Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

They fought and died for our freedom


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#121 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,919 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.


That happens in every war.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#122 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 05:37 PM

I don't think he is saying that - I don't think anyone is under any illusions about what the Loyalist groups got up to (with a little help from their friends?).

The argument is that although the Republican Movement, in the form of PIRA and Sinn Fein, was ostensibly a secular movement, it did sometimes act in a sectarian way.

Having stopped all three (Adam, McGuinness & Paisley) at a VCP during the 70's only one was abusive towards the soldiers and he was the Loyalist one, I was also there during the period when the PIRA attacked the OIRA and got a bloody nose.

As bad as the PIRA where they always gave a bomb warning where the Loyalists never.
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#123 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:30 PM

The fact that Adams and McGuinness were polite isn't the point.

The loyalists didn't use bombs much (at least not since the 70s), they shot people. The IRA used bombs and shot people.

But it's not a contest. The IRA don't get to be nice guys even if the loyalists were worse.

#124 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:31 PM

That happens in every war.


Not usually deliberately. That generally comes under the heading of "war crimes".

#125 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:58 PM

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.


That will be the Christian religion in most cases.

#126 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:09 PM

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.


IIRC, the biggest killer of Catholics during "The Troubles" was PIRA.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#127 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:29 PM

Having stopped all three (Adam, McGuinness & Paisley) at a VCP during the 70's only one was abusive towards the soldiers and he was the Loyalist one, I was also there during the period when the PIRA attacked the OIRA and got a bloody nose.

As bad as the PIRA where they always gave a bomb warning where the Loyalists never.


They didn't always give adequate warnings.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#128 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:35 PM

IIRC, the biggest killer of Catholics during "The Troubles" was PIRA.


True. Still the loyalists were worse though because Paiseley was rude. Not that Paiseley was a loyalist, he was a hardline unionist that on occasion flirted with loyalism.

But in most cases the IRA targetted Protestants and unsurprisingly most of their civilian victims were Protestants.

#129 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,149 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:34 PM

They didn't always give adequate warnings.


Indeed not.

But they were polite so, y'know, you can forgive them the murder of several thousand people.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#130 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,919 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:02 AM

. Not that Paiseley was a loyalist, he was a hardline unionist that on occasion flirted with loyalism.


the difference being? In the context of Northern Ireland Loyalist and Unionist are the same thing. Your ignorance of the historical, political and religious background to the troubles is quite astounding.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#131 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:53 AM

the difference being? In the context of Northern Ireland Loyalist and Unionist are the same thing. Your ignorance of the historical, political and religious background to the troubles is quite astounding.


No, they aren't that's like saying that nationalist and republican are the same.

Until you know the basic difference between the two groups then perhaps using the word "ignorance" is ill-advised.

#132 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,955 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:59 AM

Not usually deliberately. That generally comes under the heading of "war crimes".


would the RAF bomber offensive come under that?
the german flying bomb offensive unguided missiles sent into the heart of cities
the air offensive in Iraq after the first world war, devised by Churchill and Arthur Harris
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
The Tokyo Fire Raids
the strafing of refugees to create chaos amongst retreating armies by both sides in world war 2 and Korea



war isn't a game the idea of having rules is nonsensical

the idea is to win using whatwever means are considered necessary.

what is a civilian? Civilians are part of a country's was effort.

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 20 November 2012 - 09:50 AM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#133 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,212 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:44 AM

No, they aren't that's like saying that nationalist and republican are the same.


No its not like that at all. The terms 'Loyalist' and 'Unionist' are much more indistinct. To be a loyalist without being a unionist would be nonsensical. It is true that loyalism is a term used by paramilitaries from the protestant tradition but that is largely because of the psychology of swearing oaths and pledges of loyalty present in most military organisations.

LUNEW.jpg


#134 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:20 PM

Loyalists might be unionists by implication but unionists aren't loyalists.

Again republicans might be nationalists but nationalists aren't republicans.

#135 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:22 PM

would the RAF bomber offensive come under that?
the german flying bomb offensive unguided missiles sent into the heart of cities
the air offensive in Iraq after the first world war, devised by Churchill and Arthur Harris
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
The Tokyo Fire Raids
the strafing of refugees to create chaos amongst retreating armies by both sides in world war 2 and Korea



war isn't a game the idea of having rules is nonsensical

the idea is to win using whatwever means are considered necessary.

what is a civilian? Civilians are part of a country's was effort.


Many of those things, including the RAF, would come under war crimes thse days and should have at the time.

However, blowing children (and fortunately the IRA bomb plot against a cub scout parade in Enniskillen was a failure) was okay because those kids might have grown up to be unionists then then this is monsterous.

It would be like me justifying killing random Asians on the grounds that they might support Al Qaeda.

#136 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,955 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:24 PM

Many of those things, including the RAF, would come under war crimes thse days and should have at the time.

However, blowing children (and fortunately the IRA bomb plot against a cub scout parade in Enniskillen was a failure) was okay because those kids might have grown up to be unionists then then this is monsterous.

It would be like me justifying killing random Asians on the grounds that they might support Al Qaeda.


I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that was justifiable, and bloody sunday either come to that.


I find the concept of 'war crimes' odd.

for example the RAF bombed germany cities and their population in the belief that it would help win the war: whether that strategy was the correct one-and there's plenty of evidence and argument to show that it wouldn't is besid the point.

My thoughts relate to the reasoninbg behind an act: for instance thr rape of Nanking. There was no military objective there-the victory had been won, the same with the mass rape of german civilians by thr soviet army, the bengal famine.

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 20 November 2012 - 01:24 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#137 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,919 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:41 PM

No, they aren't that's like saying that nationalist and republican are the same.

Until you know the basic difference between the two groups then perhaps using the word "ignorance" is ill-advised.


absolute tripe
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#138 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:05 PM

No its not like that at all. The terms 'Loyalist' and 'Unionist' are much more indistinct. To be a loyalist without being a unionist would be nonsensical. It is true that loyalism is a term used by paramilitaries from the protestant tradition but that is largely because of the psychology of swearing oaths and pledges of loyalty present in most military organisations.


It is difficult to define the two, or where the boundary lies, but Loyalism was more about loyalty to the Crown, whereas Unionism stressed the importance of the constitutional link with Great Britain. At certain times some loyalists proposed an independent Ulster, still with the Queen as head of state, but outside of the Union. Similarly, I do know someone from Ulster who would class himself as a unionist but his view is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be a republic.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#139 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

An independent Ulster is what is known as the "Ulster third way". It's associated with unionists and the occasional nationalist as well. When I say "unionists" I mean that they were unionists up to the point when they started coming out with the 3rd way stuff and would probably still consider themselves British.

Loyalists might be loyal to the crown as you say but not to the state since they take up arms outside its authority. Unionists aren't always nice people but they prefer state power to violent militias; partly because they often come from the historically dominant Church of Ireland.

Edited by Northern Sol, 20 November 2012 - 05:00 PM.


#140 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,176 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

absolute tripe


Well that was convincing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users