|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 16, 2011 18:01:30 GMT
To be honest I am not up to speed with the left or right wing views of the political wing of the uda, however that was not my point. Unionist parties were into peace building and new political objectives which the sdlp and then sf turned against so as far as that is concerned there is not much difference between loyalist paramilitary groups and mainline Unionism making progressive efforts. SDLP supporters could point out similar things and counter Unionist points and Unionists could counter sdlp points. SF/ira on the otherhand were all about murder and mayhem during the troubles. But there is a big difference when it comes to which is hardline or not regarding Unionist parties and the political wing of the uda/uvf.
People voted for sf/ira during the troubles and most would have not been to bothered about their bread and butter policies, they would have voted for the armed struggle. Whereas loyalists did not vote for the political wing of loyalist groups and that was the point I was trying to make concerning support.
Hope you understand the points I am trying to make, what we type and what someone reads can be 2 different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Nov 16, 2011 18:37:03 GMT
Can you expand on that please, wasp, because thats far from how is see it. Can you give some examples of what exactly you mean. Not being smart. I would like some understanding of what you mean before i make my reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 16, 2011 20:54:13 GMT
I also added this point 'SDLP supporters could point out similar things and counter Unionist points and Unionists could counter sdlp points' to show that I am not trying to take a onesided approach where Unionists tried all the time blah blah.
For starters there is the obvious where Unionist politicians condemned murder and made calls for peace, they called on their nationalist counterparts to join them throughout the troubles. In the early 70's, think it was 72 or 73 the sdlp for example refused to sit down in talks with Unionists and the alliance party and possibly the labour party at trying to find agreement for N.Ireland to bring about an end to the violence.
In the late 70s they refused again and they also refused again in the early 80s. As I said bothsides could counter bothsides claims but thats politics where bothsides made mistakes in political judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Nov 16, 2011 22:08:31 GMT
Wasp, unionists were known for their intransigence and their unwillingness to reform what was clearly a dysfunctional state of affairs. Any attempts at reform or peace building between the 2 communities was met with violence and resistance by unionists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 16, 2011 22:32:46 GMT
Unionists did make mistakes but things back then were not just as simple as you portray, there was what they see as the unlawful claim by the republic over Northern Ireland, there was the dreaded thought of Rome rule (which has been proved right beyond any doubt), there was the sectarian violence and the ongoing attacks on Unionist culture so it was far from simple and far from a one way street.
You have ignored the points I made where Unionists were there for talks and the sdlp for example refused to talk. When it suited the sdlp they made the claims that they were there to talk but it was only when it suited them.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Nov 16, 2011 23:11:52 GMT
Im not suggesting that it was a one way street. I just feel that alot of unionists seem to think that everything was fine until the IRA kicked off and are in denial about how bad things were for alot of catholics. How badly the RUC, UDR and B Specialists behaved towards alot of catholics. How badly successive unionist governments thought of and treated the catholic population.
I ignored the points because i dont actually know what you're referring to. Have you got any links or the like that give me some context to what exactly happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 17, 2011 18:16:36 GMT
Its how you come across at times.
I have a mixed reaction about that, I dont believe everything was fine but what catholics are you talking about that things were bad for? Do you mean catholics in general?
I disagree here, I knew quite a few ex RUC both both religions and they all described the RUC as being the 3rd religion. The one officer that they did keep mention in a poor light was a catholic officer who used his religion as the reason for everytime something happened that he didnt like and that came from catholic and protestant officers who were fed up with him. Protestant RUC officers knew that catholic officers got special treatment at times, treatment that was not afforded to them. In a number of areas that I know of catholic officers disporportionally held higher rankings. The UDR was 38% catholic approx. when it was formed but republicans soon put an end to that, republicans also helped lower the amount of catholic applicants to the RUC where even the mothers of the bogside and shantallow signed a petition called leave our sons alone, this was for their sons who were wanting to join the security forces and it was handed into the local sf/ira rep. But I do not deny that no wrong was ever done, no police force in the world is perfect but considering the tasks faced by the RUC they done a tremendous job and that is why forces from all over the world sought them for training etc.
