gaaboard.com

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/record-numbers-of-irish-recruits-join-british-army-2597027.html


RECORD numbers of Irish people are joining the British armed forces, with the levels increasing by upwards of 10pc each year for the past six years.
It is now estimated that 4,000 Irish citizens are in the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force or the British army.
Separately, figures obtained by the Irish Independent show the Irish Defence Forces received 79 applications for every officer cadetship position on offer this year.
A total of 2,365 people applied for just 30 officer cadetship places, a similar scenario to last year when 2,553 people applied for 32 places.
The 30 new cadets will get 15 months training before becoming officers, or "decision- makers", within the army. The numbers applying for positions in the Defence Forces has soared in the past two years, with 1,000 applications received in one week alone last year.
With a starting salary of €30,000, the positions within the air corps, army and navy are coveted as job availability falls off elsewhere.
Recruitment

But with just 30 places on offer this year, many are turning to the British army.
Last year, Irish and Commonwealth nationals formed 5pc of Britain's entire overall recruitment.
Precise numbers are not available for the total number of people joining from the Republic each year -- but it is estimated that upwards of 4,000 Irish citizens are now in the British armed forces.
One British army source said that recruits from the Republic were especially prized because most boast a decent education and all want to make the military their career.
"It is no surprise that a significant number of non-commissioned officers are from Ireland," he said.
In 2006 -- 12 months after British troops largely withdrew from patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland -- people from the Republic already made up 4pc of recruitment in the province.
In 2008, recruitment figures for Northern Ireland showed that 16pc of those joining the British defence forces had addresses in the Republic.
Each year from 2005 to today, the numbers joining the British army from the Republic have increased.
Initial indications are that the recruitment number will increase again this year.
- Ralph Riegel and Edel Kennedy

who are these free stater people you refer to in the thread title?

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 07:30:43 PM
who are these free stater people you refer to in the thread title?

You know who they are, It isn't derogatory it is just how I have always refered to people down there

I am sure Lizzie could maybe meet all  the new recruits when she is over visiting

Quote from: Trout on March 29, 2011, 07:42:11 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 07:30:43 PM
who are these free stater people you refer to in the thread title?

You know who they are, It isn't derogatory it is just how I have always refered to people down there

I am sure Lizzie could maybe meet all  the new recruits when she is over visiting

There will probably more recruits when the Head of the Armed Forces visits.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 29, 2011, 08:29:59 PM

Quote from: Trout on March 29, 2011, 07:42:11 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 07:30:43 PM
who are these free stater people you refer to in the thread title?

You know who they are, It isn't derogatory it is just how I have always refered to people down there

I am sure Lizzie could maybe meet all  the new recruits when she is over visiting

There will probably more recruits when the Head of the Armed Forces visits.

There will always be a few knobs in every country, they should be asked to hand in their passports on their way out of the country. No better than mercenaries.

Listen, its nothing new. In 1954 the IRA raided Omagh Barracks looking for arms and in the crossfire three British Soldiers were injured - 2 from Sligo and 1 from Dublin!

Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on March 29, 2011, 09:59:06 PM
Listen, its nothing new. In 1954 the IRA raided Omagh Barracks looking for arms and in the crossfire three British Soldiers were injured - 2 from Sligo and 1 from Dublin!

Tom Crean?

I take it free will wouldn't be part of a pure Republican's Republic?

4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I can certainly see why people would have a problem with irish men and women joining the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

Ye sound surprised lads  ???
Likely the same gobshites that would be quite vocal
In their partitionist viewpoint when ye get them
Talking in the pub  ::)

Ulick wants them stripped of their citizenship,
If Myles was dictator they'd be shot,
While TO wants to chat them up in a pub.

Three horrible fates.

I just did a quick Google there to see if I could find the actual numbers taking the shilling and swearing the oath. In doing so I came across a Tribune article from December which says there was 85 last year and 8 the year before. Anyone want to suggest how the Indo got their 'estimate' of 4k? Looks like "Sir" Tony is playing at recruitment sergeant - and that's another **** who should be stripped of his citizenship.   

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 11:16:01 PM
I just did a quick Google there to see if I could find the actual numbers taking the shilling and swearing the oath. In doing so I came across a Tribune article from December which says there was 85 last year and 8 the year before. Anyone want to suggest how the Indo got their 'estimate' of 4k? Looks like "Sir" Tony is playing at recruitment sergeant - and that's another **** who should be stripped of his citizenship.

Sadly the Tribune is the one that is gone.

33 or 45?

Quote from: Niall Quinn on March 30, 2011, 12:05:49 AM
33 or 45?

78

Trout

Can you describe a typical "free stater" for me please.

You can be broad in your terminology if you wish.........use big words if you need a challenge.

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 07:30:43 PM
who are these free stater people you refer to in the thread title?

Citizens or residents of the current legitimate and democratic Irish REPUBLIC, which fanatics wish to exclude from the future Socialist Peoples & Catholic Purity True Gael United Irish Republic. Expect deportations and cleansings after the Glorious Revolution. The 26 county traitor Vichy statelet will be cleansed by our betters.

On a seperate note I would be against the idea of Irish citizens serving in the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on March 29, 2011, 09:59:06 PM
Listen, its nothing new. In 1954 the IRA raided Omagh Barracks looking for arms and in the crossfire three British Soldiers were injured - 2 from Sligo and 1 from Dublin!

Disappointing, id have very strong views on any Irish citizen serving in the british army, id see them as traitors tbh. Its so sad that people can make this decision.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Similarly we Irish from the occupied six counties continue to be offended by our compatriots in the twenty six when being described as from a separate nation/country/culture/heritage.  We are as Irish as them.

Quote from: Aerlik on March 30, 2011, 01:24:30 AM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Similarly we Irish from the occupied six counties continue to be offended by our compatriots in the twenty six when being described as from a separate nation/country/culture/heritage.  We are as Irish as them.

Correct, for me it goes without saying, annoys and angers me when i hear a different view.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

Over the past 100 years or so, many more Irishmen have chosen to serve in the British Army than have chosen to join the death squads of the various paramilitary groupings on the island. Perhaps its the latter who should be stripped of their citizenship.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 30, 2011, 06:42:12 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

Over the past 100 years or so, many more Irishmen have chosen to serve in the British Army than have chosen to join the death squads of the various paramilitary groupings on the island. Perhaps its the latter who should be stripped of their citizenship.

YAWN

Quote from: Aerlik on March 30, 2011, 01:24:30 AM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Similarly we Irish from the occupied six counties continue to be offended by our compatriots in the twenty six when being described as from a separate nation/country/culture/heritage.  We are as Irish as them.

You might explain that to Trout - using terms like 'people down there' is hardly all-inclusive.

Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Says a lot more about yourself than him. What you saying is people in the north with a brit passport cannot call themselves Irish?

"The friendship that can cease has never been real."

Quote from: thebigfella on March 30, 2011, 10:45:36 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Says a lot more about yourself than him. What you saying is people in the north with a brit passport cannot call themselves Irish?

No, where on earth did I say that? I didn't even mention passports. I know many people who go with a British passport because it can be a matter of inconvenience and the office in Moleworth Street can be incompetent at the best of times. It's not for me, but it wouldn't change my opinion of that person or their allegiances.

What I'm saying is that I don't consider any Irishman who joins the British Armed Forces and serces the Queen to be Irish any more.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

A guy who is working in an area that he was always passionate about. Can't see an issue personally. He's still as Irish as you and clearly better off without the friendship.

Fair enough comments Gallsman but I will have to pull you up on one point.

Down South it is seen as very bad manners to talk politics in social circles and a no no in work.

Also, I feel that the average Northerner doesn't care much for Southern politics and I have no problem with that. However I do get a bit annoyed that some take the hump because some down south don't care about the north. Maybe Gallsman it is because they have the more pressing of issues such as work, paying mortgages, watching x Factor  (sadly)etc to occupy them.

It wasn't all plain sailing down here during "The Troubles" also.

The likes of Tom Barry and Emmet Dalton served in the British Army. I wouldn't have liked to tell them they were any less Irish than anyone else. What about Tom Crean?

Even Michael Collins himself 'served the queen' when working for the Royal Mail.

I could say I don’t understand the mentality that allows an Irishman to join the British Army, because I couldn’t imagine contemplating it myself. But I think I do understand it, from personal experience and some sort of cultural insight.

Many (most?) people are apolitical. (That may be the reason Michael Lowry and his ilk get elected). Combine that with the total domination of popular culture here by British influences, from Coronation Street to Manchester United to The Sun and you’ll find that a very large number of Irish people make no real distinction between Britain and Ireland in their daily lives. They, reasonably, see no appreciable cultural difference. They are almost oblivious to the political implications and so they are completely open to the blandishments of the British recruiting sergeant.

Coronation Street presents joining “the army” as a normal option for a young lad. The Sun in the hands of young fellas from Dundalk to Durrus screams support for “our boys” in Afghanistan and presents the whole enterprise as a heroic endeavour. Lads from Dublin on the terraces of Old Trafford rub shoulders with football soul mates who are British squaddies. It’s no great leap of loyalty for these people to join up.

As for personal experience, my closest friend at the time left school at 16 because his family couldn’t afford to carry him any more – he had to contribute financially. The only option he could find (in his terms) was to join the RAF. This was at the height of the Troubles, coincidentally a time when there were few opportunities in Ireland for a sixteen-year-old.

He had no political awareness. I had a little, though it was a sixteen-year-old’s. As far as he was concerned, he was going to a job – a job he was glad to get and that would enable him to send a few bob home to his family. I argued with him that it was more than a job. To him it wasn’t. (There was never a chance of him, as RAF ground crew, being posted to the North, for what it’s worth).

As regards his sense of Irishness, he didn’t really have one. He didn’t have a sense of Britishness either, as a member of the British services. He was/is one of those people who consider themselves citizens of the world and see nationalism as narrow and restricting. I respect that point of view.

He left the RAF after a few years. For the years when he was a member and a good few years afterwards, he was aware (probably from being advised by his colleagues) of the dangers of visiting home (Drogheda). He did so occasionally and clandestinely and we’d meet for pints. I visited him in England as well. We’re friends to this day.

Good post Hardy.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Did they care about southern politics? I'd be surprised if they did.
We're a long way from student protests of the 1960s/70s - today's students seem to  only be concerned about getting pissed every night.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 11:36:19 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Did they care about southern politics? I'd be surprised if they did.
We're a long way from student protests of the 1960s/70s - today's students seem to  only be concerned about getting pissed every night.

Says the man who calls himself pintsofguinness!

Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 30, 2011, 10:58:49 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

A guy who is working in an area that he was always passionate about. Can't see an issue personally. He's still as Irish as you and clearly better off without the friendship.

How very noble of you. Fortunately, what I "consider" is my own personal opinion, so yours is of no concern to me in the slightest.

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 07:30:43 PM
who are these free stater people you refer to in the thread title?

People who don't live in the occupied 6 counties obviously!! :)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 11:54:13 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 30, 2011, 10:58:49 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

A guy who is working in an area that he was always passionate about. Can't see an issue personally. He's still as Irish as you and clearly better off without the friendship.

How very noble of you. Fortunately, what I "consider" is my own personal opinion, so yours is of no concern to me in the slightest.

Out of interest why do you no longer consider him a friend? Is it because he joined "the Brits"? Your post seems to imply that previously he considered himself Irish - is it because you think he's betrayed his Irishness?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 11:36:19 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Did they care about southern politics? I'd be surprised if they did.
We're a long way from student protests of the 1960s/70s - today's students seem to  only be concerned about getting pissed every night.

True enough, few of them did. Then again, most northerners of my generation would be in a similar position if it wasn't about voting green or orange.

Quote from: Canalman on March 30, 2011, 11:10:07 AM
Fair enough comments Gallsman but I will have to pull you up on one point.

Down South it is seen as very bad manners to talk politics in social circles and a no no in work.

Also, I feel that the average Northerner doesn't care much for Southern politics and I have no problem with that. However I do get a bit annoyed that some take the hump because some down south don't care about the north. Maybe Gallsman it is because they have the more pressing of issues such as work, paying mortgages, watching x Factor  (sadly)etc to occupy them.

It wasn't all plain sailing down here during "The Troubles" also.

Since beginning work in my office in November, not a day has passed when politics hasn't been discussed. Obvisouly the dire financial straits the country finds itself in may have changed this "norm".

Of course it wasn't all "plain sailing", I never said it was. However, people in the south weren't getting murdered because of their identiy on a regular basis, almost none by the forces of another state. This is what irritates me. Never mind the day in, day out nitty gritty politics - major events of the Troubles such as Bloody Sunday are stains on Irish history, not just northern history. Yet a majority people of my generation down here may well struggle to tell you what city it even took place in!

Quote from: imtommygunn on March 30, 2011, 12:06:02 PM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 11:54:13 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 30, 2011, 10:58:49 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

A guy who is working in an area that he was always passionate about. Can't see an issue personally. He's still as Irish as you and clearly better off without the friendship.

How very noble of you. Fortunately, what I "consider" is my own personal opinion, so yours is of no concern to me in the slightest.

Out of interest why do you no longer consider him a friend? Is it because he joined "the Brits"? Your post seems to imply that previously he considered himself Irish - is it because you think he's betrayed his Irishness?

My post doesn't imply that he considered himslef Irish, although I have no doubt that he did and continues to do so. It implies that I considered him Irish. To give you a short answer, yes. His family are involved with an Irish nationalist political party - yet he signs up to join the forces of an occupying country. 800 years and all that.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 30, 2011, 06:42:12 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

Over the past 100 years or so, many more Irishmen have chosen to serve in the British Army than have chosen to join the death squads of the various paramilitary groupings on the island. Perhaps its the latter who should be stripped of their citizenship.

One man's paramilitary is another mans patriot. The double standards and hypocrisy of those denouncing the armed struggle here whilst shipping arms to Libya/Afghanistan/South America etc... Without any notion of what it was like to be Irish in the North after partition and up to recently. Where at every turn you were reminded of your inferiority to the British Majority and membership of the GAA made you a target for State as well as Paramilitary violence as with Aiden McAnespie. I am not for one minute condoning armed conflict any where and what we have now though not perfect is a hell of a lot better than the 50's and 60's, but it is easy to sit in your living room and tut.

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

Would an Irishman with an allegiance to the Irish republic be prepared to swear the following:

"I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me."

If so, then Free Stater is a suitable enough term for him, I could think of worse but Free Stater is both appropriate and historically accurate.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 12:07:29 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 11:36:19 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Did they care about southern politics? I'd be surprised if they did.
We're a long way from student protests of the 1960s/70s - today's students seem to  only be concerned about getting pissed every night.

True enough, few of them did. Then again, most northerners of my generation would be in a similar position if it wasn't about voting green or orange.

Quote from: Canalman on March 30, 2011, 11:10:07 AM
Fair enough comments Gallsman but I will have to pull you up on one point.

Down South it is seen as very bad manners to talk politics in social circles and a no no in work.

Also, I feel that the average Northerner doesn't care much for Southern politics and I have no problem with that. However I do get a bit annoyed that some take the hump because some down south don't care about the north. Maybe Gallsman it is because they have the more pressing of issues such as work, paying mortgages, watching x Factor  (sadly)etc to occupy them.

It wasn't all plain sailing down here during "The Troubles" also.

Since beginning work in my office in November, not a day has passed when politics hasn't been discussed. Obvisouly the dire financial straits the country finds itself in may have changed this "norm".

Of course it wasn't all "plain sailing", I never said it was. However, people in the south weren't getting murdered because of their identiy on a regular basis, almost none by the forces of another state. This is what irritates me. Never mind the day in, day out nitty gritty politics - major events of the Troubles such as Bloody Sunday are stains on Irish history, not just northern history. Yet a majority people of my generation down here may well struggle to tell you what city it even took place in!

But that's down to ignorance and today's culture. You see it in England too, people are more interested in what the Beckhams are up to etc. There's a real dumbing down of society. 
I'll never forget a woman I met in a pub in England (English woman) a few years ago who didn't know who Hitler was. 

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive. 

So it IS a term of disrespect.

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
So it IS a term of disrespect.

Where do you get that from?

btw if there wasn't a rule against personal abuse being called a "freestater" would be the least of MGHU worries. 

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:58:34 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
So it IS a term of disrespect.

Where do you get that from?

From the fact that you refuse to call the state "the republic" because you don't respect its claim to be a republic.

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:01:48 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:58:34 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
So it IS a term of disrespect.

Where do you get that from?

From the fact that you refuse to call the state "the republic" because you don't respect its claim to be a republic.

It's not that I don't respect it's claim to call itself a republic, do so if you want but I won't feel comfortable doing so until it's a 32 county republic.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 11:54:13 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 30, 2011, 10:58:49 AM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

A guy who is working in an area that he was always passionate about. Can't see an issue personally. He's still as Irish as you and clearly better off without the friendship.

How very noble of you. Fortunately, what I "consider" is my own personal opinion, so yours is of no concern to me in the slightest.

You post something on a discussion board, yet when someone replies to that you are totally unconcerned; unconcerned enough to reply to said reply.

How wonderfully absurd.

I bet you have a beard.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off.

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

No, I suggest those that get insulted by it realise that there is generally no deep dark motives behind the use of the word and get on with their lives. 
What would you prefer to be referred to as?

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

Sorry where was I nasty? No where did I deny anybody's right to be Irish or enfer that people from The Republic aren't. All I stated was that when Northerners refer to it as the Free State is out of envy of your ability to control your own affairs.

Unlike some of my fellow Nordies (now I wonder should we take issue over the us of this terminology?) I don't deny the 26 counties the right to refer to itself as a Republic...I don't see how that precludes the 6 from joining up to make a 32 County Republic. although given the way things are going I would suggest that should Ireland be Re-united it will probably be as a Federal State.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:57:52 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

No, I suggest those that get insulted by it realise that there is generally no deep dark motives behind the use of the word and get on with their lives. 
What would you prefer to be referred to as?

No? Fine. Your protestations of not intending to insult are pretty hollow, then. People have told you the term is offensive. You think it's OK to decide for yourself it's not and continue to insult them, knowing they find it offensive and why.

Try it with the "n" word and tell me the difference, should you decide for your own part that you don't mean it as offensive. Would you walk into a Harlem bar and say "hi n*****s"?

(I don't care what you refer to me as).

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:57:52 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

No, I suggest those that get insulted by it realise that there is generally no deep dark motives behind the use of the word and get on with their lives. 
What would you prefer to be referred to as?

No? Fine. Your protestations of not intending to insult are pretty hollow, then. People have told you the term is offensive. You think it's OK to decide for yourself it's not and continue to insult them, knowing they find it offensive and why.

Try it with the "n" word and tell me the difference, should you decide for your own part that you don't mean it as offensive. Would you walk into a Harlem bar and say "hi n*****s"?

(I don't care what you refer to me as).

I actually don't mind being a Nordie as long as it includes Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, oh and North Louth. :D

Nordies saying the southerners are "Free-staters" is (for some people) the same as the Southerners calling people in the north "Brits".

From now on, im calling all the "nordies" on the board either "Brits", "Britons", "Anglo-Saxon" or "ye English"


After all its just a term isnt it ye shower of Brits? 

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

So you prefer to use the term Freestater because you refuse to recognise that the state is actually a Republic? I don't think it's being overly-sensitive to find that insulting and also more than a bit irrational.

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 02:09:13 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:57:52 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

No, I suggest those that get insulted by it realise that there is generally no deep dark motives behind the use of the word and get on with their lives. 
What would you prefer to be referred to as?

No? Fine. Your protestations of not intending to insult are pretty hollow, then. People have told you the term is offensive. You think it's OK to decide for yourself it's not and continue to insult them, knowing they find it offensive and why.

Try it with the "n" word and tell me the difference, should you decide for your own part that you don't mean it as offensive. Would you walk into a Harlem bar and say "hi n*****s"?

(I don't care what you refer to me as).

I actually don't mind being a Nordie as long as it includes Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, oh and North Louth. :D

Exactly, why do the freestaters refer to us as nordies without refering to Munster people as "southies", Leinster as "easties" or Connacht as "westies".  The brass neck of some complaining about us using "freestaters" as an insulting term.  Mind you if they keep going begging to Europe and Britain then we may not be able to even refer to them as "freestaters" for much longer.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 

What is it with republican's about how many/how long people have died for their cause being some kind of metric?

I can think of many a political idealogy or goal that people have died for.

The validity of the Republic of Ireland as a state has been tested and accepted electorally, including 1998 in an All-Ireland context.

It is quite reasonable to use that as a barometer ahead of number of deaths for a cause.

As for the term FreeStater, it has been used by many as derogatory term.  Interestingly you append your denial with an explanation that you will never accept the formal status of our state, something that doesn't fit well we your preceeding claims.

/Jim.

I think Hardy's first post sums up the situation. Their are those in our society who are brought up within British (and/or American) popular culture. There is also those (who usually write for the independent) that look at aspects of our own culture as something backward or insular, which  fails to grasp the very idea of culture and why it exists.

As for being called a 'Freestater' I don't mind the term or being called it in itself.

Although when I hear/read it, it's usually within the phrase "you freestate bastards who sold us out". 

While I don't want to dispute (or engage in that fruitless debate for the millionth time) the notion of us selling out the north, you can imagine someone not taking kindly to the term when they usually only hear it accompanied in that context.

The vindictive needling between us that I see on here is most disappointing. I believe that if Nationalists North and South could pull together for once we could really achieve a United Ireland that everyone would be happy to live in.

Quote from: armagho9 on March 30, 2011, 02:21:54 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 02:09:13 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:57:52 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

No, I suggest those that get insulted by it realise that there is generally no deep dark motives behind the use of the word and get on with their lives. 
What would you prefer to be referred to as?

No? Fine. Your protestations of not intending to insult are pretty hollow, then. People have told you the term is offensive. You think it's OK to decide for yourself it's not and continue to insult them, knowing they find it offensive and why.

Try it with the "n" word and tell me the difference, should you decide for your own part that you don't mean it as offensive. Would you walk into a Harlem bar and say "hi n*****s"?

(I don't care what you refer to me as).

I actually don't mind being a Nordie as long as it includes Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, oh and North Louth. :D

Exactly, why do the freestaters refer to us as nordies without refering to Munster people as "southies", Leinster as "easties" or Connacht as "westies".  The brass neck of some complaining about us using "freestaters" as an insulting term.  Mind you if they keep going begging to Europe and Britain then we may not be able to even refer to them as "freestaters" for much longer.

Who's "they"? Are we not all the same? I thought the argument was that us 'southerners' treated you 'northerners' (not using the other terms!) differently, whereas you looked on ALL people on the island the same. There is no 'they' and 'us' I thought???
I find it strange that you (as a republican/nationalist I assume) would use the north's position as part of the British economy as something to use against us in the Republic.

Was going to bring up the whole thing of "nordies" but armagh 09 beat me to it. It never comes as surprise to see that the same people who regularly use the term nordie are often the first to get uppity at being referred to as a freestater. If you cant take an insult, don't give an insult.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:30:53 PM
Was going to bring up the whole thing of "nordies" but armagh 09 beat me to it. It never comes as surprise to see that the same people who regularly use the term nordie are often the first to get uppity at being referred to as a freestater. If you cant take an insult, don't give an insult.

How often?

By the way the  money the 26 County State ( hope that doesnt offend anyone) may get from Europe and GB is only a loan and has to be paid back.
That is not begging.

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:32:26 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:30:53 PM
Was going to bring up the whole thing of "nordies" but armagh 09 beat me to it. It never comes as surprise to see that the same people who regularly use the term nordie are often the first to get uppity at being referred to as a freestater. If you cant take an insult, don't give an insult.

How often?

Well I'm not going to count for you but if you go to the gaaboard.com home page and search for "free stater", five pages of results come up. Now search for "nordie". Sixteen pages of results.

Quote from: Trout on March 29, 2011, 07:24:55 PM

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/record-numbers-of-irish-recruits-join-british-army-2597027.html


RECORD numbers of Irish people are joining the British armed forces, with the levels increasing by upwards of 10pc each year for the past six years.
It is now estimated that 4,000 Irish citizens are in the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force or the British army.
Separately, figures obtained by the Irish Independent show the Irish Defence Forces received 79 applications for every officer cadetship position on offer this year.
A total of 2,365 people applied for just 30 officer cadetship places, a similar scenario to last year when 2,553 people applied for 32 places.
The 30 new cadets will get 15 months training before becoming officers, or "decision- makers", within the army. The numbers applying for positions in the Defence Forces has soared in the past two years, with 1,000 applications received in one week alone last year.
With a starting salary of €30,000, the positions within the air corps, army and navy are coveted as job availability falls off elsewhere.
Recruitment

But with just 30 places on offer this year, many are turning to the British army.
Last year, Irish and Commonwealth nationals formed 5pc of Britain's entire overall recruitment.
Precise numbers are not available for the total number of people joining from the Republic each year -- but it is estimated that upwards of 4,000 Irish citizens are now in the British armed forces.
One British army source said that recruits from the Republic were especially prized because most boast a decent education and all want to make the military their career.
"It is no surprise that a significant number of non-commissioned officers are from Ireland," he said.
In 2006 -- 12 months after British troops largely withdrew from patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland -- people from the Republic already made up 4pc of recruitment in the province.
In 2008, recruitment figures for Northern Ireland showed that 16pc of those joining the British defence forces had addresses in the Republic.
Each year from 2005 to today, the numbers joining the British army from the Republic have increased.
Initial indications are that the recruitment number will increase again this year.
- Ralph Riegel and Edel Kennedy

Maybe its Jack Lynchs' threat of "not standing idly bye" finally swinging into action.  Infiltrating the British Army to protect nationalists in the 6 counties.  Better late than never lads  ::)

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:37:43 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:32:26 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:30:53 PM
Was going to bring up the whole thing of "nordies" but armagh 09 beat me to it. It never comes as surprise to see that the same people who regularly use the term nordie are often the first to get uppity at being referred to as a freestater. If you cant take an insult, don't give an insult.

How often?

Well I'm not going to count for you but if you go to the gaaboard.com home page and search for "free stater", five pages of results come up. Now search for "nordie". Sixteen pages of results.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. You stated that it's "often" the same people using one term who are insulted by the other. If you feel able to make such a statement, you must have some feeling for the frequency of such instances. Otherwise you'd be talking shite and you wouldn't do that, would you?

