|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on May 21, 2008 2:00:14 GMT
Now I have been thinking about some of the things that Bilk has said. And he took great offence at some suggestions that I made. And said they were untrue, and in another thread he again made reference to my remarks and twisted my reply into some over simplistic version that my justification was simply because my community did it, so his community must have done it also.
I still believe that what I said was true, but I would like people from loyalist communities to give me their views and experiences on the issue.
I am a republican and I have been active in republican politics all of my adult life and even before I was an adult. Because of my activities I spent a long number of years either in prison or on the run. I do not glory in my past nor do I deny or reject my past.
I am a product of my family and my community. I am known within my community and I think I am respected. My opinion is sought out by neighbour and friends. As a republican my actions have been at times dictated by the community I come from. And at times I have tried to lead that community in various directions. I have learnt that you can only lead people in a direction they want to be led if you start to go in a direction that they do not want to go then you will soon find yourself alone.
Every community has anti-social elements, and what might be classed as an undesirable element. In nationalist areas of West Belfast such elements have only started to grow, before they were nearly non-existent. Active republicans like myself kept such elements in check. Republicans very much were reliant on the community for survival. They supported us, they protected us, they opened their homes to us. Of course not everyone did, some were vocal in their opposition and some were more restrained in opposition. But on the whole a large core supported us at various levels and the risks for them was high, possibly more high than my risk because they had more to lose.
I have assumed that loyalist areas are the mirror image of nationalist areas. Surely we are similar in outlook if the national identity issue is removed from the equation?
Republicans recognised that our community were becoming ‘war weary’ and that the ‘war’ was in a cycle and no end was visible and progress was unclear, was it one step forward and one step back. And given such a stalemate would we wither away. We had begun to make politics the primary over militarism within republicanism. With the electoral gains and experience of the Hunger Strike we stumbled on a new direction and our communities embraced this concept with more vigour and relish than we anticipated. And we were soon being asked to lead our communities in this new direction, not by our design or plan but because our community urged it. We looked at it in greater depth and realized the implication for the long term. And we took the risk, in a planned manner. But we knew that our community had signalled the end of the ‘armed struggle’ not our tactics or grand plan.
My question is;
Are loyalist paramilitaries given a special place within your communities or are they the anti-social criminal elements of your community?
If they are the anti-social criminal element then why can you not bring them under control? Our anti-social criminal elements are only flourishing but we already have them on the back foot.
The evidence is that Jackie McDonald and others can hold meetings in community centres that are well attended. That flags and loyalist paramilitary buntings festoon the lampposts. That military shows of strength at bonfires and other venues are cheered and well supported. And the masked men have their identities protected when every dog in the street knows who is who. And along with the membership comes their armament. But few are willingly given up by their community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on May 21, 2008 6:23:59 GMT
I would like a wee go at trying to answer some of these. I'm heading out to work but i'll reply ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 21, 2008 20:21:03 GMT
So in your community the anti social behaviour was kept to a minimum by the paramilitaries? Is this the same paramilitaries, who beat people to a pulp with hurling sticks for anti social behaviour? Or shot their knee caps off, and if they continued were told to leave the country, if they didn't they got the next bullet in the head? The same paramilitaries, who if a police officer dared to speak to one of these people about their anti social behaviour, you and your peple would have shot the police officer. That for a start didn't happen in loyalist communities, well it certainly didn't happen in mine. I know of no one, and I have known many people over the years from Loyalist communities who actively supported these activities. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it did, (only the weapon of the loyalist paramilitaries, for the beatings, was a baseball bat) but it wasn't supported by the community. Any I know would have preferred that it be dealt with by the due course of the law. And any repect the paramilitaries had in any loyalist area I ever frequented was born out of fear.
I cannot understand anybody, anywhere, on either side, being evil enough as to see someone as a hero, who can murder and maim innocent people. Shoot people in the back, or murder them on their doorstep in front of the wife and kids. Or shoot them in a drive by shooting because they happen to be of one political beliefe or another. My community, as will be proved by the number of them who came before the courts for their paramilitary activity, in a country your community believed had a one sided judicial system, did not shut up when it came to these people. They did not beat bin lids on the street when the forces of law and order came to arrest them. And they certainly didn't harbour them, or hide guns for them unless under duress, or they were one of them.
The only time my community welcomed the paramilitaries was when they first came together in the early 70's to, as they said then, defend my community. Later they embarked on a campaign of copycat republican killings of the innocent. Once they became as bad as the people they were supposed to be defending us from they were shunned. If your community looked up to you for what you and you cohorts did, then I think a lot less of your community than I once did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 21, 2008 21:42:32 GMT
It could be taken that afd is justifying the attacks on his community by loyalists by what he has said. Bilk excellent post, being in loyalist areas you too will know the fear people have of the paramilitaries and how much the young can't stand them. Problem is that some of these young people join to free themselve from that fear by becoming part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 22, 2008 14:07:25 GMT
The UVF was formed in May 1966 as a loyalist paramilitary group and named after the Ulster Volunteers of 1912. The UVF claimed what many acknowledge as the first victim of the Troubles, when they shot dead 28-year-old storeman John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. Barman Peter Ward, an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun attack. Victor Arbuckle, aged 29, was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on power stations and reservoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969. It was hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence O'Neill's government.
