Printable View
Agreeing to disagree won't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara
I disagree with your right to walk down that road.
I respect your right to disagree with us walking down that road.
c.f.
Would you mind still going on the march but walking down a different road, just to avoid the bother, like.
Yeah, okay.
Compromise is the only solution.
Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
The Orange Order is a politically motivated organisation that opposes the Good Friday Agreement for starters, and many members are also members of loyalist paramilitary groups.
It celebrates the defeat of the Catholics in Ireland and until quite recently was quite open about Nationalist/Catholic suppresion in Ulster. They considered Nationalists to be traitors, pure and simple.
The fact is that until the 60s, the Catholics did have less rights than Protestants in Ulster. No one can actually deny that, they were the underclass.
The KKK is a younger organisation that is also based upon the politics of keeping a section of society down.. in this case non-whites.
The protestant paramilitary murdered catholics.
The KKK murdered blacks.
How is it that you cant see the similarity?
I say again... if you support Orangemen marching through Catholic, Nationalist areas; by definition you also support Nationalists marching through Loyalist areas and the KKK marching through Black areas.
Personally, i quite support any organisation to march for that which they believe in... even the ones i despise like the KKK or BNP.
I do however draw the line on them marching through areas where they are hated and despised.. that is just fanning the flames of hatred for no other reason than they want to cause trouble.
Eight Words the Wiccan Rede Fulfil! An It Harm None, Do What You Will
This is how it should be,but I'm sad to admit that there will always be factions of people who's sole purpose in life is to cause pain and suffering wherever they go and gain enjoyment from doing it:(
What a stupid, puerile thing to say, l would have thought better of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
You are the one that seems to think one type of baseless hatred is better than another.
I'm saying thay're all pretty fucked up.
My Great Grandad was an Orangeman.. my Grandad was disowned for marrying a Catholic. They really are all for the community huh?
lt gets worse and worse ... any more baseless shit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Talk about putting words in one's mouth!
If you're gonna dissagree with something it's always better to have a reason for it and to state that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
To simply make comments about how good or not a post is.......well.....is a bit silly really.
:shifty:
Jonno :cool:
You know, one day Jonno, you'll read what's going on and make a sensible post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene
I did say that it appeared that way, not that it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
This is because you have yet to give one reason why the Orange Order in Ulster is different.
Merely stating "thats crap" without any reasons why it is so.. doesnt make it so.
There is plenty of evidence concerning the history of the Orange Order in Ireland, it shouldnt be a problem.
So what you're saying then, is that lynching black people, and tying them to the backs of pick-up trucks and dragging them through the streets, and burning their houses down, is the same as men and boys marching through the streets banging drums and waving flags?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Weird! :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
Maybe he meant that blowing up and killing innocent people was the comparitive?
:lol: Yeah ok :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
No, in this case the Orange men would be the blacks and the other lot would be lynch mobs.Quote:
So what you're saying then, is that lynching black people, and tying them to the backs of pick-up trucks and dragging them through the streets, and burning their houses down, is the same as men and boys marching through the streets banging drums and waving flags?
Difference being that the orange men only have to walk a slightly different route to avoid trouble, it was the lynch mobs who went looking for people.
And in NI it's the Orange lot who go looking for trouble and thats exactly what they get. I'm sorry but if you knew full well that maching your flag through certain places would cause trouble and violence then you would go a different way wouldn't you?
Actually you probably wouldn't cos no one scares you etc blah blah :rolleyes: but most people would unless they actually wanted trouble.
THAT is my point which you seem to have so much difficulty comprehending.
Jonno :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
No,
Im saying that an organisation that has killed people in the past for their beliefs and still has in its code that these people are not worthy to socialise with... many of the members also being in paramilitary organisations
are the same as
An organisation that has killed people in the past for the colour of their skin and still believe that those people are not worthy to socialise with... many of the members also being in paramilitary organisations.
The only difference is that in the past one killed for religious belief and the other for the colour of the skin.
If either of these organisations wish to march where they are not welcome they shouldn't be allowed.