Anyway, the point is not how often we insult each other here. The point is the pretence of not wishing to insult by using the “freestater” term, having been told that it is, in fact, an insult.

I wouldn’t have really thought of “nordie” as an insulting term. Now I've been told some people find it insulting. From now on, when I use it, it’ll be either to insult someone or because I genuinely forgot, in which case I’ll apologise. In neither case will I pretend it’s not insulting because I have decided it isn’t, no matter how insulted the insultee is.

A local lad joined the British Army, doesn't bother me at all to be honest, he can make his own decisions.

Quote from: Tubberman on March 30, 2011, 02:26:41 PM

Quote from: armagho9 on March 30, 2011, 02:21:54 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 02:09:13 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:57:52 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 01:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: Rav67 on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

"Freestater" is certainly a perjorative term and everyone knows it.  You only have to say it once to any southerner to see how it pisses them off, so you are being disingenuous here.

It pisses some of them off because they perceive it to be something it's not.
How would you refer to someone from the 26 counties? What would you call them?

As for being disingenuous - if I used it as a term of abuse I would say so.  Is there anything to make you think I'd have any problem with that?

OK - you didn't think it was insulting. But you know now it is insulting to large numbers of people. I assume you wouldn't want to disrespect them and therefore you'll stop using it.

No, I suggest those that get insulted by it realise that there is generally no deep dark motives behind the use of the word and get on with their lives. 
What would you prefer to be referred to as?

No? Fine. Your protestations of not intending to insult are pretty hollow, then. People have told you the term is offensive. You think it's OK to decide for yourself it's not and continue to insult them, knowing they find it offensive and why.

Try it with the "n" word and tell me the difference, should you decide for your own part that you don't mean it as offensive. Would you walk into a Harlem bar and say "hi n*****s"?

(I don't care what you refer to me as).

I actually don't mind being a Nordie as long as it includes Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, oh and North Louth. :D

Exactly, why do the freestaters refer to us as nordies without refering to Munster people as "southies", Leinster as "easties" or Connacht as "westies".  The brass neck of some complaining about us using "freestaters" as an insulting term.  Mind you if they keep going begging to Europe and Britain then we may not be able to even refer to them as "freestaters" for much longer.

Who's "they"? Are we not all the same? I thought the argument was that us 'southerners' treated you 'northerners' (not using the other terms!) differently, whereas you looked on ALL people on the island the same. There is no 'they' and 'us' I thought???
I find it strange that you (as a republican/nationalist I assume) would use the north's position as part of the British economy as something to use against us in the Republic.

I do look on all people on this island the same but whether i like it or not there is two governments on this island, so i would say it is pretty clear who i am refering to when i say "they", clearly the freestate government.  As far as norths part of the british economy goes i would say the freestaters pump as much into it as we in the six counties do, you only have to look at the amount of freestate cars up here every day of the week, all up here doing their shopping etc whilst the freestate ecomomy is in tatters.  But just with the guys joining the Bitish Army, money is more important than nationality.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:37:43 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:32:26 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:30:53 PM
Was going to bring up the whole thing of "nordies" but armagh 09 beat me to it. It never comes as surprise to see that the same people who regularly use the term nordie are often the first to get uppity at being referred to as a freestater. If you cant take an insult, don't give an insult.

How often?

Well I'm not going to count for you but if you go to the gaaboard.com home page and search for "free stater", five pages of results come up. Now search for "nordie". Sixteen pages of results.

That's because the nordies here never shut up and the freestate bastards need to stand up for themselves more.

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:43:07 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:37:43 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 02:32:26 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 02:30:53 PM
Was going to bring up the whole thing of "nordies" but armagh 09 beat me to it. It never comes as surprise to see that the same people who regularly use the term nordie are often the first to get uppity at being referred to as a freestater. If you cant take an insult, don't give an insult.

How often?

Well I'm not going to count for you but if you go to the gaaboard.com home page and search for "free stater", five pages of results come up. Now search for "nordie". Sixteen pages of results.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. You stated that it's "often" the same people using one term who are insulted by the other. If you feel able to make such a statement, you must have some feeling for the frequency of such instances. Otherwise you'd be talking shite and you wouldn't do that, would you?

Anyway, the point is not how often we insult each other here. The point is the pretence of not wishing to insult by using the "freestater" term, having been told that it is, in fact, an insult.

I wouldn't have really thought of "nordie" as an insulting term. Now I've been told some people find it insulting. From now on, when I use it, it'll be either to insult someone or because I genuinely forgot, in which case I'll apologise. In neither case will I pretend it's not insulting because I have decided it isn't, no matter how insulted the insultee is.

Telling you I'm not going to run off counting references to "nordies" throughout 16 pages of search results is an answer as far as I'm concerned. Telling me I'm chatting shite by not doing so for you does not disprove my point in the slightest.

I also stopped using the term free stater here and have (many times on this board) remarked at how being referred to as a "nordie" is partitionist and insulting. I have still been seen the term used regularly and have also been told that I am wrong to be insulted by it.

Why did you say it's "often" the same people, then? Are we to take you at your word? You must have a basis for it or surely you wouldn't say it. Because that would be talking shite.

If I use the term "free stater," I use it pejoratively to (mildly) offend someone. I do it frequently in fairness, but that doesn't mean I think anyone from south of the border should shrug it off as a meaningless remark. The entity that exists today, while not the Irish Republic I would like, is certainly not the Irish Free State.

On the other hand, I take no offence at being called a "nordie" whatsoever. It's a geograhical remark, not partitiionist. Being from Belfast, I can hardly dispute that I come from the north of the island of Ireland, can I? There's no international border in Connacht and I refer to my Mayo and Galway friends as "Westerners". That's hardly partitionist.

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 03:12:18 PM
Why did you say it's "often" the same people, then? Are we to take you at your word? You must have a basis for it or surely you wouldn't say it. Because that would be talking shite.

See my previous reply. Or desist from "talking shite".

You should try living in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. The Northerners call you a freestate bastard , the southerners call you a Nordie Bastard. The correct term is Cavan Bastard!

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 03:16:32 PM
If I use the term "free stater," I use it pejoratively to (mildly) offend someone. I do it frequently in fairness, but that doesn't mean I think anyone from south of the border should shrug it off as a meaningless remark. The entity that exists today, while not the Irish Republic I would like, is certainly not the Irish Free State.

On the other hand, I take no offence at being called a "nordie" whatsoever. It's a geographical remark, not partitiionist. Being from Belfast, I can hardly dispute that I come from the north of the island of Ireland, can I? There's no international border in Connacht and I refer to my Mayo and Galway friends as "Westerners". That's hardly partitionist.

It's not a geographical term. I'm yet to hear of a Donegal person being deemed a Nordie. That said I'd feel no real offence at being called a Nordie. It's a term to define residents of the 6 counties, of which I am.

Free state is a term with a wee bit of a poke, alright. That said It wouldn't stop me using it if I felt it was warrented.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 30, 2011, 03:36:43 PM
You should try living in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. The Northerners call you a freestate b**tard , the southerners call you a Nordie b**tard. The correct term is Cavan b**tard!

Would tight b**tard not cover it?  :)

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 30, 2011, 03:36:43 PM
The correct term is Cavan b**tard!

No it's not, it's "Mean Cavan b**tard".

/Jim.

Gallsman Nordie is definitely a term of abuse, you won't hear it used about folk from Donegal even if they hail from Malin

Quote from: fer fox ache on March 30, 2011, 03:38:18 PM
Gallsman Nordie is definitely a term of abuse, you won't hear it used about folk from Donegal even if they hail from Malin

Taking this and supersars point, perhaps yes, it is unlikely that somone from Donegal would be referred to as a "nordie". That doesn't make it a term of abuse. As mentioned, I come from the six counties. Like it or lump it, that entity exists today. I was born in it and grew up in it and it continues to this day. The Irish Free State has long since ceased to be.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 03:35:17 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 03:12:18 PM
Why did you say it's "often" the same people, then? Are we to take you at your word? You must have a basis for it or surely you wouldn't say it. Because that would be talking shite.

See my previous reply. Or desist from "talking shite".

Which one? I saw both your previous replies. Neither of them addressed my simple question. Or maybe you can show me how one or other of them did. Otherwise you'll be leading me to the inevitable conclusion that you're talking shite.

Quote from: fer fox ache on March 30, 2011, 03:38:18 PM
Gallsman Nordie is definitely a term of abuse, you won't hear it used about folk from Donegal even if they hail from Malin

Yes you bloody will you eejit. Do you think your average Dub (for example) can differenciate between a Donegal accent and a Derry accent??

Tight bastard, mean bastard - water of a ducks back. But please, I beg ye, never call me a Meath Bastard.

i would never have thought of free state as an insult, it evokes that sense of freedom that we in the north yearn for

It was always referred to as that by the older generations as that is what they knew it as, my granda would aways have referred to as 'down in the free state' and the jealousy and envy would spark at the mention of these words that to us in the north equalled freedom.

it is something any southerner should be proud of imho

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 03:46:18 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 03:35:17 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 30, 2011, 03:12:18 PM
Why did you say it's "often" the same people, then? Are we to take you at your word? You must have a basis for it or surely you wouldn't say it. Because that would be talking shite.

See my previous reply. Or desist from "talking shite".

Which one? I saw both your previous replies. Neither of them addressed my simple question. Or maybe you can show me how one or other of them did. Otherwise you'll be leading me to the inevitable conclusion that you're talking shite.

Read it again then maybe? Actually, don't bother if you don't want to. You think I'm talking shite, I think you're talking shite; I'd say I'll still sleep soundly tonight either way Hardy

Night night.

Quote from: AbbeySider on March 30, 2011, 02:17:52 PM
Nordies saying the southerners are "Free-staters" is (for some people) the same as the Southerners calling people in the north "Brits".

From now on, im calling all the "nordies" on the board either "Brits", "Britons", "Anglo-Saxon" or "ye English"


After all its just a term isnt it ye shower of Brits?

You're obviously a Fine Gael voter.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 30, 2011, 02:22:03 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 

What is it with republican's about how many/how long people have died for their cause being some kind of metric?

I can think of many a political idealogy or goal that people have died for.

The validity of the Republic of Ireland as a state has been tested and accepted electorally, including 1998 in an All-Ireland context.

It is quite reasonable to use that as a barometer ahead of number of deaths for a cause.

As for the term FreeStater, it has been used by many as derogatory term.  Interestingly you append your denial with an explanation that you will never accept the formal status of our state, something that doesn't fit well we your preceeding claims.

/Jim.

I have to admit I've referred to the ROI as the Free State, completely oblivious to the fact that it is considered offensive. Now that I know I can be more selective as to when I use it. That said I think we are all throwing tantrums over words when really it is context that determines the insult.

Quote from: Banana Man on March 30, 2011, 03:50:36 PM
i would never have thought of free state as an insult, it evokes that sense of freedom that we in the north yearn for

It was always referred to as that by the older generations as that is what they knew it as, my granda would aways have referred to as 'down in the free state' and the jealousy and envy would spark at the mention of these words that to us in the north equalled freedom.

it is something any southerner should be proud of imho

Very interesting. A perspective I never would have thought of to be honest.
It's out of date now anyway, and an annoyance as much as anything, but interesting to see that for many who used it, it was a term of envy or aspiration rather than a dig/insult.

Quote from: Tubberman on March 30, 2011, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

So you prefer to use the term Freestater because you refuse to recognise that the state is actually a Republic? I don't think it's being overly-sensitive to find that insulting and also more than a bit irrational.

That's not what I said, try reading my post again, I've already clarified my position for Hardy. 

Hardy, I would always use the terms freestate and freestaters, my parents would do the same, everyone in the area I'm from would do the same and I've rarely heard the term used as an insult.  The term "nigger" isn't even in the same league and not worth bringing up.

I also hate the term "nordie". 

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 30, 2011, 02:22:03 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 

What is it with republican's about how many/how long people have died for their cause being some kind of metric?

I can think of many a political idealogy or goal that people have died for.

The validity of the Republic of Ireland as a state has been tested and accepted electorally, including 1998 in an All-Ireland context.

It is quite reasonable to use that as a barometer ahead of number of deaths for a cause.

As for the term FreeStater, it has been used by many as derogatory term.  Interestingly you append your denial with an explanation that you will never accept the formal status of our state, something that doesn't fit well we your preceeding claims.

/Jim.

None of that is true at all Jim, I would have actually expected you to read people's posts particularly when they've already clarified the point the made for someone else.

Quote from: Tubberman on March 30, 2011, 04:57:42 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on March 30, 2011, 03:50:36 PM
i would never have thought of free state as an insult, it evokes that sense of freedom that we in the north yearn for

It was always referred to as that by the older generations as that is what they knew it as, my granda would aways have referred to as 'down in the free state' and the jealousy and envy would spark at the mention of these words that to us in the north equalled freedom.

it is something any southerner should be proud of imho

Very interesting. A perspective I never would have thought of to be honest.
It's out of date now anyway, and an annoyance as much as anything, but interesting to see that for many who used it, it was a term of envy or aspiration rather than a dig/insult.

Exactly what I was saying and got slated for it.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties.

"In the republican political tradition, to which I belong, the State is often referred to as the 26 County State. This is a conscious response to the partitionist view, prevalent for so long and still sadly widespread, that Ireland stops at the Border. The Constitution says that the name of the State is Ireland, and Éire in the Irish language. Quite against the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, this has led to an identification of Ireland with only 26 of our 32 counties in the minds of many people."
              Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, April 2000

Pints, is it unacceptable for someone from the 26 county Republic of Ireland to call you a "nordie"?

If not, why is it any more acceptable for you to call them "free stater".

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 05:18:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties.

"In the republican political tradition, to which I belong, the State is often referred to as the 26 County State. This is a conscious response to the partitionist view, prevalent for so long and still sadly widespread, that Ireland stops at the Border. The Constitution says that the name of the State is Ireland, and Éire in the Irish language. Quite against the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, this has led to an identification of Ireland with only 26 of our 32 counties in the minds of many people."
              Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, April 2000

An articulate speaker if ever there was one  ::)

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
Pints, is it unacceptable for someone from the 26 county Republic of Ireland to call you a "nordie"?

If not, why is it any more acceptable for you to call them "free stater".

I wouldn't say it was "unacceptable" - I just don't like it. 
I suppose it depends on what is followed after it, sometimes it is used in good spirit which I don't mind but most of the time is will be followed by some derogatory comments, I guess it those comments I have more of an issue with. 
I don't use the term free stater in the same way.

If I wanted to insult or get a dig at a free stater I'd call them a west brit/blue shirt or talk about the "I'm alright Jack" attitude they have and how they're getting a wake up call.  More recently I'd mention that they were owned by Germany or have been bought by the brits. 

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 05:29:15 PM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
Pints, is it unacceptable for someone from the 26 county Republic of Ireland to call you a "nordie"?

If not, why is it any more acceptable for you to call them "free stater".

I wouldn't say it was "unacceptable" - I just don't like it. 
I suppose it depends on what is followed after it, sometimes it is used in good spirit which I don't mind but most of the time is will be followed by some derogatory comments, I guess it those comments I have more of an issue with. 
I don't use the term free stater in the same way.

If I wanted to insult or get a dig at a free stater I'd call them a west brit/blue shirt or talk about the "I'm alright Jack" attitude they have and how they're getting a wake up call.  More recently I'd mention that they were owned by Germany or have been bought by the brits.

Which is obviously what you wanted to do just there - very nice. Do you want to go down that road?  ;)

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 30, 2011, 05:18:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties.

"In the republican political tradition, to which I belong, the State is often referred to as the 26 County State. This is a conscious response to the partitionist view, prevalent for so long and still sadly widespread, that Ireland stops at the Border. The Constitution says that the name of the State is Ireland, and Éire in the Irish language. Quite against the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, this has led to an identification of Ireland with only 26 of our 32 counties in the minds of many people."
              Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, April 2000

An articulate speaker if ever there was one  ::)

Rolling Eyes Smiley. An articulate piece of input if ever there was one.

(Always thought he comes across as very articulate myself, not that you comments on his level of speaking skills has anything to to with the topic of discussion which my post relates to).

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties.

Sorry MGHU, but that's just bollix.

The constitution was framed incorporating Articles 2 and 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which asserted that Ireland's territory was the whole island. So the terms 'Ireland' and 'Éire' did indeed encapsulate all 32 Counties of Ireland, as per Articles 2 and 3, and sensibly so.

Since the GFA, when Articles 2 and 3 were rescinded, to use 'Ireland'  (or 'Eire') for the 26 Counties (only) is nonsensical: the second word in northern Ireland is IRELAND! It's yet another example of the incompetence of the previous Dáil incumbents where they couldn't even consider something as fundamental as the State's moniker.

And, by the way, the 'Republic of Ireland' is nonsensical too, since part of Ireland is not a republic (yet). The correct term would be the 'Irish Republic', as is used by a good number of overseas reporting organisations in any case, who obviously don't feel too comfortable abusing the english language.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Upon leaving school and moving to Dublin, the attitude of (what I perceive to be a majority) people of my generation in the south toward the north, its people and its constitutional status both shocked and apalled me. Apathy is about as politely as I could put it. Nobody cared about the Troubles, nobody knew the history post-partition, nobody was interested in any northern politics. Maybe the last bit is understandable.

From my school, one guy shunned going to uni and went off to the Curragh to join the cadets. Upon graduating he was swiftly sent off to NUIG, where he and a load of other recently graduated officers, spent two years drinking and failing exams for their Arts degrees, on the taxpayer's dime whilst receiving their full salary. This is something that needs to be reviewed. Obviously I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush.

Another fella, who I was quite friendly with, went to Queen's to study Aeronautical Engineering. Always fascinated by planes, particularly fighter jets, he buggered off to join the RAF and is now a few flying hours away from full qualification. Entitled to dual citizenship like anyone born in the north, I no longer consider him Irish and certainly not a friend.

Gallsman there has been a policy change in regards to Cadet recruitment - the majority of cadets recruited these days has a degree already and very few are been sent to Galway to study. It has been recognised that the further studies were as surmised a waste of tax payers monies.

Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2011, 06:45:53 PM
Gallsman there has been a policy change in regards to Cadet recruitment - the majority of cadets recruited these days has a degree already and very few are been sent to Galway to study. It has been recognised that the further studies were as surmised a waste of tax payers monies.

Cheers Dinny, didn't know that. This fella would have been starting college for the 2007/08 year having been, like the rest of his class, recruited straight out of school. The change has been since then?

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
Pints, is it unacceptable for someone from the 26 county Republic of Ireland to call you a "nordie"?

If not, why is it any more acceptable for you to call them "free stater".

gallsman before you take any further part in this 'debate' i think it's time you decided where you stand, you were the one started this whole debate and now you are slating pints for using the term that you used!!!

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 05:02:30 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 30, 2011, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

So you prefer to use the term Freestater because you refuse to recognise that the state is actually a Republic? I don't think it's being overly-sensitive to find that insulting and also more than a bit irrational.

That's not what I said, try reading my post again, I've already clarified my position for Hardy. 

Hardy, I would always use the terms freestate and freestaters, my parents would do the same, everyone in the area I'm from would do the same and I've rarely heard the term used as an insult.  The term "nigger" isn't even in the same league and not worth bringing up.

I also hate the term "nordie".

that is basically my point, everyone in the area uses, always has since the formation of the state and it has stuck, again, not in a derogatory way but we all wish we had been part of it, i genuinely fail to see how someone from the 26 counties could take offence at that unless it was used with another word as someone else suggested e.g. ''freestate bastard''.

Quote from: Banana Man on March 30, 2011, 08:12:01 PM

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
Pints, is it unacceptable for someone from the 26 county Republic of Ireland to call you a "nordie"?

If not, why is it any more acceptable for you to call them "free stater".

gallsman before you take any further part in this 'debate' i think it's time you decided where you stand, you were the one started this whole debate and now you are slating pints for using the term that you used!!!

You do, do you? Well, I'd better just drop everything, hadn't I?

Decide where I stand? On what? What debate? My initial post in this thread stated my opinion on Irishmen serving in the Birtish Armed Forces.

Then a separate discussion arose about the use of the term "free state" and I provided my opinion on it.

What have you missed out on?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 30, 2011, 06:25:49 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties.

Sorry MGHU, but that's just bollix.

The constitution was framed incorporating Articles 2 and 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which asserted that Ireland's territory was the whole island. So the terms 'Ireland' and 'Éire' did indeed encapsulate all 32 Counties of Ireland, as per Articles 2 and 3, and sensibly so.

Since the GFA, when Articles 2 and 3 were rescinded, to use 'Ireland'  (or 'Eire') for the 26 Counties (only) is nonsensical: the second word in northern Ireland is IRELAND! It's yet another example of the incompetence of the previous Dáil incumbents where they couldn't even consider something as fundamental as the State's moniker.

And, by the way, the 'Republic of Ireland' is nonsensical too, since part of Ireland is not a republic (yet). The correct term would be the 'Irish Republic', as is used by a good number of overseas reporting organisations in any case, who obviously don't feel too comfortable abusing the english language.

FoSB, at last a decent response. I take what you say about articles 2 & 3 as a valid point. But is in not the state which referred to itself (without rebranding itself) as Ireland or Éire which recinded those claims to areas of the island and off-shore islands under British administration.

FoSB I would challenge you to go back trough my posts and find once where I refer to the "Republic of Ireland" being the name of this state (except when referring to an international soccer team. I always use the terms Ireland, Éire, 26 counties or more than often (so as not to offend our 6 county neighbours/family) the Irish Republic.

Quote from: Banana Man on March 30, 2011, 08:14:40 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 05:02:30 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 30, 2011, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

So you prefer to use the term Freestater because you refuse to recognise that the state is actually a Republic? I don't think it's being overly-sensitive to find that insulting and also more than a bit irrational.

That's not what I said, try reading my post again, I've already clarified my position for Hardy. 

Hardy, I would always use the terms freestate and freestaters, my parents would do the same, everyone in the area I'm from would do the same and I've rarely heard the term used as an insult.  The term "nigger" isn't even in the same league and not worth bringing up.

I also hate the term "nordie".

that is basically my point, everyone in the area uses, always has since the formation of the state and it has stuck, again, not in a derogatory way but we all wish we had been part of it, i genuinely fail to see how someone from the 26 counties could take offence at that unless it was used with another word as someone else suggested e.g. ''freestate b**tard''.

Because we grew up in and are citizens of the Irish Republic not the non-existant, defunt Irish Free State. I believe most people in the 26 counties feal that when people from the 6 use it, they are either insulting us or making a deliberate effort to refuse or acknowledge the state that even in its worst hours we feal a loyalty and pride in. I think that actually can promote partition because it can get people from the 26 counties backs up, that we have to defend our Republic from people we feal should have a love and a loyalty for the Irish state too.

We will not feal shame for being of the Irish Republic, not matter how many Free State, Traitors, Sold us out, WestBrits jibes thrown at us. One thing that being thrown at us from people from beyond our Island but from other Irish people, it is clearly insulting.

I am proud to be Irish (of the Island).
I am proud to be an Irish citizen.
I am proud of the Irish Republic I was born into and feal a strong bond with it.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 10:02:47 PM
FoSB I would challenge you to go back trough my posts and find once where I refer to the "Republic of Ireland" being the name of this state (except when referring to an international soccer team. I always use the terms Ireland, Éire, 26 counties or more than often (so as not to offend our 6 county neighbours/family) the Irish Republic.

Apologies MGHU, I wasn't inferring that you've used that erroneous term, more that I hear it so bleedin' often, and almost as often from those that you'd hope should know a lot better (the grating 'greats' (in their own minds)).

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 30, 2011, 10:15:23 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 10:02:47 PM
FoSB I would challenge you to go back trough my posts and find once where I refer to the "Republic of Ireland" being the name of this state (except when referring to an international soccer team. I always use the terms Ireland, Éire, 26 counties or more than often (so as not to offend our 6 county neighbours/family) the Irish Republic.

Apologies MGHU, I wasn't inferring that you've used that erroneous term, more that I hear it so bleedin' often, and almost as often from those that you'd hope should know a lot better (the grating 'greats' (in their own minds)).

I almost hate the term as much as West Brit or Free Stater. If we should try and avoid using Ireland or Éire (despite being correct) I think the Irish Republic is the best acceptable and correct alternative.

Quote from: gallsman on March 30, 2011, 06:49:12 PM

Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2011, 06:45:53 PM
Gallsman there has been a policy change in regards to Cadet recruitment - the majority of cadets recruited these days has a degree already and very few are been sent to Galway to study. It has been recognised that the further studies were as surmised a waste of tax payers monies.

Cheers Dinny, didn't know that. This fella would have been starting college for the 2007/08 year having been, like the rest of his class, recruited straight out of school. The change has been since then?

There was a moratorium in 2009 so the 2 cadet classes since. The whole process is far more streamlined and canvassing which was rife has all but been eliminated as well.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 10:24:46 PM
I almost hate the term as much as West Brit or Free Stater. If we should try and avoid using Ireland or Éire (despite being correct) I think the Irish Republic is the best acceptable and correct alternative.

Don't mind the term 'Ireland' (or Éire) so long as it applies to all of Ireland, as originally enshrined. But we have unanimity in the 'Irish Republic', for the 26 counties ;)

People of the area that UTV covers (POTATUC)

If a lad from POTATUC originally now lives in the area that RTE covers how is he/she referred to as.

Say they live near Mizen Head - as far 'Site' as you can go, give or take.

Do lads who refer to the 26 counties as the "Free State" also assume the Treaty Ports are still British?

Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 31, 2011, 12:45:54 AM
People of the area that UTV covers (POTATUC)

If a lad from POTATUC originally now lives in the area that RTE covers how is he/she referred to as.

Say they live near Mizen Head - as far 'Site' as you can go, give or take.

Do lads who refer to the 26 counties as the "Free State" also assume the Treaty Ports are still British?

Grape or Grain?

Either way you solved it.

Are ye POTATUC lads ok with being called POTATUC lads?

