Paramilitaries in loyalist communities

[Wasp]

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNN, Try answering the post instead of some waffle to try and difflect from it.

[Blue Angel]

ah but i'm seeing the 'big picture' you see - i thought you'd like that

[Wasp]

So you are still avoiding what I said. I will ask again.

Did you refuse to condemn a Protestant being burned to death yet clearly stated you would condemn a Catholic being burned to death.

[Blue Angel]

i'd condem BOTH - i place no higher value on one been protestant or one catholic - both are human beings. I have said before my support for militancy was qualified- in a war attacks on troops are justifiable but even there some of the methods used did not appeal to me to put it very mildly. You are talking about sectarianism but you insist on trying to drag everything down to one religion verus another.

[Wasp]

So are you denying ever saying that you refused to condemn a Protestant being burned to death???

[Blue Angel]

actually what i said was that i thought the point scoring over in that particular thread was pointless and accomplished nothing- i don't think you will many who will defend la mon just as you'd have search hard to find people in your community to defend the shankhill butchers say. Both were wrong (and of course if rumor is to believed with regards to the latter even the loyalist paramilitaries were happy to see lenny murphy disposed of eventually by the other side)

it is pointless to keep pulling examples up - you will pull la mon out, i will pull something else out, you will pul another example out ad infinitum - everyone's death was painful and pointless now it is time to try and move the conflict into been a purely political one. whatever militancy could achieve for republicanism it had long since failed to have an effective use.

[An Fear Dubh]

Bilk, I have no hatred of the 'Brits', I want local people to govern themselves, free from foreign interference.

I do not remember any republican electoral slogan - 'vote for us and we'll stop killing people'. I do remember the slogan 'The Armalite and the Ballot Box' being talked of as a strategy. What do you think was being proposed to be done with the armalite, pin up election posters?? Do you think the nationalist electorate is that stupid that they can not see through some of their politicians and recognize the false promises? But when voting people try to size up the general picture and some vote for tribal reasons but most know the false promises but vote for those that most closely represent their politics.

Wasp, you are boring us with your constant efforts to drag all debate into your negative politics. We are not denying or hiding from the bigger picture, we recognize views different to republicanism. But you are not putting forward logical arguments. You are deliberately misquoting and out of context, you do not mention the link until pushed into the corner, previously suggesting it might be your own thoughts but without saying either way.

[Wasp]

May 25, 2008 0:02:56 GMT Blue Angel said:

actually what i said was that i thought the point scoring over in that particular thread was pointless and accomplished nothing- i don't think you will many who will defend la mon just as you'd have search hard to find people in your community to defend the shankhill butchers say. Both were wrong (and of course if rumor is to believed with regards to the latter even the loyalist paramilitaries were happy to see lenny murphy disposed of eventually by the other side)

it is pointless to keep pulling examples up - you will pull la mon out, i will pull something else out, you will pul another example out ad infinitum - everyone's death was painful and pointless now it is time to try and move the conflict into been a purely political one. whatever militancy could achieve for republicanism it had long since failed to have an effective use.

Again you are avoiding the issue here. You did indeed refuse to condemn a Portestant being burned to death by going off in some typical republican waffle to avoid the question. Funny though you didn't go off on any waffle when I asked you would you condmen a Catholic being burned alive after a loyalist attack. No waffle, no avoiding the question just a plain clear definate answer to show that you would condemn it. Asked about a Protestant produces a waffle but not when asked about a Catholic. Now who is towing sectarian lines here???

[Wasp]

AFD I thought it was obvious that I was quoting from an article, I posted part of what you posted before you posted anything. How is that not logical???

I could equally say that you were deliberatley leaving parts out and taking things out of context because you did just that< you left the bigger picture out? I did not misquote blueangel< what I have said is exact and he still avoided it then went back on what he said> Is that not logical for me to point these lies out?

[An Fear Dubh]

I am not a mind reader Wasp, how was it obvious that you were quoting from a site unless you say that or mention reference to it. I quoted no site until you highlighted one, I was using my own words and thoughts, not like you who did a selective 'cut & paste' from a site and failed to mention it.

You could equally say a number of things but the facts and the evidence are there for others to read, why not accept the evidence and stop trying to re-write the truth.

[Wasp]

I am not rewriting the truth, I have little knowledge of the famine and a quick google showed that what you aand others say of the famine is not the whole picture. So I pasted those parts to show the bigger picture along with parts to back yor arguement or rather your case.

[Bilk]

May 25, 2008 1:26:26 GMT An Fear Dubh said:

Bilk, I have no hatred of the 'Brits', I want local people to govern themselves, free from foreign interference.

I do not remember any republican electoral slogan - 'vote for us and we'll stop killing people'. I do remember the slogan 'The Armalite and the Ballot Box' being talked of as a strategy. What do you think was being proposed to be done with the armalite, pin up election posters?? Do you think the nationalist electorate is that stupid that they can not see through some of their politicians and recognize the false promises? But when voting people try to size up the general picture and some vote for tribal reasons but most know the false promises but vote for those that most closely represent their politics.