I'd object to Nationalist/Catholics (eg PIRA, Sein Fein) marching in a Loyalist/Protestant area they weren't welcome for the same reason... i havent particularly got a hatred of one side or the other.
Edit:
I wish to differentiate something.
The Orange Order is active in many countries, however it is only in Ulster and Scotland that i have ever heard of associations of violence. This is probably due to the sectarian nature of the areas.
I do not include the "Lodges" of any other nations in any accusations of hatred and bigotry... however read your "Qualifications" to join, if the shoe fits...
So let me get this straight Jonno, you're saying that it was the blacks fault, for looking for trouble, that caused them to be lynched?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene
Even weirder.
You seem to conveniently forget that both sides here are the same, almost, one side has killed thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with their shit, or are you saying that the blacks deserved what they got, as Jonno says?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
You missed this bit out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wipeitonme
No doubt you'll accuse me of not reading the thread again. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Thing is, the rest of us could actually see it up there, so obviously whoever reads these out to you missed that bit.
Edit: Just heard that the UVF have been declared to have broken their ceasefire. About time too, they haven't really been sticking to it for years.
Why don't you just FUCK OFF! l'm getting sick of your constant insults, that you bring up for no other reason than to be a CUNT, you're supposed to be a fucking MOD, why don't you start acting like one?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
No, if you actually read what I said, I said that the lynch mobs went looking for blacks and the blacks got hurt/killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
In NI the Orange people go looking for trouble.......and get hurt/killed so the orange people are a bit of a mix of the 2, they go to a place knowing they will get attacked yet they still do it. Why?
btw, reduced to telling people to f-off? dayum I thought you could hold out longer than that :(
Jonno :cool:
pride, stupidity or just fancy stiring up shit maybe a mixture of each.Quote:
they go to a place knowing they will get attacked yet they still do it. Why?
they may be wrong to march through somewhere they are not wanted but they should have the right to do so.
Yes we all know that, but by the same token you should be able to walk down the street without getting mugged, you should be able to leave your door unlocked at night, you should be able to go to the pub without getting in a fight, you should be able to travel on a plane without the fear of terrorism, you should be able to do a lot of things, the point being if you knew a bad thing would happen as a result or your actions you would not follow that course of action unless you actually wanted that trouble it may cause (with a few exceptions obviously, but in this case it applies).
Jonno :cool:
I often go down the pub and not get into a fight just as the people marching often march and dont start off a riot. It seems to be more the uvf looking for an excuse to attack the police and get themselves noticed rather than the people marching smashing the place up.
would you stop travelling on the tube to work because of a terrorist attack im guessing not. then why should these people stop marching because a terrorist organisation wants to use them as an excuse to cause trouble.
It's simply about using discretion in order to give rise to compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4play
It's a free country, I should be able to watch Man United Vs Liverpool in the Liverpool supporters end and be able to cheer when my team scores and wear a shirt of my choosing with a bunch of like-minded mates.
However, I use my discretion and realise that it would be a bad thing and I'd be better off in the Man United end. I still get to watch the game, except in a different seat (The Orangemen still get to march, except along a different route), I still get to cheer (the Orangemen still get their message out), I still get to wear attire of my choosing (the Orangemen still get to wear their funky clothes).
It's fairly easy if you're a reasonable person, however, reason has always been in short supply regarding this issue.
The people who live on the streets they wish to march down also have the right to say, "No we do not want you here, please march somewhere else. Somewhere the local residents appreciate your message". That seems fair to me. In my view the rights of the people who live there outweigh the rights of those who want to march.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4play
That way they have their march, the local residents have there peace and quiet and everyone should be satisfied.
Unless the only point in marching is to upset other people, which can only be achieved by proving you are the dominant force and that you can march where you want, whatever anyone else thinks.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
.....sure as long as it's just talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I said " ... the right to say ..." which would mean it was talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I don't think that's ambiguous, if so my apologies.
They have the right to make their views know. To the Parades Commission, the Police and any other relevant local authority. It is then up to those people to decide whether a march should be allowed to go ahead, or whether it's route should be changed.
Again, this seems fair to me.