Your paramilitaries were around before the PIRA had formed and began it's campaign, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to insinuate that your community had squeaky clean bums until the PIRA showed up and gave yis bad ideas? And I'm not even counting the legal organisations on your side here, who were at intimidation since the creation of NI.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 22, 2008 14:09:20 GMT
It could be taken that afd is justifying the attacks on his community by loyalists by what he has said. Bilk excellent post, being in loyalist areas you too will know the fear people have of the paramilitaries and how much the young can't stand them. Problem is that some of these young people join to free themselve from that fear by becoming part of it. Maybe if the loyalist paramilitaries weren't armed, people would be less afraid. But we all know where you stand when it comes to armed paramilitary organisations. |
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on May 22, 2008 17:14:32 GMT
The UVF was formed in May 1966 as a loyalist paramilitary group and named after the Ulster Volunteers of 1912. The UVF claimed what many acknowledge as the first victim of the Troubles, when they shot dead 28-year-old storeman John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. Barman Peter Ward, an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun attack. Victor Arbuckle, aged 29, was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on power stations and reservoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969. It was hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence O'Neill's government.Your paramilitaries were around before the PIRA had formed and began it's campaign, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to insinuate that your community had squeaky clean bums until the PIRA showed up and gave yis bad ideas? And I'm not even counting the legal organisations on your side here, who were at intimidation since the creation of NI. the PIRA may only have been around since the 70's the OIRA have been around longer then the UVF byts thats niether here nor there. Fact of the matter is as long as republicans continue to try and jusitfy thier campaign of murder then personly i have no interest in dealing with them, we had a sectarian conflict in northern ireland perpututed by both sides. innocent people were targeted and murdered by both loyalist and republicans period. It sickens me that republicans still try and brush the death of innocents under the carpet as collaterall damage, as if thats makes it ok. The only way forward out of the conflict is honesty, all proganda has to be dropped all justification has to go, people were murderd end of story. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 22, 2008 18:20:14 GMT
The UVF was formed in May 1966 as a loyalist paramilitary group and named after the Ulster Volunteers of 1912. The UVF claimed what many acknowledge as the first victim of the Troubles, when they shot dead 28-year-old storeman John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. Barman Peter Ward, an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun attack. Victor Arbuckle, aged 29, was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on power stations and reservoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969. It was hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence O'Neill's government.Your paramilitaries were around before the PIRA had formed and began it's campaign, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to insinuate that your community had squeaky clean bums until the PIRA showed up and gave yis bad ideas? And I'm not even counting the legal organisations on your side here, who were at intimidation since the creation of NI. Earl give me a break they were not my communities paramilitaries, and the IRA were around for an awful lot longer than the UDA, out of which sprang all the other paramilitaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 22, 2008 18:48:09 GMT
It could be taken that afd is justifying the attacks on his community by loyalists by what he has said.. I don't see AFD justifying any unarmed unconnected civilian being killed anywhere in his post. If that is your logic then are you justifying attacks where Unionist Civilians were killed? He said his community supported people who did just that, and killed thousands of unarmed unconnected people. And he said everything they did was driven by his community Setanta, unless you are reading a different post than me. This is what he said "I am a product of my family and my community. I am known within my community and I think I am respected. My opinion is sought out by neighbour and friends. As a republican my actions have been at times dictated by the community I come from. And at times I have tried to lead that community in various directions. I have learnt that you can only lead people in a direction they want to be led if you start to go in a direction that they do not want to go then you will soon find yourself alone." Now judging by what the provies did, my reading of the above is they did it because it was what people wanted. Sure they were becoming war weary, everyone was. But reading this, at some stage his community supported the murder of innocents. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 22, 2008 20:25:22 GMT
It could be taken that afd is justifying the attacks on his community by loyalists by what he has said. So are you in agreement with WASP on this bilk? No I'm not, I don't believe anyone can use any excuse for the murdering of innocents. I was answering the point you made that was all. Anyone who kills someone going about their daily lives is a murderer. And deserves to be treated as such, and that includes loyalists. And BTW I don't think WASP said he believed what the loyalists did was right either. He responded to what AFD was saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 22, 2008 22:52:40 GMT
The UVF was formed in May 1966 as a loyalist paramilitary group and named after the Ulster Volunteers of 1912. The UVF claimed what many acknowledge as the first victim of the Troubles, when they shot dead 28-year-old storeman John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. Barman Peter Ward, an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun attack. Victor Arbuckle, aged 29, was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on power stations and reservoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969. It was hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence O'Neill's government.Your paramilitaries were around before the PIRA had formed and began it's campaign, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to insinuate that your community had squeaky clean bums until the PIRA showed up and gave yis bad ideas? And I'm not even counting the legal organisations on your side here, who were at intimidation since the creation of NI. I note you said PIRA, who BTW commemorates the failed border campaign in the 50's?? And that was how long before the uvf? |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 22, 2008 22:55:03 GMT