Please clarify?
I will try to get you the exact info. I have it somewhere on my PC.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Nov 17, 2011 20:11:08 GMT
Thats how i see your interpretation of events alot of the time, Wasp. Its like you think that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the only obstacles to progress in NI. Like Catholics did not have any legitimate grievances that culminated in beginning of the troubles. Like all Loyalist violence was/is perpetrated only in response to Republicanism. I was going to mention about the OO but i think we will have to save that for another thread. We'll take the catholics in Derry for instance. Thats where the whole gerrymandering and discrimination in the allocation of housing was at its worst. Wasp, you're bringing up one story about one dick head catholic cop to try and offset the blatant one sidedness and brutality shown by the RUC towards the Catholic/Nationalist community on a number of key occasions in the history of the troubles in NI. Examples being...... the Civil Rights March in Derry in 1968, where peaceful civil rights protesters were baton charged by the RUC which saw even MP's beaten bloody.... the Burntollet Ambush, where peaceful marchers including both men and women were ambushed by loyalists, many of whom were known to be off duty B Specials and UDR men and beaten savagely while the RUC stood by idly and did not intervene... These are just 2 well documented events. I can list plenty more. Have you any idea or understanding of how profound an effect these events had on the minds of Catholics/Nationalists towards the forces of the Stormont government? Regarding the UDR. Be honest Wasp. The massive drop in the numbers of Catholics in UDR wasn't simply down to Republicans making threats. The UDR showed itself to be quite a nasty group to put it mildly. Evidence shows they had strong links to the UVF in certain units as well as documented proof of collusion with the UVF. Investigations show that : • Army chiefs feared that 70 soldiers in one UDR unit were linked to the UVF in west Belfast, including one member of the notorious Shankill Butcher gang; • One UDR unit was suspected of siphoning-off £47,000 to the UVF while UDR equipment was regularly stolen from another unit to support the loyalist terror group; • UVF members were regularly allowed to socialise at the UDR’s Girdwood barracks social club; • Army chiefs considered secretly testing firing UDR soldiers’ weapons to check whether they had been used in sectarian murders; • The collusion investigation was then suspended after a senior UDR officer claimed it was damaging morale within the regiment. Details of the level of cross over between the UDR and UVF can be found here... www.thedetail.tv/issues/20/udr-girdwood-story/british-army-covered-up-udr-units-links-to-uvfThe lack or willingness to entertain reform policies that were clearly needed. No prob. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 17, 2011 20:59:18 GMT
.
Thats fair enough but I do try and not to.
Thats not what I think but sf/ira had no cause to carry out the actions they did. I will never forget what they did either and I will never forget what they reall are.
gerrymandering affected all people not just catholics. Secondly I dont know much about housing in Londonderry but I do know while new houses were springing up in the much larger city of Belfast it was the nationalist community who benefited the most, Bilk was proof of that as he was part of the beginning of the civil movement along with much other proof. Loyalist areas to this day still have outside toilets, my grandparents still only had an outside toilet and no bath in the early 80s. So if discrimination happened against catholics in one area it also happened against Protestants in others. Your example does not show how bad things were for alot of catholics and the same discrimination also happened to Protestants.
No I am not, I mentioned cops from bothsides and the action of RUC officers or some of them in one area does not mean the RUC as a whole done the same. Your'e also leaving out the other points I made about the RUC. This 'brutality' was not against catholics as you put it, it was dealing with those who were protesting in very different circumstances from today, protestors some of whom wanted violence and got it, protestors some of who supported the failed ira campaign of the 50s so all was not black or white.
