Time for some leadership from loyalists?

Now the IRA has (mostly) left the big scene of politics, the pressure is mounting on Loyalists to follow suite. Peter Hain and Michael McDowell is calling for leadership in that quarter to finally leave their various criminal pursuits behind. But as the IMC report indicates, there is no sign of any planned movement, significant or otherwise.

  • Mick,

    I suppose they might “leave the big scene of politics”, as you allege the IRA has done, were they gifted a range of Ministries at Stormont, the chance to “boss” the police, the chance to maybe relieve the Northern Bank of another 26.5m, the chance to pretend that the UVF and UDA were always really just doves of peace who slaughetered because no one would listen.

    The fact is that the IRA has NOT left the scene in any meaningful fashion. The DUP may accept the re-branding of Republican terrorism, but some of us are not quite so docile.

    The UVF and UDA may conclude that their only crime was not committing enough crime, that way the rewards from appeasers would be greater.

  • loftholdingswood

    Reading the whole of the latest IMC report certainly shows that there has been some progress albeit not at the pace required or desired. I also note the positive comments regarding the Conflict Transformation Initiative (CTI) and the UPRG.

    I am afraid that the pace of change will be dictated by confidence building and consultation with the respective constituents. Consensus building is a time consuming exercise.

  • Northsider

    They reserve the right to shoot eachother in any future feud (which is certain to develop – going on past form) and to protect criminal empires.

    No amount of trips to Dublin to seek ‘assurances’, press releases, media breakfasts etc will change that one basic fact.

    Oh, and should any young preacher out to make a name for himself decide to ‘get the blood up’ during a particularly trying marching season, they can be used to kill innocent Catholic civilians walking home from pubs, or barmen drinking in bars on the Shankill road…

    Send in the SAS.

  • overhere

    Lets admit it they are simply criminal gangs and the defence of Ulster hogwash is simply that……. hogwash.

  • scary_eire

    Please can somebody answer this – prferably a unionist. Its been brought up so many times but why are there no calls from the politicians(unionist that is cause nationalist calls would only fall on deaf ears) for these so-called loyalists to disband now. Im always amazed at the silence from them towards the uda and uvf activity. Surely if they support law and order can they not make a public statement calling for their disbandement. Anyone care to tackle this statement

  • s_e,

    See DV’s post above. No one can accuse him of ever being silent on the subject of loyalist paramilitaries. Until the DUP signed up to the SAA, the standard view of most (though not all) anti agreement unionists was that the key flaw in the Belfast Agreement was in granting a de facto right of illicit non state ‘military’ groups to continue to pursue their, albeit limited, aims (subject to ongoing negotiations), (ahem…) so long as they didn’t get caught.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    David Vance: “I suppose they might “leave the big scene of politics”, as you allege the IRA has done, were they gifted a range of Ministries at Stormont, the chance to “boss” the police”

    This sort of behvaior requires the support of voters, David, something the Loyalists don’t have, not even in their putative strongholds. I thought Unionists were in favor of democracy…

    LHW: “Reading the whole of the latest IMC report certainly shows that there has been some progress albeit not at the pace required or desired. I also note the positive comments regarding the Conflict Transformation Initiative (CTI) and the UPRG. ”

    There might have been talk about movement, LHW, but no progress. The Loyalists are showing themselves for what they are — a collection of ill-disciplined gangsters who exists to prey upon their neighbors in a variety of fashions. There has been no credible reduction in criminality — drugs are still sold, businesses still extorted, etc. — just a great deal of talk.

    LHW: “I am afraid that the pace of change will be dictated by confidence building and consultation with the respective constituents. Consensus building is a time consuming exercise. ”

    Ah, the inevitable cry of “more danegeld” and “we needs a program for *that*!”

    Better to give the hoods a “drop dead” date, after which they wil be treated like the hoods they are. Let the bastards reap what they have sown.

    Mick: ”
    See DV’s post above. No one can accuse him of ever being silent on the subject of loyalist paramilitaries. Until the DUP signed up to the SAA, the standard view of most (though not all) anti agreement unionists was that the key flaw in the Belfast Agreement was in granting a de facto right of illicit non state ‘military’ groups to continue to pursue their, albeit limited, aims (subject to ongoing negotiations), (ahem…) so long as they didn’t get caught. ”

    Well, they bloody well aren’t holding up their end of the deal, are they?

