Loyalist arms and the total hypocrisy

[Wasp]

Yes I always said that and I said it again on here, but things have changed big time. I do not want a resumption of violence in anyway shape or form but loyalists who have arms etc need to be tactical to do with their decommisioning. I know sometimes my posts are reactive to some sf bullshit and may be stronger at the moment in time with my wording etc but on this I have made my position clear in my last few posts.

The most improtant thing to do with weapons is for those who have them to give fuck all and hold out for all they can. When sf truly stop the games, truly stop the idiotic provocation and stop all the lies then my feelings perhaps would no be as strong towards this subject. In all honesty sf are to blame for most of the ill feeling that is brewing within loyalism.

Even as I have said before moderate Unionists, Protestants who have no interest in politics and some of them are alliance voters are getting increasingly angered at the hypocritcal double standards of sf. If your party dopes not want this situation to get worse then they would need a strong rethink. It wasn't to long ago you were talking about winning Unionists over in the hope for a UI by 2016. Well I want to let you know that your party and its efforts have done the complete opposite. For Unionists like myself sf are doing all the work for us in preventing any soft Unionists of being won over.

You will never achieve a UI by 2116 nevermind 2016

[Wasp]

Obviously you haven't read my posts now have you?

[earl]

WASP

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.

Considering that this is now a political fight, Why are your politicians not taking it to SF? You realise that any political provocation, using the rules laid out, that is met with violence automatically hands the initiative to the former.

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.

Nothing SF are doing is worth the death of a single innocent life. There is nothing that they are doing that can't be countered in the assembly, rather than in the streets. As regards how easily the PIRA can rearm, that's a matter of debate. But in this post 9-11 world, I doubt if it would be easy. And if this is the rational for not disarming, how do you know when to disarm? You will never know what's left of the PIRA's arsenal and you'll never know if they can re-arm and how efficiently they can do it. So do you condone Loyalists permanently holding on to their weapons?

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.

So far, the dissidents seem to be a bigger threat down here than up their, and they're not too much of a threat here. It'd be great if you knew that they would target the right people, but how often in the history of NI has that happened? History tells us that the probability of an innocent getting it in a revenge attack is far higher than any other outcome.

THirdly decommisioning can be used as a bargaining tool, look what sf/ira got so why can't loyalist groups also hold out?

It was a great bargaining tool for the PIRA because the unionists made it a great bargaining tool. You will not see the same situation occur with loyalists. The British government were desperate for the PIRA to disarm. As you heard from that 'age of terror' program, the PIRA had several tonnes of high grade weaponry to hand. The sheer quantity and quality of the arms made it imperative to the British government that the PIRA had to be disarmed. The loyalists on the other hand are not seen as such a threat to national security by the British government. There is no possible way that Loyalists will get the same leverage as the PIRA did. It may not be fair, but that is how it will probably play.

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.

Then why do thoughts immediately go to terrorists, instead of political representatives?

IMHO this is exactly what republicans want.

Think about it, because you could be right here, why would they want it? There is no signs of of republican paras gearing up for anything, so why would they want it? Could it be because of the new situation that they find themselves in? Could it be another golden opportunity to label the PUL community as the aggressors? Could it be that they know that one of their former enemies, the British government, would be more lethal in dealing with Loyalist paras because they want to stop the PIRA from having any excuse from starting bombing England again, and that with the UK so firmly entrenched in the international war on terror, to save face, they would have to come down heavy on any home grown terrorists. Remember, Tony Blair has already compared Loyalists to Muslim extremists in the past, and if the (former) prime minister can say that in public, what are they thinking in private.
Maybe loyalist violence is EXACTLY what hardline 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.

So which armed illegal organisation do you support? If someone came on here and stated, "I support every PIRA action, where a legitimate target was hit and where no collateral damage was caused", what would you say? Not to put words in anyones mouth's but I think a few members here have said that in the past and it hasn't washed with you. What is different between what you are saying and this?

BUT if violence starts I will support those who are attacking my community getting a taste oif their own medicene.

