from Belgium so keen to defend Loyalist intolerance. Didnt know there was such anti-Irish feeling there

You have no idea, we hate all of them.

:rolleyes:

iDave

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You have no idea, we hate all of them.

:rolleyes:

Flemish, pro-Dutch, Orange, Loyalism, makes sense I suppose

wazky

Loyalists, a people who support a Dutch King who came to Ireland with orders from the Pope and supported by Catholic allies in Spain, and who swear allegiance to a British Royal Family and Queen who are for the most part German.

Confused?

Crooked Jack

Jelle1880 wrote: »

That's not what's happening, you keep posting the same links over and over again.

I posted the links once and excerpts from the links once (to help those who apparently couldn't read them)

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Nobody is forcing you to do anything, but you see it as some sort of proof that loyalists are the only ones acting in a violent manner.

In relation to parades, they clearly are.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

When it's pointed out by other people that both sides have idiots who commit violent acts it's brushed aside by some claim that those on the republican side are condemned by their politicians.

I think you'll find I openly accepted that and condemned those thugs claiming to be republican. However, if you cant see that wider community response to a violent act is what really counts then you simply can't be helped.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

First of all, I've yet to see proof of widespread condemnation you're talking about. A quote from a Sinn Fein representative here and there isn't exactly 'widespread'.

Sinn Fein and SDLP, the two main nationalist/republican parties, unreservedly condemned those behind the pipe bomb attack on the barracks and called for people to pass on information to the PSNI or to themselves and they would pass it on to the PSNI.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Secondly, I have seen proof of Unionist Leaders (Mike Nesbitt, for example) condemning any and all violence done by Loyalists. Sure, you have the more hardcore elements too who say they condemn it but then start rambling about how evil the Parades Commission is, but they're hardly speaking for the majority.

As I pointed out earlier, I have yet to see any condemnation (especially from that weasel Nesbitt) that wasnt bookended with excuses, diversions and deflections followed by utterly unrelated slabbering about Castlederg, or PSNI heavy handedness or whatever else.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You can't have a thread about Loyalism without people talking about both sides of the conflict.
I'm sure you would love to keep the focus solely on one side of the divide, but that's not how it works.

It also seems you cant have a thread on boards without every uninformed dolt resorting to this one-side-is-as-bad-as-the other crap in some misguided grasp to present an air of impartiality when the facts clearly shot that not to be the case.
Lets talk about republican violence over the past month then. While thousands of unionists ran amok in belfast over the past month, two guys threw two pipe bombs at the wall of a fortified barracks, which had about as much effect as throwing a water balloon at them. They were roundly condemned and calls were made for them to be arrested.
Hardly comparable.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If you keep repeating that violence by republicans is widely condemned every time it's brought up then it does seem like that's what you're saying.
Why ? Because it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if people condemn it, that happens from both sides but the fact is that the violence still happens from either side.

It clearly matters, i could be argued that it matters more than the actual act. Throwing a stone or a pipebomb only indicates that one idiot knows how to throw a stone or a pipebomb, the reaction of the wider community to that action is what really counts. That's where you get an indication of people's attitudes. How are you so blind to this?

Jelle1880

iDave wrote: »

Flemish, pro-Dutch, Orange, Loyalism, makes sense I suppose

Let me rephrase that:

You have no idea, we hate all of them.
SARCASM!

You're not really helping your case by resorting to this 'woe unto us, they are anti-Irish' stuff.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-Irish.

Crooked Jack: Nobody is talking about an attack on any barracks, it was a pipe bomb thrown at police lines.
So fine, Sinn Fein and the SDLP condemn those attacks, good on them.
But do you expect people to take these condemnations serious when a few weeks later you see people marching in full IRA dress during a Sinn Fein organised parade ?

You keep going on about how Loyalist condemnations of violence are full of excuses, deflections,... (which I can agree with about some of the officials who come out with them), but is it that difficult for you to understand that the claims of condemnation of the other side sound equally hollow to the Loyalists ?

iDave

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Let me rephrase that:

You have no idea, we hate all of them.
SARCASM!

You're not really helping your case by resorting to this 'woe unto us, they are anti-Irish' stuff.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-Irish.

Well I know the OO is anti-Irish, thats undisputable, just not sure why a Belgian would come down so heavily on the loyalist side.
I dont take sides with the Flemish/Francophone issues in Belgium.

Mr_Spaceman

iDave wrote: »

Well I know the OO is anti-Irish, thats undisputable, just not sure why a Belgian would come down so heavily on the loyalist side.
I dont take sides with the Flemish/Francophone issues in Belgium.

That'll be why they're called the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland then. Clearly you're unaware of that.

Nationalism doesn't have a monopoly on Irishness you know. Unionism and Irishness are not mutually exclusive either.

Crooked Jack

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

That'll be why they're called the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland then. Clearly you're unaware of that.

Nationalism doesn't have a monopoly on Irishness you know. Unionism and Irishness are not mutually exclusive either.

Absolutely 100% i just wish more unionists knew this. their forefathers, carson, craig and all that lot, were as "loyal" as "loyal" could be, but all saw themselves as Irish. in scotland there are pro and anti union people who all see themselves as scottish. i wish some people from here knew how silly they sound when they claim to be British and British alone

DEFTLEFTHAND

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Absolutely 100% i just wish more unionists knew this. their forefathers, carson, craig and all that lot, were as "loyal" as "loyal" could be, but all saw themselves as Irish. in scotland there are pro and anti union people who all see themselves as scottish. i wish some people from here knew how silly they sound when they claim to be British and British alone

Carson for instance learned and spoke the Irish language. He was a Dub with Anglican links. :pac:

iDave

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

That'll be why they're called the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland then. Clearly you're unaware of that.

Nationalism doesn't have a monopoly on Irishness you know. Unionism and Irishness are not mutually exclusive either.

Your very naive to believe the OO dont have bigoted opinions of anyone who identifies as Irish

bilston

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Absolutely 100% i just wish more unionists knew this. their forefathers, carson, craig and all that lot, were as "loyal" as "loyal" could be, but all saw themselves as Irish. in scotland there are pro and anti union people who all see themselves as scottish. i wish some people from here knew how silly they sound when they claim to be British and British alone

I'm a Unionist and have absolutely no issue with calling myself Irish, I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or not within Unionism, I possibly am but as far as I'm concerned I'm as Irish as an Irish speaker from Kerry. When Ireland play England at rugby I'll shout as loud, if not louder than the man next to me (for Ireland obviously

)

The difference of course being that I also see myself as British, and yes I know Northern Ireland isn't part of Great Britain, but I'm talking about British the nationality as opposed to Britain the country if that makes sense.

But anyway strangely I find myself agreeing with Crooked Jack, there is no reason whatsoever why my fellow Unionists shouldn't feel comfortable in seeing themselves as Irish.

Mr_Spaceman

iDave wrote: »

Your very naive to believe the OO dont have bigoted opinions of anyone who identifies as Irish

Irish republicans, yes.

Foxhound38

[-0-] wrote: »

Again, you don't have a say as to who can be here or not.

They were put here ages ago, with the sole purpose of being sectarian.

However, they are as Irish as anyone else (shocking as it is to them).

Needless headache? Every one of you boards.ie folk need to wake the hell up and realize there's a civil rights issue up there, and there's thousands of Irish being discriminated against on a daily basis. The fact that you turn a blind eye to this, is, quite frankly, the height of ignorance.

Who is being discriminated against? What right is being denied to them?

ffs, this now-unwarrented victim complex amongst nationalists is as bad as the fleg crap from the loyalists...