Loyalist UVF group in arms move

Can'tseeme

There are strong indications that a Northern Ireland paramilitary group has decommissioned a significant amount of its weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8106907.stm


A welcomed development. Let's hope it continues and the other Loyalist groups start their own decommissioning.

Deedsie

Well said, Sectarianism will never be removed from society until armed paramilitary groups are removed, both Republican and Loyalist.

P. Breathnach

Deedsie wrote: »

Well said, Sectarianism will never be removed from society until armed paramilitary groups are removed, both Republican and Loyalist.

A necessary condition but, sadly, not sufficient. Unarmed sectarianism is likely to continue for some time. An informal test: when a Rangers supporter or a Celtic supporter can wear a club's shirt in the territory of the other side's supporters and be subjected to nothing worse than a good-natured verbal slagging, then we can stop worrying about sectarianism in NI.

But it's good news, and I hope that it will be built on.

ilkhanid

More than that, I'd be happy when the day comes when bigoted eejits don't swagger around wearing Celtic and Rangers shirts as a badge of sectarian allegiance.

P. Breathnach

ilkhanid wrote: »

More than that, I'd be happy when the day comes when bigoted eejits don't swagger around wearing Celtic and Rangers shirts as a badge of sectarian allegiance.

There's a problem of interpretation. Yes, I think it likely that some wear the shirts to declare sectarian alliegiance; it also seems likely that some wear them because they are football fans and actually support the clubs.

Is it, for some, a matter of "I am a supporter; you are a bigot"?

SeanW

yeah there's a bit of that most likely re: the football teams. The IRA has packed it in, and it looks like the loyalists are starting to follow their word - some of them had always said that they would decommission their weapons after the IRA. The Provos IIRC always had the biggest cache, by far. Hopefully all this orange vs. green crap is on it's way to the history books.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Just saw the news, seems fairly significant. Fair play to the politicians involved

Joey the lips

If the loyalist para's keep quite and peaceful the north will be a quite happy place. For war to exist the conditions have to exist. We down south have in my opinion always failed to really understand what goes on up north. Its a lot more than a united ireland they people require. Its a peaceful existance as well.

Loyalist para's are ment to be on this road months but as we seen lately its not always a smooth road. Time will tell. It will tell if this is an act of publicity or if it really is the road they want to go down.

Seth Brundle

Out of curiosity, was Martin McAleese one of the primary negotiatiors?

gurramok

Joey the lips wrote: »

Loyalist para's are ment to be on this road months but as we seen lately its not always a smooth road. Time will tell. It will tell if this is an act of publicity or if it really is the road they want to go down.

Lets hope its real and the relatives of the 1,000 murder victims(who were wiped out mostly based on religion) of loyalist violence won't have to endure that type of terror again.(bar the recent McDaid murder)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0619/1224249120521.html

Terrontress

gurramok wrote: »

Lets hope its real and the relatives of the 1,000 murder victims(who were wiped out mostly based on religion) of loyalist violence won't have to endure that type of terror again.(bar the recent McDaid murder)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0619/1224249120521.html

I don't understand your point. You hope families don't have to endure it but that the McDaid family would..?

Just because McDaid was politically involved does not mean he deserved to be killed.

And anyway, decommissioning weapons is not going to prevent people from kicking someone to death as happened to McDaid.

gurramok

Terrontress wrote: »

I don't understand your point. You hope families don't have to endure it but that the McDaid family would..?

Just because McDaid was politically involved does not mean he deserved to be killed.

And anyway, decommissioning weapons is not going to prevent people from kicking someone to death as happened to McDaid.

No. Witnesses to the McDaid killing said the perpetrators were chanting UDA slogans hence the sooner the UDA disappears the better, decommissioning arms is not enough(they haven't even gone this far yet).

When they disband, it will lesson tensions all round. Having an active terrorist group in an era of peace is a no-no.

lostexpectation

well they said the uda asked for too much (post gfa) prisoner realeases and money and the gov said no so they didn't decomission much.

conchubhar1

thats no excuse - they should no and deffo should have sooner

all i will say on this matter is about ****ing time!

all these groups should be disbanded, as several have now

DoireNod

It took them long enough, if you ask me. I also suspect that it's a move that is being hi-jacked by the propaganda-mill.

Here's a link from the BBC website on the timeline of events regarding the 'decommissioning' of weapons. Notice how it has the Loyalist announcement of a ceasefire in October 1994 before the IRA announcement of a ceasefire in August. I wonder is it intentional?