These are the people who decide
My apologies as well. I should have said, "sure as long as it stay just talk".Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Rights to verbally object are obvious. Unless you live in a communist country.
@BM,
Then we are agreed.
The one group has a right to request to march and specify the route they wish to take.
The other group has the right to protest, saying that they wish the march to be held elsewhere as they do not want it (and what it represents) going thro' their streets.
Someone then arbitrates on what is the fairest solution. Which in this instance, as I understand it, was the march going ahead with a different route.
That all seems perfectly reasonable and makes sense to me.
Compromise is, as maker said, the only way.
Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I beg to differ.
Arbitration is not compromise, last I looked.
Good, though, if it works, and peacefully.
I'm not sure that particular solution would work in a lot of circumstances over here.
It didnt in this circumstance either, the Orangemen's supporters rioted all over Ulster from what i heard. (I havent been watching the news though, just hearsay)
Has the arbitrater resigned in disgrace yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
In this case, it was a lose:lose for the arbitrator..
If the march had went ahead where they wished to march, then there would have been riots.
If the march was not allowed there wold have been riots from the other side.
They therefore tried to compromise.. let the march go ahead, avoiding the Catholic area.... guess what, there were riots. ;)
Then I reiterate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Why would they.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
They made a decision which was in their power to make. They made the only reasonable decision they could under the circumstances.
They allowed the march to go ahead, but did not allow it to go thro' an area which would obviously cause problems. They tried to find a compromise solution, which I think they did (which is why I said it earlier).
Where is the disgrace in that. The disgrace is in the behaviour of those who did not accept the legal decision and who rioted in the streets.
This holds equally for either "side" in such circumstances.
There have been voices of descent in the Orange Order of late but there's been no talk of resignations. On the contrary, leading loyalists have drop-kicked the blame into the PSNI's end of the field and are happily attributing the recent anarchy to poor policing.
The UVF promised that there would be serious repercussions for the security forces if women and child protestors (children, I ask you) were removed from the road blockades. The PSNI premitted the blocking of traffic, claiming that the protests were peaceful and so the entire city ground to a halt.
I didn't get home from work until 9pm on Monday. They were burning cars on the railway line. And to add insult to injury, some old bint decided it was a good time to commit suicide so it was a good two hours before the train got moving again. How inconsiderate.
That should be obvious; when an official is even peripherally involved in an endeavor that goes bad (so to speak), the de-facto public stance is to demand a resignation.*Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Is this person different.
*Feel free to surmise intended sarcasm.
It's not a person, it's a group of people, I linked to it earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
They made a decision, which one group disagreed with and brought violence to the streets. It was their decision to make and it appears to be a fair and reasonable compromise. I can think of no earthly reason why they (or any one of them) would be expected to resign, under these circumstances.
If a group in the US asked for permission to have an "anti-black" march, thro a predominantly black area and the powers that be said "No, sorry, that's inflamatory likely to cause offence and possibly trouble. The march must be held elsewhere", would you expect them (the decision makers) to then resign, if the marchers became violent over the decision.
Oh, i see where tis is going...
The big difference is of course that they made a compromise and tried like hell to stop any trouble or violence on either side.. granted they failed, as there is no compromise in the eyes of bigots.
They didnt finish their vacation, go fundraising, to the opera and shopping whilst just letting the people get on with dying.
Edit:
To clarify; no one expected the useless arsehole in the whitehouse to get a shovel out and get his hands dirty. What they did expect was that he showed that this was more important than the above, and to cancel these useless engagements to show that he was doing all he could.
Chalice,Quote:
Originally Posted by chalice
Look time no speak old bean, good to see you about.
Sorry to hear you were late how, some people, tch.
Yes, yes, but what about the sarcastic view?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Rat-
Your posting presumes an element of malice on the part of Bush; an active urge to do harm to others, in this case through the vehicle of an easy and deniable neglect.
We arrive, finally, at the root of your animus.
Thank you for the clarification.
You realize, of course, that this would require he be an evil genius, which effectively places a moratorium on future negative references to his intellect, which fact you no doubt find tremendously disappointing.