Wasp, you are boring us with your constant efforts to drag all debate into your negative politics. We are not denying or hiding from the bigger picture, we recognize views different to republicanism. But you are not putting forward logical arguments. You are deliberately misquoting and out of context, you do not mention the link until pushed into the corner, previously suggesting it might be your own thoughts but without saying either way.

Most republicans, I understand' don't hate the Brits per se, only those who have taken what they believe to be theirs, which is part of this island.
And their was no political slogan, it was implied in that everytime someone asked them an awkward question, the answer was always the same. "Do you want to go back to what happened over the last thirty years", now to me that was a threat. They were elected on the strength of the fact that if they were elected the war would be over. Now that is why I think your community voted for them, to stop them from killing people. Because I am certain that they knew as I knew had they not been elected we would certainly have went back to where we were for thirty years. Because the status quo would be back in place. The unionists and the SDLP in power. My community saw it coming a mile away. Which is why they voted for the most hard line unionists, who didn't have a direct link to the paramilitaries, in such numbers this time around.

[Bilk]

May 23, 2008 13:29:53 GMT earl said:

But you and others on here still try to make it out everything was the big bad unionists fault.

Please quote me directly where I have blamed the unionists on this thread. I, once again state, in plain english that I was merely challenging your assertion that your community was terrorist free until the 70's. Anything else, and you are putting words in my mouth or imagining it.

No one, and I mean no one, unionist/loyalist/protestant/nationalist/republican/Catholic had a right to take one innocent life in Northern Ireland. All the rest is window dressing and trying to pin blame.

Why are you telling me this? Do you think I believe otherwise? What have I said here to make you believe that I don't know this?

Again I'm sorry I missed this question,.
I didn't say you didn't agree with me on this. I said you are more comfortable talking about stupid dates etc. I hate parmilitaries with every fiber of my being, whether one started up before the other means nothing to me. It's like everything in Irish history, it's shrouded in mystery, groups change their names every day, same people different names. It's almost like, and it has happened again recently, "We can be cleared of everything we did up until the point were we changed our name, because those people are gone" They are not gone, same people just a different name, and the slate has been wiped clean. Unless someone is going to suggest that the RIRA and the Conti's are totally different people who sprang out of the woodwork when the provies called a cease fire. This is what I mean this is a futile argument or discussion, it means nothing.

[Jim]

I've never saw "do you want to go back what happened over the last thirty years" as a threat, infact I say it quite often. The reason I say it is not because I'm threatening people with republican violence, I was never involved in that, ever, and neither was any member of my immediate family that I know of, but because there is no alternative. What happens if the Government collapses? Dissidents would get a fair amount of support after an SF failure, and keeping in mind that loyalists haven't decommissioned, its wouldn't be looking good and we would have the army back, one thing I never want to happen, ever.

The RIRA and CIRA are fairly different people Blik. The Contos broke away in 1986 when the republican movement was quickly changing its politics and finding its footing, infact, no, it was entering politics. They didn't like that because they wanted to keep with bombing the shite out of you lot into submission, and they had a lot of internal disagreements with the rest of the leadership. Those that formed the RIRA stayed on but the last straw was accepting Stormont, so in essence the CIRA and RIRA stand for very similar things and are united in their hatred of "mainstream" northern Republicanism. There is no good blood between dissidents and mainstream republicanism, they have one goal thats the same, and very very different methods of getting it, and very different reasons also.

[Bilk]

May 26, 2008 4:20:08 GMT Jim said:

I've never saw "do you want to go back what happened over the last thirty years" as a threat, infact I say it quite often. The reason I say it is not because I'm threatening people with republican violence, I was never involved in that, ever, and neither was any member of my immediate family that I know of, but because there is no alternative. What happens if the Government collapses? Dissidents would get a fair amount of support after an SF failure, and keeping in mind that loyalists haven't decommissioned, its wouldn't be looking good and we would have the army back, one thing I never want to happen, ever.

The RIRA and CIRA are fairly different people Blik. The Contos broke away in 1986 when the republican movement was quickly changing its politics and finding its footing, infact, no, it was entering politics. They didn't like that because they wanted to keep with bombing the shite out of you lot into submission, and they had a lot of internal disagreements with the rest of the leadership. Those that formed the RIRA stayed on but the last straw was accepting Stormont, so in essence the CIRA and RIRA stand for very similar things and are united in their hatred of "mainstream" northern Republicanism. There is no good blood between dissidents and mainstream republicanism, they have one goal thats the same, and very very different methods of getting it, and very different reasons also.

The mention of "No one wants to go back to the last thirty years" is ok coming from you or me. But when it is coming from the very people who were responsible for those 30 years, then I take that as a threat. We will say it at anytime in general conversation, they will say it only when they are backed into a corner, or asked awkward questions.

They were a breakaway group exactly my point, same people different name. "Breakway" is the opperative word here. Just as the PIRA were a breakaway group from the OIRA. I don't believe for one minute that when the PIRA downed weapons and decided to go into politics a whole new group suddenly sprang out of the woodwork. It was the same people, they were of course left weakend by the decision of the leadership to move into bonifide politics, but it's the same people, and don't ever forget the PIRA had a period when their main weapon was firebombs in stores and crudely put together car bombs. Look where they finished up.