We can be: People of the area south of that area that UTV covers (POTASOTATUC)

Lads, can we not all convene at the Royal Dublin Society in Ballsbridge, to engage in a proper debate of this issue. We could invite some Lordships from the Four Courts complete with Wigs, to chair the various sessions. Workshops could be set up to re-educate ignorant Nordies on political subleties and distinctions. Sure all that fourth green field  and wrap the green flag round me nonsense spouted over the years by FF and FG politicians was just a bit of romantic foolery for home consumption, no one expected Nordies to take it seriously.  That Proclamation in 1916 by a crowd of Poets and Dreamers, with its treat all children of the Nation equally drivel, can hardly expect to be taken seriously by the educated citizens of todays Ireland. Sure its fine for an excuse to have a Day out in Bodenstown or a booze up at the Garden Of Remembrance, recalling the good old days and the decent people, but if the Nordies are fool enough to think we believe it , then serious consideration will have to be given to its discontinuance, but not before the Centenary, sure that will be a grand day out. If we can through debate and re-education disabuse the Nordies that they are part of some mythical Republic, and prepare them to enter into the whole charade in a spirit of fun and friendship, sure the whole Country will be united, as we always intended, in deceit and hypocrisy. There will be no artificial divisions of Free Stater or Nordie then, we will all be ignorant fools together

Christ almighty....you Nordies are such windbags !

Quote from: Pangurban on March 31, 2011, 01:43:48 AM
Lads, can we not all convene at the Royal Dublin Society in Ballsbridge, to engage in a proper debate of this issue. We could invite some Lordships from the Four Courts complete with Wigs, to chair the various sessions. Workshops could be set up to re-educate ignorant Nordies on political subleties and distinctions. Sure all that fourth green field  and wrap the green flag round me nonsense spouted over the years by FF and FG politicians was just a bit of romantic foolery for home consumption, no one expected Nordies to take it seriously.  That Proclamation in 1916 by a crowd of Poets and Dreamers, with its treat all children of the Nation equally drivel, can hardly expect to be taken seriously by the educated citizens of todays Ireland. Sure its fine for an excuse to have a Day out in Bodenstown or a booze up at the Garden Of Remembrance, recalling the good old days and the decent people, but if the Nordies are fool enough to think we believe it , then serious consideration will have to be given to its discontinuance, but not before the Centenary, sure that will be a grand day out. If we can through debate and re-education disabuse the Nordies that they are part of some mythical Republic, and prepare them to enter into the whole charade in a spirit of fun and friendship, sure the whole Country will be united, as we always intended, in deceit and hypocrisy. There will be no artificial divisions of Free Stater or Nordie then, we will all be ignorant fools together

Is that the island of Ireland or the free state?

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 10:12:09 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on March 30, 2011, 08:14:40 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 05:02:30 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 30, 2011, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 30, 2011, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 30, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Or maybe you just don't know people from the 26 counties find that term offensive as it is the Irish Republic.

Why? You were originally the Irish Free State. It is a term spoken out of envy in this part of the world.

It comes across as a clear denial of the correct status of the Irish State as a Republic. It comes across as a bitter comment on the people of the Republic, who are 100% Irish (as you) and who don't deserve your nasty attitude for just living their lifes. By the way we were Southern Ireland for a few weeks before being the Irish Free State, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before that, the Kingdom of Ireland before that and the Lordship of Ireland before that. So it make us no sense to call the 26 counties anything but their official title of Ireland or Éire. If those correct terms seem partitionist or too easily confused with the island of the same names why not refer to the 26 as the acceptable name of Irish Republic or the inoffensive description of the 26 Counties. It can get a bit tiring when everything someone from the Republic says is screamed down as bigoted or partitionist, but people from the 6 counties can shout Mexican, FreeStater, WestBrits etc. and find it perfectly acceptable.

We've been through this argument countless times, when will freestaters get it through their thick heads that people in the north refer to the south as the "freestate" and the people there as "freestaters" and the easiest term to use, it's not said with bitterness or anything else. Could you engage your brain for a minute to get that through?
You want people to call the 26 counties Ireland or Eire? What does that make the 6 counties? If someone says Ireland or Eire to me I assume they're talking about 32 counties. 
I will not call the 26 counties the Irish Republic either, people have died for hundreds of years for a 32 county Irish Republic, the only time I feel comforable referring to an Irish Republic is when it's a 32 county Irish republic. 
I suggest you don't be so sensitive.

So you prefer to use the term Freestater because you refuse to recognise that the state is actually a Republic? I don't think it's being overly-sensitive to find that insulting and also more than a bit irrational.

That's not what I said, try reading my post again, I've already clarified my position for Hardy. 

Hardy, I would always use the terms freestate and freestaters, my parents would do the same, everyone in the area I'm from would do the same and I've rarely heard the term used as an insult.  The term "nigger" isn't even in the same league and not worth bringing up.

I also hate the term "nordie".

that is basically my point, everyone in the area uses, always has since the formation of the state and it has stuck, again, not in a derogatory way but we all wish we had been part of it, i genuinely fail to see how someone from the 26 counties could take offence at that unless it was used with another word as someone else suggested e.g. ''freestate b**tard''.

Because we grew up in and are citizens of the Irish Republic not the non-existant, defunt Irish Free State. I believe most people in the 26 counties feal that when people from the 6 use it, they are either insulting us or making a deliberate effort to refuse or acknowledge the state that even in its worst hours we feal a loyalty and pride in. I think that actually can promote partition because it can get people from the 26 counties backs up, that we have to defend our Republic from people we feal should have a love and a loyalty for the Irish state too.

We will not feal shame for being of the Irish Republic, not matter how many Free State, Traitors, Sold us out, WestBrits jibes thrown at us. One thing that being thrown at us from people from beyond our Island but from other Irish people, it is clearly insulting.

I am proud to be Irish (of the Island).
I am proud to be an Irish citizen.
I am proud of the Irish Republic I was born into and feal a strong bond with it.

Really???

Quote from: Mike Sheehy on March 31, 2011, 05:01:29 AM
Christ almighty....you Nordies are such windbags !

This is a thread about "Irish" people joining the british army. The thread actually went off topic because of people (or "windbags" as you call them,) from the 26 counties taking offence at the term "free stater" in the thread title. Hope that clears things up for you a chara.

Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2011, 12:54:03 AM

Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 31, 2011, 12:45:54 AM
People of the area that UTV covers (POTATUC)

If a lad from POTATUC originally now lives in the area that RTE covers how is he/she referred to as.

Say they live near Mizen Head - as far 'Site' as you can go, give or take.

Do lads who refer to the 26 counties as the "Free State" also assume the Treaty Ports are still British?

Grape or Grain?

Either way you solved it.

Are ye POTATUC lads ok with being called POTATUC lads?

We can be: People of the area south of that area that UTV covers (POTASOTATUC)

UTV covers about 70/80 % of the Island are you calling for repartition? Bye Bye Kerry...

Interesting debate, I never imagined that our Southern Fellow Country Men would take offence at the term Free State...See my previous posts as to why...But the thought did occur that perhaps it was out of some form of guilt albeit subconscious guilt about allegedly abandoning us Nordies to the Unionist wolves? Not that I believe that was the case as partition was always considered to be a temporary solution to the "Irish problem" by all concerned but our Unionist Fellow Countrymen as is their wont have been hard to shift...

Quote from: Applesisapples on March 31, 2011, 11:08:28 AM

Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2011, 12:54:03 AM

Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 31, 2011, 12:45:54 AM
People of the area that UTV covers (POTATUC)

If a lad from POTATUC originally now lives in the area that RTE covers how is he/she referred to as.

Say they live near Mizen Head - as far 'Site' as you can go, give or take.

Do lads who refer to the 26 counties as the "Free State" also assume the Treaty Ports are still British?

Grape or Grain?

Either way you solved it.

Are ye POTATUC lads ok with being called POTATUC lads?

We can be: People of the area south of that area that UTV covers (POTASOTATUC)

UTV covers about 70/80 % of the Island are you calling for repartition? Bye Bye Kerry...

I never saw any results from Mayo on UTV or Leitrim either.

But I am interested in your Kerry selling policy POTATUC.

Can we still call the chocolate free state chocolate?? It is the only way to distinguish between the two dairy milks!

In all serious though, I have heard people referring to people from the 26 as 'free-staters' in a positive and negative way, if they don't like it don't use it. God knows we have many things we don't like being called and people should take the same attitude. To be honest though if someone was giving me a bit of shit about being 'british' and all that sort of craic and they were from the 26 (and it has happened), in order to fcuk them off i'd call them a 'west brit'...and rightly so if they have the cheek to undermine my Irishness.

With the people from the 26 i simply refer to them by whatever county they'd come from. I don't see why anyone would refer to them as a 'free stater' or anything when they can just say he's from Mayo, Cork etc etc.

Quote from: Poc me on March 31, 2011, 12:16:39 PM
Can we still call the chocolate free state chocolate?? It is the only way to distinguish between the two dairy milks!

In all serious though, I have heard people referring to people from the 26 as 'free-staters' in a positive and negative way, if they don't like it don't use it. God knows we have many things we don't like being called and people should take the same attitude. To be honest though if someone was giving me a bit of shit about being 'british' and all that sort of craic and they were from the 26 (and it has happened), in order to fcuk them off i'd call them a 'west brit'...and rightly so if they have the cheek to undermine my Irishness.

With the people from the 26 i simply refer to them by whatever county they'd come from. I don't see why anyone would refer to them as a 'free stater' or anything when they can just say he's from Mayo, Cork etc etc.

Really? You can't think of any situation where you couldn't start listing the counties the people you are talking about are from?

Poc me I forgot they kept the best chocolate as well!!!!!!!!!!

Everybody on the island was a free stater for a day or two.

Quote from: Arthur_Friend on March 31, 2011, 03:20:51 PM
Everybody on the island was a free stater for a day or two.

I wasn't

Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.

So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.

So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

I think probably not if you look at it like that. However to many of us in the north the British Army was an oppressive presence, one that killed innocent Catholics, searched our cars and stopped us on our way to matches because we were armed with hurls and O'Neills Footballs, we where therefore acting in a subversive manner. That memory still is fresh. But hey if some one wants to get killed as a pawn in what Steve Earle puts as "a richmans war"...So be it.

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.

So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Nobody could ever argue that with a straight face after partition. De Valera pretended to, but even he was on the phone to the Brits on a regular basis to get advice on how to deal with Sean Russell and other Nazis. The more recent generation of Irish republicans also tried to argue it, but ended up on first name terms with various British prime ministers, as well as holding respectable positions in a devolved British assembly. How, then, could any of these people, or any of the people who voted them into positions of influence, object if some young lad decides to join the British forces instead of sitting on his hole at home waiting for his dole money to come through?

In the freestate county of Mayo they love there British heritage. They celebrate the Mayo people who fought and died for the British army often fighting against native irish people.



(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/27/af/9b/the-mayo-memorial-peace.jpg)

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8507:mayo-peace-park-founder-honoured-by-queen&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

Áine Ryan

WHAT have Status Quo's ageing rockers, Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi, Star Trek's Patrick Stewart and Mayo Memorial Peace Park's, Michael Feeney got in common? They were all honoured in Queen Elizabeth's New Year's Honours List.
Founder of the County Mayo Peace Park in Castlebar, Mr Michael Feeney (pictured) was last week awarded an MBE (Member of the British Empire) for services to UK-Ireland relations.
Speaking to The Mayo News yesterday, Mr Feeney expressed his delight and feeling of pride on behalf of the peace park committee with which he observed that he 'shares this honour'.

A peace park commemorating war !!!
Only in rhubarbland.........

And of course the oul boloxology about Sean Russell being a Nazi is being spouted again

Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 31, 2011, 06:00:44 PM
In the freestate county of Mayo they love there British heritage. They celebrate the Mayo people who fought and died for the British army often fighting against native irish people.


their

(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/27/af/9b/the-mayo-memorial-peace.jpg)

Good picture PSTG. Really nice peace park at that. Nice commemorations are held there involving members of both the R.I.R. & the only true Óglaigh na hÉireann.

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.

So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Don't try pretend that the British army are just the same as any other European army. I never seen Dutch/French/German/Polish/Italian (etc) troops smash in my front door and turn my house on its end as they laughed. Nor did soldiers from any other European country carry out state murders locally.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 31, 2011, 06:32:28 PM

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.

So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Don't try pretend that the British army are just the same as any other European army. I never seen Dutch/French/German/Polish/Italian (etc) troops smash in my front door and turn my house on its end as they laughed. Nor did soldiers from any other European country carry out state murders locally.

Nor were any murdered locally, by locals. There might be a connection between that fact and your other observations, who knows.

Whataboutary. In fact it's worse than that. It sounds like your trying to justify state murder because of    paramiltary murders.

Your mask is now around your feet.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 31, 2011, 06:32:28 PM

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.
So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Don't try pretend that the British army are just the same as any other European army. I never seen Dutch/French/German/Polish/Italian (etc) troops smash in my front door and turn my house on its end as they laughed. Nor did soldiers from any other European country carry out state murders locally.

Perhaps you should have kept within the confines of the law and you wouldn't have had your door put in.

Unfortunately staying within the confines of the law didn't stop the British army.

Quote from: Trout on March 31, 2011, 08:12:43 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 31, 2011, 06:32:28 PM

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.
So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Don't try pretend that the British army are just the same as any other European army. I never seen Dutch/French/German/Polish/Italian (etc) troops smash in my front door and turn my house on its end as they laughed. Nor did soldiers from any other European country carry out state murders locally.

Perhaps you should have kept within the confines of the law and you wouldn't have had your door put in.

What a tit.   ::) ::)

Quote from: Trout on March 31, 2011, 08:12:43 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 31, 2011, 06:32:28 PM

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.
So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Don't try pretend that the British army are just the same as any other European army. I never seen Dutch/French/German/Polish/Italian (etc) troops smash in my front door and turn my house on its end as they laughed. Nor did soldiers from any other European country carry out state murders locally.

Perhaps you should have kept within the confines of the law and you wouldn't have had your door put in.

Do you want to expand on that? What exactly would you be accusing me of?

QuotePerhaps you should have kept within the confines of the law and you wouldn't have had your door put in.


Do you want to expand on that? What exactly would you be accusing me of?

this reply should be interesting.....

Are they looking for monkeys up in the zoo??


Too ra loo ra loo ra loo

Quote from: Trout on March 31, 2011, 08:12:43 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 31, 2011, 06:32:28 PM

Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Is there not a difference between joining the British Army before the GFA and after it?

Nobody can argue we are now at war with Britain. They are a friend and ally. The northern situation is far from ideal but we've all voted on it and a conclusion has been reached that in theory allows for a United Ireland in the future. Compromise has been reached by the governments which has been accepted in referendum by the people, so we move on.
So why shouldnt an Irish person join the army of an ally, especially the guy who has always loved fighter jets? He can't do that in Ireland. Plenty of Irish also join the US forces, and I'm sure there's some who join armies in Europe - these days is there any difference between that and people joining the British army?

Don't try pretend that the British army are just the same as any other European army. I never seen Dutch/French/German/Polish/Italian (etc) troops smash in my front door and turn my house on its end as they laughed. Nor did soldiers from any other European country carry out state murders locally.

Perhaps you should have kept within the confines of the law and you wouldn't have had your door put in.

that is bang out of order

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 31, 2011, 12:40:06 PM

Quote from: Poc me on March 31, 2011, 12:16:39 PM
Can we still call the chocolate free state chocolate?? It is the only way to distinguish between the two dairy milks!

In all serious though, I have heard people referring to people from the 26 as 'free-staters' in a positive and negative way, if they don't like it don't use it. God knows we have many things we don't like being called and people should take the same attitude. To be honest though if someone was giving me a bit of shit about being 'british' and all that sort of craic and they were from the 26 (and it has happened), in order to fcuk them off i'd call them a 'west brit'...and rightly so if they have the cheek to undermine my Irishness.

With the people from the 26 i simply refer to them by whatever county they'd come from. I don't see why anyone would refer to them as a 'free stater' or anything when they can just say he's from Mayo, Cork etc etc.

Really? You can't think of any situation where you couldn't start listing the counties the people you are talking about are from?

No

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

No, northern Ireland would be geographically incorrect, Northern Ireland is correct, as it's the name of the state. Following your reasoning, 'Ireland' is the incorrect name of the southern (sic) state, as the state only takes in 26 counties of the island.

As for EG's post, the 1m Irishmen and women he refers to are obviously not Irish in any true sense of the word. They don't speak Irish, they don't play Gaelic games, they couldn't  tell you what the joyful mysteries of the rosary are and, worst of all, they hold political views that are at odds with those held by proper Irish people, like those on here.  ;)

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even ]when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

Further to MnG's reply above, Donegal is not in Northern Ireland (NI), it is in northern Ireland.

Though these days, it probably wishes it was in both... :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:22:52 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even ]when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

Further to MnG's reply above, Donegal is not in Northern Ireland (NI), it is in northern Ireland.

Though these days, it probably wishes it was in both... :D

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

Never mind New York, just don't mention the state(let) which calls itself "Ireland"... :D

P.S. Is it just me, or have Republicans recently stopped referring to NI as the "failed statelet"?  And if so, how long before we're all referring to the Republic as the "Failed State"? (Or, seeing as we're on the topic of terminological exactitude, "Der Versagte Staat"? ;) ) 

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:49:50 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

Never mind New York, just don't mention the state(let) which calls itself "Ireland"... :D

P.S. Is it just me, or have Republicans recently stopped referring to NI as the "failed statelet"?  And if so, how long before we're all referring to the Republic as the "Failed State"? (Or, seeing as we're on the topic of terminological exactitude, "Der Versagte Staat"? ;) )

That should be 'Das Bailed State'.

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:49:50 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

Never mind New York, just don't mention the state(let) which calls itself "Ireland"... :D

P.S. Is it just me, or have Republicans recently stopped referring to NI as the "failed statelet"?  And if so, how long before we're all referring to the Republic as the "Failed State"? (Or, seeing as we're on the topic of terminological exactitude, "Der Versagte Staat"? ;) )

Don't give up th'oul day job  ;)

Does the title of this thread refer to Irish people in the 6 counties? Answer is no. That's why no one was talking about them.

You did say - any Irishman.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 12, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
You did say - any Irishman.

I can happily confirm I was talking about any Irishman in the 26 counties as per the thread title.

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:49:50 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

Never mind New York, just don't mention the state(let) which calls itself "Ireland"... :D

P.S. Is it just me, or have Republicans recently stopped referring to NI as the "failed statelet"?  And if so, how long before we're all referring to the Republic as the "Failed State"? (Or, seeing as we're on the topic of terminological exactitude, "Der Versagte Staat"? ;) )

The Republic will do just fine EG, sure the U.K. went to the IMF begging bowl in the 1970's  ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:22:52 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even ]when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

Further to MnG's reply above, Donegal is not in Northern Ireland (NI), it is in northern Ireland.

Though these days, it probably wishes it was in both... :D

At least the South has only had one bailout your "wee country" would have long since sank if it wasn't for the British (as opposed to Uk) tax payer.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 12, 2011, 08:46:31 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on April 12, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
You did say - any Irishman.

I can happily confirm I was talking about any Irishman in the 26 counties as per the thread title.

Blueshirt!! :)

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

more shite talk from you, talk about trying to have childish digs because you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together

Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 10:21:16 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

more shite talk from you, talk about trying to have childish digs because you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together

It was a joke Banana Man. You take yourself too seriously. The whinging about being insulted all the time while writing something like 'you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together' is looking very hypocritical at this stage.

Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 10:37:58 AM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 10:21:16 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

more shite talk from you, talk about trying to have childish digs because you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together

It was a joke Banana Man. You take yourself too seriously. The whinging about being insulted all the time while writing something like 'you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together' is looking very hypocritical at this stage.

not too seriously, I just like to debate points like an adult with a reason for a reason against and see can we find common ground

not hypocritical, i'll think you will find the above based on your behaviour over the last 24 hours would be very balanced and it was coherent in articulating my point.

I'm still waiting on you answering my point on the garda budget....

Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 11:34:32 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 10:37:58 AM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 10:21:16 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

more shite talk from you, talk about trying to have childish digs because you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together

It was a joke Banana Man. You take yourself too seriously. The whinging about being insulted all the time while writing something like 'you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together' is looking very hypocritical at this stage.

not too seriously, I just like to debate points like an adult with a reason for a reason against and see can we find common ground

not hypocritical, i'll think you will find the above based on your behaviour over the last 24 hours would be very balanced and it was coherent in articulating my point.

I'm still waiting on you answering my point on the garda budget....

these sentences start without capital letters, this one has no full stop at the end

not that I'd start a sentence with the word not

But then I can't string a coherent sentence together in articulating my point, can I?

Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 12:17:53 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 11:34:32 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 10:37:58 AM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 10:21:16 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

more shite talk from you, talk about trying to have childish digs because you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together

It was a joke Banana Man. You take yourself too seriously. The whinging about being insulted all the time while writing something like 'you can't string a coherent and balanced sentence together' is looking very hypocritical at this stage.

not too seriously, I just like to debate points like an adult with a reason for a reason against and see can we find common ground

not hypocritical, i'll think you will find the above based on your behaviour over the last 24 hours would be very balanced and it was coherent in articulating my point.

I'm still waiting on you answering my point on the garda budget....

these sentences start without capital letters, this one has no full stop at the end

not that I'd start a sentence with the word not

But then I can't string a coherent sentence together in articulating my point, can I?

you can't differentiate between grammar and coherent - you still haven't adressed my point

i'm waiting...

If you think we should tell Obama not to come because of a Garda overtime bill that Hardy tore asunder, then you can wait.

Quote from: Applesisapples on April 13, 2011, 10:11:36 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:22:52 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even ]when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

Further to MnG's reply above, Donegal is not in Northern Ireland (NI), it is in northern Ireland.

Though these days, it probably wishes it was in both... :D

At least the South has only had one bailout your "wee country" would have long since sank if it wasn't for the British (as opposed to Uk) tax payer.

Actually, I thinkl you'll find that from 1920 to 1980 (approx), NI was inherently much more wealthy/self-sustaining than the Republic was, by just about any marker you care to choose.

This changed essentially due to four factors:
1. The de-industrialisation which hit the UK (and other Western economies) from the 80's on (shipbuilding, engineering, aircraft etc);
2. The onset of 30 years of civil strife in NI;
3. The EEC pouring (net) billions into the ROI, whilst simultaneously taking it from the UK;
4. More progressive economic policies eventually being introduced in the Republic.

Meanwhile, if NI is one of several UK regions which is currently heavily dependant upon central Whitehall subsidy in order to pay the bills etc, that's how things work in a Union, you take the Rough with the Smooth.

Indeed, this point was never more pertinent than this week, what with it being the anniversary of the Belfast Blitz*, when NI had to bear its share of the Nazi assault, whilst simultaneously the Free state was essentially being spared starvation and complete economic collapse, due to the efforts of the British Navies**, both Royal and Merchant.


* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Blitz
** - Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_(novel)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2011, 09:10:47 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:49:50 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:25:34 PM

but that is my point whether we use a capital letter or not, the statelet is named incorrectly, it doesn't include all of northern ireland

Lads don't tell him about New York or he'll crack up altogether.

Never mind New York, just don't mention the state(let) which calls itself "Ireland"... :D

P.S. Is it just me, or have Republicans recently stopped referring to NI as the "failed statelet"?  And if so, how long before we're all referring to the Republic as the "Failed State"? (Or, seeing as we're on the topic of terminological exactitude, "Der Versagte Staat"? ;) )

The Republic will do just fine EG, sure the U.K. went to the IMF begging bowl in the 1970's  ;)

Aye, we did, no doubt about that.

But what was the response to that low-point in our economic fortunes?

Answer: Thatcherism!

"Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid."  ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 01:03:45 PM

Quote from: Applesisapples on April 13, 2011, 10:11:36 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 05:22:52 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 01:40:25 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 29, 2011, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tubberman on March 29, 2011, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
4000 is a "record" number. I wonder when the record keeping began.  ???

My nephew was one of the officer cadets who made it to the three day assessment. He was saying most of the boys in the barracks were intending to join up with the Brits if they weren't successful. IMO they should be stripped of their citizenship.

I don't really understand why someone would want to join the british army, but that's just ridiculous.
This isn't a dictatorship, free will exists.

In a dictatorship they'd be shot. I agree 100% with Ulick on this one. Why the hell should any Irishman be permitted to join an army that has shot and murdered Irish citizens for 100's of years right up to the present. They have the free will to do so if they so wish, Ireland should have the free will to tell them to leave their passports at the ferry when they leave.

"Any Irishman"?

You seem to forget that there are one million Irishmen and women on the island for whom joining the British Armed Forces is entirely natural, like these two, for example:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=124709
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/rir-soldier-becomes-afghan-hero-after-saving-eightyearold-girl-15065346.html

P.S. On the subject of correct nomenclature which has hijacked this thread, I always find it amusing that those posters who are most insistent on the use of the correct [sic] term "Ireland" etc, are invariably the same ones who are completely incapable of typing "Northern Ireland"! Indeed they will resorting to "the Six Counties" or "the North" etc, even ]when a simple "NI" is quicker, more accurate and pretty much unmistakeable...  :D

I think you'll find 'Northern Ireland' is not more accurate, Donegal is the most northern part of the main landmass of the island and yet it is in the 'south' / '26 counties', therefore 'Northern' is entirely incorrect

Further to MnG's reply above, Donegal is not in Northern Ireland (NI), it is in northern Ireland.

Though these days, it probably wishes it was in both... :D

At least the South has only had one bailout your "wee country" would have long since sank if it wasn't for the British (as opposed to Uk) tax payer.

Actually, I thinkl you'll find that from 1920 to 1980 (approx), NI was inherently much more wealthy/self-sustaining than the Republic was, by just about any marker you care to choose.

This changed essentially due to four factors:
1. The de-industrialisation which hit the UK (and other Western economies) from the 80's on (shipbuilding, engineering, aircraft etc);
2. The onset of 30 years of civil strife in NI;
3. The EEC pouring (net) billions into the ROI, whilst simultaneously taking it from the UK;
4. More progressive economic policies eventually being introduced in the Republic.