  • Dread Cthulhu,

    I am a unionist and I am in favour of democracy. But I am also am implacably against terrorists in government. If the majority vote for that, which is pretty much the case as you point, it does not make it morally right. You know the old line by Benjamin Franklin that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch? If you’re then lamb, it doesn’t seem such a great idea!!

  • Mayoman

    “But I am also am implacably against terrorists in government.”

    But what, as in the case of NI, the terrorists ARE the government?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    David Vance: “I am a unionist and I am in favour of democracy. But I am also am implacably against terrorists in government. If the majority vote for that, which is pretty much the case as you point, it does not make it morally right. You know the old line by Benjamin Franklin that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch? If you’re then lamb, it doesn’t seem such a great idea!!”

    Of course it’s not morally right… it’s government. The last government I am consciously aware of that truly strove to be “morally right” was the Carter administration in the United States and look what a mess that made.

    Democracy occasionally has to suffer through periods where the scallywags and the idiots are in charge. That is what makes it the worst possible system of government, except for all the others.

    My point, however, still stands. If the Loyalist paramilitaries want the things you seem to think they want, they’re hopelessly out to see. Say what you will about PSF, and I will confess a few opinions I wouldn’t share in the wrong bar, be it Belfast or Boston, but they would appear to actually represent a sizable population’s political interests.

    Ultimately, a successful democracy is about compromises.

    I take your point about Franklin, although I would point out, as the rights of a Crown subject are limited to whatever Parliment agrees they are this week, that would be something you would be more interested in correcting.

  • Mayoman,

    Just to be clear; the terrorists are the people that slaughtered innocents at a cenotaph, at a bar in Greysteele, at a crossroads in Teebane, at McGurks pub. Such scum have no right to ever sit in government.

    Dread Cthulhu,

    When I speak of morality, I refer to the morality that insists we do not reward killers and thugs by placing them in Government. Idiots and scallywags I can live with – terror godfathers are a different matter.

    As far as the alleged loyalists are concerned, I can hardly think of words bad enough to describe what I feel towards them. They are just pathetic.

    Final point; I appreciate politics is the art of the possible and it is built on compromise. That’s fine. But, to quote Winston Churchill, where is the point of compromise between the arsonist and the fireman??

  • Dread Cthulhu

    David Vance: “When I speak of morality, I refer to the morality that insists we do not reward killers and thugs by placing them in Government. Idiots and scallywags I can live with – terror godfathers are a different matter. ”

    Just as you can’t pick your family, you don’t get to pick your opposition’s candidates — a painful aspect of democracy, but an aspect nonetheless… If they choose to be represented by controversial figures, that is their choice.

    Assuming we truncate democracy to suit your delicate sensibilities, where shall we draw the line? Should only gangsters and terrorists be excluded, or should we expand that population? How about demagouges, rabble rousers and those who seek to incite to riot? First Minister designate Paisley seems to have, shall we say, a mixed record when it comes to the finer points of democracy and civil rights.

    Unionist politicians have an ill-hidden record of coziness with Loyalist thugs, so why should PSF candidates not be cozy with Republican ones? Gravy for a goose is gravy for a gander, David.

    David Vance: “As far as the alleged loyalists are concerned, I can hardly think of words bad enough to describe what I feel towards them. They are just pathetic. ”

    And, yet, they are allowed to continue, despite the contnued harsh language of right-thinking Unionists. Even when they behave badly, the best that Unionism can muster is a shake of the head and some variation of “well, they’re spides, what do you expect?”

    As for your last, Churchill had the luxury of ruling during a time of stark moralities seperated by bright lines. The bad guys wore distinct uniforms and goose-stepped. This more recent unpleasentness, what with the issues of collusion, false flag operations, bombs, conflicting claims of responsibility, splinter groups, tit-for-tat turf wars, drug turf wars and “Any Taig will do” ROE was anything but drawn out in bold strokes. The moral high ground belongs to no group.

  • Dread Cthulhu,

    We do not “truncate” democracy by ensuring terrorists are excluded from power, we protect it. I have no time for the putative Frist Minister but as far as I know he is not a self-confessed terrorist, unlike his putative Deputy First Minister. One word – Claudy.

