Ok to call DUP dinosaurs

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,257
That is got to be the most naive assessment of the DUP's long-standing links to terrorism that I've read in some time. Ian Paisley was always careful to distance himself publicly from the monsters he created when they were finally exposed. He had already done exactly the same thing with the Ulster Protestant Volunteers over 20 years previously which he also founded and who were also exposed as a terrorist group.
Even if you are gullible enough to believe that Paisley accidentally founded a terrorist organisation once, surely you have the wit to realise that to achieve it twice and go on to suggest that it wasn't deliberate is just not credible. It would appear that you are not familiar with the maxim "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

You should do some basic research before rushing in to contradict things you know little or nothing about.

Your reference to Adams is just as idiotic. Pointing out the truth about the DUP does not a Shinner make.
A poster posed an article as evidence of DUP links to terrorism. I simply pointed out there was nothing in the article directly linking them to terrorism. They may well be linked to terrorism , but there is nothing in the article posted.

I've no time for either DUP or SF nutters in the North. I don't have any time for people to post something with no evidence to support and then start insulting other posters to try and cover that up.

I'm not sure why you have taken to insulting me as I merely posted a quote from the Ombudsman's report. You should take your concerns to the Ombudsman rather then abusing posters on an internet forum.
Be sure to let us know how you get on.
 
Last edited:


ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,257
Did the DUP go to the cops when they realised guns were being imported for a sectarian murder campaign by loyalists, if not, why not? They were telling Nationalists to go to the cops on the IRA at the time.
Maybe they thought they'd end up like Jean McConville if they did who knows, not you and not me anyway.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,787
Did you read the article you posted ?

The DUP had claimed to have severed links with the group in 1987 after it became clear that it was importing guns
The Ombudsman’s report reveals police intelligence that in December 1986 – the month after it had been set up by senior DUP figures – senior members of Ulster Resistance began collaborating with the UVF and UDA to jointly import weapons.It does not state whether the group’s political backers at that point had any knowledge of that activity.


I'd assume if there was evidence the DUP had knowledge of guns being imported the Ombudsman's report would have stated that. It doesn't.
Perhaps they did. If you have evidence you should post it or better yet inform the Ombusdman.

Article says the Ulster Resistance was set up in Nov 1986 and the DUP severed relations in 1987. When did Jarry sever relations with the IRA ?

Thank you.
If you contradict people with no evidence to back up those contradictions then you need to be prepared to be scornfully rebuked for your arrogance.
You asked me if I had read the article quoted. It seems obvious that you if you read it you didn't understand the implications of what it reported.
For the record the article states that Ulster Resistance was founded in November 1986 and that it immediately set about plotting alongside the UVF and UDA to import weaponry. This wasn't some democratic political body set up to work through constitutional means - Paisley ostensibly already had one of those in the guise of the DUP. It is quite obvious that the organisation's intended raison d'etre from the outset was violent resistance to the Anglo Irish agreement and Catholics in NI understood that full well at the time. In an article published in yesterday's Guardian it reports that Ian Paisley even warned those present at the founding meeting in the Ulster Hall that that some of them “would not see the end of the campaign which was just beginning”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/27/troubled-past-the-paramilitary-connection-that-still-haunts-the-dup
But Ian Paisley was always clever enough to provoke and encourage others to do the dirty work, and when links emerged connecting him to terrorism he had just enough wriggle room to avoid being directly implicated in the crimes concerned. The same of course can be said about Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness who by the 1980's were becoming openly involved in constitutional politics and standing for election. They have both denied being involved in the IRA at that stage and there is no concrete proof to suggest otherwise in their cases either. Had there been they would have been prosecuted.
Despite that many people, possibly including yourself, would scoff at those denials, yet in Paisley's case suggest that without cast iron evidence he is entitled to be regarded differently from them.
You're operating double standards and you don't seem to even grasp that.
I should add that I've never believed those denials by Adams or McGuinness either. Sometimes despite the lack of concrete evidence, the fact are perfectly clear. If one was to take the view that without evidence, something cannot be true, then it would be the case that the only major crime ever committed by Al Capone was tax evasion.
 
