Man Beaten To Death by Loyalist Mob

djpbarry

jimmmy wrote: »

I have only made a couple of posts and never even mentioned the UDA. Of course I condemn the UDA for any murders or illegial acts they were ever involved in, just I would condemn the IRA or UVF or INLA for the same sort of activity. I always condemned all paramilitary and / or terrorist or illegial activity. I also condemn all drunken mobs everywhere who beat up, murder, or whatever. Whoever it was, I condemn fully. Lets hope whoever committed the murder is brought to justice, the same as all murderers.

Unionist.

jimmmy

FTA69 wrote: »

It ( unionism ) is. ( supremist, anti-democratic etc..).

If that was the case why do quite a number of Catholics in N.I. wish to remain part of the UK ? As you are so great going in to historical reason, going back to 1920 etc ....is at least part of the reason for unionism originally that they did not want "Rome rule"...and with more reveleations still coming out ( about what happened even in the recent past, never mind 90 years ago ) who could blame them? As another poster wrote :
11% Protestant population at partition - 2% now. WHERE DID ALL THOSE PROTESTANTS GO?

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

Not really. It's simply the truth. The moderate Unionism to which you are alluding has always been intrinsically linked to sectarian violence. Whether that be the state organisations like the B Specials or the UDR or the paramilitaries like the UVF, Third Force and Ulster Resistance, of which both Paisley and Trimble were leading members. Similarly I remember in the not too distant past where Trimble and Paisley swore blind they'd never talk to terrorists but had no problem sitting on the Loyalist Commission which included the UVF and UDA.

I can't remember where I first saw the question: "would you rather be happy, or right?"

I'm sure it's very comforting to be able to squat in your trench and say "everything is the other guy's fault." It means you don't have to make any effort whatsoever to attempt to resolve the issues; you just get to wallow in self-righteousness.

But hey, I guess purity of ideology is more important than human life. Looks like the republican ideals of a purifying blood sacrifice haven't gone away, you know.

Jesus1222

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious: why not phrase the question "what exactly do politicians do to tackle sectarianism?"

Can't you see the irony in asking a question about divisiveness in a divisive way?

That's nonsense. There's no irony there. It's not divisive. It's an honest question. If I was a Nationalist and somebody who had been the victim of an anti-Protestant sectarian attack asked it of Sinn Féin and the SDLP I would have no problem answering it and would see it as an honest question. I could answer him and say they do tackle or hold my hands up and say more needs to be done, as the case may be.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure it's very comforting to be able to squat in your trench and say "everything is the other guy's fault." It means you don't have to make any effort whatsoever to attempt to resolve the issues; you just get to wallow in self-righteousness.

Sorry - How do you know that FTA is not involved in attempting to resolve the issues? That's a very big assumption to make.

For a guy who consistently tells people to keep threads on topic - you've done a fine job yourself of trying to take it off topic.

It's nothing about self-righteousness. It's about addressing the issue at hand. Something that took you 8 pages to do. Go figure.

Jesus1222

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no idea what they have or haven't done to tackle sectarianism. I equally have no idea what nationalist politicians have or haven't done to tackle sectarianism. I'm curious what you feel unionists should be doing, and why you don't feel nationalists should be doing it.

It really is so much easier to pigeonhole people who disagree with you than to actually face up to the terrifying thought that they might actually have a point, isn't it? Same question. What should they be doing? What are nationalist politicians doing to tackle sectarianism that unionists aren't?

:rolleyes:

We're talking about the aftermath of an incident that saw one man die from having his head stamped on by a gang of sectarian thugs who drove across town in a fleet of vehicles intent on causing mayhem. At least one other person could have been killed. Now, just for a second, do you think you could stop and consider the question?

Clearly the town has a problem if this has happened. It didn't just spring from nowhere. If a Protestant had died in similar circumstances I would look at what Sinn Féin were doing to stop it. The fact it's a Catholic who died means we should, in the immediate aftermath, look at the leaders of the community where these thugs originated. This is a reasonable position.

I say this as somebody vehemently opposed to Sinn Féin. I just believe in fairness and honesty and the "something said, not good" reaction anytime the word Unionist is mentioned is very, very predictable and I believe with the reactions to honest questioned posed here in relation to this incident it actually stretches into anti-Catholic sectarian opinion for me, whether people know it or not. This is particularly so in my opinion where people's first reaction is to jump in with the "what about Sinn Féin" remarks before expressing any sort of remorse for the innocent man, whose whole life seemingly involved a great mix of people.

upthedub

If you checked out the news etc reporting this,it was on as quick and all forgotten about a day later,yet if this was the opposite "as a catholic beating a prod" it would be all over the news and the dup:mad: paisley etc etc would be fuming over this.
Strange the way it isnt on much because he was catholic after getting killed in his own country ! !

