Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

They fought and died for our freedom

188 posts in this topic

oh for ######s sake!!! I have done, Back up some of your claims or don't contribute eh?

What would constitute a back-up that Paiseley is a hard-line unionist not a loyalist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would constitute a back-up that Paiseley is a hard-line unionist not a loyalist?

They're the same thing as I and others have repeatedly stated. Now back up your claim that they're different. Sources would also be an advantage but you've just stated you wouldn't know what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that you wouldn't accept them because you have already made your mind up.

So I'll ask again, what source would you accept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a war going on at the time.

There are degrees of "not OK".

The Falklands wasn't okay but it was cleaner than most conflicts; few civilians died.

Northern Ireland was a low-level conflict with relatively low casualties considering it went on for 30 years but it was far from being clean.

WW2 was about as bad as it gets.

Saying "war is an attrocity" equalises the situations when they aren't equal.

the falklands wasn't a 'war' the UK didn't attack the Argentine mainland. It was a limited operation to recover territory.

which countries were involved in Northern Ireland? Only one-it was an internicene conflict

'clean' isn't an adjective I'd use for either of them or for any armed conflict. It is impossible to 'equalise' armed conflict since circumstances are unique to each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the falklands wasn't a 'war' the UK didn't attack the Argentine mainland. It was a limited operation to recover territory.

which countries were involved in Northern Ireland? Only one-it was an internicene conflict

'clean' isn't an adjective I'd use for either of them or for any armed conflict. It is impossible to 'equalise' armed conflict since circumstances are unique to each.

Of course it was a war, we may not have attacked the mainland (unproven because there are all kinds of rumours of SAS activity) but that just makes it a contained war.

I agree that Northern Ireland was not a war, neither the IRA nor the loyalists made any effort to follow the Geneva Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Phil seems to have conveniently disappeared.

I'm ignoring you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IRA never gave warnings when they shot people. Civilians at that

We are talking bombs not shootings.

  • The UVF’s 1966 shooting of four Catholics, one fatally, outside a Belfast pub. This attack was the first major act of sectarian violence since Ireland was divided, and it spurred Catholic activism, which soon turned violent.

  • The UVF’s 1969 bombing of a power station near Belfast. Initially attributed to the IRA, this attack also helped trigger the Troubles.

  • The UVF’s 1971 bombing of a Belfastpub, which killed fifteen people.

  • A pair of UVF bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, both in the Republic of Ireland, on May 17, 1974, that killed thirty-three civilians, making this day the deadliest of the conflict.
  • Not bad for starters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread is on the way to being locked,and When its sensible debate I find it very interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I was thinking further back, when groups and individuals within loyalist organisations (mostly UDA linked) tentatively advocated moves towards independence for Ulster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_nationalism

After the [ulster Workers Council] strike loyalism began to embrace Ulster nationalist ideas, with the UDA in particular advocating this position.[2] Firm proposals for an independent Ulster were produced in 1976 by the Ulster Loyalist Central Co-ordinating Committee and in 1977 by the UDA's New Ulster Political Research Group. The NUPRG document, Beyond the Religious Divide has been recently republished with a new introduction. John McMichael, as candidate for the UDA-linked Ulster Loyalist Democratic Party, campaigned for the1982 South Belfast by-election on the basis of negotiations towards independence. However McMichael's poor showing of 576 saw the plans largely abandoned by the UDA soon after, although the policy was still considered by the Ulster Democratic Party under Ray Smallwoods. A short-lived Ulster Independence Party also operated, although the assassination of its leader John McKeague in 1982 saw it largely disappear

Now, presumably this independent Ulster would have been linked to the Crown in some way - pretty difficult, I would have thought, to be loyalist republican (in the context of Ulster).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/northern-ireland-loyalist-paramilitaries-uk-extremists/p9274

Have the loyalist groups targeted civilians?

Yes—and more frequently than the IRA. Between 1968 and 1998, loyalist paramilitaries killed an estimated 864 civilians (most of them Catholic), compared with an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestant) killed by the IRA. Experts say loyalist groups have often acted out of religious hatred, while the IRA has more often targeted British security officers—killing more than 1,000 of them—in an effort to further its political goal of ejecting the British from Northern Ireland .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking bombs not shootings.

  • The UVF’s 1966 shooting of four Catholics, one fatally, outside a Belfast pub. This attack was the first major act of sectarian violence since Ireland was divided, and it spurred Catholic activism, which soon turned violent.

  • The UVF’s 1969 bombing of a power station near Belfast. Initially attributed to the IRA, this attack also helped trigger the Troubles.

  • The UVF’s 1971 bombing of a Belfastpub, which killed fifteen people.

  • A pair of UVF bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, both in the Republic of Ireland, on May 17, 1974, that killed thirty-three civilians, making this day the deadliest of the conflict.
  • Not bad for starters

That's why I said "since the 70s".

The loyalists stopped using bombs then.

Not because they were nice people but they just didn't have the know-how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cfr.org/t...xtremists/p9274

Have the loyalist groups targeted civilians?

Yes—and more frequently than the IRA. Between 1968 and 1998, loyalist paramilitaries killed an estimated 864 civilians (most of them Catholic), compared with an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestant) killed by the IRA. Experts say loyalist groups have often acted out of religious hatred, while the IRA has more often targeted British security officers—killing more than 1,000 of them—in an effort to further its political goal of ejecting the British from Northern Ireland .