Last edited:

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,257
If you contradict people with no evidence to back up those contradictions then you need to be prepared to be scornfully rebuked for your arrogance.
You asked me if I had read the article quoted. It seems obvious that you if you read it you didn't understand the implications of what it reported.
For the record the article states that Ulster Resistance was founded in November 1986 and that it immediately set about plotting alongside the UVF and UDA to import weaponry. This wasn't some democratic political body set up to work through constitutional means - Paisley ostensibly already had one of those in the guise of the DUP. It is quite obvious that the organisation's intended raison d'etre from the outset was violent resistance to the Anglo Irish agreement and Catholics in NI understood that full well at the time. In an article published in yesterday's Guardian it reports that Ian Paisley even warned those present at the founding meeting in the Ulster Hall that that some of them “would not see the end of the campaign which was just beginning”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/27/troubled-past-the-paramilitary-connection-that-still-haunts-the-dup
But Ian Paisley was always clever enough to provoke and encourage others to do the dirty work, and when links emerged connecting him to terrorism he had just enough wriggle room to avoid being directly implicated in the crimes concerned. The same of course can be said about Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness who by the 1980's were becoming openly involved in constitutional politics and standing for election. They have both denied being involved in the IRA at that stage and there is no concrete proof to suggest otherwise in their cases either. Had there been they would have been prosecuted.
Despite that many people, possibly including yourself, would scoff at those denials, yet in Paisley's case suggest that without cast iron evidence he is entitled to be regarded differently from them.
You're operating double standards and you don't seem to even grasp that.
I should add that I've never believed those denials by Adams or McGuinness either.
I haven't contradicted anyone. I posted the findings of the Ombudsman from an article you referenced. You have selected quoted it and drawn conclusions that the Ombudsman did not state in his report. Again a direct quote from the Ombudsman -

It does not state whether the group’s political backers at that point had any knowledge of that activity.

(If you have an issue with this conclusion take it up with the Ombudsman. Don't attempt to lend legitimacy to your own conclusion by referencing an Ombusdmans report that doesn't back up your conclusions.)
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,787
I haven't contradicted anyone. I posted the findings of the Ombudsman from an article you referenced. You have selected quoted it and drawn conclusions that the Ombudsman did not state in his report. Again a direct quote from the Ombudsman -

It does not state whether the group’s political backers at that point had any knowledge of that activity.

(If you have an issue with this conclusion take it up with the Ombudsman. Don't attempt to lend legitimacy to your own conclusion by referencing an Ombusdmans report that doesn't back up your conclusions.)
What you are contradicting is the obvious - i.e. that the DUP were involved with terrorism.
In your previous post you scoffed at the denials by Adams that he was involved in the IRA at that stage, (despite there being no evidence that he was - otherwise he would have been prosecuted for it) yet are trying to undermine the widely held view (and not just among Catholics - moderate Protestants have no trouble suggesting it as well) that the DUP also had terrorist links, by pointing to a lack of conclusive evidence.
You're operating double standards.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,787
Also you complained that I insulted you by suggesting that to accept that Paisley, (having founded one terrorist group in 1966, and who washed his hands off it when it was exposed as such), didn't intend Ulster Resistance to involve itself in criminality from the outset, as well, even issuing blood curdling warnings to those joining that some of them would not live to see the end of what was being embarked upon.
I will repeat: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,257
What you are contradicting is the obvious - i.e. that the DUP were involved with terrorism.
In your previous post you scoffed at the denials by Adams that he was involved in the IRA at that stage, (despite there being no evidence that he was - otherwise he would have been prosecuted for it) yet are trying to undermine the widely held view (and not just among Catholics - moderate Protestants have no trouble suggesting it as well) that the DUP also had terrorist links, by pointing to a lack of conclusive evidence.
You're operating double standards.
So why did the Ombudsman not state that ? Again -

