beano, I've been confused by the use of the term.

"All but a few of these 'loyalists' support violence and/or the paramilitaries"

As a worling term I have tended to define it as unionists who support violence and/or the terrorists.

I take it you do not call yourself a loyalist. I am curious to know what the few loyalists who don't support the violence are?

Re love ulster. I can forsee that at some stage the non terrorist unionists will stop posting and will leave the field for the "loyalists" and all shades of nationalism/republicanism. What is your view of how the active posters profile is changing and how are you finding your moderator roll?

"As a worling term I have tended to define it as unionists who support violence and/or the terrorists. "

I think I'd do the same now. Growing up (spidey teenager) it seemed like you had to almost want war to be a 'proper prod'. I think I've outgrown that.

"I take it you do not call yourself a loyalist. I am curious to know what the few loyalists who don't support the violence are?"

Well, I visited a few loyalist forums to see if I could get a feel for what it meant to be a 'loyalist' and whether I really was one or not. It seems to be a mixture of support for violence, being working class (and ergo obviously oppressed, neglected etc etc) and pure unbridled sectarian hatred.

You do get the odd (VERY odd, maybe one or two I think) who describe themselves as Loyalists who to me are Unionsits, simply be virtue of not supporting paramilitaries (at least not anymore).

" I can forsee that at some stage the non terrorist unionists will stop posting and will leave the field for the "loyalists" and all shades of nationalism/republicanism."

It would surprise me if this wasn't already happening.

" What is your view of how the active posters profile is changing and how are you finding your moderator roll?"

I just don't have the time. There's one specific guy there I'd love to ban but unfortunately
a) I don't have the power
b) I fear he may be more representative of your average poster than I'd like to believe.

Beano

I think I know who you mean. It makes me feel better to think that he is a troll *bertie clutches at another straw*

BTW I've identified strongly with your anger over the rioting and with all anger I think it is better finding its proper expression. You are speaking for many of us. Also we can't have it being repressed and then erupting in riots!

Rioting by unionists alienated by the rioting!

Well, i'd think of myself as a loyalist, simply because of what i want for where i live, being more of a working class persuasion. I can relate to the 'supposed' goals of loyalist parties, but i cannot vote for them based on their background and hypocritical stances. Whereas unionism on the other hand is dissappearing off into the realms of snobbery, upper-class wankers who live in areas such as malone road, fortwilliam or have a nice big house in the country.

For the record, feeling as a loyalist, i am disgusted and appalled by the rioting, and do not support it, or its so called cause, the parade at whiterock.

Ourkid - could you perhaps define what makes your ideology different from Unionism then?

The only difference I have ever been able to tell in ideology is that loyalists are usually more bitterly and overtly sectarian, and more tolerante/accepting of the use of violence.

To me, someone who displays neither of these traits is simply a fellow unionist.

It's always been that loyalism and republicanism are the more extremist elements of unionism and nationalism.

On CNN they described the rioters as "Protestant extremists", which was acurate in one way, but it does tar all Protestants especially true Christians with the same brush.

Where is Unionisms John Hume, and Loyalisms Gerry Adams and Martin MacGuinness?

I'm no admirer of the two latter, but they have moved republicanism a long way from terror. But it took them 25 years.

aonghus - how about David Trimble for John Hulme (I believe he genuinely tried, anyway) and maybe David Ervine as at least an attempt to emulate Adams? The problem for Ervine I think is that loyalists (should that be a capital L, do you think?) are so factionalised within themselves whereas SF and the 'official' Ra have complete control over republicans (R?) Didn't I hear Ervine quoted recently almost shaking his head and giving up on the paramilitaries and their internecine feuding?
ourkid - "Whereas unionism on the other hand is dissappearing off into the realms of snobbery, upper-class wankers who live in areas such as malone road, fortwilliam or have a nice big house in the country" Same as every set of politicians anywhere, whether the UUP, the British Tories, New Labour, the (US) Republicans, the modern Communist Party Of The Russian Federation or Osama Bin Laden. Everyone feels their politicians are unrepresentative because they have more stuff than the working class.
CJ- "On CNN they described the rioters as "Protestant extremists", which was acurate in one way, but it does tar all Protestants especially true Christians with the same brush" In exactly the same way that 'Muslim exremists' does, as I'm sure ordinary law-abiding, god-fearing muslims would tell you given half a chance (doesn't god have a lot to answer for?) - and exactly the same as how all catholics were tarred with the same brush as the IRA by the Brits in the 70's. Hence the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4.
beano - as I've said before, I wish that when I was a young idealistic republican I was able to discuss all this shit with people like you. One of the tragedies is that people like those who contribute here were brought up to hate each other rather than talk to each other.

For what it's worth I was thinking Trimble too.

I think Protestant Extremists would be apt except that where they differ from Muslim Extremists (I imagine anyway) is that few of the rioters, aside from those in the Orange Order, would actually be proper, practising Protestants. Even the names Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland are used more as ethnic markers than indications of a person's religion or lack therof.

That said, Protestant Extremists may still be the closest term we've got!!

I think Islamofascists is a good term for the fanatical muslim terrorists, it's a pity Prodofascists doesn't have quite the same ring..

I think that unionism deserves better than a Hume or a Trimble! (despite the lowlife rioting).

My minimum requirement is not cozying up to or agreeing to appease terrorists. Neither of these gentlemen meet the standard.

beano - I totally agree with the 'ethnic marker' thing, and the point about practising your religion. One thing the IRA never reconciled for me was the whole socialist/catholic ideal. I think I'm in some ways still a socialist but I long since ceased to be a catholic. I never understood how they were close in the first place, given that the catholic church outlaws communism and all its 'ideolatry'.
bertie - "My minimum requirement is not cozying up to or agreeing to appease terrorists" I agree - but maybe it's worth recognising that there are terrorists on both sides and that we need to shut them up? We need to take away their need to exist.

Actually, I think Prodofascist does indeed have a ring about it....

Graeme,

When I say terrorists I mean terrorists and cosying up to or agreeing to appease terrorists would not be meeting the standard. So we do agree.

The problem is that terrorists do not exist in a vacuum.

What John Hume was trying to do - since before the PIRA even existed - was to address the basic issues which provided the compost on which the PIRA grew.

That is not appeasing terrorism.

The problem with "loyalism" is finding out what those basic issues are - I find it hard to believe that moving a parade 150 yds justifies the rioting you have seen up north, despite Unionists politicains blaming the Parades Commission and the Police.

Bertie, can you name any conflict, anywhere, anytime, that has been solved without negotiating with all sides?

If you refuse to talk to terrorists to maintain a white vest, where does that leave you?

Fascinating thread Beano. Some major questions to distract me from work!

Glad I, and my modest little site, could help

Beano

I am so universally angry that I hardly know which enemy to target. I am angry with the rioters, I am angry about all the things that the rioters are angry about. I am angry with people who seek to excuse the rioters. I am angry at those who dismiss the anger. I am disengaging from Slugger for a while. I have no problem with unionists on Slugger being challenged about our response to the riots. I’m not that bothered that often when we do (or indeed when we condemn "loyalist" terrorism generally), it is not acknowledged. I do find it offensive when other posters accuse or imply that you have excused it, when they are responding specifically to a post where you have spelt out, where you stand. I threw my teddies out of the pram on Slugger last night and will stay away until I’ve calmed down a bit, if that ever happens! This site is less likely to have me on the verge of cyber-rioting. Beano, I can’t get a handle on what the OO response actually is. Some sources say that they have condemned the riots and other say that they haven’t. How do you read it?