The UVF was formed in May 1966 as a loyalist paramilitary group and named after the Ulster Volunteers of 1912. The UVF claimed what many acknowledge as the first victim of the Troubles, when they shot dead 28-year-old storeman John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. Barman Peter Ward, an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun attack. Victor Arbuckle, aged 29, was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on power stations and reservoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969. It was hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence O'Neill's government.Your paramilitaries were around before the PIRA had formed and began it's campaign, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to insinuate that your community had squeaky clean bums until the PIRA showed up and gave yis bad ideas? And I'm not even counting the legal organisations on your side here, who were at intimidation since the creation of NI. the PIRA may only have been around since the 70's the OIRA have been around longer then the UVF byts thats niether here nor there. Fact of the matter is as long as republicans continue to try and jusitfy thier campaign of murder then personly i have no interest in dealing with them, we had a sectarian conflict in northern ireland perpututed by both sides. innocent people were targeted and murdered by both loyalist and republicans period. It sickens me that republicans still try and brush the death of innocents under the carpet as collaterall damage, as if thats makes it ok. The only way forward out of the conflict is honesty, all proganda has to be dropped all justification has to go, people were murderd end of story. Excellent post mate and I fully agree with every word of it. The real people who matter in all this are the victims and their families. And I feel every bit as much for the victims of loyalist paramilitaries, and for the families of those victims. As I do for the victims of republican paramilitaries. The problem is that we rarely discuss loyalist paramilitaries, and in my opinion that is because if the people on here were to condem their actions, they would have to reserve the same judgement for republicans, something they seem incapable of doing. They spend their time defending their actions and making excuses for those same actions.Why I do not know, it seems loyalist paramilitaries were murderers but republicans were freedom fighters, and in that respect they had a right to go out and murder innocent people. Unionists/loyalists/nationalists/protestant and Catholic died at the hands of these people. Exactly the same as they did with the loyalist paramilitaries. But somehow their is a distinction made when it comes to republicans. The sooner we face up to what we have done to each other, the sooner we can move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 22, 2008 22:55:09 GMT
It could be taken that afd is justifying the attacks on his community by loyalists by what he has said. Bilk excellent post, being in loyalist areas you too will know the fear people have of the paramilitaries and how much the young can't stand them. Problem is that some of these young people join to free themselve from that fear by becoming part of it. Maybe if the loyalist paramilitaries weren't armed, people would be less afraid. But we all know where you stand when it comes to armed paramilitary organisations. Oh here we go again with your bitching routine. You are worse than my ex wife always trying to have your wee digs in with the usual sarcasm. Maybe you are trying to winde me up or maybe it is that spoilt childishness in you that makes you do this. See a post by me and do your best to go on the attack regarldess of my post. Try and stop the childish bitching and try to debate in an adult manner where possible. That's a good boy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 22, 2008 22:58:54 GMT
Correct bilk I was responding to what afd said. Setanta why do you constantly try and twist things around and move the goal posts???
I WROTE' It could be taken that afd is justifying the attacks on his community by loyalists by what he has said'
I was clearly referring to what afd had said here.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on May 23, 2008 7:45:33 GMT
Wasp, I think after how we all saw your distorted cut and paste job it is obvious who is the master at twisting things around to mean something else. I think Setanta was correct, I did not try to justify the actions of loyalist paramilitaries, you Wasp twisted that around.
Nor did I try to justify paramilitary punishment attacks, what I was trying to show was how some republican actions were thrust upon republicans by their community rather than republicans taking an arbitrary decision of their own. And I have learnt that the community might call on republicans to deliver 'justice' [note the marks Bilk], but they have not properly thought through what this means. And when they see that 'justice' they recoil away.
Bilk said, "My community, as will be proved by the number of them who came before the courts for their paramilitary activity, in a country your community believed had a one sided judicial system, did not shut up when it came to these people. They did not beat bin lids on the street when the forces of law and order came to arrest them. And they certainly didn't harbour them, or hide guns for them unless under duress, or they were one of them."
"only the weapon of the loyalist paramilitaries, for the beatings, was a baseball bat"
Are you saying that loyalists only used baseball bats to carry out 'punishment' attacks?? What about the people shot??
I take it Bilk this is your knowledge of your community? But this does not seem to tally with the court cases. People have been charged with possession of various armaments but not all of them say they were coerced. Very few testified against paramilitaries, and if it was just fear that held their loyalty surely one or two would have been brave enough to make a stand, via the courts. So who are these people who attend these community events organized by the loyalist paramilitaries? I think you are either deluding yourself or you do not want to admit the truth, this is the propaganda that we need to rid ourselves of, like He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness spoke about. I have no problem facing my past and saying that I want to move away from that. We have to be honest with each other and with ourselves because the evidence is there that loyalist paramilitaries were harboured, weapons hidden and not all of them charged were members or under duress.
|
|
