Paramilitaries in loyalist communities

[earl]

I think we are starting to get into dangerous territory of putting everyone into the same box. Harry's description of the relationship between paramilitaries and their community would be close as to how I would have imagined it as this is how I imagine our own community to operate.

[Wasp]

Ealr take a look at the votes throughout the troubles and the elected reps in republican areas, this will show you what your community supported during the troubles, in other areas the sdlp reigned and that will show you what your community in those areas supported. In general republican areas voted for violence, nationalist areas voted for non-violence.

[An Fear Dubh]

Wasp everyone can go and read the thread, we do not need your versions of it.

You have been again exposed as a manipulative liar, and you need to access yourself. You are devisive and show only negative aspects. You do not look to find a way forward but look to find ways to drag us back.

I do not think it is fair for you to try and link Bilk to you. Although I can disagree with Bilk, I find him a positive influence. Maybe you should try and be like him.

[An Fear Dubh]

Earl - I think the questions you are asking are taking this off topic. I would be happy to give responses if you want to form questions and assumptions under another heading.

[An Fear Dubh]

I can recognize in Harry's response an honesty in his assessment.

And because of this I must accept that as being his truth. Again I look to the evidence that is available from other sources, and I do speak to people from Loyalist areas on a daily basis and I ask them similar questions.

Again I wonder at how many within these communities were 'members/friends/family', as I see on tv and eyewitness personally large numbers at loyalist gatherings. Are these people bused in from outside, of course not, so they must come from the community. This wide circle of 'family and friends' seems a sizable amount of various communities, much more than a minority.

Leaving that aside for the moment Harry believes that Loyalist paras acted independently and not in response to their community. He also highlighted that the police and other state forces were the defenders of his community and were the legitimate forces, while the loyalist paras were sometimes looked down on. Why then did loyalist paras get involved in police issues? Why then did as Harry later concedes did people outside of the loyalist para circle go to the loyalist paras for police issues?

I feel that this involvement in police issues was fostered onto loyalist paras in the same as it was fostered onto republicans. This becomes a two way street and both feed back into the other.

I can accept there being a fear factor and I remember an occasion when I was involved in talks with loyalist paras. During discussions raising finance was posed. To which the loyalist para said they would just ask their local shopkeepers to up their regular payments for a period. I know from experience that such methods are not used in republican areas, as the shopkeeper would tell you where to go. They might make one off contributions or donate goods but that would not be assured and voluntary. I am sure that some abuse their power and position to intimidate but such actions are frowned upon and not expected behavior from republicans. I am not accusing any community of cowardice, but I just find Bilk's assertion that everyone despised loyalist paras but given all this those willing to testify against them can be counted on one hand. If the general populace fear, there will be a number of those brave enough to confront that fear, this did not happen so we must conclude that fear is not the total picture.

[Harry]

I perhaps generalised to much. There was a much wider support than simply friends and family. Poor choice of words from myself but it certainly was a minority who supported the Paras.

Certainly protection money is payed from alot of local businesses. Does this really not happen in Republican circles AFD?? I really find that hard to believe. You would no better than me but i assumed this was standard across the board??

[Wasp]

Wasp everyone can go and read the thread, we do not need your versions of it.

Indeed they can.

You have been again exposed as a manipulative liar, and you need to access yourself. You are devisive and show only negative aspects. You do not look to find a way forward but look to find ways to drag us back.

Listen the pot calling the kettle black. Try and twist or rather squirm your way out of it, you have been exposed as an assuming liar but then that is ignorance for you. If you can't handle the bigger picture being shown, if you can't debate against what is being said then you shouldn't bother. I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything less than this from you and you say I am trying to drag us back. You want us to brush things under the carpet and join the lying merry go-round. Not a chance in hell of me ever brushing things under the carpet or keeping quiet concerning republican lies, spin and deceit.

I do not think it is fair for you to try and link Bilk to you. Although I can disagree with Bilk, I find him a positive influence. Maybe you should try and be like him.

I don't really care what you think.

[Bilk]

May 23, 2008 14:50:22 GMT An Fear Dubh said:

I think my assessment is based on the evidence. Sinn Féin who are republicans have a large electorial mandate. That shows that they have community support.
While loyalist paramilitaries do not seem to be well organised in a political dimension and have only recently begun to put the primacy in political politics over militarism. The PUP have councilors and have therefore demonstrated that there is community support.
In the past loyalist paramilitaries were mistaken to leave and trust politics to the DUP and UUP, thinking that these parties would properly represent their class of politics. And because they did not is where this bitterness and disappointed feelings come from.

I am not looking for you to believe my analysis. But I am basing it on the evidence. If you want to make change to the cycles of the past you first have to accept the reality of how this was created. As this allows you to make the actions that will correctly move forward. If you base your strategy on false or blinkered analysis then you are building on sand.