    I have advocated that terrorists of all shades be imprisoned, funny how peace processors prefer to have them in power. I wish there was capital punishment as my preferred way of dealing with such scum.

    The moral ground belongs to those who oppose compromise with evil. Evil comes in the form of the IRA, UVF, UDA et al. You don’t need to be Churchillian to figure that.

  • Mayoman

    So, we have the situation where the ‘terrorists’ are ONLY the people who pull the trigger/plant the bomb Dave? Someone better tell the law in RoI that, looks like Mickey McKevitt should be set free. He’s down for ‘only’ directing terrorism – a bit like successive British governments have been doing. Should such people who direct terrorism be treated diffrently to those who carry out the attacks?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    David Vance: “We do not “truncate” democracy by ensuring terrorists are excluded from power, we protect it.”

    Do you? Democracy, representation or otherwise, works under the notion that the will of the people is of some import to the process, if I recall correctly. It is the people who choose the government and their candidates.

    Besides, in a democracy, the people always get the government they deserve.

    David Vance: “I have no time for the putative Frist Minister but as far as I know he is not a self-confessed terrorist, unlike his putative Deputy First Minister. One word – Claudy. ”

    I was giving the Reverand Dr. No credit for the effort, if not his successes, the point being that he, as much as McGuiness or anyone else, has expressed his contempt for democratic ideals. I am left with the impression that you are less interested with protecting the ideals of democracy and civil society, as you are of protecting your preferred outcome. Both constiuencies have their bastards, David, and excluding them fro the process serves neither the people nor the process one whit.

    David Vance: “The moral ground belongs to those who oppose compromise with evil. Evil comes in the form of the IRA, UVF, UDA et al. You don’t need to be Churchillian to figure that. ”

    Mayhap, but the compromises made to “combat evil” in this instance muddy the waters — collusion between the police and the hoods of both sides, collusion between the British military and the Loyalist gangs, et al and ad nauseum. There are no figures of leadership, in either community, fit for the glorious back-lighting that comes from holding the moral high ground.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Mr. Vance has strange views of excluding people from the democratic process. Of course these views did not include mainstream unionists leaders BEFORE they decided to share power. Despite many having bloody and chequered pasts, now they are most definitely beyond the pale.

    One suspects his old school ‘no taigs here approach’ has been left behind at the Unionist high water mark. Others less ‘reactionary’ will now take on the Unionist mantle, those who actually wish to share power with their fellow countrymen.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Prince Eoghan: “Mr. Vance has strange views of excluding people from the democratic process.”

    Not really — they are nations where felons forfeit their right to the franchise, either temprarily or permanently, depending on local custom. I can see how the notion of those who sought an anti-democratic overthrow of the state are now being elected representatives of said state could be a bit galling to a believer in the establishment. I do think he needs to consider the parallex view — that acceptance of their offices is, on some level, the ultimate capitulation — if you can’t beat them, join them.

    Prince Eoghan: “Of course these views did not include mainstream unionists leaders BEFORE they decided to share power.”

    Advantage of being the state and winning. History is written by the victors.

    Prince Eoghan: “One suspects his old school ‘no taigs here approach’ has been left behind at the Unionist high water mark. Others less ‘reactionary’ will now take on the Unionist mantle, those who actually wish to share power with their fellow countrymen. ”

    A couple of points… to his credit, Mr. Vance is equally scathing on terrorists on both sides of the fence, verbally. Now, if I recall correctly, harsh language is his limit where Loyalists are concerned, but that may be that they, Loyalists have a small political foot-print — their putative political wings are a bit like air fresheners on a garbage truck — an ineffectual after-thought.

  • Can I just say that to accuse me of a “No Taigs here” approach may be a familiar republican tactic, but it really doesn’t wash with me, as Dread Cthulhu alludes. I have no issue with any person on the issue of their faith (Militant Islamics apart, so maybe “No Jihad here” has a better ring?) I have huge issues with terrorist scum getting into power. Prince Eoghan is right royally wrong in his comments.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Dread.

    The thrust of my post has been missed. My point is that he is silent on the past activities of MAINSTREAM Unionist paramilitaries. The double standards do not fool me.