Meanwhile, if NI is one of several UK regions which is currently heavily dependant upon central Whitehall subsidy in order to pay the bills etc, that's how things work in a Union, you take the Rough with the Smooth.

Indeed, this point was never more pertinent than this week, what with it being the anniversary of the Belfast Blitz*, when NI had to bear its share of the Nazi assault, whilst simultaneously the Free state was essentially being spared starvation and complete economic collapse, due to the efforts of the British Navies**, both Royal and Merchant.


* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Blitz
** - Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_(novel)

I note the British Navy, not NI Navy. Also whilst some sections of the population of the north may have been wealthy the majority were on the bread line. but hey your type of revisionist drivel would deny discrimination against Catholics or qualify it by "sure Protestants were just as badly off". I stand by my original statement only Briitish subvention kept the NI Statlet with its Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people afloat.

Some interesting section in that Wikipedia (copyright Evil Genius) article on the Belfast Blitz

By 6am, within two hours of the request for assistance, 71 firemen with 13 fire tenders from Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire were on their way to cross the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues. In each station volunteers were asked for, as it was beyond their normal duties. In every instance, all volunteered. They remained for three days, until they were sent back by the Northern Ireland government

Taoiseach Eamon De Valera formally protested to Berlin

Two hundred and twenty thousand people fled from the city. Many "arrived in Fermanagh having nothing with them only night shirts". Ten thousand "officially" crossed the border. Over 500 received care from the Irish Red Cross in Dublin

Maybe the Queen will say "Thank You" at Croke Park ;)

Also interestingly:

The Government of Northern Ireland lacked the will, energy and capacity to cope with a major crisis when it came. James Craig, Lord Craigavon, who was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland since its inception in 1921, until his death on November 24, 1940, had become senile. Richard Dawson Bates, was the Home Affairs Minister. According to Sir Wilfred Spender, the cabinet secretary was "incapable of giving his responsible officers coherent directions on policy" – actually, he was drunk for most of each day

Lord Craigavon died on Sunday, 24 November 1940. He was succeeded by John Miller Andrews, then 70 years old, who was no more capable of dealing with the situation than his predecessor. The minutes of his cabinet meetings show more discussion on protecting the bronze statue of Carson than the provision of air-raid shelters

Should Martin McGuinness and the Executive apologise for the conduct of its predecessor...perhaps during a visit to Windsor Park ;)

Quote from: Applesisapples on April 13, 2011, 01:44:40 PMI note the British Navy, not NI Navy.

And you "note" incorrectly. The two Navies which together defended NI from Fascism, whilst simultaneously preventing the Free State from starving etc, were the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy.
As such, many people from Ireland, both North and South, served with distinction and courage in each.
But my point was that part of the price NI has to pay for its present subsidisation by Whitehall etc lay in the terrible death and destruction we suffered by being part of the UK during WWII.
By contrast, the Free State benefited very significantly from the sacrifice of the Royal and Merchant Navies, whilst avoiding virtually all of the hardship etc.
Still I trust that this will be recognised fully when Her Majesty visits the Republic later this year.
Like Fcuk.

Quote from: Applesisapples on April 13, 2011, 01:44:40 PMAlso whilst some sections of the population of the north may have been wealthy the majority were on the bread line.

As is/was the case in ROI.
But in making my point that for the majority of our respective histories, NI was more inherently wealthy and prosperous than the ROI, I never denied inequality of wealth within either country.

Quote from: Applesisapples on April 13, 2011, 01:44:40 PMbut hey your type of revisionist drivel would deny discrimination against Catholics or qualify it by "sure Protestants were just as badly off".

Nowhere on this thread (or any other) have I ever denied that RC's in NI were discriminated against and denied their fair shares etc.
So why don't you respond to what I actually post, rather than ranting against what you imagine I really mean, especially when that imagination is grossly wide of the mark, even offensive?

Quote from: Applesisapples on April 13, 2011, 01:44:40 PMI stand by my original statement only Briitish subvention kept the NI Statlet with its Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people afloat.

It is clear already that regardless of what I argue on such matters, you are going to "stand by" your own opinions, regardless.
As such, you display the closed mindset of what in England I would term a "Sun-reader".

Oh well.

I'm not sure what to make of what I have heard in the last week, thought to ignore it the first time I heard a mate talk about it this week, after trying to kinda change her mind, without actually making it obvious thats what I was trying to do. Now another friend has suggested that she is thinking of doing the same.

2 friends of mine, both 20, one from a Republican, Nationalist, GAA, 6 county background told me last week she intended to join the British army as a nurse, then today another friend also 20 from a Nationalist, Catholic, SDLP background she wanted to join the RAF as a nurse. In both cases I found myself to be a little less tollerent of the idea than I thought I was. I have a friend 21 and female who is from a Protestant & Unionist background and I didn't even bat an eyelid when she told me before Christmas that she wanted to join the RAF, even kind of supported her decision. I have not been able to find myself supportive of my friends from 6 county Nationalist backgrounds.

I think alot of lads on here don't realise that yer young women are all lining up to fight (or cure) for Queen and Country, it has surprised me quite a bit. I think that programme on Channel 4 this week may have been the catalyst.

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:36:35 PM
Free State

I think you will find, even that p***k Churchill called it Éire, unless the war started 2 years earlier than the history books suggest.

Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 12:50:18 PM
If you think we should tell Obama not to come because of a Garda overtime bill that Hardy tore asunder, then you can wait.

so you can't respond, any time you try to respond you fire out other people's names and what they posted.

Here's an idea why don't you try tearing something i say asunder, rather than hiding behind other people who try to discuss things - i won't hold my breath

Quote from: AQMP on April 13, 2011, 02:08:14 PM
Some interesting section in that Wikipedia (copyright Evil Genius) article on the Belfast Blitz

By 6am, within two hours of the request for assistance, 71 firemen with 13 fire tenders from Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire were on their way to cross the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues. In each station volunteers were asked for, as it was beyond their normal duties. In every instance, all volunteered. They remained for three days, until they were sent back by the Northern Ireland government

Taoiseach Eamon De Valera formally protested to Berlin

Two hundred and twenty thousand people fled from the city. Many "arrived in Fermanagh having nothing with them only night shirts". Ten thousand "officially" crossed the border. Over 500 received care from the Irish Red Cross in Dublin

Maybe the Queen will say "Thank You" at Croke Park ;)

Also interestingly:

The Government of Northern Ireland lacked the will, energy and capacity to cope with a major crisis when it came. James Craig, Lord Craigavon, who was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland since its inception in 1921, until his death on November 24, 1940, had become senile. Richard Dawson Bates, was the Home Affairs Minister. According to Sir Wilfred Spender, the cabinet secretary was "incapable of giving his responsible officers coherent directions on policy" – actually, he was drunk for most of each day

Lord Craigavon died on Sunday, 24 November 1940. He was succeeded by John Miller Andrews, then 70 years old, who was no more capable of dealing with the situation than his predecessor. The minutes of his cabinet meetings show more discussion on protecting the bronze statue of Carson than the provision of air-raid shelters

Should Martin McGuinness and the Executive apologise for the conduct of its predecessor...perhaps during a visit to Windsor Park ;)

There is no doubt that the preparations for, and response to, the threat of German air attack by the Government of NI was woefully and scandalously negligent.

That does not alter my central thesis which is that for all that NI undoubtedly benefits economically from being in the UK, membership of such a Union works both ways.

Indeed, so close-run was the struggle to defy the Nazis in 1940, that it is undeniable that had it not been for the contribution* to the War Effort of (even so small a region as) NI , the War would very likely have been lost.

Which is only like pointing out to those people in ROI who are presently complaining about the financial strictures being imposed by the Germans etc, that they weren't so disgruntled when formerly the (German-financed) EU was pumping billions into the ROI during the 70's, 80's and 90's etc.

Rough with Smooth, rough with smooth...

P.S. I don't know how much Dawson Bates was drinking at the time, but of itself, that wouldn't necessarily have disqualified him from doing a job. For let's face it, it didn't seem to do this man too much harm:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/he-was-an-alcohol-abuser


* - Ships, aircraft, food, bases, volunteers etc

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:48:43 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:36:35 PM
Free State

I think you will find, even that p***k Churchill called it Éire, unless the war started 2 years earlier than the history books suggest.

My mistake.

Meanwhile, terming Churchill a "p***k" is yours.

And considerably the greater... :o

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 03:59:03 PM

Quote from: AQMP on April 13, 2011, 02:08:14 PM
Some interesting section in that Wikipedia (copyright Evil Genius) article on the Belfast Blitz

By 6am, within two hours of the request for assistance, 71 firemen with 13 fire tenders from Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire were on their way to cross the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues. In each station volunteers were asked for, as it was beyond their normal duties. In every instance, all volunteered. They remained for three days, until they were sent back by the Northern Ireland government

Taoiseach Eamon De Valera formally protested to Berlin

Two hundred and twenty thousand people fled from the city. Many "arrived in Fermanagh having nothing with them only night shirts". Ten thousand "officially" crossed the border. Over 500 received care from the Irish Red Cross in Dublin

Maybe the Queen will say "Thank You" at Croke Park ;)

Also interestingly:

The Government of Northern Ireland lacked the will, energy and capacity to cope with a major crisis when it came. James Craig, Lord Craigavon, who was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland since its inception in 1921, until his death on November 24, 1940, had become senile. Richard Dawson Bates, was the Home Affairs Minister. According to Sir Wilfred Spender, the cabinet secretary was "incapable of giving his responsible officers coherent directions on policy" – actually, he was drunk for most of each day

Lord Craigavon died on Sunday, 24 November 1940. He was succeeded by John Miller Andrews, then 70 years old, who was no more capable of dealing with the situation than his predecessor. The minutes of his cabinet meetings show more discussion on protecting the bronze statue of Carson than the provision of air-raid shelters

Should Martin McGuinness and the Executive apologise for the conduct of its predecessor...perhaps during a visit to Windsor Park ;)

There is no doubt that the preparations for, and response to, the threat of German air attack by the Government of NI was woefully and scandalously negligent.

That does not alter my central thesis which is that for all that NI undoubtedly benefits economically from being in the UK, membership of such a Union works both ways.

Indeed, so close-run was the struggle to defy the Nazis in 1940, that it is undeniable that had it not been for the contribution* to the War Effort of (even so small a region as) NI , the War would very likely have been lost.

Which is only like pointing out to those people in ROI who are presently complaining about the financial strictures being imposed by the Germans etc, that they weren't so disgruntled when formerly the (German-financed) EU was pumping billions into the ROI during the 70's, 80's and 90's etc.

Rough with Smooth, rough with smooth...

P.S. I don't know how much Dawson Bates was drinking at the time, but of itself, that wouldn't necessarily have disqualified him from doing a job. For let's face it, it didn't seem to do this man too much harm:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/he-was-an-alcohol-abuser


* - Ships, aircraft, food, bases, volunteers etc

In general I agree with you and no doubt a high price was paid by NI during WW11 in particular.

However, AQMP touches on a very valid point that the Unionist/Loyaliist view of  Eire's neutrality (and lack of by times) in WW11 is shrouded in myth and inaccuracy.  A lot of this was deliberately cultivated in post war years because of the Stormont's government embarrassement about some aspects of NI's contribution.

Documents published form HM Governments files in the 70's show that the Stormont cabinet requested Westminister not to publish data about volunteers from Ireland.  Apparently the NI figures didn't compare favourably enough to those that gave addresses from the black, papist, neutral free state....oops.

Apparently we didn't all spend our time at home signalling German subs to come ashore for cups of tea.

Neither does it play well to talk about refugees helped, fire tenders sent north or any other aspects of Eire's neutrality that were pro-British.  Of course if you pick any book on that time, the pro-British bias of Irish neutrality will be acknowledged.  Even Winston buried the hatchet with Dev post war.

You are possibly correct about every contribution being needed in early 1940 but after that British intelligence continually advised Churchill not to bring Eire into the War.  Given the inflow of recruits, any further gains would have been out-balanced by the need to flood the country with defenders by making it a "beliigerent"...........

Of course when Lizzie comes to town she will acknowledge some aspect of this by paying respect to those that died in these wars. I see though that will be balanced with those who fought for our independence.  I wonder how such symmetry will go down in some quarters.

Also the EU contribution to Ireland is significant but not to the extent held in Unionist/Loyalist mythology (once again).  Probably of equal importance to the development of the Irish economy was that of American multi-nationals.   


/Jim.

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 03:59:03 PM

Quote from: AQMP on April 13, 2011, 02:08:14 PM
Some interesting section in that Wikipedia (copyright Evil Genius) article on the Belfast Blitz

By 6am, within two hours of the request for assistance, 71 firemen with 13 fire tenders from Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire were on their way to cross the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues. In each station volunteers were asked for, as it was beyond their normal duties. In every instance, all volunteered. They remained for three days, until they were sent back by the Northern Ireland government

Taoiseach Eamon De Valera formally protested to Berlin

Two hundred and twenty thousand people fled from the city. Many "arrived in Fermanagh having nothing with them only night shirts". Ten thousand "officially" crossed the border. Over 500 received care from the Irish Red Cross in Dublin

Maybe the Queen will say "Thank You" at Croke Park ;)

Also interestingly:

The Government of Northern Ireland lacked the will, energy and capacity to cope with a major crisis when it came. James Craig, Lord Craigavon, who was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland since its inception in 1921, until his death on November 24, 1940, had become senile. Richard Dawson Bates, was the Home Affairs Minister. According to Sir Wilfred Spender, the cabinet secretary was "incapable of giving his responsible officers coherent directions on policy" – actually, he was drunk for most of each day

Lord Craigavon died on Sunday, 24 November 1940. He was succeeded by John Miller Andrews, then 70 years old, who was no more capable of dealing with the situation than his predecessor. The minutes of his cabinet meetings show more discussion on protecting the bronze statue of Carson than the provision of air-raid shelters

Should Martin McGuinness and the Executive apologise for the conduct of its predecessor...perhaps during a visit to Windsor Park ;)

There is no doubt that the preparations for, and response to, the threat of German air attack by the Government of NI was woefully and scandalously negligent.

That does not alter my central thesis which is that for all that NI undoubtedly benefits economically from being in the UK, membership of such a Union works both ways.

Indeed, so close-run was the struggle to defy the Nazis in 1940, that in my humble opinion and with little evidence to support this conjecture it is undeniable that had it not been for the contribution* to the War Effort of (even so small a region as) NI , the War would very likely have been lost.

Which is only like pointing out to those people in ROI who are presently complaining about the financial strictures being imposed by the Germans etc, that they weren't so disgruntled when formerly the (German-financed) EU was pumping billions into the ROI during the 70's, 80's and 90's etc.

Rough with Smooth, rough with smooth...

P.S. I don't know how much Dawson Bates was drinking at the time, but of itself, that wouldn't necessarily have disqualified him from doing a job. For let's face it, it didn't seem to do this man too much harm:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/he-was-an-alcohol-abuser


* - Ships, aircraft, food, bases, volunteers etc

Fixed that for you there EG ;)  I think drinking on the job might disqualify you from office if you are incapble of giving coherent policy direction

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 04:02:20 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:48:43 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:36:35 PM
Free State

I think you will find, even that p***k Churchill called it Éire, unless the war started 2 years earlier than the history books suggest.

My mistake.

Meanwhile, terming Churchill a "p***k" is yours.

And considerably the greater... :o less

I will say why I believe why below, but I have a British mate who agrees but qualifies it by saying thank God he was one of their pricks.

I believe (from my perspective) Churchill was a p***k because of his involvment in Irish Partition. While I beileve parition is legitimate now due to the majority in one of the administrative regions/states in Ireland wish to preserve partition, at the time of its inception it was wrong, and Churchill was at the heart of that wrong.

Churchill was involved in the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq and creating the two false (at the time at least) states of Jordon and Iraq.

Churchill wrote blatent propeganda in British newspapers for British Imperalism in Afganistan, South Africa and India.

Churchill never truely accepted Irish Independence.

Not really his fault but Churchill took part in the Battle of Omdurman of Sudan, a henious crime.

Churchill was a sexist drunk.

He came from the House of Marlborough. Also not his fault. But as a Republican (in the European tradition) I am opposed to the Aristocracy.

He sacrificed the City of Coventy.

He allowd the excessive bombings of Dresden.

So it is fair to say that he was a bit of a p***k.

But for World War 2 he would have gone down on the wrong side of history. The much worse Joseph Stalin was saved by World War 2 in a similar way.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
I'm not sure what to make of what I have heard in the last week, thought to ignore it the first time I heard a mate talk about it this week, after trying to kinda change her mind, without actually making it obvious thats what I was trying to do. Now another friend has suggested that she is thinking of doing the same.

2 friends of mine, both 20, one from a Republican, Nationalist, GAA, 6 county background told me last week she intended to join the British army as a nurse, then today another friend also 20 from a Nationalist, Catholic, SDLP background she wanted to join the RAF as a nurse. In both cases I found myself to be a little less tollerent of the idea than I thought I was. I have a friend 21 and female who is from a Protestant & Unionist background and I didn't even bat an eyelid when she told me before Christmas that she wanted to join the RAF, even kind of supported her decision. I have not been able to find myself supportive of my friends from 6 county Nationalist backgrounds.

I think alot of lads on here don't realise that yer young women are all lining up to fight (or cure) for Queen and Country, it has surprised me quite a bit. I think that programme on Channel 4 this week may have been the catalyst.

Who the f**k are you to talk any of these people out of anything?

If some people are of the opinon that times have changed, and they are more interested in putting a good career together - who are you to even have an opinion on it - let alone voice it to them with some attempt to change their minds? What does it matter which religion they are? Some people don't give a f**k about religion - you do realise that? That there is more to life for the average young irish person now than religious and political affiliation - thank the "Lord". It's very refreshing to look at people without labels MGHU - you should try it some time.

Obviously it matters to some brainless idiots on here - but to be honest most younger people are out growing the mayhem that tortured previous generations. They are damn right to let it go - and while never forgetting it happened, I'd say those young people are to be commended - while you need a good boot in the hole.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 13, 2011, 05:35:20 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
I'm not sure what to make of what I have heard in the last week, thought to ignore it the first time I heard a mate talk about it this week, after trying to kinda change her mind, without actually making it obvious thats what I was trying to do. Now another friend has suggested that she is thinking of doing the same.

2 friends of mine, both 20, one from a Republican, Nationalist, GAA, 6 county background told me last week she intended to join the British army as a nurse, then today another friend also 20 from a Nationalist, Catholic, SDLP background she wanted to join the RAF as a nurse. In both cases I found myself to be a little less tollerent of the idea than I thought I was. I have a friend 21 and female who is from a Protestant & Unionist background and I didn't even bat an eyelid when she told me before Christmas that she wanted to join the RAF, even kind of supported her decision. I have not been able to find myself supportive of my friends from 6 county Nationalist backgrounds.

I think alot of lads on here don't realise that yer young women are all lining up to fight (or cure) for Queen and Country, it has surprised me quite a bit. I think that programme on Channel 4 this week may have been the catalyst.

Who the f**k are you to talk any of these people out of anything?

If some people are of the opinon that times have changed, and they are more interested in putting a good career together - who are you to even have an opinion on it - let alone voice it to them with some attempt to change their minds? What does it matter which religion they are? Some people don't give a f**k about religion - you do realise that? That there is more to life for the average young irish person now than religious and political affiliation - thank the "Lord". It's very refreshing to look at people without labels MGHU - you should try it some time.

Obviously it matters to some brainless idiots on here - but to be honest most younger people are out growing the mayhem that tortured previous generations. They are damn right to let it go - and while never forgetting it happened, I'd say those young people are to be commended - while you need a good boot in the hole.

Isn't it time you turned your back on violence?

Quote from: Puckoon on April 13, 2011, 05:35:20 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
I'm not sure what to make of what I have heard in the last week, thought to ignore it the first time I heard a mate talk about it this week, after trying to kinda change her mind, without actually making it obvious thats what I was trying to do. Now another friend has suggested that she is thinking of doing the same.

2 friends of mine, both 20, one from a Republican, Nationalist, GAA, 6 county background told me last week she intended to join the British army as a nurse, then today another friend also 20 from a Nationalist, Catholic, SDLP background she wanted to join the RAF as a nurse. In both cases I found myself to be a little less tollerent of the idea than I thought I was. I have a friend 21 and female who is from a Protestant & Unionist background and I didn't even bat an eyelid when she told me before Christmas that she wanted to join the RAF, even kind of supported her decision. I have not been able to find myself supportive of my friends from 6 county Nationalist backgrounds.

I think alot of lads on here don't realise that yer young women are all lining up to fight (or cure) for Queen and Country, it has surprised me quite a bit. I think that programme on Channel 4 this week may have been the catalyst.

Who the f**k are you to talk any of these people out of anything?

If some people are of the opinon that times have changed, and they are more interested in putting a good career together - who are you to even have an opinion on it - let alone voice it to them with some attempt to change their minds? What does it matter which religion they are? Some people don't give a f**k about religion - you do realise that? That there is more to life for the average young irish person now than religious and political affiliation - thank the "Lord". It's very refreshing to look at people without labels MGHU - you should try it some time.

Obviously it matters to some brainless idiots on here - but to be honest most younger people are out growing the mayhem that tortured previous generations. They are damn right to let it go - and while never forgetting it happened, I'd say those young people are to be commended - while you need a good boot in the hole.

Puckoon, you obviously haven't read this thread. For one on countless occassions I have said I am an Atheist. I didn't state religion in regards to my Nationalist friends (I just notice I did for my Unionist friends, I meant to highlight Unionist rather than Protestant). I do not condeme those who joining the British army, what I was saying was 1. my surpise at them wanting to join from their nationalist background (esp. the girl from the Republican background) and 2. actually my discomfort with the idea, which if you had read through this thread you will see, its something I didn't think I would feel. I found myself being discouraging in a more semi-unconsious manner rather than a consious one, only realising what I had done on reflection. Really what I think I was getting to was my surprise at the interest in the British Armed Forces from 6 County Nationalist, because if this site is anything to go by and the way the lads on here swear blind otherwise. Also I was suprised at my own reaction and my deep discomfort with the British Army while I would leap into the PSNI in the morning without batting an eyelid.

Just realised I said Catholic too, oops.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 03:59:03 PM

Quote from: AQMP on April 13, 2011, 02:08:14 PM
Some interesting section in that Wikipedia (copyright Evil Genius) article on the Belfast Blitz

By 6am, within two hours of the request for assistance, 71 firemen with 13 fire tenders from Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire were on their way to cross the Irish border to assist their Belfast colleagues. In each station volunteers were asked for, as it was beyond their normal duties. In every instance, all volunteered. They remained for three days, until they were sent back by the Northern Ireland government

Taoiseach Eamon De Valera formally protested to Berlin

Two hundred and twenty thousand people fled from the city. Many "arrived in Fermanagh having nothing with them only night shirts". Ten thousand "officially" crossed the border. Over 500 received care from the Irish Red Cross in Dublin

Maybe the Queen will say "Thank You" at Croke Park ;)

Also interestingly:

The Government of Northern Ireland lacked the will, energy and capacity to cope with a major crisis when it came. James Craig, Lord Craigavon, who was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland since its inception in 1921, until his death on November 24, 1940, had become senile. Richard Dawson Bates, was the Home Affairs Minister. According to Sir Wilfred Spender, the cabinet secretary was "incapable of giving his responsible officers coherent directions on policy" – actually, he was drunk for most of each day

Lord Craigavon died on Sunday, 24 November 1940. He was succeeded by John Miller Andrews, then 70 years old, who was no more capable of dealing with the situation than his predecessor. The minutes of his cabinet meetings show more discussion on protecting the bronze statue of Carson than the provision of air-raid shelters

Should Martin McGuinness and the Executive apologise for the conduct of its predecessor...perhaps during a visit to Windsor Park ;)

There is no doubt that the preparations for, and response to, the threat of German air attack by the Government of NI was woefully and scandalously negligent.

That does not alter my central thesis which is that for all that NI undoubtedly benefits economically from being in the UK, membership of such a Union works both ways.

Indeed, so close-run was the struggle to defy the Nazis in 1940, that it is undeniable that had it not been for the contribution* to the War Effort of (even so small a region as) NI , the War would very likely have been lost.

Which is only like pointing out to those people in ROI who are presently complaining about the financial strictures being imposed by the Germans etc, that they weren't so disgruntled when formerly the (German-financed) EU was pumping billions into the ROI during the 70's, 80's and 90's etc.

Rough with Smooth, rough with smooth...

P.S. I don't know how much Dawson Bates was drinking at the time, but of itself, that wouldn't necessarily have disqualified him from doing a job. For let's face it, it didn't seem to do this man too much harm:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/he-was-an-alcohol-abuser


* - Ships, aircraft, food, bases, volunteers etc

In general I agree with you and no doubt a high price was paid by NI during WW11 in particular.

However, AQMP touches on a very valid point that the Unionist/Loyaliist view of  Eire's neutrality (and lack of by times) in WW11 is shrouded in myth and inaccuracy.

No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMA lot of this was deliberately cultivated in post war years because of the Stormont's government embarrassement about some aspects of NI's contribution.

Documents published form HM Governments files in the 70's show that the Stormont cabinet requested Westminister not to publish data about volunteers from Ireland.  Apparently the NI figures didn't compare favourably enough to those that gave addresses from the black, papist, neutral free state....oops.

Apparently we didn't all spend our time at home signalling German subs to come ashore for cups of tea.