I still don't believe the ordrinary catholic/nationalist in your areas supported or asked for the violence being perpatrated by republicans, they only voted for SF when they themselves said "vote for us nd we'll stop killing people". That was what they were elected on. And that's why they have a large mandate, you seem to think that every nationalist supports your policies, other than the greening of Northern Ireland you don't seem to have any that your community agree with.
Unionists will not vote for parties who represent murderers in any great numbers, no matter how well organised they are. The PUP are a very well organised political party but they can't get votes. One executive member in David Irvine who was elected on about the fourth or fifth count is all they ever had.
I don't need to understand your hatred of the Brits, nor do I want to, nor do I want to hear excuses for what republicans did, there is no excuse for it, none. That's what you want me to understand, what the big bad unionists did to make you do what you did doesn't wash. No one on this planet has enough reason to do the evil things that the provies did. That is why I'll never vote for a loyalist paramilitary, because he/she supported or commited the same evils on your community, I will never forgive them for the shame they brought on my community.

[Bilk]

May 23, 2008 16:42:14 GMT earl said:

I think we are starting to get into dangerous territory of putting everyone into the same box. Harry's description of the relationship between paramilitaries and their community would be close as to how I would have imagined it as this is how I imagine our own community to operate.

Me too Earl, but AFD seems to be suggesting otherwise.

[Blue Angel]

You want us to brush things under the carpet and join the lying merry go-round. Not a chance in hell of me ever brushing things under the carpet or keeping quiet concerning republican lies, spin and deceit.

Now I know AFD from elsewhere and for quite a reasonable ammount of time at that. I don't always agree with him on every issue by any means and yes he can be a wee bit abrasive (sorry if that offends you AFD but it can be the case!) but one thing I would never accuse him of is brushing things under carpets. He has never denied that the IRA campaign caused great hurt and pain to the unionist community in the north, he is not so in love with his own ideological stance that he thinks it is the only one. He firmly believes in it I've always found and has actually thought about it and considered it but he accepts others have views that may contradict his.

If you truly do not care about what he has to say the question obviously to be asked is why you respond to his posts in such a verbose manner. Harry and Bilk both have points to make which I may also disagree with but at times they have offered me another perspective and I have been forced to reasses my own outlook.

Lately you are assuming a posture of swearing and snarling rather than replying and it is becoming tiresome at times. If you want to cut down setanta, me afd or other republicans it might perhaps be better to do with logic. Reams of text about oxygen thiefs and so forth add nothing worthwhile to the forum that i can see. It is possible to take a strong stand against the republican point of view without going on about people been 'taken out' as in an andy mcnab novel or similar fantasies.

[Blue Angel]

As a follow up to that I wouldn't automatically support any other republican here if i thought them wrong on a position and at some point AFD or another republican and I may disagree and possibly forcibly but I would like to think it could be done in such a way that it would not colour every conversation after with personal rancour.

[Wasp]

Well BA do you expect me to say nothing when called a manipulative liar, maybe you missed that or tried the usual republican strategy of brushing it under the carpet. For the few years I have been on forums I have never seen republicans admit the sectarian campaign by the ira nor condemn it (apart from Jim a number of times and fair play to him for that).

At best we get a few mistakes were made or in the early 70's there may have been a few tit for tats but in general the ira campaign was not a sectarian one blah blah. No matter what proof is posted or what sense is puit across it is the usual twisting of events, denial lies and spin. Now you can try and lambast me all you want, personnally I couldn't care less because it is you who refused to condemn a Protestant being burned to death yet clearly stated you would condemn a Catholic being burned to death.

That shows the depth of sectarian hatred and bigotry within yourself, yet you try and lecture others such as myself for speaking out. What a joke.

[Blue Angel]

you insist on viewing all things through the paradigm of catholic or protestant for me republicanism is neither catholic nor protestant but first and foremost a political ideology.

[Wasp]

Typical avoidance of what was actually said by me and the actual answers you gave. Why oh why do you avoid comments like this. Are you denying ever saying this, ever replying as I stated on such attacks. You answered them before but as usual try to twist your way out of it, cut the bullshit and admit what I said, afterall it was your words not mine. I hope you are man enough to admit this instead of trying to avoid what I said.

[Blue Angel]

yeah that depth of sectarian hatred in myself - a man whose main heroes in irish history are protestant, a man about to marry a person from another branch of the christian religion whose relations with the catholic church have been er, rocky to say the least over the centuries. Damn I must work on quelling that depth of sectarian hatred in meself tomorrow. Now I'd admit everyone has dumb prejudices about other faiths and nations but a step to getting around them is to admit you have them. You for example wasp are accusing me of sectarianism but you have stated in the past that catholics are not christian - i'd say that's fairly sectarian.


we all tend to tribalism in the situation when thinking about the north yes - me included but i don't see where your recent constant effing and blinding (not that bad words in and of themself bother me) is helping the situation. It's been pointed out that no,no,no is all you have to say lately and i'd say it's a valid point. We cannot go back to the past in either ireland or britain. Neither the green or orange tradition can totally have it their own way in either area and i have seen several suggestions mooted here to try and at least accomodate that reality. Ireland, either north or south is peripehereal to british interests - they only invoke ireland to look good about 'solving the irish question' (a trick british statesman have been employing for several centries) - the reality is it is the people on the island who will have to come up with some solution inevitably. It would be better for all people, those who see themselves as british and those who see themselves as irish if this did not involve yet more tragic episodes of violence via frustration and lack of communication.