|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 24, 2008 23:18:24 GMT
Yes quite setanta turn it around and blame me, I expected you to continue ducking and diving anyway.
But you can't condmen many of there actions that fall into the category of things that you wouldn't have supported. Overall you supported the butchering of my community, my neighbours, my family and friends along with the destruction of mainly Unionist towns. And let's not forget the removal of isolated Protestant communities in and around the border that the security forces had to protect.
Oh thats right there was no democratic alternative until the ira said so, there was nothing in place that could have been built on etc. Funny the other parties and governments thought different and pleaded with those opposed to democracy to stop the violence.
I thought we were talking about terrorists here targeting innocent people with their bombs including children taking part in a boys/girls parade. Obviously you can't answer or face those points put to you now can you. Just keep avoiding and waffling.
You see here we go again with your usual diflecting rants, yes the loyalists DID target innocent people all to often and SO DID the ira but you can't admit that or face that. Instead you use every lying excuse in the book to try and excuse the inexcusable.
Thats rich coming from a member of a party that was totally opposed to democracy, that commemorates dissidents from the failed 50's campaign etc etc when it took your paty and their ilk over 3 decades to realize that the ballot box was the way forward and not the ballot box in one hand and the armalite on the other.
As much as I detest Paisley there is no way on earth he is in the same league as McGuinness nor did he do anything that curly was guilty of. But as usual just keep trying to diflect from my posts.
Didn't hume meet adams many times and I am sure he knew the colour of his paper but that means zilch. What Paisley wanted and what he got are 2 different things, what curly wanted and what he got were exactly as he intended.
Not once have I blamed all ills on sinn fein, stop being so dramatic or is it the usual ploy to difflect from what I am saying?
Could you shout a wee bit louder. BTW why have you answered hardly any of my points, why do you keep ducking and diving, why do you keep transferring any blmae etc etc?
NOW WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN THAT WERE TO BE TARGETED IN A REMOTE BORDER VILLAGE WITH A MUCH LARGER BOMB THAN ENNISKILLEN, THERE WERE ONLY 3 MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY FORCES LAYING WREATHS, THE REST WERE CHILDREN FORM 6 YEARS OLD. HAVE YOU ANYTHING TO SAY ON THAT AT ALL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 10:03:36 GMT
No you did not, you avoided and ducked and dived around them. Maybe you didn't see the large writing at the end of my last post or maybe you are just doing the usual by avoiding answering them by going off on some waffle trying to diflect from the issue.
Only thing you have repeated is waffle without answering my main points.
Thta's it just keep waffling and avoiding what was posted, thought you were more man than that.
I was going to paint the outside of my house but couldn't pick a colour so I asked a neighbour what he thought, but because he was from a nationalist background he gave me a list of colours he seen as neutral and that he wouldn't be offended at. So I didn't bother, instead I read up on the latest joke book, its all about sinn fein challenging there opponents and pushing forward on some of there mandates. The funniest parts are reading there answers when questions are put to them unless of course the questions promote there line of thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 10:18:24 GMT
McGuinness' lies corrupt politics
(by Liam Clarke, News Letter)
In most democracies, Martin McGuinness would face an official inquiry for bringing the office of First and Deputy First Minister into disrepute.
It's not so much that he was an IRA leader; everybody knows that terrorists can become politicians or even statesmen – it's better than the alternative of staying terrorists.
The problem with McGuinness is that his constant denials of his past are believed by neither his friends nor his foes. They not only undermine his own credibility but also make a mockery of Sinn Féin's demands for the truth about the past.
This week Peter Taylor, the respected BBC journalist, made the unsurprising claim that as head of the IRA's Northern Command McGuinness sanctioned the Enniskillen bombing.
"The allegations made in this programme are completely false and are entirely based on untrue briefings from faceless individuals in the intelligence apparatus long hostile to Sinn Féin" McGuinness blustered after refusing to appear on air, dismissing claims linking him to the IRA Northern Command as "a securocrat fantasy".