There are very sound reasons to explain why, at first sight, the contribution of NI in WWII would appear to compare unfavourably with that of GB and Eire.
These go back to WWI (where Ulster's contribution and sacrifice was unquestionable, btw). I believe I'm right in saying that at the time, the British Army of WWI was the largest volunteer army the world had ever seen.
But with the horrors of Flanders etc still being so fresh in the nation's memory by 1939 (i.e. a mere 21 years later), the British Government had no alternative but to introduce Conscription in GB - otherwise they'd never have received the required number of volunteers.
Similarly, I have no doubt that they would have introduced Conscription for NI, had they thought threy would have got away with it. However, with NI having an open land border with a neutral country, plus a significant Nationalist minority which would have resisted strongly, it was calculated that it would actually have required more soldiers to enforce Conscription than it would have produced!
As for the contribution from Eire, there is no doubt that it was impressive. But consider this. At the time, Eire was by far the poorest part of the British Isles. And the War cut it off from much of its major markets (import and export) so as to exacerbate this, without the corresponding boost to the economy produced by in the UK by moving to a wartime economy.
One of the chief effects of this wartime economy was that with so many men being away fighting, civilian wages in the UK were boosted considerably. It was then felt necessary to increase military wages to compensate.
And all of this was happening at a time when jobs in Eire were scarcer than ever, and wages reduced accordingly.
Of course, I would not claim that volunteers from Eire were solely motivated to join up by jobs and money etc, but if increasing numbers of people from ROI are joining up today for economic reasons, even when they might well expect to be sent to Afghanistan etc, the financial imperative in 1939 had to have been a major factor.
Meanwhile, employment boomed in NI, whilst the shipyards, aircraft and munitions factories etc went onto a wartime footing.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMNeither does it play well to talk about refugees helped, fire tenders sent north or any other aspects of Eire's neutrality that were pro-British.

Whilst entirely welcome and no doubt under-appreciated in certain quarters, the fact is that the fire engines etc were hardly evidence of "pro-British bias" on Dev's part - by his reckoning, he was merely providing humanitarian assistance to his fellow Irish citizens.
And in any case, it hardly equated to the food and fuel which the (British) Merchant Navy were shipping to Eire, at enormous cost, whilst she maintained her policy of Neutrality.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMOf course if you pick any book on that time, the pro-British bias of Irish neutrality will be acknowledged.  Even Winston buried the hatchet with Dev post war.

Righto so, then. We should be grateful that Eire bent the rules of strict neutrality marginally in favour of the UK, including that part which is also Irish, against the interests of the Third Reich.
Tough call, that one... ::)

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMYou are possibly correct about every contribution being needed in early 1940 but after that British intelligence continually advised Churchill not to bring Eire into the War.  Given the inflow of recruits, any further gains would have been out-balanced by the need to flood the country with defenders by making it a "beliigerent"...........

Here is what Churchill had so upon the matter:
"Owing to the action of Mr De Valera, so much at variance with the temper and instinct of thousands of Southern Irishmen who hastened to the battlefront to prove their ancient valour, the approaches which the Southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This was indeed a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr de Valera or perish for ever from this earth."
Note his use of the word "moment". He was obviously referring to 1940, after 1940 both the USSR and USA entered the war, so there was no longer any need to consider initiating regime change  ;) in Eire.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMOf course when Lizzie comes to town she will acknowledge some aspect of this by paying respect to those that died in these wars. I see though that will be balanced with those who fought for our independence.  I wonder how such symmetry will go down in some quarters.

Unsure, but I suspect that her words of reconciliation towards Republicanism etc will cause less consternation and protest amongst hardline NI Loyalists than her mere presence in Dublin will amongst hardline Irish Republicans.
And I doubt whether mainstream NI Unionism/Loyalism will give a damn.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMAlso the EU contribution to Ireland is significant but not to the extent held in Unionist/Loyalist mythology (once again).

"Mythology" my hole!  >:(
Read this, written by well-known "Unionist/Loyalist" Michael Hennigan in 2004:
http://www.finfacts.ie/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 13, 2011, 04:29:32 PMProbably of equal importance to the development of the Irish economy was that of American multi-nationals.   

Yep, you used the EU's money to undercut Corporation Tax rates in the rest of the EU, thereby diverting non-EU investment from those other EU states to your own. It was certainly clever, I'll give you that.
And you wonder why the Germans etc are taking the hump at having to bale you out, now that you've p1ssed it all up against the wall... ::)

Quote from: Puckoon on April 13, 2011, 05:35:20 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
I'm not sure what to make of what I have heard in the last week, thought to ignore it the first time I heard a mate talk about it this week, after trying to kinda change her mind, without actually making it obvious thats what I was trying to do. Now another friend has suggested that she is thinking of doing the same.

2 friends of mine, both 20, one from a Republican, Nationalist, GAA, 6 county background told me last week she intended to join the British army as a nurse, then today another friend also 20 from a Nationalist, Catholic, SDLP background she wanted to join the RAF as a nurse. In both cases I found myself to be a little less tollerent of the idea than I thought I was. I have a friend 21 and female who is from a Protestant & Unionist background and I didn't even bat an eyelid when she told me before Christmas that she wanted to join the RAF, even kind of supported her decision. I have not been able to find myself supportive of my friends from 6 county Nationalist backgrounds.

I think alot of lads on here don't realise that yer young women are all lining up to fight (or cure) for Queen and Country, it has surprised me quite a bit. I think that programme on Channel 4 this week may have been the catalyst.

Who the f**k are you to talk any of these people out of anything?

If some people are of the opinon that times have changed, and they are more interested in putting a good career together - who are you to even have an opinion on it - let alone voice it to them with some attempt to change their minds? What does it matter which religion they are? Some people don't give a f**k about religion - you do realise that? That there is more to life for the average young irish person now than religious and political affiliation - thank the "Lord". It's very refreshing to look at people without labels MGHU - you should try it some time.

Obviously it matters to some brainless idiots on here - but to be honest most younger people are out growing the mayhem that tortured previous generations. They are damn right to let it go - and while never forgetting it happened, I'd say those young people are to be commended - while you need a good boot in the hole.

Armies are not about providing "careers" they are in the business of killing people, thats why they have big guns. The rest is just window dressing. They kill to protect the interests of the country they serve. While I can tolerate a person wishing to protect their own country the idea of signing up to protect someone elses just to "enjoy" the experience or have a "career" is total muck imo.

You're talking about young girls going into nursing - you do realise that, right?

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

EG,

I have no desire to go into a Lynchboy-style parsing line by line.

My main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11. 

I never stated anyone should be grateful  for any particular actions by Eire but to state that acknowledging these actions (however small) they were doesn't fit with the "right" view.  Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

Outside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

/Jim.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

EG,

I have no desire to go into a Lynchboy-style parsing line by line.

My main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11. 

I never stated anyone should be grateful  for any particular actions by Eire but to state that acknowledging these actions (however small) they were doesn't fit with the "right" view.  Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

Outside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

/Jim.

I have come across this in England.

I had a row with an Australian about this on a crowded Melbourne Connex train.

They Myth is alive and well in the former British Empire, where the Irish are often percieved as the traitors to the crown and we deserved all the hardship dished upon us by our neighbours.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 03:38:58 PM
You're talking about young girls going into nursing - you do realise that, right?

The nurse is part of a machine designed to kill. Plenty of jobs for nurses in uk hospitals so why the need to join an army to practice. Do you think it is ironic to join the army as a nurse when the people you are treating are trained killers?

Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 15, 2011, 05:28:56 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 03:38:58 PM
You're talking about young girls going into nursing - you do realise that, right?

The nurse is part of a machine designed to kill. Plenty of jobs for nurses in uk hospitals so why the need to join an army to practice. Do you think it is ironic to join the army as a nurse when the people you are treating are trained killers?

I must point out, that they often nurse both sides and civilians.

I don't think its ironic at all - and obviously neither do these two hypothetical youngsters. Irony doesnt come into it at the level of people who don't care about this (non) issue. They are happy enough seeing the dough, or the training/travel/lifeopportunites etc. With the NHS as bad as it has always been - it appears that only people with surpreme social consciences, and/or supreme political leanings can find an axe to grind with their decisions. They certainly arent looking down this hypothetical path just to grind hardline Irish gears Myles.

The fact remains that the younger people coming up don't care about the politics of these decisions - the probably don't even see the politics of these decisions - and that can only be good for future generations if it means this kind of discussion gets washed away. Like Minder said on the united ireland thread - and I said here - many people don't care about whatever it is that is bugging you and bugging MGHU. The bigger picture for people of real life issues cuts a lot of ties.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 05:36:20 PM
I don't think its ironic at all - and obviously neither do these two hypothetical youngsters. Irony doesnt come into it at the level of people who don't care about this (non) issue. They are happy enough seeing the dough, or the training/travel/lifeopportunites etc. With the NHS as bad as it has always been - it appears that only people with surpreme social consciences, and/or supreme political leanings can find an axe to grind with their decisions. They certainly arent looking down this hypothetical path just to grind hardline Irish gears Myles.

The fact remains that the younger people coming up don't care about the politics of these decisions - the probably don't even see the politics of these decisions - and that can only be good for future generations if it means this kind of discussion gets washed away. Like Minder said on the united ireland thread - and I said here - many people don't care about whatever it is that is bugging you and bugging MGHU. The bigger picture for people of real life issues cuts a lot of ties.

They are actually my friends, I don't quite know myself, but it does bug me. I am actually thinking of doing a similar role in the Australian Navy or Airforce, if they take me, but I would need to get citizenship first. My preference would be the Irish army, but I don't think I will be ready for it before I am too old to enlist.

Edited that to say Navy or Airforce, put army in error originaly.

I wasn't saying they didnt exist MGHU - I just felt weird bleating on about people I don't know - so for sake of making myself feel better about that - I suggested they were hyopthetical.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 05:42:27 PM
I wasn't saying they didnt exist MGHU - I just felt weird bleating on about people I don't know - so for sake of making myself feel better about that - I suggested they were hyopthetical.

Perhaps its being over a decade older than them, but I could never wear a British military uniform.

Nor I. Their decision doesn't have any bearing on me however - so more power to them if that's what they want to do. I got my own shit to worry about.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 05:36:20 PM
I don't think its ironic at all - and obviously neither do these two hypothetical youngsters. Irony doesnt come into it at the level of people who don't care about this (non) issue. They are happy enough seeing the dough, or the training/travel/lifeopportunites etc. With the NHS as bad as it has always been - it appears that only people with surpreme social consciences, and/or supreme political leanings can find an axe to grind with their decisions. They certainly arent looking down this hypothetical path just to grind hardline Irish gears Myles.

The fact remains that the younger people coming up don't care about the politics of these decisions - the probably don't even see the politics of these decisions - and that can only be good for future generations if it means this kind of discussion gets washed away. Like Minder said on the united ireland thread - and I said here - many people don't care about whatever it is that is bugging you and bugging MGHU. The bigger picture for people of real life issues cuts a lot of ties.

So you effectively agree with what I said at the start of this thread, that these people are mercenaries that don't give a shit about what they are doing as long as they have a good experience?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

EG,

I have no desire to go into a Lynchboy-style parsing line by line.

Fine.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PMMy main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11.

So Unionists who (along with their Nationalist neighbours) were having the s h i t bombed out of them by the Nazis, whilst Eire went unscathed, are unsympathetic towards De Valera etc.

Who'd a thunk it?  ::)

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PMI never stated anyone should be grateful  for any particular actions by Eire but to state that acknowledging these actions (however small) they were doesn't fit with the "right" view.  Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

I personally do not consider Eire under Dev to have been especially biased towards Germany over the UK during the War.

As a human being, what I find repugnant is that there could ever be any question of Neutrality when faced with a choice between a democracy like the UK and a vile dictatorship like Nazi Germany.

And as a Unionist, I find it further repugnant that people could be motivated to choose Neutrality at least partly from sheer anti-British hatred.

And as for Dev's visit to the German Ambassador in order to pass on his condolences at the death of Hitler in person, it is often overlooked that he failed to visit the US Embassy 3 weeks earlier on the death of President Roosevelt, despite his  (Dev's) own American citizenship having saved his neck  following the Easter Rising.  >:(


P.S.  Your attempt to associate me with more hardline views on the subject (i.e. my "parish of OWC"), whilst avoiding addressing what I actually post, is somewhat below your regular standards and something I more usually expect from the likes of LynchBhoy.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PMOutside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

Outside of (NI) Unionism, there is very little analysis of Eire's attitude towards the Nazis of any kind.

That is because most people were too busy fighting the b a s t a r d s...

Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 15, 2011, 06:08:36 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 05:36:20 PM
I don't think its ironic at all - and obviously neither do these two hypothetical youngsters. Irony doesnt come into it at the level of people who don't care about this (non) issue. They are happy enough seeing the dough, or the training/travel/lifeopportunites etc. With the NHS as bad as it has always been - it appears that only people with surpreme social consciences, and/or supreme political leanings can find an axe to grind with their decisions. They certainly arent looking down this hypothetical path just to grind hardline Irish gears Myles.

The fact remains that the younger people coming up don't care about the politics of these decisions - the probably don't even see the politics of these decisions - and that can only be good for future generations if it means this kind of discussion gets washed away. Like Minder said on the united ireland thread - and I said here - many people don't care about whatever it is that is bugging you and bugging MGHU. The bigger picture for people of real life issues cuts a lot of ties.

So you effectively agree with what I said at the start of this thread, that these people are mercenaries that don't give a shit about what they are doing as long as they have a good experience?

No, I disagree fully with that. There isn't anything mercenary about it. Some Most people just don't care about this the same way you do. Call them what you want - mercenary is political bullshit.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 15, 2011, 06:08:36 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 05:36:20 PM
I don't think its ironic at all - and obviously neither do these two hypothetical youngsters. Irony doesnt come into it at the level of people who don't care about this (non) issue. They are happy enough seeing the dough, or the training/travel/lifeopportunites etc. With the NHS as bad as it has always been - it appears that only people with surpreme social consciences, and/or supreme political leanings can find an axe to grind with their decisions. They certainly arent looking down this hypothetical path just to grind hardline Irish gears Myles.

The fact remains that the younger people coming up don't care about the politics of these decisions - the probably don't even see the politics of these decisions - and that can only be good for future generations if it means this kind of discussion gets washed away. Like Minder said on the united ireland thread - and I said here - many people don't care about whatever it is that is bugging you and bugging MGHU. The bigger picture for people of real life issues cuts a lot of ties.

So you effectively agree with what I said at the start of this thread, that these people are mercenaries that don't give a shit about what they are doing as long as they have a good experience?

No, I disagree fully with that. There isn't anything mercenary about it. Some Most people just don't care about this the same way you do. Call them what you want - mercenary is political bullshit.

MOST people dont care and would join a foreign army to have a career in the same way as they might join Microsoft. I'm sorry but I don't need a red C poll to know that is a load of garbage. Maybe you are out of contact with life in the republic because I don't know one person who has done this.

Puckoon - Whats the purpose of an army?

No - Most people wouldn't be getting their underbritches all twisted up about it. Big - yet subtle difference.

This is not about the rights and wrongs of you or me joining the british army - it's about the fact that it's got shag all to do with you - or me what anyone else does in that regard - much less suggesting the audacity to remove their passports from them.

Quote from: Puckoon on April 15, 2011, 08:25:41 PM
No - Most people wouldn't be getting their underbritches all twisted up about it. Big - yet subtle difference.

This is not about the rights and wrongs of you or me joining the british army - it's about the fact that it's got shag all to do with you - or me what anyone else does in that regard - much less suggesting the audacity to remove their passports from them.

I'm just stating my opinion and it doesn't keep me up at night if thats what you are implying. As you say it has shag all to do with me but this is a discussion board where we can all say what we think about a topic.

That is true.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

EG,

I have no desire to go into a Lynchboy-style parsing line by line.

My main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11. 

I never stated anyone should be grateful  for any particular actions by Eire but to state that acknowledging these actions (however small) they were doesn't fit with the "right" view.  Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

Outside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

/Jim.

I have come across this in England.

I had a row with an Australian about this on a crowded Melbourne Connex train.

They Myth is alive and well in the former British Empire, where the Irish are often percieved as the traitors to the crown and we deserved all the hardship dished upon us by our neighbours.

I'd rather be a traitor to the crown than a lickspittle.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

EG,

I have no desire to go into a Lynchboy-style parsing line by line.

My main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11. 

I never stated anyone should be grateful  for any particular actions by Eire but to state that acknowledging these actions (however small) they were doesn't fit with the "right" view.  Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

Outside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

/Jim.

I have come across this in England.

I had a row with an Australian about this on a crowded Melbourne Connex train.

They Myth is alive and well in the former British Empire, where the Irish are often percieved as the traitors to the crown and we deserved all the hardship dished upon us by our neighbours.

IMO your a bullshitter, 10 years in England, 3 years in OZ, a year in NZ (Uni, working and still working with a number of English etc.) and I never have come across this. I have come across people having issues with the Northern situation but that has happened in the south also. Do you ever think that maybe (If in fact this did happen  ::)) they are just responding to some political nonsense/attack you are spouting at them about their county/citizens/etc?

To be honest some of the generalisations you come out with at time are prejudiced and borderline xenophobic.

Quote from: thebigfella on April 16, 2011, 11:02:59 AM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
No doubt a lot of Unionists/Loyalists have fallen for myth and inaccuracy when assessing Eire's record in The Emergency.
I hope that I am not one of them.

EG,

I have no desire to go into a Lynchboy-style parsing line by line.

My main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11. 

I never stated anyone should be grateful  for any particular actions by Eire but to state that acknowledging these actions (however small) they were doesn't fit with the "right" view.  Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

Outside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

/Jim.

I have come across this in England.

I had a row with an Australian about this on a crowded Melbourne Connex train.

They Myth is alive and well in the former British Empire, where the Irish are often percieved as the traitors to the crown and we deserved all the hardship dished upon us by our neighbours.

IMO your a bullshitter, 10 years in England, 3 years in OZ, a year in NZ (Uni, working and still working with a number of English etc.) and I never have come across this. I have come across people having issues with the Northern situation but that has happened in the south also. Do you ever think that maybe (If in fact this did happen  ::)) they are just responding to some political nonsense/attack you are spouting at them about their county/citizens/etc?

To be honest some of the generalisations you come out with at time are prejudiced and borderline xenophobic.

You can have that opinion if you like, but I have come across this in Australia, the Melbourne train incident was with one of these wacko-Christians trying to convert me. When I was having none of it, he broke into shite about WW2 and Ireland supporting the Nazis.

You never came across the ANZAC cult and the belief in the the righteousness of the British Empire in Australia, I am amazed.  :o 

Yes I have come across it in England (it is a tiny minority), but I have come across it more than a few times.

Xenophobic, how and when?, I would be disappointed if I have.

At the end of the day does anyone really give a tinkers curse what the Brits, wannabe Brits or Unionists think about us? They're all largely irrelevant in the grander scheme of things.

Quote from: Ulick on April 16, 2011, 09:33:46 PMAt the end of the day does anyone really give a tinkers curse what the Brits, wannabe Brits or Unionists think about us? They're all largely irrelevant in the grander scheme of things.

Hmmm.

Interesting bit of categorisation amongst your existentialist musings, there - "Brits, wannabe Brits or Unionists".  For inconvenient though it may be to your argument, Unionists are  "Brits".

Still, I'm sure we Brits don't give a tin ker's cuss what you call us either, since names don't mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things.

Ain't that right, Donagh Ulick?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 15, 2011, 04:39:09 PM

My main point is that I think that Unionism/Loyalism paint a blacker than black picture of Eire's neutrality in WW11. 

...... Reading some unionist views (even on your own parish of OWC before the locks went on) I see Eire's neutrality painted more as pro-Nazi. (anchored around DeValera's famous visit to the German ambassador).

......Outside of unionism I don't think that analysis is widely shared. 

/Jim.

Indeed, there is a huge gulf between a historical study of WW2 neutrality and analysing that period of history from a Loyalist perspective.

An interesting Radio programme due in the New Year:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211
Why Irish soldiers who fought Hitler hide their medals

By John Waite (BBC Radio 4, Face the Facts)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57521000/jpg/_57521217_john_stout_photo.jpg)
John Stout: "I feel very betrayed about how we were treated, it was wrong"

Five thousand Irish soldiers who swapped uniforms to fight for the British against Hitler went on to suffer years of persecution.

One of them, 92-year-old Phil Farrington, took part in the D-Day landings and helped liberate the German death camp at Bergen-Belsen - but he wears his medals in secret.

Even to this day, he has nightmares that he will be arrested by the authorities and imprisoned for his wartime service.

"They would come and get me, yes they would," he said in a frail voice at his home in the docks area of Dublin.

And his 25-year-old grandson, Patrick, confirmed: "I see the fear in him even today, even after 65 years."

Mr Farrington's fears are not groundless.

He was one of about 5,000 Irish soldiers who deserted their own neutral army to join the war against fascism and who were brutally punished on their return home as a result.

They were formally dismissed from the Irish army, stripped of all pay and pension rights, and prevented from finding work by being banned for seven years from any employment paid for by state or government funds.

A special "list" was drawn up containing their names and addresses, and circulated to every government department, town hall and railway station - anywhere the men might look for a job.

It was referred to in the Irish parliament - the Dail - at the time as a "starvation order", and for many of their families the phrase became painfully close to the truth.

Paddy Reid - whose father and uncle both fought the Japanese at the battle of Kohima Ridge - recalls a post-war childhood in Dublin spent "moving from one slum to another".

Maybe one slice of bread a day and that would be it - no proper clothing, no proper heating.

"My father was blacklisted and away all the time, picking turnips or whatever work he could get. It's still painful to remember. We were treated as outcasts."

John Stout served with the Irish Guards armoured division which raced to Arnhem to capture a key bridge.

He also fought in the Battle of the Bulge, ending the war as a commando.

On his return home to Cork, however, he was treated as a pariah. "What they did to us was wrong. I know that in my heart. They cold-shouldered you. They didn't speak to you.

"They didn't understand why we did what we did. A lot of Irish people wanted Germany to win the war - they were dead up against the British."

It was only 20 years since Ireland had won its independence after many centuries of rule from London, and the Irish list of grievances against Britain was long - as Gerald Morgan, long-time professor of history at Trinity College, Dublin, explains.

"The uprisings, the civil war, all sorts of reneged promises - I'd estimate that 60% of the population expected or indeed hoped the Germans would win.

"To prevent civil unrest, Eamon de Valera had to do something. Hence the starvation order and the list."

Ireland adopted a policy of strict neutrality which may have been necessary politically or even popular, but a significant minority strongly backed Britain, including tens of thousands of Irish civilians who signed up to fight alongside the 5,000 Irish servicemen who switched uniforms.

Confidential list

Until I showed him the list - the size of a slim phone directory and marked "confidential" - John Stout had not realised his name was included.

But after the war it quickly became apparent that he could not get work and was not welcome in Ireland - so he returned to Britain.

"I feel very betrayed about how we were treated, it was wrong and even today they should say sorry for the problems we had to endure. We never even got to put our case or argue why it was unjust," said Mr Stout.

And the list itself is far from accurate, according to Robert Widders, who has written a book about the deserters' treatment called Spitting on a Soldier's Grave.

Eamon de Valera inspects his country's neutral army
"It contains the names of men who were to be punished but who'd already been killed in action, but not the names of men who deserted the Irish army to spend their war years as burglars or thieves," he said.

In recent months, a number of Irish parliamentarians have begun pressing their government to issue a pardon to the few deserters who remain alive.

"What happened to them was vindictive and not only a stain on their honour but on the honour of Ireland," TD Gerald Nash said.

But for those nonagenarians who helped win the war but lost so much by doing so, time is of the essence, and it is running out fast.

Face the Facts - Deserters Deserted will be on BBC Radio 4 at 12.30GMT on Wednesday 4 January 2012 and will be available to listen to afterwards online.

Quotewere brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Good to see them recognised at last. The Irish did alot in WW2. Didn't know they were punished for doing it.

Cavanman helped soften up Rommel for Monty you know.

Quote from: Hardy on December 28, 2011, 12:37:50 PM

Quotewere brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like... :o

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMGood to see them recognised at last. The Irish did alot in WW2. Didn't know they were punished for doing it.

Indeed.

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMCavanman helped soften up Rommel for Monty you know.

Himself of solid Ulster stock:
Montgomery was born in Kennington, London, in 1887, the fourth child of nine, to an Anglo-Irish Anglican priest, the Revd Henry Montgomery, and Maud Montgomery (née Farrar). Henry Montgomery, at the time the Vicar of St Mark's, Kennington, was the second son of the noted Indian administrator, Sir Robert Montgomery, who died a month after Bernard's birth. Bernard's mother Maud was the daughter of the well-known preacher Frederic William Farrar, and was 18 years younger than her husband. After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

EG your high moral ground is merely a mass grave.

WWII for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

The strange thing about that article is that, while it blames 'The Indian Government' many times, it only once vaguely mentions that India was under British Rule at the time.

These men deserve a pardon and an apology and hopefully they will get it before much longer. A shameful episode in the history of the Irish state.

Also deserving a pardon are the 300+ men 'shot at dawn' by the British Army for deserting during the First World War. Many were shell shocked, many were boys rather than men.

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2011, 10:26:41 AM
Interesting bit of categorisation amongst your existentialist musings, there - "Brits, wannabe Brits or Unionists".  For inconvenient though it may be to your argument, Unionists are  "Brits".

If you think that those folk from Britain (the real British  :P), and amongst whom you currently dwell, think of you as anything other than an out-and-out Paddy then you're even more (incredibly) delusional than I had you noted for; "Brits" to them you most certainly aren't (unless you now speak with a Cockney twang or such).

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:31:45 PM

Quote from: Hardy on December 28, 2011, 12:37:50 PM

Quotewere brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like... :o

"Too"? I've seen some weird debating devices in my time but ...
They didn't shoot ANYONE.
And I never suggested they should have shot anyone, never mind the children.
So I'm at a loss as to what that remark can mean.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified.

+1.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

You must've missed the bit about them being placed on a list and effectively blackballed for the rest of their lives - bit stronger than simply removing their pensions. Also, strange that the Irish government only took such drastic action against those that joined the British Army to fight fascism. Those who simply deserted to become criminals and prey on their fellow citizens weren't subjected to the same draconian punishments.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 28, 2011, 05:01:05 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

You must've missed the bit about them being placed on a list and effectively blackballed for the rest of their lives - bit stronger than simply removing their pensions. Also, strange that the Irish government only took such drastic action against those that joined the British Army to fight fascism. Those who simply deserted to become criminals and prey on their fellow citizens weren't subjected to the same draconian punishments.

The fact is Myles, you don't have a clue about the irish army or irish history outside of what a castle catholic knows abouts the history of the 6 counties. People who deserted to become criminals would would have been caught and charged as criminals and done time for it if found guilty. However, leaving to join another army is a different matter altogether as you well know. Especially an army that the republic had a very frosty relationship with.  And if being "blackballed" is too harsh, I suppose you'd prefer they were shot like what their new army would've done to them?

