• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Unionist violence


MacCoise

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
102
With the IRA out of the picture as a military force and given political unionism's tolerance of sectarian attacks, is it inevitable that unionist violence will escalate especially against isolated catholic communities such as North Antrim?
 

idefix

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
91
Website
en.wikipedia.org
MacCoise said:
With the IRA out of the picture as a military force and given political unionism's tolerance of sectarian attacks, is it inevitable that unionist violence will escalate especially against isolated catholic communities such as North Antrim?
Has it escalated since the GFA?
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,546
idefix said:
MacCoise said:
With the IRA out of the picture as a military force and given political unionism's tolerance of sectarian attacks, is it inevitable that unionist violence will escalate especially against isolated catholic communities such as North Antrim?
Has it escalated since the GFA?
did it stop?
 

MacCoise

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
102
JCSkinner said:
I think there is already a thread on this, following Sinn Fein's release of a document entitled Unionist violence in Antrim and Derry yesterday.
yes but specifically the question here is does the IRA statement make unionist violence more or less likely?
 

idefix

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
91
Website
en.wikipedia.org
ON THE ONE ROAD said:
this is what happens when you ask retorical question, jeasus.
This is what happens when you don't explain what your point is (assuming its relevant to the question being asked).
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
MacCoise said:
JCSkinner said:
I think there is already a thread on this, following Sinn Fein's release of a document entitled Unionist violence in Antrim and Derry yesterday.
yes but specifically the question here is does the IRA statement make unionist violence more or less likely?
I know the Shinners used it, but I'm not happy with the term 'Unionist violence'. Much of what is referred to is violence conducted by those well-known drug-dealers and general gangsters the UVF and the LVF, with their antecedents the UDA largely watching on laughing.
These scum, who rejoice in linking themselves to Loyalist political aims, will continue their antisocial behaviour no matter what, as their activities have everything to do with racketeering and intimidation, and virtually nothing to do with politics.
But as Dan the man says in the Direland, they did used ot claim that they only existed in response to the IRA...
 

green

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
136
Website
www.younggreens.ie
JCSkinner said:
I know the Shinners used it, but I'm not happy with the term 'Unionist violence'.
It seems to be a new tactic devised by the leadership to try to link the UUP and DUP's lack of action on this front to SF's unwavering support for the now stood-down IRA.
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,546
JCSkinner said:
yes but specifically the question here is does the IRA statement make unionist violence more or less likely?
I know the Shinners used it, but I'm not happy with the term 'Unionist violence'. quote]

would the term pro british violence be aceptable?
 

cain1798

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
418
green said:
It seems to be a new tactic devised by the leadership to try to link the UUP and DUP's lack of action on this front to SF's unwavering support for the now stood-down IRA.
Well it's new in that it has been used for a couple of years now. Since the UUP and the DUP adopted what are essentially Anti-Agreement positions we would argue this makes their POLITICAL aims (Obviously different tactics) little different from that of paramilitaries as neither the UVF nor the UDA support the Agreement either.

And yes, there is and long has been a nod and a wink culture between 'mainstream' unionism and the paramilitaries on their side, but that's hardly news.
 

PaulHarte

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
29
JCSkinner said:
Because most unionists are not violent?


I never sugested that most unionists are violent - though one could argue that most unionists support violence as they vote for parties that support violence - DUP, UUP and the handful that vote PUP.

The people carrying out this wave of attacks and intimidation are unionists. Dont see what the problem with saying that is. Unless you are in the PSNI in which case you would be slow to admit that this is even sectarian and might even suggest like the Deputy Chief Constable that domestic rows might be the cause of these attacks. :roll:
 

duff

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
111
jjcarroll said:
Speaking of 'Unionist Violence', how would you describe the attacks on the Protestants in the Fountain?
These attacks should cease immediatly. I belive the RIRA warned those involved.
 

PaulHarte

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
29
jjcarroll said:
Speaking of 'Unionist Violence', how would you describe the attacks on the Protestants in the Fountain?
Nationalist violence if it is committed by nationalists. Unionist violence if it is committed by unionists and British violence if it is committed by the British forces (including the PSNI).
 
Top