I'm not sure how that contradicts anything I said. I'm not interest in who was worse. Even if the loyalists were worse that wouldn't make the republicans any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're the same thing as I and others have repeatedly stated. Now back up your claim that they're different. Sources would also be an advantage but you've just stated you wouldn't know what they are.

I use the CAIN website (Conflict Archive on the INternet) maintained by the University of Ulster as a source on the Northern Irish conflict. The following definitions are in its glossary.

http://cain.ulst.ac..../glossary.htm#L

Loyalist

Strictly the term Loyalist refers to one who is loyal to the British Crown. The term in Northern Ireland context is used by many commentators to imply that the person gives tacit or actual support the use of force by paramilitary groups to 'defend the union' with Britain.

Unionist

In Northern Ireland the term is used to describe those who wish to see the union with Britain maintained. The majority of those people who are from the Protestant community are Unionist. It should be noted that not all Unionists support Loyalist groups.

The terms describe two similar but different things (if that makes sense) and are not interchangeable. In almost all circumstances a Loyalist will be a Unionist (although, as I've pointed out, not all Loyalists at all times supported the political Union). Most Unionists would react in horror at being described as a Loyalist.

The biggest difference to most people would be the Loyalists link to violence, although Loyalism did attempt to win democratic representation (with limited success) after the Belfast Agreement. That said, hardline Unionism (which you initially compared with Loyalism) did associate itself with physical force at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking further back, when groups and individuals within loyalist organisations (mostly UDA linked) tentatively advocated moves towards independence for Ulster.

http://en.wikipedia....ter_nationalism

After the [ulster Workers Council]strike loyalism began to embrace Ulster nationalist ideas, with the UDA in particular advocating this position.[2] Firm proposals for an independent Ulster were produced in 1976 by the Ulster Loyalist Central Co-ordinating Committee and in 1977 by the UDA's New Ulster Political Research Group. The NUPRG document, Beyond the Religious Divide has been recently republished with a new introduction. John McMichael, as candidate for the UDA-linked Ulster Loyalist Democratic Party, campaigned for the1982 South Belfast by-election on the basis of negotiations towards independence. However McMichael's poor showing of 576 saw the plans largely abandoned by the UDA soon after, although the policy was still considered by the Ulster Democratic Party under Ray Smallwoods. A short-lived Ulster Independence Party also operated, although the assassination of its leader John McKeague in 1982 saw it largely disappear

Now, presumably this independent Ulster would have been linked to the Crown in some way - pretty difficult, I would have thought, to be loyalist republican (in the context of Ulster).

True but I think this was always a minority of loyalists.

You are right though that it does make sense to be a unionist in favour of a republic but not in favour of separatism but a loyalist could be a separatist but never republican.

But unless you had holidays in Derry this is all nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread is on the way to being locked,and When its sensible debate I find it very interesting

I suspect you are correct, which is a shame as it is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the CAIN website (Conflict Archive on the INternet) maintained by the University of Ulster as a source on the Northern Irish conflict. The following definitions are in its glossary.

http://cain.ulst.ac..../glossary.htm#L

Loyalist

Strictly the term Loyalist refers to one who is loyal to the British Crown. The term in Northern Ireland context is used by many commentators to imply that the person gives tacit or actual support the use of force by paramilitary groups to 'defend the union' with Britain.

Unionist

In Northern Ireland the term is used to describe those who wish to see the union with Britain maintained. The majority of those people who are from the Protestant community are Unionist. It should be noted that not all Unionists support Loyalist groups.

The terms describe two similar but different things (if that makes sense) and are not interchangeable. In almost all circumstances a Loyalist will be a Unionist (although, as I've pointed out, not all Loyalists at all times supported the political Union). Most Unionists would react in horror at being described as a Loyalist.

The biggest difference to most people would be the Loyalists link to violence, although Loyalism did attempt to win democratic representation (with limited success) after the Belfast Agreement. That said, hardline Unionism (which you initially compared with Loyalism) did associate itself with physical force at times.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

As I am sure you are aware, there were differences between the English and Scots settlers in Ulster and the Protestant ascendancy was really an Anglican ascendancy. This being the reason why Adams can praise Presbyterianism and Methodism since they represent working class Protestantism but not the Church of Ireland.

Mainstream unionism is rooted in the Anglican, English tradition and is closely connected to the mainland Conservative party. Hardline unionism is rooted in the same working class Ulster Scots communities that the various loyalist groups comes from. Hence there is a degree of overlap even if they wouldn't care to be called "loyalist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they :wacko: PIRA's first contact was with the local newspaper office, if the newspapers failed to pass the info on in time do you think that they would openly state this fact.

Clearly PIRA didn't give adequate warnings; the casualty lists are a testament to this. News agencies are not part of the security apparatus - they are there for gathering and disseminating news, not assisting paramilitaries in their operations. If the process put in place by those paramilitaries did not always work then it was no ones fault but the bombers.

The warning systems were not there out of any consideration for the potential victims but out of a concern that 'bad publicity' would cost them support from their communities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread is on the way to being locked,and When its sensible debate I find it very interesting

I know a good locksmith! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017