    >>A couple of points… to his credit, Mr. Vance is equally scathing on terrorists on both sides of the fence, verbally.<

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Prince Eoghan: “My point is that he is silent on the past activities of MAINSTREAM Unionist paramilitaries. The double standards do not fool me. ”

    And I’m telling you you’re wrong. I have danced this dance with David at least twice. He has approaches my view of “bastards is as bastards does.” Our largest point of contention is that he has a rather British opinion on Loyalism, which, when you scrape away the class rhetoric, amounts to a rather British bobby technique of “STOP! Or I’ll say stop again…” and I would prefer something a little more vigorous.

    Now, he is more vocal about Republicans, but that is simply a matter of which bull, from Mr. Vance’s perspective, is goring his interests. He is entitled to his perspective.

    Prince Eoghan: “I wonder if he was astute enough to be a leader of men, would these loyalist terrorists have known what his wallpaper looked like? Those with the stomach to carry out the wishes of some MAINSTREAM Unionist politicians are of no use to anyone now. They are an embarrassment, and plausible deniability always suited the agenda. ”

    As pointed out before, the state has the luxury of unofficial auxilliaries and proxies since, as the state, they get to define what is what. I’m sure if PIRA had triumphed, things would be equally but oppositely unbalanced. As I noted, it is the victor’s opinions that go in the history books.

    Prince Eoghan: “These self-same MAINSTREAM Unionist politicians are still around. Yet he and others like him, were silent until they decided to share power with Taigs who have similar murky backgrounds.”

    And he’s been called on it — he has not answered as of yet, but what, do you suppose, your beating your breast and making a ruckus is going to accomplish? Yes, Unionism got to sub-contract out their mayhem, Rev. Dr. No’s half-arsed attempt to set up a DIY shop notwithstanding. That does not change Mr. Vance’s arguement that Republican’s have put for candidates with blood on their hands, rather than simply on their ledger-books and memo-pads. He seems to think it makes a difference, I disagree. You howl.

    Prince Eoghan: “Hence now they are lambasted as apostates, traitors etc…whereas before they were ‘staunch defenders of the union’, could those guilty of hypocrisy please stand up? ”

    As noted before, the number of players in this dirty little game who come to the table with clean hands is astonishingly small. Me, I keep it simple — both sides had their bastards and the people picked their poisons. The Unionists look like they won the armed conflict, but are flagging where winning the peace is concerned. The more either side moans about yesterday’s evils is another day wasted in dealing with today’s problems.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Dread.

    Wondering why you were contradicting yourself when I discovered my mistake;

    >> “My point is that he is silent on the past activities of MAINSTREAM Unionist paramilitaries. The double standards do not fool me. “< >And he’s been called on it—he has not answered as of yet, but what, do you suppose, your beating your breast and making a ruckus is going to accomplish?<

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Prince Eoghan: “Surely you are not chiding me for calling him on his hypocrisy? Please Dread, you must not have seen his site. The man screams from the rooftops about terrorists in power but prevents (by way of banning) people when challenged on his hypocrisy. ”

    Gee, I never would have guessed that he might not welcome you on his patch. His site, his rules, seeing as he’s paying for the priviledge, one way or another. Why should he pay for the chance to have you coming in and haranguing him there when he can come here and have you do it for free?

    Prince Eoghan: “He has not answered, and never will because he can’t! ”

    If you believe this is truly the case, mark yourself down for a point scored and enjoy the deafening silence. I really don’t care whose aligators are removed from the swamp first, just so long as we commence with draining it.

    We are (or at least should be) to a point where scoring points over who had the better bastards was a non-subject.

    Prince Eoghan: “I am not fooled by the front of civilized chat coming from that quarter, in recent days he has drooled over the shooting of a Nobel peace prize winner. A more bloodthirsty individual you will never have the displeasure of meeting. ”

    You really might need to get out more, Prince, if you honestly believe the above.

    For starters, he’s a Unionist… they had to sub-contract their dirty work, remember?

  • Prince Eoghan,

    When you learn to ask a coherent question, I might answer it. You could learn a lot from Dread Cthulu. I presume you are so soaked in republican bigotry that you cannot frame a question without resorting to oxymorons which, well…only a moron would try to answer 😉

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>We are (or at least should be) to a point where scoring points over who had the better bastards was a non-subject.< >You really might need to get out more, Prince, if you honestly believe the above.<

  • PaddyReilly

    What is this nonsense? In Ireland there are precious few political parties which were not founded by insurgents. The Unionist Parties start with the UVF, and the illegal gun-smuggling through Larne. They were the first party to take up arms. Fine Gael is the first branch of the IRA to make peace, Fianna Fáil the second, the Workers’ Party the third, Sinn Féin the fourth. Even supposed political innocents such as the SDLP turn out to be harbouring ex-Officals in their midst.