Jesus1222

oscarBravo wrote: »

Decent, reasonable and moderate unionists are the norm, as are decent, reasonable and moderate nationalists. To describe a decent, reasonable and moderate political ideology as being underpinned by superiority and triumphalism is to guarantee the entrenchment of the divisions that just lead to more and more bloodshed.

I can't agree that the Unionism of Ian Paisley, David Trimble, the Orange Order, or the UVF is decent, reasonable or moderate. This is a laughable notion. No more than saying that the nationalism of the IRA was decent, reasonable or moderate.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Sorry - How do you know that FTA is not involved in attempting to resolve the issues? That's a very big assumption to make.

If by "resolving the issues" you mean "constantly blaming the entire conflict on the other side and refusing budge even fractionally from an entrenched position", I'm sure you and FTA69 will have the issues resolved any day now.

Jesus1222 wrote: »

I can't agree that the Unionism of Ian Paisley, David Trimble, the Orange Order, or the UVF is decent, reasonable or moderate. This is a laughable notion. No more than saying that the nationalism of the IRA was decent, reasonable or moderate.

Fine. Let's define everyone in Northern Ireland by the worst caricatures we can think of on their respective sides of the divide. That'll lead to lasting peace and harmony.

Jesus1222

Fine. Let's define everyone in Northern Ireland by the worst caricatures we can think of on their respective sides of the divide. That'll lead to lasting peace and harmony.

This is another nonsense reply. Ian Paisley, David Trimble and and the Orange Order don't and have never represented Unionism or Unionist culture? They have nothing to do with it?

oscarBravo

Jesus1222 wrote: »

This is another nonsense reply. Ian Paisley, David Trimble and and the Orange Order don't and have never represented Unionism or Unionist culture? They have nothing to do with it?

No, absolutely. You're right: they are the epitome of unionism. Therefore, unionism is an intrinsically evil philosophy and all unionists must be burned at the stake.

Similarly, because the xIRA are/were nationalists, all nationalists are intrinsically evil and must be hunted down.

Then we'll all be friends. Just another couple of million people to kill, and everyone will be happy. I can't wait.

Jesus1222

upthedub wrote: »

If you checked out the news etc reporting this,it was on as quick and all forgotten about a day later,yet if this was the opposite "as a catholic beating a prod" it would be all over the news and the dup:mad: paisley etc etc would be fuming over this.
Strange the way it isnt on much because he was catholic after getting killed in his own country ! !

It's all right mate, they've solved it, there was a Tricolour flown somewhere within a few miles of the attack so that's why they did it. They brought it on themselves. We can go back to mindlessly condeming Catholics now.

Jesus1222

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, absolutely. You're right: they are the epitome of unionism. Therefore, unionism is an intrinsically evil philosophy and all unionists must be burned at the stake.

Similarly, because the xIRA are/were nationalists, all nationalists are intrinsically evil and must be hunted down.

Then we'll all be friends. Just another couple of million people to kill, and everyone will be happy. I can't wait.

Your replies have gone from pure nonsense to pure gibberish. I can't reply to this, sorry.

oscarBravo

Jesus1222 wrote: »

Your replies have gone from pure nonsense to pure gibberish. I can't reply to this, sorry.

Result.

Jesus1222

oscarBravo wrote: »

Result.

Not for this forum sadly. Almost every single poster in the thread, arguing both sides, is attempting to make points honestly and straightforwardly, sadly you insist on posting absolute rubbish.

I'll finish by saying RIP to Mr McDaid, hopefully there will no retaliatory attacks.

Kev_ps3

I knew even before reading this thread that it would be hijacked by oscarBrave and his goons. We cant possibly have a thread that is somewhat anti-Unionist on boards.ie

oscarBravo

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I knew even before reading this thread that it would be hijacked by oscarBrave and his goons. We cant possibly have a thread that is somewhat anti-Unionist on boards.ie

That's right, I deleted this thread as soon as it appeared.

Oh wait, I didn't. I expressed an opinion that differs from yours. My god, I'm such a fascist.

Interestingly, before you edited your post, it simply read "Unionist Scum:mad:" - I'm sure dlofnep would have been along like a shot to complain that you've never had anything bad to say about "nationalist scum" - right dlofnep?

djpbarry

Jesus1222 wrote: »

If a Protestant had died in similar circumstances I would look at what Sinn Féin were doing to stop it.

Personally I’d be more inclined to look at what the PSNI were doing.

Kev_ps3

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's right, I deleted this thread as soon as it appeared.