There are 2 sides to every story some events were affected by events in days prior to other events, some were inflamed by the likes of Hume and his highly provocative comments, some were inflamed by these so called peaceful protestors demanding the right to protest at the sametime and in the same area as a loyalist parade was to take place which was an obvious attempt to provoke trouble. Then there was the unprovoked attack on marchers and their families for several hours from republicans which saw no retalliation from the marchers or their supporters. These are all things that helped inflame situations, hindsight is a wonderful thing but those days were strange days with hate being fed to people by politicians. For me I was just a kid living with a normal family who were not involved in anything like this just as the majority of families both Protestant and catholic were not involved, they just got on with work and feeding their families.
First of all look at what republicans were doing, shooting unarmed members who worked on their families farms to ethnically cleanse them from border areas and thats just one example. Is it any wonder a member of the UDR passed on info, the word collusion is thrown about too easily and it mirks the waters of the cases where collusion may have actually took place in some form. Fact remains when the UDR were first formed they were about 38%catholic, the 2nd or 3rd member to be killed was a catholic. When it comes to collusion we should look at all thsoe catholics especially those from republican areas who for example worked for the civil service or NHS and passed on info to terrorists such as the names and addresses of security force members. If I had any say during those times because of ira actions I would have had catholics rigourously vetted before taking jobs with sensitive info. Dont blame me for that blame the terrorists.
The big word is 'feared' which means it could be completely unfounded.
the big word is 'suspected' just as Haughey was innocent according to republicans when he was suspected of supporting terrorists.
These members could have been there with other friends so that makes little sense concerning collusion. ira sympathisers/members have worked in many government departments with access to sensitive materials so if they went with friends to a gaa club where irish security force memebrs were playing does that account to collusion?
Still no proof, just suspicians
Who caught the man that shot adams?? He was an off duty member of the UDR so can his actions not put the whole UDR as being the same just as the actions you listed of a few is putting the whole UDR as the same? Get my point.
Depending on what side of the fence you sit on depends on what you are willing to accept as the truth, I would love to be able to deny everything, I dont but that doesnt mean I am going to let allegations and perhaps some proof tarnish all those that served all the people of Northern Ireland, risking their lives to protect others.
Ws the UDR perfect?? No theyw erent but thats the same for all forces throughout the world and if collusion happened in the scale republicans claiom then many more ira terrorists would have been killed. No group needed info to kill an innocent catholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Nov 18, 2011 17:43:10 GMT
Likewise, Wasp.
You must understand that when i talk about catholic discrimination or grievances im not trying to justify the actions of the IRA. Nor should you think that by you accepting that there were genuine grievances on the Catholic side that thats akin to you acknowledging the 'legitimacy' of the IRA's campaign. I think that loyalists are very defensive on the whole issue of discrimination or civil rights issue on that very basis.
I dont blame you, Wasp. And nor would i forget either.
The gerrymandering of votes in the city of Derry saw out of an electorate of around 47,000 in 1966, 30,000 of which were Nationalist and 17,000 Unionist, Unionists received 12 councillors and Nationalists received 8. If you cant accept that that's an acceptable grievance on the side of Catholic/Nationalists and that that is not legitimate proof of discrimination then there is no point in continuing the debate on the discrimination issue. Furthermore, regarding employment, here are a couple of examples: Belfast's largest employer, Harland and Wolf, had 10,000 employees of which only 400 were catholic. In the Fermanagh county council, which employed 370 people, 322 were protestant even though the county itself was over half catholic. Now, admitting that that was not fair or accepting it as proof of a major bias against the employment of Catholics in certain sectors does not mean that the IRA had a right to go killing unarmed part-time members of the security forces. But these were issues that needed to be addressed in order to build a peaceful and just co-existence between both communities. Issues that the stormont government left to fester without wanting to address.