    What does that leave us with? Alliance and the Greens. But for some reason, most voters find these to be unbearably smug and patronising. The electorate, it seems, like the politicians to have a terrorist connection or two in their background.

    At the same time the electorate rewards those who have turned their backs on these activities. It is not where you are coming from it’s where you are now that matters. It is the 21st Century now: the events of the 20th are no longer relevant.

  • Prince Eoghan,

    Why do you refer to Roman Catholics as “taigs”? Are you a bigot?

    Paddy Reilly,

    Some think that putting self-confessed terrorist godfathers into power is a less than civilises option. The reality is that it is the IRA, first and foremost, that has carried out the greatest imaginable carnage, and here I’m thinking of spectaculars like Claudy. Do you really think that those behind atrocities such as that, and Lam Mon House, are fit to govern? Really???

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>I presume you are so soaked in republican bigotry that you cannot frame a question without resorting to oxymorons which, well…only a moron would try to answer 😉
    Posted by David Vance on Apr 27, 2007 @ 09:47 PM

    Why was the murky past of various high profile Unionists never a problem to you?
    Why is sharing power with Taigs such a problem for a good God fearing Christian like yourself?
    Do you really think that advocating mass murder in the form of nuclear strikes is an appropriate response to conflict in the middle-east?

    Posted by Prince Eoghan on Apr 27, 2007 @ 10:46 PM

    Prince Eoghan,

    Why do you refer to Roman Catholics as “taigs”? Are you a bigot?

    Posted by David Vance on Apr 28, 2007 @ 11:00 AM<

  • JG

    Well said Paddy…

    DV’s views would be depressing but luckily he represents only a tiny minority of opinion. Phew! Let’s all move on together and leave the old relics like Vance behind.

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>Phew! Let’s all move on together and leave the old relics like Vance behind.<

  • gareth mccord

    scary-eire
    Do the unionist community have a right in hating the entire catholic side?? Given the FACT that the majority of catholics votes go to S.F./I.R.A.
    So dont think because the unionist politicians are not calling on the uda uvf to go away that the rest of the community arent!!
    Look at the ombudsman report and tell me what the unionist politicians have constructivly done since it came out? F*** ALL!! Remember the majority of victims in the report were prods.
    What you dont take into account is that the loyalist paramilitarys are run by the governments forces. Look at the UVF, their leader is BUNTER “MI5” GRAHAM who has been on the books the last 20 years FACT. Why do you think the ombudsman report wont have justice? The same way nobody has been convicted of any UVF murder since their so called ceasefire in 94(30 murders)!
    Why has haddock got a deal from the government officials who have visited him with a lump sum and home whens hes released as long as he stays quiet? But he has bought the deal just like ones before but we know how trustworthy the BRITISH OFFICIALS ARE!!
    This last 30 years has been a game or toy for the british governments to take turns in playing. The ira/sf recruits rank from the bottom to the very very top and are still there ready to assume command of stormont. The uvf uda have been riddled with rats from the start and thats why there has been so little cases of justice against the same rats.Look at haddock , he has well over 300 convictions in court from burglary to gbh assaulting police arson robbery attempted murder but until recent coverage only one custodial sentance?? Not hard to work out !!
    How many scum from both sides have ended up in court and got away or practically away with the charges? Just one reason for the missing evidence no witnesses not enogh evidence dodgy witnesses etc etc is that its THE GOVERNMENTS GAME THEIR RULES!!

  • JG

    Good point PE!

  • The “Natives” on Slugger, as evidenced by some of these latter comments, are well beyond being taught anything. Stay ignorant guys, it’s what you do best.

  • Observer

    Natives are bit like that, Mr Vance.
    No gratitude.
    Its almost as if they thought they had a right to their own opinions.
    Look what happens when you let them vote, for God’s Sake! They end up voting for people you don’t like.
    Not good enough.
    Why don’t you ban them from your website?