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Maybe they found fascism a small bit distasteful and decided to have the courage of their convictions.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 05:08:03 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 28, 2011, 05:01:05 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

You must've missed the bit about them being placed on a list and effectively blackballed for the rest of their lives - bit stronger than simply removing their pensions. Also, strange that the Irish government only took such drastic action against those that joined the British Army to fight fascism. Those who simply deserted to become criminals and prey on their fellow citizens weren't subjected to the same draconian punishments.

The fact is Myles, you don't have a clue about the irish army or irish history outside of what a castle catholic knows abouts the history of the 6 counties. People who deserted to become criminals would would have been caught and charged as criminals and done time for it if found guilty. However, leaving to join another army is a different matter altogether as you well know. Especially an army that the republic had a very frosty relationship with.  And if being "blackballed" is too harsh, I suppose you'd prefer they were shot like what their new army would've done to them?

The men weren't court martialled. De Valera took it upon himself to decide they were guilty and denied the men their right to any sort of hearing or defence. I note you say in a previous post that you'll tune in to hear why these men did what they did. De Valera denied these men the right to explain themselves to a court, civil or military, and to the Irish people.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM
After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

(2)  You obviously are in a very tight corner as you are citing Wikipedia - no-one in academia EVER cites Wikipedia as a source/reference. 

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM
After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

(2)  You obviously are in a very tight corner as you are citing Wikipedia - no-one in academia EVER cites Wikipedia as a source/reference.

The gaaboard hardly constitutes academia though, does it?
:P

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMGood to see them recognised at last. The Irish did alot in WW2. Didn't know they were punished for doing it.

Indeed.

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMCavanman helped soften up Rommel for Monty you know.

Himself of solid Ulster stock:
Montgomery was born in Kennington, London, in 1887, the fourth child of nine, to an Anglo-Irish Anglican priest, the Revd Henry Montgomery, and Maud Montgomery (née Farrar). Henry Montgomery, at the time the Vicar of St Mark's, Kennington, was the second son of the noted Indian administrator, Sir Robert Montgomery, who died a month after Bernard's birth. Bernard's mother Maud was the daughter of the well-known preacher Frederic William Farrar, and was 18 years younger than her husband. After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the North-west of UlsterIreland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Donegal is 26 county territory lest you forget.

There is one thing joining the armed forces of another country, but deserting your own army to join another army, well that is treason as far as I am concerned.

I have a question for you E.G., in relative terms a similar % of British would come to 50,000. If 50,000 British soldiers had deserted to join the army of neutral Ireland, do you really think they would be treated with any common courtesy on the Island of Britain or among the Unionist community of Ireland's North-East? I would be pretty sure they would be still unforgiven.

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM
After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

Why can't a planter name be as ancestoral as a Cambro-Norman name, a Norse name, a Gall-Gael, Scot-Gael or Cambro-Norman and Norse gaelized names found all over Ireland? Is it a case of Pre-Confederacy of Kilkenny invaders good, the rest bad?

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on December 28, 2011, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM
After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

Why can't a planter name be as ancestoral as a Cambro-Norman name, a Norse name, a Gall-Gael, Scot-Gael or Cambro-Norman and Norse gaelized names found all over Ireland? Is it a case of Pre-Confederacy of Kilkenny invaders good, the rest bad?

You've clearly NEVER been there.

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 06:48:32 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on December 28, 2011, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM
After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

Why can't a planter name be as ancestoral as a Cambro-Norman name, a Norse name, a Gall-Gael, Scot-Gael or Cambro-Norman and Norse gaelized names found all over Ireland? Is it a case of Pre-Confederacy of Kilkenny invaders good, the rest bad?

You've clearly NEVER been there.

Well dodged.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Quote from: muppet on December 28, 2011, 02:40:22 PM
EG your high moral ground is merely a mass grave.

WWII for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

The strange thing about that article is that, while it blames 'The Indian Government' many times, it only once vaguely mentions that India was under British Rule at the time.

And how does British misrule in India absolve Dev from responsibility for persecuting Irish people in a totally unconstitutional and extra-judicial manner?

"Whataboutery" at its most blatant... ::)

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 28, 2011, 03:01:57 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2011, 10:26:41 AM
Interesting bit of categorisation amongst your existentialist musings, there - "Brits, wannabe Brits or Unionists".  For inconvenient though it may be to your argument, Unionists are  "Brits".

If you think that those folk from Britain (the real British  :P), and amongst whom you currently dwell, think of you as anything other than an out-and-out Paddy then you're even more (incredibly) delusional than I had you noted for; "Brits" to them you most certainly aren't (unless you now speak with a Cockney twang or such).

And I could argue that real  Irish folk who live in the Irish Republic and amongst whom you don't  dwell think of you in less-than-complimentary terms, too, if all the threads on this forum about "Nordies" and "Free Staters" etc are anything to go by!  :D

But I won't, since that would be childish.

And besides, I am entirely comfortable living amongst my fellow Britons, and have done all my life, irrespective of what part of the Kingdom that has been in.

Quote from: Hardy on December 28, 2011, 03:20:07 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:31:45 PM

Quote from: Hardy on December 28, 2011, 12:37:50 PM

Quotewere brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like... :o

"Too"? I've seen some weird debating devices in my time but ...
They didn't shoot ANYONE.
And I never suggested they should have shot anyone, never mind the children.
So I'm at a loss as to what that remark can mean.

You implied that they (deserters) might be grateful they weren't shot. I am of the opinion that punishing their families (by removing children) was quite bad enough.

My sarcastic comment about "shooting the children" was exagerration for effect.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 11:35:27 PM
And I could argue that real  Irish folk who live in the Irish Republic and amongst whom you don't  dwell think of you in less-than-complimentary terms, too, if all the threads on this forum about "Nordies" and "Free Staters" etc are anything to go by!  :D

No you couldn't, simply because you're incorrect on just about everything (just for a change) in that statement.

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM
After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

I'm no geneologist, but I'd guess that Montgomery's ancestors* were in Donegal for hundreds of years, most likely since before eg the first Europeans landed in Australia.

Speaking of where, how long have you and your family been in Oz, then?  ::)

* - Note the word "ancestors" (it's got the same roots as "ancestral", in case you can't spot the link)

Quote from: Aerlik on December 28, 2011, 05:47:30 PM(2)  You obviously are in a very tight corner as you are citing Wikipedia - no-one in academia EVER cites Wikipedia as a source/reference.

Sorry, Professor.

Will this do?

http://www.movilleinishowen.com/history/moville_heritage/moville_heritage_htm/family_field_marshall_montgomery.htm

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on December 28, 2011, 06:00:33 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMGood to see them recognised at last. The Irish did alot in WW2. Didn't know they were punished for doing it.

Indeed.

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMCavanman helped soften up Rommel for Monty you know.

Himself of solid Ulster stock:
Montgomery was born in Kennington, London, in 1887, the fourth child of nine, to an Anglo-Irish Anglican priest, the Revd Henry Montgomery, and Maud Montgomery (née Farrar). Henry Montgomery, at the time the Vicar of St Mark's, Kennington, was the second son of the noted Indian administrator, Sir Robert Montgomery, who died a month after Bernard's birth. Bernard's mother Maud was the daughter of the well-known preacher Frederic William Farrar, and was 18 years younger than her husband. After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the North-west of UlsterIreland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Donegal is 26 county territory lest you forget.

Why would I "forget"?  ???

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on December 28, 2011, 06:00:33 PMThere is one thing joining the armed forces of another country, but deserting your own army to join another army, well that is treason as far as I am concerned.

I think the term "treason" would be more appropriate had they turned their guns on their former comrades-in-arms, like eg Benedict Arnold, or the foreign legions of the SS.
In fact, it could be argued that these people were doing more to preserve the Free State by opposing Hitler and his infamous "Operation Green", than by adopting a (craven) policy of neutrality towards him (though that would be pushing things a bit!)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on December 28, 2011, 06:00:33 PMI have a question for you E.G., in relative terms a similar % of British would come to 50,000. If 50,000 British soldiers had deserted to join the army of neutral Ireland, do you really think they would be treated with any common courtesy on the Island of Britain or among the Unionist community of Ireland's North-East? I would be pretty sure they would be still unforgiven.

It is not a question of such people receiving "common courtesy", rather they must be entitled to a fair trial, subsequent to which they may be punished as the law and constitution prescribes.

None of that happened in the case of the 5,000.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 11:39:03 PM

Quote from: Hardy on December 28, 2011, 03:20:07 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:31:45 PM

Quote from: Hardy on December 28, 2011, 12:37:50 PM

Quotewere brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like... :o

"Too"? I've seen some weird debating devices in my time but ...
They didn't shoot ANYONE.
And I never suggested they should have shot anyone, never mind the children.
So I'm at a loss as to what that remark can mean.

You implied that they (deserters) might be grateful they weren't shot. I am of the opinion that punishing their families (by removing children) was quite bad enough.

My sarcastic comment about "shooting the children" was exagerration for effect.

Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead.

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 29, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Well said.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 29, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Perhaps or perhaps they just wanted to go around the world shooting people for a bit of craic. Maybe we will find out on the radio show why they did what they did - if of course they are honest about their reasoning. Still doesn't change the fact they deserted their own army and were simply punished for doing so.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 12:10:31 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 29, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Perhaps or perhaps they just wanted to go around the world shooting people for a bit of craic. Maybe we will find out on the radio show why they did what they did - if of course they are honest about their reasoning. Still doesn't change the fact they deserted their own army and were simply punished for doing so.

I'm sure any of these people who might still be with us today would eternally regret not having somebody of such moral certainty as yourself  around at the time to point out to them the error of their ways. On a related topic one of the most powerful plays I have ever seen is "Boy Soldier" which revolves around the story of the youngest recorded casualty in WW1, John Condon from Ballybricken in Waterford. Watching young lads who were persuaded to don the British Army uniform to "defend small nations" come to the realisation of what awaited them as they were going home to a forever changed Island was very troubling. Should be a compulsory element of any history course dealing with that period.

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 29, 2011, 02:27:21 PM
I'm sure any of these people who might still be with us today would eternally regret not having somebody of such moral certainty as yourself  around at the time to point out to them the error of their ways. On a related topic one of the most powerful plays I have ever seen is "Boy Soldier" which revolves around the story of the youngest recorded casualty in WW1, John Condon from Ballybricken in Waterford. Watching young lads who were persuaded to don the British Army uniform to "defend small nations" come to the realisation of what awaited them as they were going home to a forever changed Island was very troubling. Should be a compulsory element of any history course dealing with that period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connaught_Rangers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connaught_Rangers)

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:31:45 PM
Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like... :o

Maybe you can provide a direct link to that claim as that's not how I read the story.
AFAIA, some children were committed to state institutions as a direct result of the circumstance arising from the breadwinner deserting the army. They were not committed as part of a punitive state punishment.

Also afaia the deserters were barred from any state assistance for a period of 7 years.

Desertion from an army in a period of a declared national emergency was and is a serious matter.
However these soldiers did not desert from cowardice. A full pardon implies the Irish government was wrong to find them guilty of desertion. I might agree with a half pardon.

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 29, 2011, 02:27:21 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 12:10:31 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 29, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Perhaps or perhaps they just wanted to go around the world shooting people for a bit of craic. Maybe we will find out on the radio show why they did what they did - if of course they are honest about their reasoning. Still doesn't change the fact they deserted their own army and were simply punished for doing so.

I'm sure any of these people who might still be with us today would eternally regret not having somebody of such moral certainty as yourself  around at the time to point out to them the error of their ways. On a related topic one of the most powerful plays I have ever seen is "Boy Soldier" which revolves around the story of the youngest recorded casualty in WW1, John Condon from Ballybricken in Waterford. Watching young lads who were persuaded to don the British Army uniform to "defend small nations" come to the realisation of what awaited them as they were going home to a forever changed Island was very troubling. Should be a compulsory element of any history course dealing with that period.

The play is not related - sorry, no matter how sad it is (and I don't doubt it is sad). Your first line is just an attack on me and not a rebutal of what I am saying. I find myself in agreement with Main Street on the topic at hand.

I also found Muppets link to the Connaught Rangers to be interesting, how these irish soldiers turned their guns against the fellow irishman in 1916 and then how the British dealt with them when they refused to "solidier" in protest of Britains role in Ireland later.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 04:34:46 PM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 29, 2011, 02:27:21 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 12:10:31 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 29, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Perhaps or perhaps they just wanted to go around the world shooting people for a bit of craic. Maybe we will find out on the radio show why they did what they did - if of course they are honest about their reasoning. Still doesn't change the fact they deserted their own army and were simply punished for doing so.

I'm sure any of these people who might still be with us today would eternally regret not having somebody of such moral certainty as yourself  around at the time to point out to them the error of their ways. On a related topic one of the most powerful plays I have ever seen is "Boy Soldier" which revolves around the story of the youngest recorded casualty in WW1, John Condon from Ballybricken in Waterford. Watching young lads who were persuaded to don the British Army uniform to "defend small nations" come to the realisation of what awaited them as they were going home to a forever changed Island was very troubling. Should be a compulsory element of any history course dealing with that period.

The play is not related - sorry, no matter how sad it is (and I don't doubt it is sad). Your first line is just an attack on me and not a rebutal of what I am saying. I find myself in agreement with Main Street on the topic at hand.

I also found Muppets link to the Connaught Rangers to be interesting, how these irish soldiers turned their guns against the fellow irishman in 1916 and then how the British dealt with them when they refused to "solidier" in protest of Britains role in Ireland later.

The same could be asked of any generation of Irish republicans.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 04:34:46 PM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 29, 2011, 02:27:21 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 12:10:31 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 29, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 29, 2011, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on December 28, 2011, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:44 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 28, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders :-X

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Perhaps or perhaps they just wanted to go around the world shooting people for a bit of craic. Maybe we will find out on the radio show why they did what they did - if of course they are honest about their reasoning. Still doesn't change the fact they deserted their own army and were simply punished for doing so.

I'm sure any of these people who might still be with us today would eternally regret not having somebody of such moral certainty as yourself  around at the time to point out to them the error of their ways. On a related topic one of the most powerful plays I have ever seen is "Boy Soldier" which revolves around the story of the youngest recorded casualty in WW1, John Condon from Ballybricken in Waterford. Watching young lads who were persuaded to don the British Army uniform to "defend small nations" come to the realisation of what awaited them as they were going home to a forever changed Island was very troubling. Should be a compulsory element of any history course dealing with that period.

The play is not related - sorry, no matter how sad it is (and I don't doubt it is sad). Your first line is just an attack on me and not a rebutal of what I am saying. I find myself in agreement with Main Street on the topic at hand.

I also found Muppets link to the Connaught Rangers to be interesting, how these irish soldiers turned their guns against the fellow irishman in 1916 and then how the British dealt with them when they refused to "solidier" in protest of Britains role in Ireland later.

The play I speak of Myles explores the many and complex reasons as to why young Irishmen went off to fight in World War One. This Thread deals with why, 20 years later, Irishmen went off to fight in world war two despite being involved in the army of a neutral state. So yes indeed how could the two be related, as you said yourself 24 hours ago on this thread Myles you have a small bit of boning up to do on the subject. Your "argument" to date seems to amount to nothing more than a parrot like recitation of certain undisputed facts i.e. they were deemed to be deserters and were punished accordingly. What posters here seem to be trying to get their heads around is the fairness or otherwise of the treatment afforded to these people by the Irish Government. Where my eyes were opened by Boy Solider was that for every 10 Soldiers, there were five different reasons for being involved and none of them were, to paraphrase your own words...."going around shooting at people for the craic". I'm not sure any relation of those people reading this thread will thank you for that type of facile analysis.

I better go see this play then I'll know all there is to know on the matter. Cheers.

I think much is being made about Irish people fighting for Britain in World War 2 for their own point scoring purposes.

Facism in Europe had many supporters across the contient and in these islands.

Now lets not forget those Irishmen who stood with the Jews on Cable Street to fight Oswald Mosley who was being aided by the London police. Lets not forget those Irishmen who went to Spain to fight Franco.

Lets not forget those members of the police, Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein who stood up to the Blueshirts in Dublin when they treatened violence. Who knows how things might have turned out on these islands had O'Duffy or Mosley got into power.

The fact is, plenty of Irish people were willing to stand-up and fight against facism on many different fronts but perhaps fighting in the uniform of a much maligned enemy was a step too far for many but not all.

What galls me more than anything was the Irish Catholic establishment giving O'Duffy the blessing, and indeed sections of the Irish media, to head to Spain to assist Franco. Devs neautrality is much easier to understand than that.

I think a memorial if there needs to be one, should remembered as those Irishmen who took it upon themselves to fight facism on its many fronts and not just those who did so in a British uniform, especially since there are those who like to use their memory to beat their own political drum.

Quote from: thejuice on December 30, 2011, 12:53:17 AM
I think much is being made about Irish people fighting for Britain in World War 2 for their own point scoring purposes.

Facism in Europe had many supporters across the contient and in these islands.

Now lets not forget those Irishmen who stood with the Jews on Cable Street to fight Oswald Mosley who was being aided by the London police. Lets not forget those Irishmen who went to Spain to fight Franco.

Lets not forget those members of the police, Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein who stood up to the Blueshirts in Dublin when they treatened violence. Who knows how things might have turned out on these islands had O'Duffy or Mosley got into power.

The fact is, plenty of Irish people were willing to stand-up and fight against facism on many different fronts but perhaps fighting in the uniform of a much maligned enemy was a step too far for many but not all.

What galls me more than anything was the Irish Catholic establishment giving O'Duffy the blessing, and indeed sections of the Irish media, to head to Spain to assist Franco. Devs neautrality is much easier to understand than that.

I think a memorial if there needs to be one, should remembered as those Irishmen who took it upon themselves to fight facism on its many fronts and not just those who did so in a British uniform, especially since there are those who like to use their memory to beat their own political drum.

excellent post. Viva la quinta Brigada.

Quote from: sheamy on December 30, 2011, 07:46:34 AM

Quote from: thejuice on December 30, 2011, 12:53:17 AM
I think much is being made about Irish people fighting for Britain in World War 2 for their own point scoring purposes.

Facism in Europe had many supporters across the contient and in these islands.

Now lets not forget those Irishmen who stood with the Jews on Cable Street to fight Oswald Mosley who was being aided by the London police. Lets not forget those Irishmen who went to Spain to fight Franco.

Lets not forget those members of the police, Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein who stood up to the Blueshirts in Dublin when they treatened violence. Who knows how things might have turned out on these islands had O'Duffy or Mosley got into power.

The fact is, plenty of Irish people were willing to stand-up and fight against facism on many different fronts but perhaps fighting in the uniform of a much maligned enemy was a step too far for many but not all.

What galls me more than anything was the Irish Catholic establishment giving O'Duffy the blessing, and indeed sections of the Irish media, to head to Spain to assist Franco. Devs neautrality is much easier to understand than that.

I think a memorial if there needs to be one, should remembered as those Irishmen who took it upon themselves to fight facism on its many fronts and not just those who did so in a British uniform, especially since there are those who like to use their memory to beat their own political drum.

excellent post. Viva la quinta Brigada.

Lets not forget while evil and wrong as the The Army Comrades Association/National Guard was, its was set up originaly because De Valera would not allow the Gardaí or Irish Army to protect F.F.'s political rivals from I.R.A. attacks and punishment beatings on party meetings other than those of Fianna Fáil. The same I.R.A. he interned when it suited him.

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2011, 11:16:01 PM
I just did a quick Google there to see if I could find the actual numbers taking the shilling and swearing the oath. In doing so I came across a Tribune article from December which says there was 85 last year and 8 the year before. Anyone want to suggest how the Indo got their 'estimate' of 4k? Looks like "Sir" Tony is playing at recruitment sergeant - and that's another **** who should be stripped of his citizenship.

Yes, once again Dr Sir Tony O'Reilly's comics are doing their bit for queen and country. As for the 4K Irish citizens joining the Brits, well such a round number is pulled out of some comic writer's ar$e. And of those ' Irish citizens ' joining the Brits, the vast majority of them are plastic Paddy's born in England and taking out irish citizenship as they may deem it useful when appying for visa's etc in some country's.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on December 28, 2011, 06:00:33 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 28, 2011, 02:37:18 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMGood to see them recognised at last. The Irish did alot in WW2. Didn't know they were punished for doing it.

Indeed.

Quote from: Denn Forever on December 28, 2011, 12:48:26 PMCavanman helped soften up Rommel for Monty you know.

Himself of solid Ulster stock:
Montgomery was born in Kennington, London, in 1887, the fourth child of nine, to an Anglo-Irish Anglican priest, the Revd Henry Montgomery, and Maud Montgomery (née Farrar). Henry Montgomery, at the time the Vicar of St Mark's, Kennington, was the second son of the noted Indian administrator, Sir Robert Montgomery, who died a month after Bernard's birth. Bernard's mother Maud was the daughter of the well-known preacher Frederic William Farrar, and was 18 years younger than her husband. After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the North-west of UlsterIreland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Donegal is 26 county territory lest you forget.

There is one thing joining the armed forces of another country, but deserting your own army to join another army, well that is treason as far as I am concerned.

I have a question for you E.G., in relative terms a similar % of British would come to 50,000. If 50,000 British soldiers had deserted to join the army of neutral Ireland, do you really think they would be treated with any common courtesy on the Island of Britain or among the Unionist community of Ireland's North-East? I would be pretty sure they would be still unforgiven.

It's still in the Fu**ing North West of Ulster...That isn't changed by your pathetic little squabble over something that happened in the last century.

It appears that Sinn Féin will back the pardon, according to The Times.

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 07:39:38 PM
It appears that Sinn Féin will back the pardon, according to The Times.

Are you saying you agree with them? That would be a first. Me, i would giving no pardon and apparently I am a shinner.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 05, 2012, 08:09:56 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 07:39:38 PM
It appears that Sinn Féin will back the pardon, according to The Times.

Are you saying you agree with them? That would be a first. Me, i would giving no pardon and apparently I am a shinner.

You are a Manolo Marxist!  ;D

Isn't their complaint partly, that  they got no courtmartial so let them now be courtmartialled now, be found guilty and then pardoned!! The gov. could then say that they were found  guilty of desertion but  would then be given a pardon due to the cirucmstances!!  Whatever else I don't want anyone  going around saying that the nation has matured as a result of this!

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 05, 2012, 08:09:56 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 07:39:38 PM
It appears that Sinn Féin will back the pardon, according to The Times.

Are you saying you agree with them? That would be a first. Me, i would giving no pardon and apparently I am a shinner.

I just thought it was a significant story - not what you might have expected.

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 08:31:03 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 05, 2012, 08:09:56 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 07:39:38 PM
It appears that Sinn Féin will back the pardon, according to The Times.

Are you saying you agree with them? That would be a first. Me, i would giving no pardon and apparently I am a shinner.

I just thought it was a significant story - not what you might have expected.

Go on, you can do it....

1,2,3 .... "I AGREE WITH SINN FEIN"

You'll feel much better when you get it out of your system  :D

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 05, 2012, 09:47:48 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 08:31:03 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 05, 2012, 08:09:56 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 05, 2012, 07:39:38 PM
It appears that Sinn Féin will back the pardon, according to The Times.

Are you saying you agree with them? That would be a first. Me, i would giving no pardon and apparently I am a shinner.

I just thought it was a significant story - not what you might have expected.

Go on, you can do it....

1,2,3 .... "I AGREE WITH SINN FEIN"

You'll feel much better when you get it out of your system  :D

To be honest, I don't have strong feelings either way on this matter.

Although i'm sure i'd agree with Sinn Féin on many things. It's just easier to spot the disagreements!

It must be said that if Sinn Féin does support the pardon, then it certainly is progress.

Quote from: muppet on January 06, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
It must be said that if Sinn Féin does support the pardon, then it certainly is progress.

Progress to what exactly ? Re joining the UK?

Quote from: Rossfan on January 06, 2012, 03:42:20 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 06, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
It must be said that if Sinn Féin does support the pardon, then it certainly is progress.

Progress to what exactly ? Re joining the UK?

Progress 'from' the past. The 'to' is debatable.

Quote from: muppet on January 06, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
It must be said that if Sinn Féin does support the pardon, then it certainly is progress.

How so?

Quote from: Ulick on January 06, 2012, 05:05:09 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 06, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
It must be said that if Sinn Féin does support the pardon, then it certainly is progress.

How so?

Have they always been this sympathetic to Irishmen in British Army Uniforms?

Quote from: muppet on January 06, 2012, 05:36:16 PM

Quote from: Ulick on January 06, 2012, 05:05:09 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 06, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
It must be said that if Sinn Féin does support the pardon, then it certainly is progress.

How so?

Have they always been this sympathetic to Irishmen in British Army Uniforms?

I don't know if 'progress' is the appropriate word in this case. But it defnitely appears to be another shift in position.

It's populist to appease the new mature Ireland who mistake showing respect for neighbouring nations with pardoning deserters sworn to protect Ireland. On this sf are involved in populist politics.

Finally:


Irish Government confirms pardon for Irish deserters who fought Hitler

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter signals recognition for those who fought in British Army

By PATRICK COUNIHAN, IrishCentral Staff Writer

Published Wednesday, January 25, 2012, 7:28 AM

The Irish government is to pardon the thousands of soldiers who deserted their own army to fight for the British in the Second World War.

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has confirmed that the 5,000 troops will be officially pardoned by the State after fighting for the Allies. He has also criticised the war-time government's attitude towards German Jews.

Campaigners are now hopeful that the Irish parliament will issue an apology to the men as well, many of whom were blacklisted and denied state jobs when they returned home.

Attorney General Maire Whelan is to advise Minister Shatter on how to proceed with the pardon.
The Fine Gael deputy has told the Irish Times that he regards the dishonourable discharge of soldiers who left to fight for the Allies as 'untenable'.

Shatter also acknowledged that the soldiers who died have been honored in Ireland for the past decade for their War efforts despite their lack of state recognition.

He said: "Many who fought in British uniforms during that war returned to Ireland. For too many years, their contribution in preserving European and Irish democracy was ignored.