Is McGuinness implying that the PSNI and Garda officers who Taylor interviewed should be dismissed out of hand? If so, then how can Sinn Féin support the police?
Questioning everybody's motives is just McGuinness's stock response to criticism. When my wife Kathy Johnston and I wrote a biography of him, the script was very similar -a solicitor's letter when we asked for an interview to check facts; venomous attacks on our motives and sources when we published.
We carried a similar account of McGuinness's role in Enniskillen. Following the importation of weaponry from Libya, McGuinness and Adams devised the "ballot and armalite" strategy, which enabled them to make political changes, such as the dropping of abstentionism, while still giving the IRA hard men their head.
We wrote that on 20th October 1986, McGuinness was arrested near Smithborough, Co Monaghan, where, Gardai believed, he had just been appointed OC of the IRA Northern Command with a brief to escalate the campaign.
Last year Brendan "the Dark" Hughes, a former senior IRA man, added to the picture. He told me he had carried out an internal review of the IRA's capacity in 1986. Hughes concluded that, although well armed, the IRA lacked the training to successfully escalate its campaign. He was overruled at a Northern Command meeting in Donegal, where McGuinness insisted on upping the violence. The result was the failed attack on Loughgall police station of May 1987 in which 8 IRA men, all the top operators in East Tyrone, and two innocent passersby, were cut down by the SAS.
Fermanagh IRA then received McGuinness's permission to target three Poppy Day commemorations, including Enniskillen. Taylor states that McGuinness visited Fermanagh shortly before the massacre; we found that three weeks later, as part of the investigation, McGuinness's home in Londonderry was raided.
These cynical, ill conceived attacks continued as the IRA kept widening its list of targets to include civil servants and people who supplied goods to the security forces. By the end of the year the Irish Congress of Trades Unions estimated that 40,000 people now fell into the category of legitimate targets, but still the IRA kept killing people not on the list.
This all happened on McGuinness's watch and was part of a political strategy which claimed many lives. It's hard for him to discuss it now but in 2003, when he gave evidence at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, McGuinness had the perfect opportunity to put the record straight about his membership of the IRA.
Under Lord Saville's rules, a witness could not have been prosecuted on the basis of any statement made in the Inquiry. If McGuinness had told the truth, even in broad outline, he could later have referred Taylor and other questioners back to his evidence, thus gaining respect. Instead he insisted under cross examination "I left the IRA in the early part of the 1970s."
When I put it to Hughes that his recollection of McGuinness's insistence on more attacks in 1986 contradicted McGuinness's sworn evidence that he had resigned from the IRA in the 70s, Hughes replied ""He will have to answer that question himself. When people get caught up in lies, they have to continue with the lies."
"Continuing with lies" may be the least risky option for McGuinness, but it corrupts the entire political process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 10:41:03 GMT
In the programme Taylor discusses the attempted murders of the BB and GB at Tullyhommon and his interviewee states that the IRA regarded them as legitimate targets as they were part of the “Protestant community in Fermanagh” and we all know that that is true and exactly what it means. Mention is also made that that was a command wire device which would have meant that an IRA “volunteer” would have stood and pressed a button whilst watching to see the BB and GB children die. A tractor drove over the command wire and the driver inknowingly saved countless childrens lives.
I don't like doing what you would call insults but you insult us each and everytime you post your crap about the ira not targeting civillians etc in the face of decades of proof.
The majority of your posts have been an insult to me and my community, and I was not digging your party, I was stating the truth with facts. If you take that is digs then that is up to you but I am not going to sit here keeping my mouth shut while your party are doing what they are doing. If you have a problem with hwat is being said about your party then take it up with them, the problem does not lie within Unionist opinion, it clearly lies within your party and if your party cannot stop itself , cannot act repsonsibly and maturely on these matters then that is a problem for you and your party. As a member of the Unionist community I am pointing out facts on sinn fein and there blatant idiotic hypocrisy, so the problem does not lie with me it lies with sinn fein themselves.