Will you support the forces of law who will be trying to bring this violence to an end? How do you give support to an organisation whom you've no idea if everyone they kill will be a legitimate target? Again, other members have had similar views to this on here and it's never washed with you.

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.

Again, think about it. How hard has SF tried to get loyalists to disarm? To me, it would seem that SF are spending more time 'decommissioning' Diana mugs and half hidden statues of historical local figures than trying to disarm loyalists. Why is that?

[Wasp]

Considering that this is now a political fight, Why are your politicians not taking it to SF? You realise that any political provocation, using the rules laid out, that is met with violence automatically hands the initiative to the former.

No matter what our politicians say or do, no matter how much they do it sf manage to duck and dive out of it. Apart from that shouldn't republicans encourage there polticians to deal with it and to stop it?

Nothing SF are doing is worth the death of a single innocent life

.

I never said different.

There is nothing that they are doing that can't be countered in the assembly, rather than in the streets.

In a normal political situation I would agree but we are far from normal up here. SF/ira used violence for political gain so perhaps violence is the only thing that they can relate to and understand, because they certainly haven't a clue about respect, democracy or about trying to reach agreement on many issues. No they would rather create and maintain tensions which has been proved over and over and over again. Then they act as though butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

As regards how easily the PIRA can rearm, that's a matter of debate. But in this post 9-11 world, I doubt if it would be easy.

According to afd if memory serves it owuld only take a few weeks for the ira to rearm or words to that affect. If I am wrong in saying that or took afd up worng then I apologize. Earl I think we all know that the governments haven't the balls to come right out and say what the ira havebeen involved in since there ceasefire which includes a number of brutal murders. While they are not like what they used to be for the time being, these deaths and the criminality proves they are still a threat.

And if this is the rational for not disarming, how do you know when to disarm?

It is not the only reason for not disarming so to explain it as such is impossible.

You will never know what's left of the PIRA's arsenal and you'll never know if they can re-arm and how efficiently they can do it.

I agree and with liars like McGuinness at the helm how could we ever know what is true.

So do you condone Loyalists permanently holding on to their weapons?

Leave out the word permanently, remove those who claim to be loyalists but are far from it etc then I don't just condone it, I support it. 6 months or so ago I wanted them to disarm, I stated so but not now.

So far, the dissidents seem to be a bigger threat down here than up their, and they're not too much of a threat here. It'd be great if you knew that they would target the right people, but how often in the history of NI has that happened?

All to often those killed were innocent and those innocent people were the targets. But we both know that loyalists did start to hit the right targets alot more often upto the ira ceasefire.

History tells us that the probability of an innocent getting it in a revenge attack is far higher than any other outcome.

That is mistakes intended or not that cannot happen again but let's pray that we never ever have to see anyone being attacked as a reality.

It was a great bargaining tool for the PIRA because the unionists made it a great bargaining tool. You will not see the same situation occur with loyalists.

I pretty much agree with you here.

The British government were desperate for the PIRA to disarm. As you heard from that 'age of terror' program, the PIRA had several tonnes of high grade weaponry to hand. The sheer quantity and quality of the arms made it imperative to the British government that the PIRA had to be disarmed. The loyalists on the other hand are not seen as such a threat to national security by the British government.

Of course they are not and if you read my posts I said that loyalist decommisioning wouldn't be on the same level of importance as sf/ira decommisioning unless of course the loyalist groups political wings gain much support from Protestants as sf/ira did from Catholics.

There is no possible way that Loyalists will get the same leverage as the PIRA did. It may not be fair, but that is how it will probably play.

Again as things stand I agree.

Then why do thoughts immediately go to terrorists, instead of political representatives?

I am not to sure what you mean here but I will take a go at answering what I think you mean. First of all the largest Unionist party lied and scaremongered people to get where they are now and IMHO they will only get their votes if it means to keep shinners out in certain areas. The lying dupers have let the Unionist people down more than anyother party in recent years so it is my opinion that Unionist parties or rather those that are elected are going through a transitional period. Power sharing happened way to soon, it happened with the likes of that bastard McGuinness still lying through his teeth etc. What we have now is probably more tensions than what we had before the ira ceasefire and that is down to sf and the games they are playing. The blatant lies and crap that sf are doing are not those of a party fit for gov. nevermind there terrorist pasts.