Also, if it's of any interest, spot the differences in the rhetoric of the two opposing ideologies' politicians here. I find it rather amusing to say the least.

I think it's important for people in the South to be more aware of the North and not to see it as 'other', or a lost cause, so to speak.

Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that the fact remains that 6 counties of Ireland are still under British control.

futurehope

gurramok wrote: »

Lets hope its real and the relatives of the 1,000 murder victims(who were wiped out mostly based on religion) of loyalist violence won't have to endure that type of terror again.(bar the recent McDaid murder)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0619/1224249120521.html

Your comment about innocent people being killed is interesting. Let me explain to you the facts of life as they applied in Ulster during ‘The Troubles’. The IRA and their fellow travellers refused to wear uniforms or other clear markings (as demanded by The Geneva Convention) when involved in military engagement. As a result it was impossible for the police and army to bring to bare their overwhelming military superiority. Thus the rules of engagement were set by Republicans. This being the case Loyalist paramilitaries felt they had no option but to target The Nationalist support base of The IRA with a view to forcing The Nationalist community to bring pressure to bare on militant Republicans to call off their campaign. Had they not taken this course of action it is possible that the war would have been lost, democracy overthrown and a United Ireland created. Whilst I deeply regret the loss of any human lives, the responsibility for all the deaths that occurred resides firmly with The Republican movement. It is also worth baring in mind that The IRA had substantial support within The Nationalist community and that this was not limited to them voting in large numbers for The IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein.

futurehope

DoireNod wrote: »

Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that the fact remains that 6 counties of Ireland are still under British control.

Are you thanking Loyalist paramilitaries for that?

DoireNod

futurehope wrote: »

Whilst I deeply regret the loss of any human lives, the responsibility for all the deaths that occurred resides firmly with The Republican movement.

Well, it can be argued that this whole thing was sparked by years of imperialist actions from Britain (and the oppressive nature of their regime) and as such, they must accept responsibility; to say that the responsibility for 'all the deaths that occurred resides firmly with the Republican movement' is a bit of an exaggerated claim, to be honest.

It is also worth baring in mind that The IRA had substantial support within The Nationalist community and that this was not limited to them voting in large numbers for The IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein.

What can you expect of an oppressed minority? For them to lie down and accept the injustices like lambs?

DoireNod

futurehope wrote: »

Are you thanking Loyalist paramilitaries for that?

Sorry, it is off-topic. It was just a point of information.

Joey the lips

futurehope wrote: »

Your comment about innocent people being killed is interesting. Let me explain to you the facts of life as they applied in Ulster during ‘The Troubles’. The IRA and their fellow travellers refused to wear uniforms or other clear markings (as demanded by The Geneva Convention) when involved in military engagement. As a result it was impossible for the police and army to bring to bare their overwhelming military superiority. Thus the rules of engagement were set by Republicans. This being the case Loyalist paramilitaries felt they had no option but to target The Nationalist support base of The IRA with a view to forcing The Nationalist community to bring pressure to bare on militant Republicans to call off their campaign. Had they not taken this course of action it is possible that the war would have been lost, democracy overthrown and a United Ireland created. Whilst I deeply regret the loss of any human lives, the responsibility for all the deaths that occurred resides firmly with The Republican movement. It is also worth baring in mind that The IRA had substantial support within The Nationalist community and that this was not limited to them voting in large numbers for The IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein.

Total bull and you know it i know it and the author of the shankill butchers knows it!

and more importantly the only reason the IRA acted in the way it did all the way up to the point of de chasteline in because the conditions existed. Condititions existed for war and conditions existed for peace. If the conditions did not exist the IRA would not have existed!

The only reason the loyalists acted the way they did is becuase they were afraid of the south. I wounder why that was! Oh nothing got to do with the fact they were foreigners on a foreign soil who only claim is time rather that actually occupancy. No different than another english custom. ie squatters rights!

junder

Joey the lips wrote: »

Total bull and you know it i know it and the author of the shankill butchers knows it!

and more importantly the only reason the IRA acted in the way it did all the way up to the point of de chasteline in because the conditions existed. Condititions existed for war and conditions existed for peace. If the conditions did not exist the IRA would not have existed!

The only reason the loyalists acted the way they did is becuase they were afraid of the south. I wounder why that was! Oh nothing got to do with the fact they were foreigners on a foreign soil who only claim is time rather that actually occupancy. No different than another english custom. ie squatters rights!