Oh wait, I didn't. I expressed an opinion that differs from yours. My god, I'm such a fascist.

Interestingly, before you edited your post, it simply read "Unionist Scum:mad:" - I'm sure dlofnep would have been along like a shot to complain that you've never had anything bad to say about "nationalist scum" - right dlofnep?

What are you rambling about?

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't remember where I first saw the question: "would you rather be happy, or right?"

I'm sure it's very comforting to be able to squat in your trench and say "everything is the other guy's fault." It means you don't have to make any effort whatsoever to attempt to resolve the issues; you just get to wallow in self-righteousness.

But hey, I guess purity of ideology is more important than human life. Looks like the republican ideals of a purifying blood sacrifice haven't gone away, you know.

I just call it as I see it to be honest. I'm not a blood-hungry bastard at all, I believe that in this country an abnormal set of circumstances were created which leads to conflict. Saying "why can't we all just get along" is a grand sentiment, but it doesn't address the root cause of division in Ireland. That division and the conflict which comes with it isn't as a result of mad tribal Paddies in the north, and the fact I have a different analysis to you doesn't necessarily mean I revel in violence.

Jesus1222

djpbarry wrote: »

Personally I’d be more inclined to look at what the PSNI were doing.

Clearly I was talking about an equivalent to the reaction in Unionist leadership circles in terms of actively trying to stop such attacks, not police work which is a given. Sadly community leadership is not.

T runner

jimmmy wrote: »

If that was the case why do quite a number of Catholics in N.I. wish to remain part of the UK ? As you are so great going in to historical reason, going back to 1920 etc ....is at least part of the reason for unionism originally that they did not want "Rome rule"...and with more reveleations still coming out ( about what happened even in the recent past, never mind 90 years ago ) who could blame them? As another poster wrote :
11% Protestant population at partition - 2% now. WHERE DID ALL THOSE PROTESTANTS GO?

I think another thread covered a poll about Catholics wanting a united Ireland. This poll revealed that no catholic described themself as a Unionist.

I doubt protestants would have sent their children to Catholic schools would they?

Many of the protestants moved immediately (those being part of the British Army) . Some of the rest may have moved because of the "Rome Rule" argument. The percentages may have reduced due to differing birthrates.
A.T Q Stewart the foremost Unionist historian admits that protestants were treated well be the state.

T runner

futurehope wrote: »

What steps are Nationalist politicians taking to insure that issues that offend Unionists are resolved to Unionist satisfaction, such as:

Nationalist protests at British Army parades in places such as Belfast.

The continuing cover up regarding those who carried out or ordered atrocities such as Kingsmill, Darkley, La Mon.

The naming of GAA cups after Republican terrorists.

The failure to welcome Protestant parades in places such as Portadown.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for the huge decline in The Protestant population since partition.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for it's failure to extradite Republican terrorists.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for allowing terrorist safe havens in places such as Dundalk.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for it's senior citizens helping to form, fund and arm The PIRA.

The continued aspiration of ROI political parties towards a United Ireland, regardless of Unionist wishes.

Etc, etc, etc.

These issues create the background in which Unionist frustration, bitterness and anger flourishes and which can lead to violence on occasion. I do not support such violence, but in order for it to cease, it is vital that the underlying injustices are addressed.

Your attempt to justify this murder and blame it on nationalists and the republic of Ireland and anyone other than the 30 or 40 scum who drove into that estate and beat up anyone they came across is absolutely disgraceful.

You have absolutely no integrity or honour.

The reason that these gang of killers came over was to do with a football match (which they won). To rub it in the locals faces and to show them that "we consider you all worthless".

oscarBravo

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What are you rambling about?

Grown-ups are talking, you wouldn't understand.

FTA69 wrote: »

I just call it as I see it to be honest. I'm not a blood-hungry bastard at all, I believe that in this country an abnormal set of circumstances were created which leads to conflict. Saying "why can't we all just get along" is a grand sentiment, but it doesn't address the root cause of division in Ireland. That division and the conflict which comes with it isn't as a result of mad tribal Paddies in the north, and the fact I have a different analysis to you doesn't necessarily mean I revel in violence.

And the fact that I have a different analysis to you doesn't necessarily make me a unionist, contrary to dlofnep's monochromatic worldview.

The problem is that people on both side have different analyses of what the root causes of the conflict are. As long as people dig their heels in and insist that their personal version of the root causes are addressed as a prerequisite to moving on, then moving on is impossible. I don't claim that bloodshed is a goal of either side (although there is clear evidence of psychopathic bloodlust on both), but bloodshed is an inevitable consequence of intransigence, and it's a price that all too many people on both sides are perfectly willing to pay.

dlofnep

Jaysus - I've been gone for 2 hours and you're still talking about me.