There is a big waiting list for it but I will get it to you eventually. Oh I understand it very clearly, radio Ulster usually has a comedy hour on the morning with sinn fein reps spouting off with the usual waffle and then everyone forgets what the original question was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 13:50:23 GMT
I actully thought better of retailiating and removed the post you're quoting. I won't edit your post though. We can go on and on with this if you like but what are acheiving? What are you posting that's new? What are you achieving by not answering my points, I gave you the info on the childrens parade and still you avoid it. When are you going to post something new and actually answer what I asked concerning this parade in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 14:15:34 GMT
 And that has what to do with the points I made??? The same people who have lost many loved ones thanks to sinn fein, the same people who's children were seen as legitimate targets thanks to sinn fein and its leaders etc etc etc. Fuck me you don't half try and duck and dive out of questions etc. But since I like to do my best to respond to peoples points I will respond to this one unlike yourself. I have said myself sf are a hard working party whether I agree with there politics or not, I have no doubt that they have done some good work, no doubt at all and I do care about these things no matter what you assume. But setanta these are not the things I am talkking about, but you as usual try to avoid the points I made by belating on about the good things sf have done while ignoring what I have said. Typical response and you sound exactly like the comedy show on radio Ulster where they avoid the points made and bleat on about something else. Hope I have now covered the point you made here. Usual avoidance, I have already said about what the loyalsits did by tarhgeting innocent people but you can't bringyourself to say likewise. Fuck me, you must have been on radio ulster, total avoidance and IMO the reason is simple, you are not man enough to talk about it, face it or admit it. You would rather brush it under the carpet and keep changing the subject, that is unless it concerns republicans killed where you are calling for enquiries etc. Just shows your blatant double standards with your only republican victims are important and worth answering questions on and discussing. Why don't you apply the same spin and waffle when it concerns republican terrorists who died or those that represent them??? We will see about that, and no matter how you try, your cohorts in sf try etc to continue to brush these issues under the carpet and avoid the questions the more people like me will repeat them over and over and over again. With the spotlight being on those in gov. and them being under increased scrutiny it will be your party that has to deal with the pressure, not me or those like me. Again I will answer your point as it IMO is common courtesy. First and foremost those who claim to be loyalists need to be kicked into touch as they don't represent me. While there is a threat from dissidents then at least them having weapons gives the dissidents something to think about as loyalists will eventually hit back. While sf are behaving on certain things as they are doing loyalists need to show that they are not falling for sf spin and deceit by buying into there crap, and believe me sf is doing plenty to further this opinion among loyalists by there provocative, idiotic and hypocritical ways (which have been named here many times, in which even republicans thought they were silly and daft). As well as that they could be used in the future as a bargaining token just as sf/ira done. You will see that not once in my posts do I want a return to violence, not once do I want anyone to be killed and TBH I find it totally hypocritical of you to question anyone about wanting violence to return/continue or there support for weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 14:19:34 GMT
Now does this not make you sound a bit like Paisley, didn't you condemn me for saying I would sympathize with loyalists hitting the right targets but not innocent people etc, didn't you say you either support them or you don't or words like that, didn't you say I sound more like Paisley by condemning those who done bad things but praising those who done good things. You are eating your own words here.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 25, 2008 14:55:34 GMT
WASP, we've had it out on this thread and hopefully, have gotten it all out of our systems. Setanta has wisely deleted the petty insults that we traded, so lets also blank the canvas and begin again.
The main reason I was so angry with you was not just about your support of 'good Loyalists', it was more about the reason that throughout your time here, you've always made clear where you stood on murder. I was genuinely shocked when you said you supported Loyalists keeping their guns.
Can you not see the paradox? How can you support an armed illegal organisation, whom you've openly confirmed were killing people because of their religion, and yet be against murder?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 21:19:06 GMT
Agreed.
As you know I have had plenty of arguements with loyalists concerning some of the actions taken by the group/groups they support. My record is crystal clear on that. I have always said that if the ira killed someone, then a provo was killed by whoever then it is simply a taste of their own medicene. I always stated that the security forces should have been let to fight the ira properly instead of there hands tied behind their backs. I never have or never will condone the murder of anyone because of their religion. Many loyalists were angered just like me when an innocent Catholic was targeted but from some loyalist points of view it was just paying back the ira for targeting innocent Protestants.