I know its not all black and white, Wasp. However, it was perceived by nationalists/catholics that there was a very unbalanced approach by the RUC in how they dealt with protestants over catholics. 'Illegal' loyalist/protestant protests/marches were not met with the same brutality that catholic/nationalist protests/marches were. It was well documented that the RUC did very little on a number of occasions when civil rights marchers were being targeted by loyalist mobs whether it was the ambush at Burntollet or attacks on the bogside by the RUC and loyalists combined or attacks on catholic neighbourhoods in general. Not forgetting the number of catholic civilians that were shot, beaten and killed by the RUC during that period compared to protestants. Now you can give examples of how catholics attacked parades or whatever but i can be pretty certain that the RUC did not stand by or participate on the side of catholic/nationalists. You have to acknowledge how examples like these would have had a profound and long lasting effect on catholic/nationalist attitudes towards the RUC in general. Again, this is no way trying to legitimise the IRA campaign that came after. Im just trying to give an insight into the mindset of catholics/nationalists during this period.
Both sides organised protests and marches to counter other protests and marches and Humes words which were so 'provocative' were out of despair and anger at the events that were happening in Derry at the time. However rightly or wrongly.
Wasp, fact is also that the first deaths of the troubles were of catholics and that the first member of the RUC that was killed was killed by loyalists or that the first series of bombings were by loyalists who blew up electricity and water plants and tried to blame republicans with the sole purpose of dis-stabilising the O'Neill government and ending the implementation of needed reforms as well as building further tension and anger towards the catholic/nationalist community.
I dont blame you for wanting action in response to IRA actions and wanting catholics who were applying for jobs that involved sensitive info being 'rigorously vetted' but equally i also believe that those protestants from loyalist areas who were joining the security forces should also have been 'rigorously vetted' and likewise dont blame me but blame the terrorists.
Wasp, if an Irish Army Intelligence document was released that showed that they 'feared' that 70 soldiers in one Irish Army unit alone were linked to the IRA in NI, including one member of the notorious gang that participated in the Kingsmill massacre do you think it fair if i dismissed your concerns regarding it simply with.. "The big word is 'feared' which means it could be completely unfounded"?
Is there a report that shows evidence that he did?
I understand what you're saying here but there is a bit of a difference between a barracks and a sports club. If IRA members were allowed socialise at a Irish Army barracks would you have a problem with that?
Pretty substantial 'suspicions' to say the least. Did you read the report?
Im not suggesting that the entire force consisted of UVF men or that the entire force was corrupt and brutal and colluding with loyalist terrorists or that the force didnt consist of good, honourable and decent men but frankly it does look like there was a substantial cross over between them and the UVF. Enough to give concern at the very least as the British Army did.
Wasp, I understand that but you seem to have little problem tarnishing or brandishing the entire civil rights movement as simply a front for republicanism and troublemakers. I accept they were quite a few involved but they by no means were running or managing the civil rights movement (at the beginning of it at least) or that the Civil Rights movements goals or Catholic grievances weren't legitimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 18, 2011 21:33:15 GMT
I believe that, you proved that by how you described sf on this thread.
Thats a good point, as a loyalist I strongly feel that our side is not been told and events where wrongdoing from our side happened or from the side we support happened is solely focused on but the events leading upto any worngdoing are ignored. That is totally frustrating. ON the news tonight 2 Unionist politicians finally spoke up and pressed Enda Kennedy about looking at the role the republicas government or rather lack of it during the troubles. Why is there no focus on the Protestants in the rpeublic whos numbers diminished over the years such as those of the Cork Unionists? Why are they only allowed to celebrate their culture in the arse end of nowhere instead of their own countrys towns and cities? No-one is focusing on that.
I could give you many exaples of people I knew that were killed/injured/attacked and the effect it had on their children.
I am against gerrymandering, it was wrong but it affected both communities whether people want to admit that or not.
That is true but remember where the factory was, I would expect similar figures of a factory on the falls road. Another branch of this factory employed mainly catholics where Protstants had to leave their jobs because of discrimination, the pub they had I beleive is still going on in Belfast. I will get back to you with more info when I find it.
I will not defend discrimination of any kind but I also know that there very well could have been cases where the best people suited the job etc. What year is the above figures from?