My worldview isn't monochromatic. At least, not because you say it is. If you're not comfortable with me labelling you as a Unionist - perhaps you might be less quick to take anti-loyalist topics off-topic, and give nationalist related topics the same amount of empathy.

A man was murdered in a sectarian attack - Instead of denouncing it, you attacked those who questioned the role of Politicians surrounding the issue of sectarianism. Infact, it took 8 pages before you issued a half-hearted condemnation.

So you can lob out your multi-syllable words, and try cut down people's views by stating "Grown ups are talking" - But it doesn't change the facts.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's right, I deleted this thread as soon as it appeared.

Oh wait, I didn't. I expressed an opinion that differs from yours. My god, I'm such a fascist.

Interestingly, before you edited your post, it simply read "Unionist Scum:mad:" - I'm sure dlofnep would have been along like a shot to complain that you've never had anything bad to say about "nationalist scum" - right dlofnep?

No, but you have warned people in the past and locked threads when things havent gone your way.

For instance, you locked a thread previously over whether citizens in the North were called "Irish" or "British". This was part of an argument showing that the Irish identity was supressed in NI (no Irish history taught in Northern schools etc).
You called this "pedantics."

Someone was threatened with a 6 months ban who legitimately objected to the poster "futurehope" incorrectly (and deliberately) referred to the republic of Ireland as Ireland. You stated that anyone who brought that up again would get the 6 month ban. In this case you should have stated that the correct way the call the relevant entities as a guide for all to follow. (You couldnt ofcourse as the rep of Ireland is the correct name).

There are many more examples.

Ive tried PMing you before as as seem to be the rules but you ignored this.

In my view your political opinions on the Irish issues are too strong and are interfering with your ability as an impartial moderator.

I will be passing my views onto the relevent people.

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote: »

And the fact that I have a different analysis to you doesn't necessarily make me a unionist, contrary to dlofnep's monochromatic worldview.

In all fairness I've been posting here years and I've never labelled anyone a Unionist or a West Brit or anything along those lines.

jimmmy

T runner wrote: »

I think another thread covered a poll about Catholics wanting a united Ireland. This poll revealed that no catholic described themself as a Unionist.

I doubt protestants would have sent their children to Catholic schools would they?

At least you made an honest attempt at answering the question. As regards Catholics wanting N.I. to remain part of the UK, more than a few people fall in to the category. I am not saying it is a majority of Catholics, but its far from the 0% you seem to suggest. I am not sure what point you are making about " protestants send their children to Catholic schools " or not...the point is unionism to many people means a preference to remaining part of the UK. Historically there was a thought that being part of the "free state" was Rome Rule....not a fear without foundation given much of what happened in Ireland in early / mid 20 century Ireland.....even in the media in recent days details of the cover ups only relatively recently are coming to light. 11% does not drop to 2 or 3% without good reasons.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Jaysus - I've been gone for 2 hours and you're still talking about me.

We seem to have an unhealthy fascination with each other.

My worldview isn't monochromatic. At least, not because you say it is. If you're not comfortable with me labelling you as a Unionist - perhaps you might be less quick to take anti-loyalist topics off-topic, and give nationalist related topics the same amount of empathy.

You'll stop calling me names when I start posting in a manner that you've decided is appropriate?

Yeah, that seems perfectly reasonable.

A man was murdered in a sectarian attack - Instead of denouncing it, you attacked those who questioned the role of Politicians surrounding the issue of sectarianism. Infact, it took 8 pages before you issued a half-hearted condemnation.

There's nothing whatsoever half-hearted about my complete and utter hearfelt disgust for the filthy, degraded, sub-human murdering scum that killed this poor unfortunate man. I hope they're caught, I hope they face the heaviest possible penalties the law can throw at them. I hope they die behind bars. They sicken me to the core of my being.

I'm sure on some level that makes me a unionist.

When you can demonstrate the same ability to condemn mudering scum on both sides of the divide as unequivocally as that, you'll earn my respect. As long as you consider me a unionist for holding the same views about murderers irrespective of their background, you won't.

So you can lob out your multi-syllable words, and try cut down people's views by stating "Grown ups are talking" - But it doesn't change the facts.

What facts would those be?

T runner wrote: »

No, but you have warned people in the past and locked threads when things havent gone your way.

If you're accusing me of biased moderation, take it to the Help Desk, and be prepared to offer evidence.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

In all fairness I've been posting here years and I've never labelled anyone a Unionist or a West Brit or anything along those lines.

No, you haven't. I disagree with most many of your views, but I respect your ability to make a point clearly and well.