"Some of those include members of our Defence Forces who left this island during that time to fight for freedom and who were subsequently dishonourably discharged from the Defence Forces."

Minister Shatter told the Irish Times that is now 'appropriate' to review their treatment while also acknowledging that those who served in the Defence Forces throughout that time performed a crucial national duty.

He added: "It is untenable that we commemorate those who died whilst continuing to ignore the manner in which our State treated the living, in the period immediately after World War II, who returned to our State having fought for freedom and democracy."

A total of 4,983 Irish soldiers deserted from the Defence Forces to join the Allied armies during the Second World War.

Many of those who returned home were refused military pensions and were debarred from a range of State employment on the basis of an Emergency Powers Order passed by the Irish parliament in 1945.

Northern Ireland's Assembly, including Sinn Fein members, voted on Monday to back the campaign for pardons.

Speaking at the opening of The Shoah in Europe exhibition in Dublin, Shatter also said: "It is of vital importance that this and future generations remember and learn from the horrors of the past.

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities.

"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy.

"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler.

"At a time when neutrality should have ceased to be an issue the government utterly lost its moral compass."

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Shatter-confirms-Second-World-War-soldiers-to-be-officially-pardoned-by-Irish-state-138031383.html#ixzz1kgBaxcqb

Some further interesting comment/background:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-Minister-says-Irelands-neutrality-on-Hitler-was-morally-bankrupt-138191239.html

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Why-Irish-soldiers-who-fought-against-Hitler-and-the-Nazis-had-to-hide-their-medals-136367173.html#ixzz1kfanwmMy

Who mandated Shatter the Zionist gobshite to make such a statement? Is this a ministerial pronouncement of an official government position? If Ireland's neutrality in WWI was morally bankrupt, there were a lot of morally bankrupt regimes about in 1939 and most that purged their bankruptcy only did so when attacked - including, of course, the USA.

It should be realised that this is simply a pardon for reprehensible behaviour; it does not encompass the suggestion that these deserters should be regarded as heroes.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 05:46:14 PM
Who mandated Shatter the Zionist gobshite to make such a statement? Is this a ministerial pronouncement of an official government position? If Ireland's neutrality in WWI was morally bankrupt, there were a lot of morally bankrupt regimes about in 1939 and most that purged their bankruptcy only did so when attacked - including, of course, the USA.

It should be realised that this is simply a pardon for reprehensible behaviour; it does not encompass the suggestion that these deserters should be regarded as heroes.

He is entitled to overturn their dishonorable discharge for desertion. The rest is waffle.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 05:46:14 PM
Who mandated Shatter the Zionist gobshite to make such a statement?

Just because you disagree with Shatter's position re Israel, it does not give you the excuse to abuse him over his/his Government's stance on Eire's position re WWII.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 05:46:14 PMIs this a ministerial pronouncement of an official government position?

It would appear so (at least, that's how it's being widely reported).

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 05:46:14 PMIf Ireland's neutrality in WWI was morally bankrupt, there were a lot of morally bankrupt regimes about in 1939 and most that purged their bankruptcy only did so when attacked...

Actually, there weren't that  many Neutral countries (in Europe, at any rate). But in any case, whether there was one other, or 100 others, that does not alter the principle at issue.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 05:46:14 PM... including, of course, the USA.

Really?
"When the war broke out in 1939, [President Roosevelt] proclaimed a limited emergency and authorized increases in the size of the Regular Army and the National Guard. Congress also agreed to amend the Neutrality Act to permit munitions sales to the French and British.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific, Japan had invaded Manchuria. Roosevelt reacted by shutting off American trade with Japan.  This made the Japanese even more aggressive since they needed resources from abroad to feed their industries. Japan decided to invade the resource-rich British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia."
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/in/USA.html

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 05:46:14 PMIt should be realised that this is simply a pardon for reprehensible behaviour; it does not encompass the suggestion that these deserters should be regarded as heroes.

No-one is suggesting that the State should now regard these people as "heroes" (even if individuals should do so, including all those Europeans etc whom they helped liberate*).
Rather this pardon is merely State recognition that whatever one thinks about what these soldiers did, their subsequent treatment by De Valera was unjustifiable and unlawful (or "reprehensible", if you prefer), not least for the effect that it had on their families.

Considering there are an estimated 100 still alive, I am pleased that they've finally got round to this, even if it might have happened much sooner.


* - Here is one of the people we're talking about:
Five thousand Irish soldiers who swapped uniforms to fight for the British against Hitler went on to suffer years of persecution.

One of them, 92-year-old Phil Farrington, took part in the D-Day landings and helped liberate the German death camp at Bergen-Belsen - but he wears his medals in secret.

Even to this day, he has nightmares that he will be arrested by the authorities and imprisoned for his wartime service.

"They would come and get me, yes they would," he said in a frail voice at his home in the docks area of Dublin.

And his 25-year-old grandson, Patrick, confirmed: "I see the fear in him even today, even after 65 years."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211

Just once, taking and responding to the substantive point and the general thrust of a statement would be refreshing. The tedious syntactical parsing and jesuitical deconstruction of each sentence, subordinate clause and phrase as a cover for a disagreement of opinion masquerading as a rebuttal of facts robs one of the will to live, never mind respond.

Briefly - Shatter is a Zionist gobshite (this is a forum of opinions). It's reasonable to assume this colours his attitude to the protagonists in WWII. I'm not aware of any statement of government policy that categorises the country's neutrality, then or now as "morally bankrupt". I am amazed that the Minister For Defence feels free to comment in such pejorative terms and, by inference, insult the service that the army provided to the state in support of this policy and I would expect the Taoiseach to chastise him for it.

As I said, there were a lot of neutral countries in 1939. I don't hear anybody condemning them as "morally bankrupt", much less ministers elected by their peoples to serve in in their governments. Most that changed that stance did so because they were attacked. Notwithstanding the amendments of the neutrality acts in 1939, the US was still officially neutral until the repeal of the Lend Lease Act in 1941, after US shipping was attacked by Germany and Pearl Harbour by Japan.

I'm pleased you're pleased the deserters have been pardoned. I agree they were irregularly treated and should have been officially dealt with, rather than unofficially ostracised. And I have no desire to see men in their nineties live in fear and foreboding that their actions of decades past will come back to haunt them. It is perfectly reasonable to hold these views simultaneously with the view that their actions in revoking their pledge of allegiance to their country and deserting it in a time of dire emergency were reprehensible at best and traitorous at worst and simultaneously with an attitude that I won't lose much sleep over their ... well ... loss of sleep over it. 

The comment about treating them as heroes was in reference to the tone of the campaign for pardon (supported by the Portadown faction of the UDR, among other odd bedfellows for Sinn Féin in this episode) and the general tenor of the media reporting of it.

Did the Brits ever pardon the "Connaught" Rangers who protested ( called a mutiny by the Brits) in India in 1921 over the misbehaviour ( to put it mildly) of the Brit Army/Tans/Auxies in Ireland?
One of them ,James Daly from Co Westmeath (Tyrellspass I believe ) was executed.
Or is standing up for your own Country a lesser thing altogether?

QuoteThe tedious syntactical parsing and jesuitical deconstruction of each sentence, subordinate clause and phrase as a cover for a disagreement of opinion masquerading as a rebuttal of facts robs one of the will to live, never mind respond.

This is one of the best sentences that ever appeared on the internet.

I will shamelessly plagiarize it sometime.

Quote from: muppet on January 28, 2012, 03:31:54 PM

QuoteThe tedious syntactical parsing and jesuitical deconstruction of each sentence, subordinate clause and phrase as a cover for a disagreement of opinion masquerading as a rebuttal of facts robs one of the will to live, never mind respond.

This is one of the best sentences that ever appeared on the internet.

I will shamelessly plagiarize it sometime.

Magnificent!

I thought it was a bit prolix, myself. "Quit with the quotes" would have done.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PM
Just once, taking and responding to the substantive point and the general thrust of a statement would be refreshing. The tedious syntactical parsing and jesuitical deconstruction of each sentence, subordinate clause and phrase as a cover for a disagreement of opinion masquerading as a rebuttal of facts robs one of the will to live, never mind respond.

Bluster like this is always a sure sign of an empty argument.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PMBriefly - Shatter is a Zionist gobshite (this is a forum of opinions). It's reasonable to assume this colours his attitude to the protagonists in WWII.

Just because someones opinions are coloured by his background doesn't of itself invalidate those opinions, so why not "play the ball", rather than the man?

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PMI'm not aware of any statement of government policy that categorises the country's neutrality, then or now as "morally bankrupt". I am amazed that the Minister For Defence feels free to comment in such pejorative terms...

You are conflating two separate issues.
First, on behalf of the nation, Shatter has revealed that those defectors to the British Army will now be pardoned by the Government of which he is a Minister.
Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PM... and, by inference, insult the service that the army provided to the state in support of this policy and I would expect the Taoiseach to chastise him for it.

Oh for God's sake. Shatter clearly criticised the De Valera Government, not the Irish Defence Forces and your attempt to deflect from the poverty of your argument by taking mock offence on their part is (frankly) embarrassing.

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PMAs I said, there were a lot of neutral countries in 1939. I don't hear anybody condemning them as "morally bankrupt", much less ministers elected by their peoples to serve in in their governments. Most that changed that stance did so because they were attacked.

By referring to other Neutral countries, you are engaging in "Whataboutery" - yet another umistakeable sign of the weakness of your argument. Therefore if you want to discuss the stance of eg Spain, Sweden or Switzerland re WWII, then why not start a separate thread?

As for Shatter's intervention, are you saying that he should be criticising the actions of other countries, whilst saying nothing about those of his own? Yeah, right...

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PMNotwithstanding the amendments of the neutrality acts in 1939, the US was still officially neutral until the repeal of the Lend Lease Act in 1941, after US shipping was attacked by Germany and Pearl Harbour by Japan.

You sought to exonerate the Irish position by comparing it with that of the USA. I pointed out that whilst Eire operated a strictly evenhanded treatment between the UK and Germany, the USA altered its laws to allow shipment of food, fuel, arms and munitions to the UK, whilst simultaneously denying them to Germany.
Whilst technically* the USA could have claimed to have been maintaining its neutrality, I doubt whether the Germans saw it that way. And in any case, it tears the arse out of the point you were trying to make. Again.


* - And you  were the one who accused me  of being "jesuitical"...  :D

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PMI'm pleased you're pleased the deserters have been pardoned. I agree they were irregularly treated and should have been officially dealt with, rather than unofficially ostracised. And I have no desire to see men in their nineties live in fear and foreboding that their actions of decades past will come back to haunt them. It is perfectly reasonable to hold these views simultaneously with the view that their actions in revoking their pledge of allegiance to their country and deserting it in a time of dire emergency were reprehensible at best and traitorous at worst and simultaneously with an attitude that I won't lose much sleep over their ... well ... loss of sleep over it. 

The point is that Shatter is not apologising for what the deserters did, he is apologising, on behalf of the Government, for what a previous Government did to them.
And in all the circumstances, that apoplogy and Pardon is imo entirely reasonable, indeed overdue.
As for the related, but nonetheless distinct, point about Irish Government policy towards "The Emergency", you are of course perfectly entitled to defend the morality of it, just as I am entitled to the opinion that it stank worse than week-old fish.
Still, I am gratified that my own Government took a different course - as is the most of Europe...

Quote from: Hardy on January 27, 2012, 08:21:35 PMThe comment about treating them as heroes was in reference to the tone of the campaign for pardon (supported by the Portadown faction of the UDR, among other odd bedfellows for Sinn Féin in this episode) and the general tenor of the media reporting of it.

Yep, start your post with irrelevant bluster and finish with it.

Well done!

Quote from: Rossfan on January 27, 2012, 08:54:01 PM
Did the Brits ever pardon the "Connaught" Rangers who protested ( called a mutiny by the Brits) in India in 1921 over the misbehaviour ( to put it mildly) of the Brit Army/Tans/Auxies in Ireland?
One of them ,James Daly from Co Westmeath (Tyrellspass I believe ) was executed.
Or is standing up for your own Country a lesser thing altogether?

"Whataboutery".

If you want to discuss the Connaught Rangers, you can always start another thread - I'm sure they'll all thank you for it... ::)

Quote from: muppet on January 28, 2012, 03:31:54 PM

QuoteThe tedious syntactical parsing and jesuitical deconstruction of each sentence, subordinate clause and phrase as a cover for a disagreement of opinion masquerading as a rebuttal of facts robs one of the will to live, never mind respond.

This is one of the best sentences that ever appeared on the internet.

I will shamelessly plagiarize it sometime.

Well considering it's all style and no substance, you will be able to insert it in just about any thread, on any subject.... ;)

Quote from: Hardy on January 28, 2012, 04:24:25 PMI thought it was a bit prolix, myself.

Meh, more bolix than prolix, imo...

Quote from: Hardy on January 28, 2012, 04:24:25 PM"Quit with the quotes" would have done.

I know. It must be irritating to have your own words thrown back at you...  :D

Just FYI, EG - I didn't bother reading your magnum opus above. Life is too short. I've said all I wanted to say on the matter and I assume there can be little that you wanted to say that wasn't included in what I read before.

Quote from: Hardy on January 28, 2012, 05:21:11 PM
Just FYI, EG - I didn't bother reading your magnum opus above. Life is too short. I've said all I wanted to say on the matter and I assume there can be little that you wanted to say that wasn't included in what I read before.

Ah, poor diddums. I suppose you never liked this game anyway... ;)

P.S. You did  read my post, didn't you?  :D

What age are you?

I agree 100% with hardy. Shatter hadn't many morals when he was inviting his Zionist mates into our country when they were using illegal weapons against civilians and indeed against the UN in Gaza, which was headed by an irishman at the time. The Irish people don't need a lecture on morals from that little p***k. Imo, they should have got no pardon for deserting their own army. More interesting is why this is even of interest to a government minister at a time of such financial peril.

Quote from: Hardy on January 28, 2012, 05:54:42 PM
What age are you?

Old enough to know better than to pretend not to have read something, just because it contains some difficult challenges to one of my own posts.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PM
I agree 100% with hardy. Shatter hadn't many morals when he was inviting his Zionist mates into our country when they were using illegal weapons against civilians and indeed against the UN in Gaza, which was headed by an irishman at the time. The Irish people don't need a lecture on morals from that little p***k.

Then they shouldn't have elected him...

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PMImo, they should have got no pardon for deserting their own army.

The Government Pardon is more of a recognition of the wrong done to them and their families by a previous Irish Government, than an exoneration of what they (deserters) did.
Had Dev's Government moved against them in a proper, constitutional and legal manner, there would be no need for any pardon, indeed we wouldn't have been having this discussion now.
Still, let's blame Shatter and Kenny for that, eh?  ::)

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PMMore interesting is why this is even of interest to a government minister at a time of such financial peril.

Yeah, let's wait until the deserters are all dead, er, the Republic is free of the present financial crisis, before dealing with any other matters of public policy and principle.

P.S. Exactly how much is this Pardon going to cost the country, anyhow? Will Michael Noonan have to apply to the IMF for another loan to pay for it?

Maybe this could be a rare case of two wrongs making a right, ie the government giving a pardon and then the pardonees admitting that they  were wrong in deserting  the irish army! Wouldn't  everyone be reasonably happy then??

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 07:20:40 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PM
I agree 100% with hardy. Shatter hadn't many morals when he was inviting his Zionist mates into our country when they were using illegal weapons against civilians and indeed against the UN in Gaza, which was headed by an irishman at the time. The Irish people don't need a lecture on morals from that little p***k.

Then they shouldn't have elected him...

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PMImo, they should have got no pardon for deserting their own army.

The Government Pardon is more of a recognition of the wrong done to them and their families by a previous Irish Government, than an exoneration of what they (deserters) did.
Had Dev's Government moved against them in a proper, constitutional and legal manner, there would be no need for any pardon, indeed we wouldn't have been having this discussion now.
Still, let's blame Shatter and Kenny for that, eh?  ::)

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PMMore interesting is why this is even of interest to a government minister at a time of such financial peril.

Yeah, let's wait until the deserters are all dead, er, the Republic is free of the present financial crisis, before dealing with any other matters of public policy and principle.

P.S. Exactly how much is this Pardon going to cost the country, anyhow? Will Michael Noonan have to apply to the IMF for another loan to pay for it?

You're right, they shouldn't have elected him

What terrible wrong was done to these people? Your own army (ie British one) would have shot them dead or thrown them in jail.

I don't know what the cost of this is but no doubt we have many civil servant wasting time on a nothing issue while Enda writes a cheque for 1.2billion to international gamblers.

Well written reply Hardy.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

How on earth can you make a mess of comprehending those few sentences which were very clearly expressed by Shatter?
By putting all Shatter's words into a mixing bowl and keep stirring for 10 minutes?

It is quite clear that Shatter states Irish neutrality was morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust.
And that moral  bankruptcy was compounded by other actions.

Firstly Shatter said 

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities."
"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

This also defies logic, Shatter claims the position of neutrality 1939-45 was bankrupt because of a then unknown context.
Reports of the evidence of the Holocaust were even supressed by the British and the Americans until some leaks were reported by the NYT in mid 1944.

Then Shatter goes onto  state
"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler"

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on January 27, 2012, 08:54:01 PM
Did the Brits ever pardon the "Connaught" Rangers who protested ( called a mutiny by the Brits) in India in 1921 over the misbehaviour ( to put it mildly) of the Brit Army/Tans/Auxies in Ireland?
One of them ,James Daly from Co Westmeath (Tyrellspass I believe ) was executed.
Or is standing up for your own Country a lesser thing altogether?

"Whataboutery".

If you want to discuss the Connaught Rangers, you can always start another thread - I'm sure they'll all thank you for it... ::)

Try to avoid the obvious comparison between the way the British Government treated their soldiers who didnt stick with it to the way the Irish Govt is treating theirs.

A 15 year old Romanian girl kipnapped, held in a house, raped for days and then murdered and buried in the mountains. Today a corpse of a woman left on the street in a hold-all bag. Gardai numbers decreasing, crime on the up and this is the shite our minister for justice is prioritising.

Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2012, 09:10:29 PM
Well written reply Hardy.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

How on earth can you make a mess of comprehending those few sentences which were very clearly expressed by Shatter?
By putting all Shatter's words into a mixing bowl and keep stirring for 10 minutes?

It is quite clear that Shatter states Irish neutrality was morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust.
And that moral  bankruptcy was compounded by other actions.

Firstly Shatter said 

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities."
"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

This also defies logic, Shatter claims the position of neutrality 1939-45 was bankrupt because of a then unknown context.
Reports of the evidence of the Holocaust were even supressed by the British and the Americans until some leaks were reported by the NYT in mid 1944.

Then Shatter goes onto  state
"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler"

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.  ???

Shatter quite clearly states that in the context of the Holocaust, for Eire to maintain a policy of "neutrality" between the Allies and the Nazis was "morally bankrupt". I agree entirely.

For even if you ignore the refusal of the Irish Government to accept Jewish refugees, including children, before the war; even if you ignore the refusal to accept then during the war, and even after news of the Holocaust started to emerge, consider this.

On 15th April, 1945, Allied troops (including at least one Irish Army deserter, btw) liberated Belsen-Bergen Concentration Camp. They were accompanied by a BBC Film Crew, who broadcast details of what they saw. Here is an excerpt of the description of Richard Dimbleby of the scene:
"Here over an acre of ground lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which... The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do and with no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them ... Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live ... A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms, then ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days. This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Bergen_Belsen_Liberation_03.jpg/300px-Bergen_Belsen_Liberation_03.jpg)
A British Army bulldozer pushes bodies into a mass grave at Belsen. 19 April 1945

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Mass_Grave_3_at_Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp.jpg/220px-Mass_Grave_3_at_Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp.jpg)
Dr. Fritz Klein stands amongst corpses in Mass Grave 3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4445811.stm

A fortnight after the BBC publicised this around the world, President De Valera went round in person to the German Embassy to pass his condolences to the Ambassador for the death of Hitler.

And even after the war ended, and the full extent of the Nazi atrocities were exposed to all, his Government still  refused to accept Jewish refugees...

Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain, the famine received a 'We're sorry' 150 years too late and there is never any mention of the British and Jewish merchants selling Irish into slavery in the Caribbean plantations.

I am always open to opinions that are not always popular among all of my own and I have no time for De Valera, but reading you on your high horse about Hitler is getting nauseating.

Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2012, 09:34:50 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on January 27, 2012, 08:54:01 PM
Did the Brits ever pardon the "Connaught" Rangers who protested ( called a mutiny by the Brits) in India in 1921 over the misbehaviour ( to put it mildly) of the Brit Army/Tans/Auxies in Ireland?
One of them ,James Daly from Co Westmeath (Tyrellspass I believe ) was executed.
Or is standing up for your own Country a lesser thing altogether?

"Whataboutery".

If you want to discuss the Connaught Rangers, you can always start another thread - I'm sure they'll all thank you for it... ::)

Try to avoid the obvious comparison between the way the British Government treated their soldiers who didnt stick with it to the way the Irish Govt is treating theirs.

For once, I shall indulge your "whataboutery" and point out the following.

1. There is a difference between a Desertion, where someone leaves his post to go to another country, and a Mutiny, where (in the case of the Connaughts) some members replaced the Union Flag with the Tricolour, and stormed the armory in an attempt to seize weapons;
2. When the Deserters left Eire in 1939 etc, Eire was not at War, nor did those Deserters join an Army which was threatening Eire. Whereas when the Connaughts mutinied, it was out of sympathy for people who were waging war (in Ireland) upon their fellow British Army colleagues.
3. Above all, when the British disciplined the Mutineers, it was entirely in accordance with the law of the time, namely the Kings Regulations* under which they had signed up. Whereas the treatment meted out to the Deserters was entirely unlawful, indeed illegal, with no right of appeal or clemency. Worse still, it impacted directly upon their families (eg children being sent to Industrial Schools), and for an indefinite period.

Now to widen the context, I am not criticising the Mutineers, any more than I am absolving the Deserters - those were terrible times and it is far too easy for us to condemn from the comfort of our easy, 21st Century life.

But the point I have been trying to get across, and to which you seem oblivious or unmoved, is that I am instead  criticising the reaction of Dev's Government to the desertions, for which the Pardon is now being granted, some 70-odd years later.

* - With regards to Kings Regulations, if you consider what the British Authorities actually did, if not lenient or merciful, it appears at least to have been legally proper and correct. For of the 70 originally charged, 7 got a sufficiently fair trial to be found "Not Guilty". And of the 63 found Guilty, 50 received prison sentences, varying according to the seriousness of their part in the events. Which meant "only" (I know, I know) 13 Mutineers were sentenced to death. And even then, clemency was shown to 12 of these, so that their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment, with "only" the ringleader actually executed. And finally, from what I can tell, all survivors from the 62 prisoners, including the "lifers", look to have been released anyhow within a few years (i.e. early 1920's), to return back to the Free State (or wherever). 

Contrast that with the Deserters, all of whom were placed on a secret Blacklist, without distinction, disclosure or appeal, for (what was for almost all of them) the rest of their life.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 29, 2012, 07:22:45 PM
A 15 year old Romanian girl kipnapped, held in a house, raped for days and then murdered and buried in the mountains. Today a corpse of a woman left on the street in a hold-all bag. Gardai numbers decreasing, crime on the up and this is the shite our minister for justice is prioritising.

Don't you mean: "A man shot, decapitated and left on the streets of Oldham, teenagers being stabbed daily all over London. Police numbers decreasing, crime on the up, and Prime Minister Cameron is prioritising shite like apologising for Bloody Sunday"?

Aye, right...

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain, the famine received a 'We're sorry' 150 years too late and there is never any mention of the British and Jewish merchants selling Irish into slavery in the Caribbean plantations.

I am always open to opinions that are not always popular among all of my own and I have no time for De Valera, but reading you on your high horse about Hitler is getting nauseating.

Well how about this for a deal, then?

You find me some survivors of Cromwell's massacres, or of the Famine, or the Caribbean slave trade etc, and I shall apologise unreservedly to them.

So that in return, if I can point you to some of the surviving members of De Valera's Black List, you will apologise to them.

Is that fair?   ::) 

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 05:42:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain, the famine received a 'We're sorry' 150 years too late and there is never any mention of the British and Jewish merchants selling Irish into slavery in the Caribbean plantations.

I am always open to opinions that are not always popular among all of my own and I have no time for De Valera, but reading you on your high horse about Hitler is getting nauseating.

Well how about this for a deal, then?

You find me some survivors of Cromwell's massacres, or of the Famine, or the Caribbean slave trade etc, and I shall apologise unreservedly to them.

So that in return, if I can point you to some of the surviving members of De Valera's Black List, you will apologise to them.

Is that fair?   ::)

Why would you apologise to the survivors of atrocities and completely ignore the dead?

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 06:58:21 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 05:42:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain, the famine received a 'We're sorry' 150 years too late and there is never any mention of the British and Jewish merchants selling Irish into slavery in the Caribbean plantations.

I am always open to opinions that are not always popular among all of my own and I have no time for De Valera, but reading you on your high horse about Hitler is getting nauseating.

Well how about this for a deal, then?

You find me some survivors of Cromwell's massacres, or of the Famine, or the Caribbean slave trade etc, and/or close relatives of the dead and I shall apologise unreservedly to them.

So that in return, if I can point you to some of the surviving members of De Valera's Black List and/or close relatives of deceased Deserters, you will apologise to them.

Is that fair?   ::)

Why would you apologise to the survivors of atrocities and completely ignore the dead?

Fixed that oversight for ya.

Is the Deal still on, then?  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 07:18:38 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 06:58:21 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 05:42:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain, the famine received a 'We're sorry' 150 years too late and there is never any mention of the British and Jewish merchants selling Irish into slavery in the Caribbean plantations.

I am always open to opinions that are not always popular among all of my own and I have no time for De Valera, but reading you on your high horse about Hitler is getting nauseating.

Well how about this for a deal, then?

You find me some survivors of Cromwell's massacres, or of the Famine, or the Caribbean slave trade etc, and/or close relatives of the dead and I shall apologise unreservedly to them.

So that in return, if I can point you to some of the surviving members of De Valera's Black List and/or close relatives of deceased Deserters, you will apologise to them.

