You can say that, but Paisley was one of the few politicians who was never part of a paramilitary and rarely spoke favourable of any of them.

@@paulmillar5954 what paisley said in public and did in private are two different things as ulster resistance proved ... Paisley was very cosy with the paramilitarys

​@@paulmillar5954 You're incredibly naive. A former Army colonel said that Ian Paisley supplied the money for at least one of the first bombs of the Troubles. And that's just the start of it.

@@markywaddy6504 I checked out your claim, which originally comes from Retired RUC Officer David Hancock. Whilst I don't know if there would have been any motive for Hancock to lie, there's lots of skepticism around the claim, due to the lack of hard evidence. The Ulster Resistance was pretty bad tbf, although even they were not directly associated with any murders, and were quickly disastablished again. But overall I stand by my claim that there's a big difference between stirring other people up, and actually using a bomb or gun to kill someone.

@@quack437 I don't think he was perfectly innocent, by any stretch. But I am stating that you can't say he was the main source of the troubles, when we know that the other leaders were literally fighting in paramilitary organisations. At worst he was an equal offender to the other leaders, but he was by no means the most guilty.

Showing herself up is all she was doing...I remember in the 1980s they used say the Republic was old fashioned and backwards...how times have changed they've been shown up as to how backwards they really are..