It does not state whether the group’s political backers at that point had any knowledge of that activity.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,787
So why did the Ombudsman not state that ? Again -

It does not state whether the group’s political backers at that point had any knowledge of that activity.
You see, your position here is untenable. When you scoff at the claim by Adams that he wasn't in the IRA at this time, despite a lack of admissible court evidence, but cast doubt on the suggestions regarding Paisley's links to loyalist terrorist groups, despite what we know for certain, then you are judging them by vastly different standards. That demolishes your credibility.

That sentence, by the way, neither proves nor disproves anything. It is a matter of public record that Ian Paisley fomented sectarian hatred and violence over many years by his intemperate, often blood curdling language. Is it plausible to suggest that he didn't know exactly what he was doing there? He founded two terrorist groups during his lifetime. Given Paisley's consummate ability to control people, and considering the iron grip he held on both the DUP and the Free Presbyterian Church right until almost the end of his life, the suggestion that both the UPV and UR were led astray by others is laughable.
Use your common sense, man.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,257
You see, your position here is untenable. When you scoff at the claim by Adams that he wasn't in the IRA at this time, despite a lack of admissible court evidence, but cast doubt on the suggestions regarding Paisley's links to loyalist terrorist groups, despite what we know for certain, then you are judging them by vastly different standards. That demolishes your credibility.

That sentence, by the way, neither proves nor disproves anything. It is a matter of public record that Ian Paisley fomented sectarian hatred and violence over many years by his intemperate, often blood curdling language. Is it plausible to suggest that he didn't know exactly what he was doing there? He founded two terrorist groups during his lifetime. Given Paisley's consummate ability to control people, and considering the iron grip he held on both the DUP and the Free Presbyterian Church right until almost the end of his life, the suggestion that both the UPV and UR were led astray by others is laughable.
Use your common sense, man.
You mean the Ombusdmans position?

The sentence proves there's not sufficient evidence to state whether DUP leaders knew the group was involved in terrorist activity.
You seem to claim you do have proof, I don't know why you don't provide this proof to the Ombudsman so he can amend his report.

I've never made any reference as to whether Adams was in the IRA or not. I pointed out the Ombudsman states that the Ulster Residence was set up in Nov 1986 and the DUP severed relations it in 1987. I then asked when Adams severed relations with the IRA ?
 
Last edited:

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,787
You mean the Ombusdmans position?

The sentence proves there's not sufficient evidence to state whether DUP leaders knew the group was involved in terrorist activity.
You seem to claim you do have proof, I don't know why you don't provide this proof to the Ombudsman so he can amend his report.
I've never claimed to have irrefutable proof but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in the public domain already, which would probably fall short of "trial standard" but a very good pointer nevertheless. I'm simply applying common sense. You don't have any proof to justify scoffing at Adams's claims about his role, yet apply a different standard of evidence to him.
You're not objective in other words.
What I'm doing here is challenging the notion, fashionable among right wing southerners these days, that the NI Troubles were the sole fault of the IRA and that unionists were merely victims of that and had no role in it themselves. It helps to discredit the challenge from Sinn Fein, but it isn't even necessary because the IRA were guilty of dreadful crimes anyway. There is no need to lie about what happened.
The truth is very different. The Troubles began with unionist violence against the Civil Rights movement and Catholics in general.