Think about it, because you could be right here, why would they want it? There is no signs of of republican paras gearing up for anything, so why would they want it? Could it be because of the new situation that they find themselves in? Could it be another golden opportunity to label the PUL community as the aggressors? Could it be that they know that one of their former enemies, the British government, would be more lethal in dealing with Loyalist paras because they want to stop the PIRA from having any excuse from starting bombing England again, and that with the UK so firmly entrenched in the international war on terror, to save face, they would have to come down heavy on any home grown terrorists.

Earl these are assumptions, not facts. The British gov. has jailed hundreds of loyalists and security force members were burnt out of there homes, the police violently attacked by loyalists etc etc, so IMO that won't make one bit of a difference.

Remember, Tony Blair has already compared Loyalists to Muslim extremists in the past, and if the (former) prime minister can say that in public, what are they thinking in private.

And he is a wanker, maybe his wife and her family brainwashed him with there onesided hate filled views. Then again we have had the Irish president and certain catholic clergy compare us to nazis etc. So if we have to go alone then we will and that means against the British gov. if we have to.

Maybe loyalist violence is EXACTLY what hardline republicans want.

I take it you are including sf as hardline republicans, because that is the message we are certainly getting from them up here and that is for loyalist violence to happen. They are certainly pushing the right buttons for it.

So which armed illegal organisation do you support? If someone came on here and stated, "I support every PIRA action, where a legitimate target was hit and where no collateral damage was caused", what would you say?

Being a loyalist what do you think I would say for goodness sake.

Not to put words in anyones mouth's but I think a few members here have said that in the past and it hasn't washed with you. What is different between what you are saying and this?

Earl I have made my position crystal clear, I have made my reasons crystal clear. Now when the ira were purposely targeting Protestant men, women and children, when they killed unarmed members of the securty forces infront of their own families, when they tried to blow the heart out of Ulster (well the mainly Unionist part anyway) etc etc thyen perhaps loyalists should have continued targeting those who deserved it until they got some just revenge at least.

We have republicans on here who condemn a Catholic being burned to death after being attacked by loyalists but not a Protestant being burned to death after being attacked by republicans, we have republcians here that refuse to condemn any ira attack no matter how brutalit was, we have republicans on here who's mindset is unbelievable and it is like talking to a brick wall trying to reason with them etc etc etc. Now there is a different ball game concerning republican violence and the feeble cowardly excuses that republicans on here use in their support for the ira. Along with what sf are really doing up here with there provocative nature do you really think loyalists are going to let things get too close to a UI? And that isn't forgetting the treatment of Irish Protestants in the republic by republicans. That BTW comes from Irish Protestants who would be Unionist in nature concerning up here. Do you think loyalists won't eventually snap at sf's behaviour towards there identity, culture and equality?

Will you support the forces of law who will be trying to bring this violence to an end?

What violence are you referring to and by whom?

How do you give support to an organisation whom you've no idea if everyone they kill will be a legitimate target?

While I don't mind the questions etc Earl, I didn't see you give such questions to those who refused to condemn the worst ira atrocities on here, then bleat on about peace etc.

Again, other members have had similar views to this on here and it's never washed with you.

Again you never reacted with them the way you have with me. What am I meant to take from that?

Again, think about it. How hard has SF tried to get loyalists to disarm?

Not too hard because IMO they want loyalsit violence aslong as they are not on the receiving end.

To me, it would seem that SF are spending more time 'decommissioning' Diana mugs and half hidden statues of historical local figures than trying to disarm loyalists. Why is that?

I fuckin pissed myself at that. ;D ;D ;D Cracker ;D ;D

[Jim]

"He shoots he scores" This topic is about as relevant as landing on the moon, what has it turned into? I support loyalist bullets, I do not support loyalist bullets.

Instead we should be looking at why Wasp doesnt want the UVF and UDA to decommission, at why we do want them to decommission, at why it hasnt happened yet, and create situations on how it should and will happen.