  • Prince Eoghan

    Can you imagine the e-mail to Mick;

    Now listen here old chap.

    I’m all for free speech and all that malarkey, but sometimes for the greater good these types need taken down a peg or two. I’d seriously consider banning them, it’s my preferred method you know.

    The methods I’d really like to implement though are;

    1) Internment – that’ll teach the buggers.
    2) Destroy the abodes of anyone even suspected of speaking up – not before time I should add!
    3) Finally, but only if they haven’t learnt the benefits of being british – with the permission of our American friends of course I’d nuke them. Of course *grumbles* these Euroweenies won’t let us Yanks, er brits dole out proper justice to these vermin, these scum. My word these jackboots don’t half chafe!

    Yours

    Herr Dave.

  • JG

    LOL – David’s done a runner!

  • I wonder…

    ..damn, and just as I was about to ask him for the sixth time, if, as he cannot accept terrorists in government, that THAT must mean that he condemns the Unionist gunrunniers who helped establish the NI state in the first instance?

    Oh well, daresay I’ll get another opportunity. 🙂

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Prince Eoghan: “The whole tone of your post smacks of annoyance at me for daring to broach a worthy topic, sorry about that Dread.”

    My annoyance rises not from the topic, but in the ham-handed way in which you raise it.

    Prince Eoghan: “he has some people that fall over themselves on his site to protect ‘the leader’ I would never in a million years put you in the same boat. But there you go!”

    I’m not protecting him — quite the contrary. I simply don’t have to thump my chest like the biggest silverback in the pack to feel that I have made my point. Think rapier instead of morningstar.

    To boil it down, I challenge him on the facts and with rhetoric, rather than manifesto and talking points.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    David Vance: “The reality is that it is the IRA, first and foremost, that has carried out the greatest imaginable carnage, and here I’m thinking of spectaculars like Claudy.”

    Ah, so your complaint does run to which side had the better bastards…

    A trifle disappointing, but not wholly unexpected.

    I do find it interesting, David, that you reflexively need to bring up Republican paramilitaries in a thread about Loyalist paramilitaries… I would think that a right-minded Unionist like yourself would be able to address the issues as they arise, without the need for a smoke-screen or the need to reflexively change the topic.

    Until and unless *all* the hard discussions can be had civilly and in all seriousness, things are going to be stuck right where they are. A pity one side has the civility and the other the seriousness…

  • Prince Eoghan

    Dread. *shakes head*

    I can do no other than bow before your utter majesty. I will endeavour never again to commit the unmentionable crime of grabbing a hypocritical bigot by the short and curlies, and shaking hard.

    That is not without your permission first ;¬)

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Prince Eoghan: “I can do no other than bow before your utter majesty. I will endeavour never again to commit the unmentionable crime of grabbing a hypocritical bigot by the short and curlies, and shaking hard. ”

    Think of it like comedy or beach volley-ball… first the set-up, *THEN* the punch-line.

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    I think dread is the dictionary definition of “tame Taig”

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TEP: “I think dread is the dictionary definition of “tame Taig” ”

    Aw…. does the polite language confuse you?

    There is no debate without discussion… howling like an angry chimp whilst flinging linguistic shite does not encourage debate.

    I’ve never ceased to be amazed how brave the anonymity of the Internet makes some folks…

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    dready

    the only time i fling linguistic shit is when wee davey flings it first. His problem is I fling it better so he has to ban me so that he can wallow in his hypocrasy and not have to admit it exists.

    You on the other hand seem to stroke his ego and tell him the unionists were better then the republicans and this you try to pass off as civilized debate.

    When he starts flinging shit you can either duck or fling it back, you choose to duck I choose to fling it back.

    And it has nothing to do with the anonymity of the internet as I have nothing to fear from you or David in the real world ….unless you are an MI5 tout and put me on the persona non grata list at Heathrow

  • Prince Eoghan

    Sean

    Dread is one of the good guys and definitely not a sycophant of anyone. I am sure we are just at crossed purposes.

    Just don’t dare criticise the US or you really will feel his wrath. :¬)

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    I criticise everyone including by lovely Canada

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TEP: “the only time i fling linguistic shit is when wee davey flings it first.”