The first violence of the troubles was initiated by the RUC in Derry on October the 5th 1968 when they attacked a CR march with no prior provocation.
The first collaboration between the security forces and Ian Paisley's violent followers took place three months later when they attacked a civil rights march at Burntollet just outside Derry city.
The first homes burned down in a sectarian pogrom were Catholic homes when an entire street, Bombay street was burned down.
The first fatality of the Troubles in 1969 were 4 Catholics who died as a result of RUC violence.
That included the first child fatality of the Troubles, 9 year old Patrick Rooney who was shot dead taking refuge in his own home.
The first British soldier killed, Hugh McCabe, a Catholic home in Belfast on leave at the time, died as a result of an RUC bullet on the 15th of August 1969.
The first bombs of the Troubles were planted by the UVF, acting as agent provocateurs, in early 1970.
The first murdered RUC officer, Victor Arbuckle, was shot by the UVF in October 1969.

The bottom line is that when Catholics came peacefully looking for basic civil rights unionists responded by making war on them. A violent response to that was virtually inevitable and when it came it was considerably more effective in the destruction it wrought than anything that loyalists like Paisley could instigate, while hiding behind a barely concealed front of adherence to the law.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,257
I've never claimed to have irrefutable proof but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in the public domain already, which would probably fall short of "trial standard" but a very good pointer nevertheless. I'm simply applying common sense. You don't have any proof to justify scoffing at Adams's claims about his role, yet apply a different standard of evidence to him.
You're not objective in other words.
What I'm doing here is challenging the notion, fashionable among right wing southerners these days, that the NI Troubles were the sole fault of the IRA and that unionists were merely victims of that and had no role in it themselves. It helps to discredit the challenge from Sinn Fein, but it isn't even necessary because the IRA were guilty of dreadful crimes anyway. There is no need to lie about what happened.
The truth is very different. The Troubles began with unionist violence against the Civil Rights movement and Catholics in general.

The first violence of the troubles was initiated by the RUC in Derry on October the 5th 1968 when they attacked a CR march with no prior provocation.
The first collaboration between the security forces and Ian Paisley's violent followers took place three months later when they attacked a civil rights march at Burntollet just outside Derry city.
The first homes burned down in a sectarian pogrom were Catholic homes when an entire street, Bombay street was burned down.
The first fatality of the Troubles in 1969 were 4 Catholics who died as a result of RUC violence.
That included the first child fatality of the Troubles, 9 year old Patrick Rooney who was shot dead taking refuge in his own home.
The first British soldier killed, Hugh McCabe, a Catholic home in Belfast on leave at the time, died as a result of an RUC bullet on the 15th of August 1969.
The first bombs of the Troubles were planted by the UVF, acting as agent provocateurs, in early 1970.
The first murdered RUC officer, Victor Arbuckle, was shot by the UVF in October 1969.

The bottom line is that when Catholics came peacefully looking for basic civil rights unionists responded by making war on them. A violent response to that was virtually inevitable and when it came it was considerably more effective in the destruction it wrought than anything that loyalists like Paisley could instigate, while hiding behind a barely concealed front of adherence to the law.
Fair enough. It is easy for smug middle class people down here to criticise Northern Nationalists so I take your point. Nonetheless criticism of more moderate unionists (I'm not including a lot of the DUP there) is equally abhorrent. I can criticise the DUP and SF, I wouldn't have any much time for most people in either party.

It's a pity that the human rights activities of people like Eamon McCann were hijacked by others.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,787
Fair enough. It is easy for smug middle class people down here to criticise Northern Nationalists so I take your point. Nonetheless criticism of more moderate unionists (I'm not including a lot of the DUP there) is equally abhorrent.

It's a pity that the human rights activities of people like Eamon McCann were hijacked by others.
I have no issue with moderate unionists and vote tactically for them on the odd occasion when it makes sense to do so. McCann is articulate and principled but too far to the left to ever have a chance of making an impact. I think PBPs stance on Brexit cost him his seat as much as anything. Being a pro-Brexit political representative in a nationalist city which nowadays has grown outwards to within a mile of the Donegal border was an absurd stance. John Hume was much more pragmatic and sensible and achieved substantially on behalf of his constituents at a time when Eamonn was holding court alongside Mary Holland in the Gweedore Bar in Derry. That's really how most Derry people of a certain age would see him, I'd guess.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top