If we want so sit and slabber about Sinn Fein, there are plenty of topics to do it at, its very clear that Sinn Fein are not the reason the UVF hasnt decommissioned, there are a lot of reasons they haven't, I would suspect Sinn Fein are at the bottom of the list, and I would put anti social behaviour at the top of that list, with lads from east belfast telling me that loyalists actively put an end to it in their areas, and all I can say is I wish the 'Ra would do the same thing.

[earl]

WASP,

No matter what our politicians say or do, no matter how much they do it sf manage to duck and dive out of it.

Well then, vote for politicians that can deal with SF. It's an even battleground in the assembly. If Sf are running rings around them, it's not because of any advantage.

Apart from that shouldn't republicans encourage there polticians to deal with it and to stop it?

I'd say as many republicans will be as worried by this in the north as there was unionists worried about the flags and emblems act. Both communities do not seem to really care for each other up there unfortunately.

I never said different.

But in supporting illegal organisations having arms, you certainly are supporting the higher probability of an innocent being killed, and the way things are going, it'll more than likely be an innocent from the PUL community, either directly by being shot, or indirectly through drugs or other illegal and harmful operations within your community. The guns and organised crime are intrinsically linked. You can't approve of one use while knowing full well that the same organisation has other uses of these weapons.

In a normal political situation I would agree but we are far from normal up here. SF/ira used violence for political gain so perhaps violence is the only thing that they can relate to and understand, because they certainly haven't a clue about respect, democracy or about trying to reach agreement on many issues. No they would rather create and maintain tensions which has been proved over and over and over again. Then they act as though butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

In a normal political situation, supporting the use of illegal arms for political means is not democratic, so how can you have a go at SF about this when you are in the same boat? The assembly is just up a year and already the trigger finger is itchy in your community, so how come there seems to be a complete lack of gumption within the PUL community to beat SF at their own game?

According to afd if memory serves it owuld only take a few weeks for the ira to rearm or words to that affect. If I am wrong in saying that or took afd up worng then I apologize. Earl I think we all know that the governments haven't the balls to come right out and say what the ira havebeen involved in since there ceasefire which includes a number of brutal murders. While they are not like what they used to be for the time being, these deaths and the criminality proves they are still a threat.

I read a really interesting article on this in last months magill magazine on the antics of the PIRA since their first cease fire and how murders of people on this island (or from this island) were brushed over, but it was a taboo for anyone from Britain (the island) to get murdered. The article explains how the PIRA got away with so much by the British government. If I get a chance, I'll type it out for here.
There is also another article in the magazine, written by a unionist councillor which suggests a new political strategy for the unionist parties. Weapons are not involved and it is a strategy which uses the democratic tools currently available to them. Again, I'll try and type it out if I get a chance.

All to often those killed were innocent and those innocent people were the targets. But we both know that loyalists did start to hit the right targets alot more often upto the ira ceasefire.

And we both know that the first causality of illegally armed gangs is the community in which they operate from. Wasn't there a kid killed recently up there from being sold dodgy drugs? Where did those drugs come from and how are those people still able to operate? The guns keep people silent. You can't pick and choose who carries a gun, so if you accept a certain amount of illegal weapons, you have to acknowledge the rest that get used for other uses.

That is mistakes intended or not that cannot happen again but let's pray that we never ever have to see anyone being attacked as a reality.

It takes more than prayer. It takes willpower and control. God will never stop a bullet from killing an innocent. Common sense can stop it from being fired in the first place.

First of all the largest Unionist party lied and scaremongered people to get where they are now and IMHO they will only get their votes if it means to keep shinners out in certain areas. The lying dupers have let the Unionist people down more than anyother party in recent years so it is my opinion that Unionist parties or rather those that are elected are going through a transitional period. Power sharing happened way to soon, it happened with the likes of that bastard McGuinness still lying through his teeth etc. What we have now is probably more tensions than what we had before the ira ceasefire and that is down to sf and the games they are playing. The blatant lies and crap that sf are doing are not those of a party fit for gov. nevermind there terrorist pasts.