Racism, tell me does that apply to all foreigners or just those from the unionist tradition?

futurehope

DoireNod wrote: »

What can you expect of an oppressed minority? For them to lie down and accept the injustices like lambs?

The nature of any 'oppression' in no way justified the nature of The IRA campaign. I was merely pointing out that those involved in violent action including the murder of many civilians can hardly whine when their own friends, neighbours and family members are subsequently shot dead.

They were killed as enemies of The British state, not as Catholics. In Ulster the terms Protestant and Catholic are primarily ethnic labels. Obviously Nationalists caught on to the fact that 'sectarian' labels were 'just not on' as far as the international community was concerned, earlier than Unionists:D. There were plenty of Catholics within The RUC, UDR and British Army who were not targeted by Loyalists.

futurehope

Joey the lips wrote: »

and more importantly the only reason the IRA acted in the way it did all the way up to the point of de chasteline in because the conditions existed. Condititions existed for war and conditions existed for peace. If the conditions did not exist the IRA would not have existed!

Well, I agree, every conflict has a context, but that does not excuse any and all behaviour within that conflict. If it wasn't for the treaty of Versailles, there'd have been no concentration camps. All ex-Nazis still around can sleep easy. :rolleyes:

PROPORTIONALITY!

Joey the lips

junder wrote: »

Racism, tell me does that apply to all foreigners or just those from the unionist tradition?

I never mentioned racism but seen as though you did I wonder what the Roma families think of the Loyalist areas of Belfast!

DoireNod

futurehope wrote: »

The nature of any 'oppression' in no way justified the nature of The IRA campaign. I was merely pointing out that those involved in violent action including the murder of many civilians can hardly whine when their own friends, neighbours and family members are subsequently shot dead.

How can you say that the nature of any oppression does not justify a campaign such as that of the IRA? Irish Independence was sought through the assertion of arms in 1916 and those guys, whose actions were initially frowned upon, are now annually commemorated as martyrs. Civilians were killed during that campaign and certainly in the following Civil War. If you're basing your moral outlook in the 'rules' of some document written by bureaucrats and politicians, then I think it's not realistic. Look at the two World Wars in the 20th Century (any war for that matter). There is either a reaction to oppression (in one form or another) or an active desire for land and the accompanying power. War's very nature is dirty and is fundamentally bound to carry with it casualties of all life, be it animal, human, non-civilian or civilian - these are merely tags. It is human nature (and indeed the nature of animals) to oppose maltreatment of any form, so to stifle that natural response with a document we created is wrong in my view. We could also go on to cite contemporary imperialism on the part of Britain and the USA, whose actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Vietnam) have been found to been wholly unnecessary. Are the British and American states justified in their aggressive and violent acts of murder?

They were killed as enemies of The British state, not as Catholics. In Ulster the terms Protestant and Catholic are primarily ethnic labels.

In Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan too? Apologies for the pedantry, but I just don't like the term Ulster to describe the entity that is made up of the occupied six counties or Northern Ireland.

There were plenty of Catholics within The RUC, UDR and British Army who were not targeted by Loyalists.

I know what you're saying, but the fact remains that in the North, the conflict is rooted in the context of British (including its agents, be it the RUC, UDR and British army) oppression of a minority - primarily the predominantly Catholic Nationalist society, particularly in areas like Derry for example.

Bottle_of_Smoke

DoireNod wrote: »

In Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan too? Apologies for the pedantry, but I just don't like the term Ulster to describe the entity that is made up of the occupied six counties or Northern Ireland.
.

It would still apply as an ethnic label in ROI Ulster counties actually, there's orange orders in those counties and an orange march in Donegal. One of my mates from Donegal is Protestant and has plantation ancestry.

One of the reasons people in ROI can apply for British passports

junder

Joey the lips wrote: »

I never mentioned racism but seen as though you did I wonder what the Roma families think of the Loyalist areas of Belfast!

the context of your earlier post was that the unionist community were in someway foreigen and 'squatting' on this island which gives the impression that in your view we have no right to be on this island, which when you deconstruct your comments is racist. So i ask again is it only unionists that are not welcome or is it all 'foreigners'

futurehope

DoireNod wrote: »