Many loyalists wanted the ira and their ilk targeted not Catholics because they were Catholic and actions like those dropped much of the support these groups had. People wanted there areas to be protected, they wanted loyalists to hit back at the ira and their ilk, not what happened all to often.
Concerning weapons today you have to look at the bigger picture. We have seen sf constantly provoke and anger loyalists, constantly being totally hypocritical and telling blatant lies. They all to often have created and maintained tensions then try to act as somekind of peacemaker while at the sametime still provoking those they claim to be trying to sort things out with. For me enough is enough and believe me there are many many like me. Why should loyalists hand over any weapons when sf are treating our community the way they are, while the ira have still got some weapons at least and while the ira could easily rearm in a few weeks.
Secondly there is the trheat from dissidents and the way my community feels they would want loyalist groups to hit right back. But again not some innocent target, but those who are actively involved in targeting or aiding the attacks on my community and in all honesty there would be no shortage of recruits IMO.
THirdly decommisioning can be used as a bargaining tool, look what sf/ira got so why can't loyalist groups also hold out? My community is being treated like shite and there concerns/fears/demands eetc etc take a back seat as for years it was everything being done to appease republicans and still is. I do not want a return to violence but the way things are going BECAUSE of sf/ira then that is exactly what I see happening. IMHO this is exactly what republicans want.
I cannot support any organisation that has not true loyalists in there ranks, by that I mean those who are interested in bullying my community, peddling drugs and trying to control my community and God help those who fall foul of them. As I have said I COULD NEVER support anyone being killed because of there religion and that is one strategy that should never have been adopted, and I never will. BUT if violence starts I will support those who are attacking my community getting a taste oif their own medicene. That is a last resort, until my community gets the respect they deserve, victims get the recognition and the truth that they deserve then no loyalist group who are loyal to Ulster should give one single bullet to further appease the ongoing republican agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 25, 2008 21:44:23 GMT
Well as I said the bomb was 4 or 5 times as big as Enniskillen and the parade was made up of children as young as six. This operation did not surprize those living in the border areas as they were all to aware of how the ira targeted their isolated communities.
I do not want any killing to happen again but setanta you fail to understand the anger within my community and in all honesty your party is to blame for most if not all of that anger with some of the things they are doing.
Those who want that can goto fuck. There is at last a more togetherness in my community where people are speaking out more and some groups are beginning to listen to the people. Do I want drug peddling, bullying cowardly bastards representing my community in anything? No I don't, they can goto fuck and the sooner the better.
I am not being smart here but they are no different from the ira campaign in the 50's. While there is a threat, while mainstream republicans are doing everything to erode my culture, to provoke my community and trying to erode our Britishness then I see that equally as a threat. In the event of a UI as things stand then I pray those with the knowledge will take up arms and fight against it, now you can't complain about that taking your support for the ira over the years.
See answer above.
That is not the point, infact it doesn't matter who it is up to, it is sinn feins place to sort it and stop it.
The peace process is not about denying my community there culture and identity, it is not about creating tensions and maintaining them, it is not about telling blatant lies, it is not about demanding ansers when it suits and then duck and dive when the questions show sf to be in a bad light, its not about one party using total blatant hypocricy and double standards etc etc. If it is then this is no peace process, it is a farce that I do not want.
No setanta it was when the ira decided that the time for the gun had passed not everyone because everyone else had realized that decades ago apart from loyalist paramilitaries etc. Again your wording is trying to put sf on the same level as all the other parties and governments when they were far from it, sf wanted the gun and the ballot box while all the other parties from bothsides wanted an immediate end to violence. Basically what you are saying is that now the ira have claimed an end to violence then everyone else should. Setanta why should other groups including dissident republicans go by what the ira says and what sf says? sf/ira never listened to the rest of the parties and the majority of people for over 3 decades so don't you think it isa tad hypocritical fo sf to suddenly demand everyine else follow suit.