    All the social dynamics of kindergarten… “HE MADE ME!” mentality…

    TEP: “You on the other hand seem to stroke his ego and tell him the unionists were better then the republicans and this you try to pass off as civilized debate. ”

    Not really, but feel free to try again. I have a fairly steady “bastards is bastards” where thugs are concerned. In fact, I made of point of saying that, all things considered, we should be past whining about who was worst and get on with the business of cleaning up the dregs of the conflict, which would be those groups still active, i.e. Loyalists and the residual/ dead-enders of the Republican groups.

    TEP: “When he starts flinging shit you can either duck or fling it back, you choose to duck I choose to fling it back.”

    Wrong again. Rather than falling back upon the behaviors of the kindergarten or the monkey-house, I seek to engage him in discussion and debate. Just because I speak civilly to him does not make me a sycophant, nor does it mean I agree. It simply means that I strive to act like a grown-up.

    TEP: “And it has nothing to do with the anonymity of the internet as I have nothing to fear from you or David in the real world ….unless you are an MI5 tout and put me on the persona non grata list at Heathrow ”

    Ah, and now we come to the crux — you think it is fear that makes people civil. A sad statement, all things considered.

    As for the other, I’d say you lack imagination on the sorry attempt at an insult. As for the other, I’m not nearly that cruel.

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    dread

    All the social dynamics of kindergarten… “HE MADE ME!” mentality…

    Ahh yes your own kindergarten mentality “I am better than you so I am taking my marbles and going home”

    we should be past whining about who was worst and get on with the business of cleaning up the dregs of the conflict

    I couldnt agree with you more however I believe the easiest way to get past this is for the loyalists to accept their role in the conflict instead of having them pretend their hands are lily white and blood free

    Wrong again. Rather than falling back upon the behaviors of the kindergarten or the monkey-house, I seek to engage him in discussion and debate

    See note above except for the agree bit

    Ah, and now we come to the crux—you think it is fear that makes people civil. A sad statement, all things considered

    Wrong again, since it was you who brought it up it must be your attitude not mine

    As for the other, I’d say you lack imagination on the sorry attempt at an insult. As for the other, I’m not nearly that cruel

    It wasnt an insult just a recognition that MI5 likes to play both ends against the middle and perhaps there is more to your soft sell than what appears

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    Dread

    When david starts throwing the over the top rhetoric about republican butchers I believe its only fair he gets it back about the loyalists butchers. Who in the long run were crueler than republicans, or have we forgoten about the romper rooms

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TEP: “When david starts throwing the over the top rhetoric about republican butchers I believe its only fair he gets it back about the loyalists butchers.”

    Ah, but you do not understand the Unionist mind-set — the Loyalists are almost as alien an “other” to the Unionists and the Republicans. In some ways, perhaps even more alien. Your chest-thumping has no impact because you’re chosen ground, in his mind, is inherently invalid, your argument dead on arrival. Unionism and Loyalism are not synonymous within the Unionist vocabulary.

    TEP: “Ahh yes your own kindergarten mentality “I am better than you so I am taking my marbles and going home” ”

    Invalid on its face, seeing as I am responding to your post. As for David, he’s under no obligation to continue to comment if other’s get abusive. Until and unless you learn to engage him in discussion, he, as a commentator, has no onbligation to listen to you do your howler monkey imitation, watch the slides of you last vacation or anything else you’d care to do.

    TEP: “I couldnt agree with you more however I believe the easiest way to get past this is for the loyalists to accept their role in the conflict instead of having them pretend their hands are lily white and blood free”

    Ah, but no one, not even the dreaded David Vance, is doing that. Just ask him. No, whether Unionism has the gumption and the backbone to do any heavy lifting outside of a garden center, remains an open question. Thus far, we’ve condemnations a-many and practical action near nil.

    TEP: “Wrong again, since it was you who brought it up it must be your attitude not mine ”

    Your words, quoted: “And it has nothing to do with the anonymity of the internet as I have nothing to fear from you or David in the real world” which came in response to my allusion at the “bravery” that comes with anonymity. I am civil, not out of fear, but out of a desire to be a responsible grown-up. When called upon your lack of civility and your bravery in anonymity, you clearly stated that you had nothing to fear. Perhaps you were unable to infer what was implied…

    TEP: “It wasnt an insult just a recognition that MI5 likes to play both ends against the middle and perhaps there is more to your soft sell than what appears ”

    I was thinking of the word “tout,” specifically…