How can you say that the nature of any oppression does not justify a campaign such as that of the IRA? Irish Independence was sought through the assertion of arms in 1916 and those guys, whose actions were initially frowned upon, are now annually commemorated as martyrs. Civilians were killed during that campaign and certainly in the following Civil War. If you're basing your moral outlook in the 'rules' of some document written by bureaucrats and politicians, then I think it's not realistic. Look at the two World Wars in the 20th Century (any war for that matter). There is either a reaction to oppression (in one form or another) or an active desire for land and the accompanying power. War's very nature is dirty and is fundamentally bound to carry with it casualties of all life, be it animal, human, non-civilian or civilian - these are merely tags. It is human nature (and indeed the nature of animals) to oppose maltreatment of any form, so to stifle that natural response with a document we created is wrong in my view. We could also go on to cite contemporary imperialism on the part of Britain and the USA, whose actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Vietnam) have been found to been wholly unnecessary. Are the British and American states justified in their aggressive and violent acts of murder?

What I meant was that the nature of any civil rights problems in Ulster prior to 1969 did not merit the nature of The IRA campaign that followed. The key word is proportionality. The black civil rights campaign in The States did not degenerate into children being scraped off streets into plastic bags even though the condition of blacks in the deep south was far worse than that of Catholics in Ulster prior to 69.

Your comments about The Geneva Convention suggest that you believe all is fair in war - in which case you'd have seen no problem if The UK State had simply driven all The Catholics out of Ulster, or even exterminated them - something they had the power to do. Remember it applies to both sides.

Joey the lips

junder wrote: »

the context of your earlier post was that the unionist community were in someway foreigen and 'squatting' on this island which gives the impression that in your view we have no right to be on this island, which when you deconstruct your comments is racist. So i ask again is it only unionists that are not welcome or is it all 'foreigners'

How far back would you like to deconstruct! Everyone is welcome like a true socialist I to accept we are all equal but if you need history explained to you or are simply acting the goat this is not the thread for you

Needless to say when a man enters your house he does not tell you that its no longer your house he simply makes himself comfortable in the surroundings you provided and is gracious and thankful of what you offered but in the case of crowell and various others alike when a man enters your house he now expects you to hand over the house and pay him rent for the pleasure of occuping it.

junder

Joey the lips wrote: »

How far back would you like to deconstruct! Everyone is welcome like a true socialist I to accept we are all equal but if you need history explained to you or are simply acting the goat this is not the thread for you

Needless to say when a man enters your house he does not tell you that its no longer your house he simply makes himself comfortable in the surroundings you provided and is gracious and thankful of what you offered but in the case of crowell and various others alike when a man enters your house he now expects you to hand over the house and pay him rent for the pleasure of occuping it.

Terms like foreigner and squatter are hardly very socialist terms now are they, that is the sort of language one would expect of the BNP. As for history thanks but i will stick to reading academic books rather then listening to romantic revisionism that is the stock in trade of your average republican. Incidentally can you actually prove that i am indeed a foreigner, last time i checked protestant/catholics, nationalist/unionists tend to look the same so i am willing to bet that genealogically speaking there is little or nothing to separate the two peoples either so the term foreigner is not only highly offensive but also highly inaccurate after all can you prove that you have a unblemished un-tainted bloodline running back to the original inhabitants of this island, maybe you have a good dose of Norman or viking blood running through your veins, who is to say that genealogically speaking and using your terminology that you are not more 'foreign' then me.

DoireNod

futurehope wrote: »

What I meant was that the nature of any civil rights problems in Ulster prior to 1969 did not merit the nature of The IRA campaign that followed. The key word is proportionality. The black civil rights campaign in The States did not degenerate into children being scraped off streets into plastic bags even though the condition of blacks in the deep south was far worse than that of Catholics in Ulster prior to 69.

I see. I beg to differ about the comparison of the two situations and feel it is unfair to do so. I believe that is all relative to the context and you can't justify or condemn things based solely on a completely unrelated (in a sense) topic. The blacks in America were subjected to hate and bigotry simply because of their skin colour, whereas the IRA's campaign was and always has been the ejection of an occupying force - the Civil Rights campaigns and their outcomes in Ireland were simply a catalyst for the escalation of support for the IRA.

Your comments about The Geneva Convention suggest that you believe all is fair in war - in which case you'd have seen no problem if The UK State had simply driven all The Catholics out of Ulster, or even exterminated them - something they had the power to do. Remember it applies to both sides.

Actually, that's a bit of a misinterpretation on your part. My comments were observations and enquiries into what you thought and not solid indications of my beliefs. What I do believe is that the true oppressors in this case are the British state and its agents - using precedent as the foundation for this belief, going back almost a millenium.