Nothing excuses what the ira done and I am not going to brush over any discrimination against catholics. But I want you to understand it was not all a one way street and particularly even now in the present time discrimination happens against Protestants. During the 70s and 80s for example if memory serves me local opinion of the Ballymena housing executive was that you had to be a catholic to get a job and get promoted, Ballymena as you know was a staunch Unionist town. I know quite a few people who have pretended to be catholic in recent years to gain employment, 1 even had to get a letter from a priest to prove he was still a catholic even though he left his church years ago and was baptized into the Baptist church. He 1st applied for the psni as a Protestant then when turned down as a catholic and guess what?....with the letter from the priest he got in.
As I said Unionist politicians made mistakes but so did nationalist politicians and at times things were going on that led to things not being dealt with properly. Hindsight is a wonderul thing.
That may have been the case for some catholic viewpoints but Protestants have said the same to do with them during the troubles, the first policeman was shot by loyalists. Catholic officers were afforded the opportunity to patrol near their chapels so they could attend mass, this was not afforded to Protestant officers.
Not until the 80s did I see loaylsits attack the police with the same venom nationalists attacked the police.
You are not comapring like with like here, during many protests the ira opened far, in shantallow for example they dropped a handgrenade on a policeman, 'peaceful' protestors then lay accross the road to prevent the injured officer being rushed to hospital, the armoured car had to go across rough ground so when it comes to protestors not all are poor wee innocent peace loving people, far from it and that is also well documented. Remember also these same protestors supported the murder of police officers and many would have aided in the murder of police officers in one way or another. The few times the RUC may have been heavy handed must be looked at from a bigger angle such as the events leading upto it.
I have personally seen the police stand and do nothing when parades have been attacked, after 10 years of attacks on a certain bands annual parade the band reacted resulting on the band getting baton charged and anyone standing watching was also hit, those who attacked the band and people watching were left to shout and jeer in the chapel grounds with no action against them.
I am not going to lump all catholics into this bracket as many were just like my family, hard working decent people, nor am I going to acknowledge that those protesting were simply seeking peaceful protest, it was much more sinister than that. Here is another example in 1970 Hume marched with these 'peaceful' protestors to magilligan point where he stated a United Ireland or nothing in his speech and you may wander why Unionists reacted at times like they did. Anyway these 'peaceful' protestors then burned the golden slipper bar, the same bar that the late boxer Joe Frazier sung in when he was over here, the bar was owned by a catholic but those protesting foolishly thought it was Protestant owned.
I understand the insight to some but again I am not lumping all in the same bracket. Can you understand the fears Unionists had from a United Ireland especially after the failed ira 50s campaign?
And likewise Unionist words and actions were out of despair and anger rightly or worngly.
A very sad time in our very sad history but that was still after the failed 50s campaign by the ira.
They were, I know a few who were turned down for the security forces because of a family member.
Yes and No, if loyalists were carrying out the attacks the ira were carrying out in the republic would it be feared that some members who have seen there friends and colleagues killed including their children be tempted to pass on info to say the ira to fight loyalists because the republics security forces hands were tied? Of course it would but that doesnt mean it did happen but I am not saying it didnt. Setantas brother was/is in the irish army and done joint patrols with the british, considering setantas love of the ira would it be fair to fear that he could be passing on info to setanta if say he held similar political views?? Of course it would but it doesnt mean he actually did. This is the point I am trying to make.
there must have been something consdiering his arrest.
ira memebrs were killing soldiers, even getting nurses to set them up so I think that alone would show I would be against it. But I do now ira sympathizers got employment in army bases such as doing maintainance work where they went for a drink in the officers mess after work.
I havent had time TBH.
There may have been for a few out of the thousands but I would not blame them considering the reasons I have already gave.
Not at all, I believe republicans hijacked it, Bilk is a Unionist and he was part of that movement until republicans hijacked it.
Fair point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 18, 2011 21:55:52 GMT
Got some of the info I said I would get you. The SDLP and Sinn Féin refused to enter the 'rolling devolution' assembly whcih was organized by Jim Prior in 1982.
The sdlp refused to attend talks in 1979 with the British gov.
In 1972 the sdlp refused to attend talks on the issue of devolution with power-sharing in Darlington.
|
|