The DUP played it cute alright during those elections. They were deliberately vague on where they stood. In a democracy, the only option open to you legally is to not vote for them again. And I hate to break the news to you WASP, but it doesn't matter where you are in the world and what you are committed to, all politicians lie. Now, I know that some lies in NI are on another scale entirely but the day I hear of an honest politician who does what he says, as he says, I'll probably keel over from disbelief.

And he is a wanker, maybe his wife and her family brainwashed him with there onesided hate filled views.

Why are you accusing his wife and her family? Have you heard something?

I take it you are including sf as hardline republicans, because that is the message we are certainly getting from them up here and that is for loyalist violence to happen. They are certainly pushing the right buttons for it.

So why give them what they want?

Being a loyalist what do you think I would say for goodness sake.

Regardless of what you would say, you'd be morally in the same boat as him.

do you really think loyalists are going to let things get too close to a UI?

They wouldn't accept home rule in the last century, so I don't expect them to accept a UI by consent this time. Do you think the threat of loyalist violence would stop a UI?

Do you think loyalists won't eventually snap at sf's behaviour towards there identity, culture and equality?

I think that if they do, they are handing game and set to SF. They are now on the policing board and heavily involved in the running of NI. All SF have to say to the British government is "Take care of these guys, and we'll try and keep the PIRA out of it". That'll be enough. The British government would be desperate not to see the violence escalate, so I can't see it helping the PUL community in this scenario. If history (and recent events) are anything to go by, the entire PUL community would be treated as suspects.

What violence are you referring to and by whom?

You have stated that you support the use of illegal weapons in certain situations. These situations will be tackled by the forces of law. Will you support them?

While I don't mind the questions etc Earl, I didn't see you give such questions to those who refused to condemn the worst ira atrocities on here, then bleat on about peace etc.

Probably because they have always held those views and have articulated their points. You on the other hand, even on this post have stated that you've only recently changed your mind. You claim that there are many like you in your community, so I'm just trying to find out what's going on 'behind enemy lines'.

Not too hard because IMO they want loyalsit violence aslong as they are not on the receiving end.

Indeed. And whop is on the receiving end at the moment. It's certainly not anyone who'd be voting SF, that's for sure!

I fuckin pissed myself at that. ;D ;D ;D Cracker ;D ;D

I'm glad you got some mirth out of it. I knew you'd appreciate the humour in it. But can you see the point underneath? SF have put no effort into trying to get loyalists to disarm. Why do you think that is?

[Wasp]

Apr 30, 2008 9:57:53 GMT @setanta said:

WASP, ask yourself, is the playing feild level on a political level? Does one side have an advantage over another?

If you believe, yes, then please explain.
If you believe , no, then why the need for guns?

You have a neck on you asking me to explain anything. I will answer as I choose and th way I want to blah blah.

[Wasp]

May 1, 2008 7:46:17 GMT @setanta said:

I'd look weird if I didn't have a neck.
I've answered all your questions or pointed you in the direction of answers.

Absolute bullshit, you have answered those that suit you, those that don't you answer a complete different question that was never asked with the usual waffle. Maybe you could just post 'no comment or refuse to answer' instead of answering a question that was never asked.

[Harry]

Its impossible for Loyalist guns to be handed in. There are so many issues within Loyalism and i really struggle to see half of them as even being loyalists. Perhaps the UVF would be the most stable group and they may be in the position to influence membership but the UDA is fractured with different brigades having different views.

Its armed Criminals. Its Gang warfare.

Loyalism has taken a backseat for a long time.

[Shades40]

*BREAKING NEWS*

UVF claim.......... "If we had in our arms how will we tie our shoelaces?"

[Jim]

May 2, 2008 9:01:05 GMT Harry said:

Its impossible for Loyalist guns to be handed in. There are so many issues within Loyalism and i really struggle to see half of them as even being loyalists. Perhaps the UVF would be the most stable group and they may be in the position to influence membership but the UDA is fractured with different brigades having different views.

Its armed Criminals. Its Gang warfare.

Loyalism has taken a backseat for a long time.

Mate, Republicans had instability and breakaways threatening (and followed through) to create mayhem. It didn't stop us from giving up the guns and the only way you can get rid of any thugs in loyalism is to take away what protects them and makes people fear them.