The BA an dthe police have always dealt with loyalist violence, they jailed hundreds of loyalists, infact if you know anything about the loyalist community there never has been any great love by the paramilitaries for the police, they see them as traitors etc. Off duty police men have been kicked to death by loyalists, some have been left disabled by loyalists where one in particular was dragged outside a pub and his head was used as a football as they practiced penalty shots. The hatred shown for the police has been seen many many times from various loyalist groups and there supporters. So for loyalists this will be no different
I have made it clear I always supported the police infact I wish when the intelligence services were listening in on an ira meeting, instead of listening they should have taken them out in whatever way they could, Isreali style. I made it crystal clear why I never supported loyalist paramilitaries because targeting innocent catholics made them no differnt than the ira targeting innocent Portestants. But now things are changing and anger and resentment is growing daily. I can honestly see a new thinking within loyalism if violence starts and this is what I am on about, nothing else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Apr 26, 2008 4:48:35 GMT
am not being smart here but they are no different from the ira campaign in the 50's. While there is a threat, while mainstream republicans are doing everything to erode my culture, to provoke my community and trying to erode our Britishness then I see that equally as a threat. In the event of a UI as things stand then I pray those with the knowledge will take up arms and fight against it, now you can't complain about that taking your support for the ira over the years.
But then if espouse that line you lose your own right to stand on the moral high ground and become neither better or worse in your outlook than Setanta or I. Also, it's interesting to note that unionism insists NI exsists largely because the majority of people in the north democratically wish it do*and republicanism therefore from that point of view has no rationale woth exploring. But it's worth noticing the minute the majority might decide they didn't wish it to exist in it's present form violence become perfectly acceptable. Interesting concept of democracy here...
*As pointed out time and again though of course since the state was not founded in a democratic manner that argument falls flat on it's face before it even gets off the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 26, 2008 20:36:46 GMT
I totally disagree BA, TOTALLY.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Apr 27, 2008 21:57:43 GMT
Wasp said: "I do not want any killing to happen again but setanta you fail to understand the anger within my community and in all honesty your party is to blame for most if not all of that anger with some of the things they are doing."
It's an amazing thing about NI that while republican violence is caused by among other things: Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Nationalists who voted for SF, the British Government selling out Unionists, the conniving Irish Government and even the poeple of the republic who gave succour to IRA terrorists, Loyalist violence is caused only by Sinn Fein. F*cking amazing logic really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 28, 2008 6:59:52 GMT
Wasp said: "I do not want any killing to happen again but setanta you fail to understand the anger within my community and in all honesty your party is to blame for most if not all of that anger with some of the things they are doing." It's an amazing thing about NI that while republican violence is caused by among other things: Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Nationalists who voted for SF, the British Government selling out Unionists, the conniving Irish Government and even the poeple of the republic who gave succour to IRA terrorists, Loyalist violence is caused only by Sinn Fein. F*cking amazing logic really. Thats a dangerious logic BH because it can assume that nationalists and myself are the real threat to the loyalist community which would legitimise 30 years of brutal killings by them onto my community. I'm just waiting for the "sure look what yous did to us" line, but I've kept out of this topic on purpose until that post, my opinion on loyalists guns is that they will give them up when the time is right and lets remember that the UVF and UDA are not a threat to the British state so it was obvious they would want the IRA to give up weapons first. That, and the IRA had a much more effective, and proven so, military capability, so it was in the interests of the Army to get the IRA to stop once and for all, it was not so much an interest to get loyalists to stop as even their contacts in the world werent as far reaching as the IRAs for proper equipment, training and even motivation to carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 28, 2008 13:51:13 GMT
And I have said what I had to say and all I see from yourself is hypocricy. You can take from my posts that I am being a total contradicting hypocirte (I am not saying you said that) etc because as long as I know what I mean it doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks of what I said. I have been clear on my current opinion.
|
|
