|
Post by Wasp on Nov 22, 2007 22:00:59 GMT
I am not brushing their imcompetence, I have stated my position clearly and in no way defend such actions by them. But saying that some are playing the religious card is not brushing off anything, it is simply stating all the facts surrounding this case or infact any other similar case no matter what side the morons come from.
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Nov 22, 2007 22:01:43 GMT
Fair points about linking it with Kosovo and i totally understand its not even near the same scale and accept its not comparable but its hard to emphasise the extent of the attacks and the scale of hatred being directed at the OO. It appears some are only interested in finding reasons to discredit the OO and dismiss any attempts at negotiations. No matter what that sentence means the fact is there should of been some response from the residents and you know it setanta.
I'm sick of this term Loyalist being thrown about at any willy nilly. A drug dealer who lives in a Protestant area is suddenly a Loyalist Drug dealer, some thugs beat someone up and they are Loyalist thugs etc etc. Anyone dealing drugs is no Loyalist and is the enemy of Loyalism, thugs who randomnly attack people are just thugs and can't be called Loyalists. Its about time Loyalism rejected these vermin and banished them to fuck out of our communities.
All we get on here when the shoe is on the other foot is they aren't true republicans, they don't honour our republican principles, they are this that and the other. Truth is our society is riddled with scum no matter what label we give them to try and suit our own agendas
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Nov 22, 2007 22:07:28 GMT
i think that's a fair point harry - if we republicans can claim those who sully our principles do not represent republicianism it's only courtesy to extend that to loyalists
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 23, 2007 22:46:00 GMT
Sorry setanta my mistake. But that honestly was not what I was implying or meant to be implying. Those attacked could have been perfectly innocent, attacked for any reason rather than the usual sectarian excuses to attack someone. But it is also possible that those attacked or some of were attacked because they did cause trouble against the Unionist community, maybe revenge or whatever. BUT THAT does not excuse the sickening attack or the response or rather non response from the police.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 24, 2007 20:53:35 GMT
I am not implying anything, you are taking it that I am, I clearly stated what could be or what could not be. You are turning what I said to mean something else not me.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 26, 2007 22:15:16 GMT
I also stated that they could not be or did you miss that part? So then I am also implying according to you that they couldn't be.
|
|