Is that fair?   ::)

Why would you apologise to the survivors of atrocities and completely ignore the dead?

Fixed that oversight for ya.

Is the Deal still on, then?  ::)

You fixed nothing. You dodged the issue as usual. While pontificating about Hitler's unquestionable atrocities, you dodge Britain's atrocities by trying to hide behind the fact that their victims are all dead.

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 07:43:51 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 07:18:38 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 06:58:21 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 05:42:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain, the famine received a 'We're sorry' 150 years too late and there is never any mention of the British and Jewish merchants selling Irish into slavery in the Caribbean plantations.

I am always open to opinions that are not always popular among all of my own and I have no time for De Valera, but reading you on your high horse about Hitler is getting nauseating.

Well how about this for a deal, then?

You find me some survivors of Cromwell's massacres, or of the Famine, or the Caribbean slave trade etc, and/or close relatives of the dead and I shall apologise unreservedly to them.

So that in return, if I can point you to some of the surviving members of De Valera's Black List and/or close relatives of deceased Deserters, you will apologise to them.

Is that fair?   ::)

Why would you apologise to the survivors of atrocities and completely ignore the dead?

Fixed that oversight for ya.

Is the Deal still on, then?  ::)

You fixed nothing. You dodged the issue as usual. While pontificating about Hitler's unquestionable atrocities, you dodge Britain's atrocities by trying to hide behind the fact that their victims are all dead.

No dodging at all.

The distinction which is so obviously eluding you, is that when the likes of Tony Blair "apologises" (sic) for something for which he and his Government can have no responsibility (i.e. Famine), he is merely posturing; and when he then refuses to apologise for something about which he/his Government should  still bear responsibility (e.g. Bloody Sunday), he is being hypocritical.

Quite simply, just as Cameron was able to apologise to the injured and bereaved of Bloody Sunday, then Shatter should be able to apologise to those directly affected by Dev's Black List and both are to be commended for doing so (imo).

Whereas banging on about past grievances from hundreds of years ago is at best silly and at worst just keeping open old wounds.

Shooting of innocent protesters is equivalent to army deserters being black listed for state jobs and pension. Only in your bizarre world EG!

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 02:14:44 PM

Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2012, 09:10:29 PM
Well written reply Hardy.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

How on earth can you make a mess of comprehending those few sentences which were very clearly expressed by Shatter?
By putting all Shatter's words into a mixing bowl and keep stirring for 10 minutes?

It is quite clear that Shatter states Irish neutrality was morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust.
And that moral  bankruptcy was compounded by other actions.

Firstly Shatter said 

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities."
"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

This also defies logic, Shatter claims the position of neutrality 1939-45 was bankrupt because of a then unknown context.
Reports of the evidence of the Holocaust were even supressed by the British and the Americans until some leaks were reported by the NYT in mid 1944.

Then Shatter goes onto  state
"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler"

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.  ???

Shatter quite clearly states that in the context of the Holocaust, for Eire to maintain a policy of "neutrality" between the Allies and the Nazis was "morally bankrupt". I agree entirely.

For even if you ignore the refusal of the Irish Government to accept Jewish refugees, including children, before the war; even if you ignore the refusal to accept then during the war, and even after news of the Holocaust started to emerge, consider this.

It is quite absurd to regard the policy of neutrality in 1939 as being morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust, something that was not known until 1945.

And what was revealed about the Holocaust near the end of the war about the Holocaust was not going to have any bearing on Irish neutrality in 1945.
And any anti-jewish sentiment had absolutely no bearing on Dev's policy of neutrality.
Considering how politicians were at that time, Dev was not an anti-semite, as evidenced by the deliberate phrased clauses inserted into the 1937 constitution.
Post war action on the plight of Jewish refugees?  Britain became the main barrier to Jewish refugees seeking to reach Palestine, "political concerns - not human considerations - determined British policy regarding the refugees"
Britain aimed to beat Germany in WW2 , rescuing the Jews was an effect of that, it was not the ambition of Britain to rescue the Jews.

Dev has a mixed record. In 1943 the impoverished Irish state sent £100,000 for famine relief in Bengal, where an estimated 3 million people starved to death as a result of what became known as "Churchill's secret war", a deliberate man made famine, Churchill's scorched earth policy to impede progress of the Japanese Army, one of the blackest ever acts of genocide inflicted in WW2, proven beyond doubt in a forensic analytical account by Madhusree Mukerjee.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 05:30:31 PM
Now to widen the context, I am not criticising the Mutineers, any more than I am absolving the Deserters - those were terrible times and it is far too easy for us to condemn from the comfort of our easy, 21st Century life.

But the point I have been trying to get across, and to which you seem oblivious or unmoved, is that I am instead  criticising the reaction of Dev's Government to the desertions, for which the Pardon is now being granted, some 70-odd years later.

Okay, so we are not "absolving" the Deserters then why the "pardon"?   Surely an apology for the excessive nature of the punishment and subsequent mistreatment of their families was the correct course of action.

Granting an unequivocal pardon suggests that it was okay for these men to forgo their oath of allegiance to the Irish Army and the Free State, abandon their posts and join a foreign state's army.  Because they preferred the government policy of the other state?  Not acceptable in my book.

Also it should be acknowledge that all these deserters were paid their pensions based on time worked to date they went AWOL.  They also received their British Army pension along with it via the Irish Government. 

No discharged soldier was allowed a state post unless they had correct discharge papers (unavailable to any deserters) so said punishment although explicitly in the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 was already a policy.

No doubt any further punishment (particularly of families/children) should be apologised for and where still possible compensated.

/Jim.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 30, 2012, 08:27:21 PM
Shooting of innocent protesters is equivalent to army deserters being black listed for state jobs and pension. Only in your bizarre world EG!

I did not make that equation (nor would I).

I merely chose Bloody Sunday as an example of a Government apologising for something which it hadn't actually done, but for which it still bore some responsibility.

Like the Kenny Government apologising for Dev.

Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2012, 09:13:22 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 02:14:44 PM

Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2012, 09:10:29 PM
Well written reply Hardy.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Second, in the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, he expressed the opinion that the actions of the Irish government of 70 years ago (eg refusing admission to Jewish refugees, Dev passing personal condolences to the German Ambassador in the event of Hitler's death etc) was "morally bankrupt". If this opinion is unacceptable to the Government, or incompatible with his position as Minister, then we can expect Enda Kenny to admonish him. If Kenny doesn't, we must assume that he/his Government does not object to Shatter's comments. (Indeed, I suspect that Shatter may have had his speech cleared before he delivered it, but we'll see).

How on earth can you make a mess of comprehending those few sentences which were very clearly expressed by Shatter?
By putting all Shatter's words into a mixing bowl and keep stirring for 10 minutes?

It is quite clear that Shatter states Irish neutrality was morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust.
And that moral  bankruptcy was compounded by other actions.

Firstly Shatter said 

"In the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities."
"This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

This also defies logic, Shatter claims the position of neutrality 1939-45 was bankrupt because of a then unknown context.
Reports of the evidence of the Holocaust were even supressed by the British and the Americans until some leaks were reported by the NYT in mid 1944.

Then Shatter goes onto  state
"This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler"

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.  ???

Shatter quite clearly states that in the context of the Holocaust, for Eire to maintain a policy of "neutrality" between the Allies and the Nazis was "morally bankrupt". I agree entirely.

For even if you ignore the refusal of the Irish Government to accept Jewish refugees, including children, before the war; even if you ignore the refusal to accept then during the war, and even after news of the Holocaust started to emerge, consider this.

It is quite absurd to regard the policy of neutrality in 1939 as being morally bankrupt in the context of the Holocaust, something that was not known until 1945.

And what was revealed about the Holocaust near the end of the war about the Holocaust was not going to have any bearing on Irish neutrality in 1945.
And any anti-jewish sentiment had absolutely no bearing on Dev's policy of neutrality.
Considering how politicians were at that time, Dev was not an anti-semite, as evidenced by the deliberate phrased clauses inserted into the 1937 constitution.
Post war action on the plight of Jewish refugees?  Britain became the main barrier to Jewish refugees seeking to reach Palestine, "political concerns - not human considerations - determined British policy regarding the refugees"
Britain aimed to beat Germany in WW2 , rescuing the Jews was an effect of that, it was not the ambition of Britain to rescue the Jews.

Dev has a mixed record. In 1943 the impoverished Irish state sent £100,000 for famine relief in Bengal, where an estimated 3 million people starved to death as a result of what became known as "Churchill's secret war", a deliberate man made famine, Churchill's scorched earth policy to impede progress of the Japanese Army, one of the blackest ever acts of genocide inflicted in WW2, proven beyond doubt in a forensic analytical account by Madhusree Mukerjee.

Apologising in person for the death of Hitler, a mere fortnight after news of Belsen was broadcast around the world, is callous beyond belief.
It was a shameful thing to do, as is your refusal to acknowledge that, but at least the Kenny Government is showing the common decency to admit that it was wrong, for which I salute them.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on January 31, 2012, 09:33:38 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 30, 2012, 05:30:31 PM
Now to widen the context, I am not criticising the Mutineers, any more than I am absolving the Deserters - those were terrible times and it is far too easy for us to condemn from the comfort of our easy, 21st Century life.

But the point I have been trying to get across, and to which you seem oblivious or unmoved, is that I am instead  criticising the reaction of Dev's Government to the desertions, for which the Pardon is now being granted, some 70-odd years later.

Okay, so we are not "absolving" the Deserters then why the "pardon"?   Surely an apology for the excessive nature of the punishment and subsequent mistreatment of their families was the correct course of action.

Granting an unequivocal pardon suggests that it was okay for these men to forgo their oath of allegiance to the Irish Army and the Free State, abandon their posts and join a foreign state's army.  Because they preferred the government policy of the other state?  Not acceptable in my book.

Also it should be acknowledge that all these deserters were paid their pensions based on time worked to date they went AWOL.  They also received their British Army pension along with it via the Irish Government. 

No discharged soldier was allowed a state post unless they had correct discharge papers (unavailable to any deserters) so said punishment although explicitly in the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 was already a policy.

No doubt any further punishment (particularly of families/children) should be apologised for and where still possible compensated.

/Jim.

Why a Pardon, rather than a mere Apology? I would guess there are three reasons.

1. The punishment influcted was particularly egregious, indeed spiteful, since there were lawful punishments (Court Martial etc) open to Dev, but which he wilfully chose to ignore;
2. These Deserters did not leave their post for the usual reasons (eg cowardice or shell-shock etc). Quite the contrary, it was to put their lives at risk in fighting a particularly loathesome enemy (and one which would not have spared the Free State, had GB & NI, fallen);
3. There are only a handful left, and all of those are about 90...

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

P.S. Three years after his death, the English dug up Cromwell's (presumed) corpse from Westminster Abbey, took it to Tyburn, where it was hanged in chains and then decapitated, with the head taken back to Westminster Hall, where it was stuck on a pole until it fell off.  Most people would accept this as a kind of "apology", but apparently not Muppet, who still feels scorched by the flames of Drogheda etc to this very day... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 02:35:29 PM

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

You've never chanced across Aberdeen supporters discussing the SFA's Glasgow based referees...

My point was more that apologising and fauz acts of contrition are useless. 

Contrition should be one recognises that one is in the wrong and seeks to make amends for it.  Not, recognise that somebody else a long time ago did something wrong, and then look doleful in front of the memorial.*

Shatter has no need to apologise for the actions of De Valera's government, Tony Blair does have a lot to apologise for, but not slavery.




*I'm going to be a hypocrite and point out that Willy Brandt falling to his knees at the Warsaw ghetto memorial is different, despite the man's life long anti-Nazi stance..

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 01:06:26 PM
Apologising in person for the death of Hitler, a mere fortnight after news of Belsen was broadcast around the world, is callous beyond belief.
It was a shameful thing to do, as is your refusal to acknowledge that, but at least the Kenny Government is showing the common decency to admit that it was wrong, for which I salute them.

The condolence was not an apology, it was an expression of sympathy, by a  dedicated fanatic advocate of neutrality. Humanitarian concerns did not come into that equation.
You should be aware of that political act, considering British governments post-war callous attitude to the jewish refugees. Dev's action was pretty mild in comparison.

Dev was informed to some degree of what was happening in Germany due to his close relationship with the Chief Rabbi of Ireland Herzog, who had helped him draft the 1937 constitution. It's generally accepted by rational historians that Dev was confronted by  anti-semites that infested the civil service. Pre war it was Charles Bewley the envoy to Italy and later Germany who persistently thwarted the visa applications from jewish refugees. He was dismissed by Dev and left without a pension in 1939.
In contrast to Charles, the Bewley family in Dublin were very supportive of the jewish refugees who did arrive.
Dev collaberated with Herzog to assist jewish refugees  in 1943.
Anyway,  Kenny's party along with religious nuts in the 1930's and 1940's were the source of most of the vile anti-semite sentiments. The most vile anti-semites found a safe refuge inside Fine Gael.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 02:35:29 PM

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

P.S. Three years after his death, the English dug up Cromwell's (presumed) corpse from Westminster Abbey, took it to Tyburn, where it was hanged in chains and then decapitated, with the head taken back to Westminster Hall, where it was stuck on a pole until it fell off. Most people would accept this as a kind of "apology", but apparently not Muppet, who still feels scorched by the flames of Drogheda etc to this very day... ::)

An idiotic mob hangs a dead body and you think that constitutes an apology for genocide?

As for your MOPE comment, it shows you up for exactly what you are. Millions of Irish died at the hands of Britain. That is a matter of historical fact, not some victim complex. Your use of other murderous regimes in Europe as some sort of context to justify your casual dismissal of dead Irish people is exactly the sort of logic that leads to the justification of people like the IRA i.e. murder is o because otherr people are doing it too. Well done!

And as for your scorched by the flames of Drogheda comment, say that to those who march every year celebrating a 400 year old war.

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 02:54:39 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 02:35:29 PM

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

You've never chanced across Aberdeen supporters discussing the SFA's Glasgow based referees...

Trust me, Aberdeen FC has only existed for 100-odd years, whereas Irish Republicans have been moping since, well, forever...

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
My point was more that apologising and fauz acts of contrition are useless. 

Contrition should be one recognises that one is in the wrong and seeks to make amends for it.  Not, recognise that somebody else a long time ago did something wrong, and then look doleful in front of the memorial*

Couldn't agree more.

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 02:54:39 PMShatter has no need to apologise for the actions of De Valera's government, Tony Blair does have a lot to apologise for, but not slavery.

Whilst you're spot on re Blair, I actually think Shatter is right to make an apology and issue a Pardon etc, since there are survivors and veterans of WWII still around (just). In fact, imo it is all the more important that he said these things, before the last few die off.

Quote from: Main Street on January 31, 2012, 03:47:10 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 01:06:26 PM
Apologising in person for the death of Hitler, a mere fortnight after news of Belsen was broadcast around the world, is callous beyond belief.
It was a shameful thing to do, as is your refusal to acknowledge that, but at least the Kenny Government is showing the common decency to admit that it was wrong, for which I salute them.

The condolence was not an apology, it was an expression of sympathy, by a  dedicated fanatic advocate of neutrality. Humanitarian concerns did not come into that equation.

So you think it acceptable to ignore humanitarian concerns, and sympathise with the death of someone who had just been exposed as one of the vilest dictators the world has ever known?

It is exactly that sort of thinking which Shatter condemned when he said that under Dev's foreign policy, Eire had "lost its moral compass".

I guess I should thank you for proving his point (whilst I try not to throw up...)

Quote from: Main Street on January 31, 2012, 03:47:10 PMYou should be aware of that political act, considering British governments post-war callous attitude to the jewish refugees. Dev's action was pretty mild in comparison.

Ah, whataboutery to the rescue again...

Anyhow, if you want to discuss the UK's policy over Palestine in the post-War period then by all means, start another thread, just don't pollute this one, which is discussing the topic of Irish people serving in the British Armed Forces, including during the fight against Fascism in WWII.

Quote from: Main Street on January 31, 2012, 03:47:10 PMDev was informed to some degree of what was happening in Germany due to his close relationship with the Chief Rabbi of Ireland Herzog, who had helped him draft the 1937 constitution. It's generally accepted by rational historians that Dev was confronted by  anti-semites that infested the civil service. Pre war it was Charles Bewley the envoy to Italy and later Germany who persistently thwarted the visa applications from jewish refugees. He was dismissed by Dev and left without a pension in 1939.
In contrast to Charles, the Bewley family in Dublin were very supportive of the jewish refugees who did arrive.
Dev collaberated with Herzog to assist jewish refugees  in 1943.

And no doubt Herzog helped formulate his policy of even-handedness between the Allies and the Nazis, too?
Or maybe advised him on what form of words he should use to Ambassador Hempel in order best to express the country's sympathy at the death of Der Fuhrer?
Or even suggested to De Valera that he should grant political asylum to Hempel after the War?

Quote from: Main Street on January 31, 2012, 03:47:10 PMAnyway,  Kenny's party along with religious nuts in the 1930's and 1940's were the source of most of the vile anti-semite sentiments. The most vile anti-semites found a safe refuge inside Fine Gael.

More "whataboutery"...

Still, as excuses go, I suppose it makes a change from "We were just following orders, Mein Herr"  ::)

Quote from: muppet on January 31, 2012, 04:55:47 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 02:35:29 PM

Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 31, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
Listen Evil, you have no claim to the high moral ground in Ireland of all places. Cromwell's genecide has never been acknowledged by Britain

1)  It was perpetrated by the Commonwealth of England, which hasn't existed for a long time.
2)  Theo-cide, if there is such a word, is a more accurate term
3)  The Island of GB wasn't exactly massacre free under the Lord Protector and the New Model Army, as with every evil regime, domestic enemies suffered first.
4)  Mainland Europe was also going through a phase of religious inspired bampotry at the time in the guise of the thirty years war, should the Czech Republic apologise for the actions of the Bohemian, Silesian and Moravian Kingdoms, moslty perpetrated against each other?

Now, now, LC, you need to understand the first principles of Mopery - that Irish Republicans are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

P.S. Three years after his death, the English dug up Cromwell's (presumed) corpse from Westminster Abbey, took it to Tyburn, where it was hanged in chains and then decapitated, with the head taken back to Westminster Hall, where it was stuck on a pole until it fell off. Most people would accept this as a kind of "apology", but apparently not Muppet, who still feels scorched by the flames of Drogheda etc to this very day... ::)

An idiotic mob hangs a dead body and you think that constitutes an apology for genocide?

Oh dear, I guess I'm going to have to make it explicit every time I'm exagerrating for effect, or being sarcastic, or taking the p1ss out of a poster who's being particularly obtuse.

For you, at least...

Quote from: muppet on January 31, 2012, 04:55:47 PM
As for your MOPE comment, it shows you up for exactly what you are. Millions of Irish died at the hands of Britain. That is a matter of historical fact, not some victim complex. Your use of other murderous regimes in Europe as some sort of context to justify your casual dismissal of dead Irish people is exactly the sort of logic that leads to the justification of people like the IRA i.e. murder is o because otherr people are doing it too. Well done!

And your reply shows your inability to read another poster's point without bursting into flames* with indignation at the first hint of being sleighted.

READ IT AGAIN! I said that Irish Republicans  (you know, Sinn Fein and the like) are incorrigible Mopes. However I will never accept their claim that theirs is the only type of Irishness, not least since I am proudly Irish myself.

Nor, by reason of that latter point alone, would I ever casually dismiss the suffering of those countless of (my fellow) Irish folk who suffered at the hands of the British.

But perhaps because I am also British, neither will I consider that I have to answer for the actions of 'Brit Oppressors' who lived and died hundreds of years ago, any more than I consider I have a right to an "apology" as an Irishman, from their descendants hundreds of years later.


* - Just so as you aren't mislead, or further offended, "bursting into flames" is just a figure of speech, not a literal claim, or an allusion to Drogheda or any other centuries-old massacre

Quote from: muppet on January 31, 2012, 04:55:47 PMAnd as for your scorched by the flames of Drogheda comment, say that to those who march every year celebrating a 400 year old war.

And which war would that be, then? The Second Aztec-Spanish War of 1612? Or the Kalmar War of 1611-13? The Polish-Muscovite War of 1605-1618, maybe?

Anyhow, whichever War it is, why don't you tell the marchers yourself, seeing as how I have never marched in celebration of any War, or Battle even, in my entire life.  ::)

Your argument is that you were being sarcastic, didn't mean it or I overreacted or whatever you think gets you away from answering from anything.

Your indignance at De Valera doesn't stand up when matched with your causal dismissal of any evil perpetrated on the Irish. Hide behind whatever you want but that is the crux of it.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 05:46:51 PM
READ IT AGAIN! I said that Irish Republicans  (you know, Sinn Fein and the like) are incorrigible Mopes. However I will never accept their claim that theirs is the only type of Irishness, not least since I am proudly Irish myself.

That's exactly why you're not worth the debating effort: casually and casuistically dropping a whopper of a lie into your response.

Post one, just one, example of Sinn Féin asserting that 'theirs is the only type of Irishness'. Just one.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on January 31, 2012, 06:05:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 31, 2012, 05:46:51 PM
READ IT AGAIN! I said that Irish Republicans  (you know, Sinn Fein and the like) are incorrigible Mopes. However I will never accept their claim that theirs is the only type of Irishness, not least since I am proudly Irish myself.

That's exactly why you're not worth the debating effort: casually and casuistically dropping a whopper of a lie into your response.

Post one, just one, example of Sinn Féin asserting that 'theirs is the only type of Irishness'. Just one.

We're waiting EG...This should be good!!!

(http://tigerhoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Michael+Jackson+likes+popcorn+www+thefacepalm+org_17ff93_218203.gif)

These men who deserted the Free State army to join the british one, did they not have the option (like so many of their fellow countrymen) of emigrating to Britain? There, given their undoubted heroism in the fight against Nazism, they would have been able to secure gainful employment and live out their lives comfortably. Free from any sort of bigotry.

Or they could have moved north to, for example, Belfast where their background in the British army would have assured them of jobs in any of the heavy industries that dominated the city then. They would have been folk heroes to all, just like VC winner James McGinnes was.

Shatter's argument justifying why those deserters were not guilty of desertion, by accusing Dev's government of moral bankruptcy by declaring neutrality in 1939, in the context of the holocaust which was not generally known until mid 1944, has to be one of the most patently stupid arguments I have ever read from a government minister.

The Holocaust was not a reason to wage war against Germany. The Holocaust, as in the extermination of Jews etc, began in 1941.
Most of the common people in the world did not know of the Holocaust until the Nuremberg trials.
The war was waged against fascist nazi Germany and its aggressive military expansion.

The hypocrisy of the term "moral bankruptcy" from an apologist for Israeli war crimes in Palestine is breathtaking. As is the sanctimony of the implication by him and by contributors here that the powers went to war in 1939 on a moral agenda.

Quote from: Evil Genius on January 28, 2012, 07:20:40 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 28, 2012, 06:04:53 PM
I agree 100% with hardy. Shatter hadn't many morals when he was inviting his Zionist mates into our country when they were using illegal weapons against civilians and indeed against the UN in Gaza, which was headed by an irishman at the time. The Irish people don't need a lecture on morals from that little p***k.

Then they shouldn't have elected him...

7,716 Irish people gave him their first preference at the last election, rising to 10,661 by the 8th count, wherupon he was deemed elected still 1,500 odd votes short of the quota.

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Finally...


12 June 2012 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18414191

Irish Republic pardons wartime deserters

The Irish government is to pardon more than 4,500 former soldiers who deserted the Defence Forces during World War II to fight with the Allied Forces.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60861000/jpg/_60861940_daileireann.jpg)
Defence Minister Alan Shatter made the apology during a speech in the Dail

Irish Defence Minister Alan Shatter said the government apologised for the manner in which the deserters were treated by the state after the war.

Mr Shatter said the government recognised the importance of their contribution to the Allied victory.

He said the war gave rise to grave and exceptional circumstances.

Mr Shatter said the government would introduce legislation "to grant a pardon and amnesty to those who absented themselves from the Defence Forces without leave or permission to fight on the Allied side".

In his statement to Dail Eireann, he said that in August 1945, the government of the day summarily dismissed soldiers who had absented themselves during the war and disqualified them for seven years from holding employment or office remunerated from the state's central fund.

Individuals were not given a chance to explain their absence.

'Grave and exceptional circumstances'

No distinction was made between those who fought on the Allied side for freedom and democracy and those who absented themselves for other reasons.

"In addressing the question of desertion during World War II, the government acknowledges that the war gave rise to circumstances that were grave and exceptional," Mr Shatter said.

"Members of the Defence Forces left their posts at that time to fight on the Allied side against tyranny and, together with many thousands of other Irish men and women, played an important role in defending freedom and democracy.

"On behalf of the state, the government apologises for the manner in which those members of the Defence Forces... were treated after the war by the state."

During World War II the Irish Defence Forces had approximately 42,000 serving personnel.

Over the course of the war, it was estimated that more than 7,000 members deserted.

Of these, about 2,500 personnel returned to their units or were apprehended and were tried by military tribunal.

More than 4,500 deserters were the subject of dismissal under the Emergency Powers (No. 362) Order, 1945.

Commendable

7 July 2012 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18754678

Belfast and Dublin Lord Mayors join in war remembrance

The unionist Lord Mayor of Belfast has joined his Dublin counterpart at a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate Ireland's war dead.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61431000/jpg/_61431109_69fo4xwc.jpg)
Ex-Gunner Alan O'Farrell brought the 2nd Artillery regimental mascot

The Royal British Legion Ireland event in Dublin remembered in particular the 49,000 Irish soldiers who gave their lives in World War One.

The DUP's Gavin Robinson said: "It is important that we remember and reflect the shared sacrifice."

He laid a wreath along with Dublin Lord Mayor Naoise Ó Muirí.

About 300 people attended the ceremony at the National War Memorial Gardens at Islandbridge on Saturday.

There was an ecumenical service, prayers and music.

Last year, the Queen took part in a similar ceremony during her state visit to the Republic of Ireland.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2012, 02:44:40 PM
Commendable

About 300 people attended the ceremony at the National War Memorial Gardens at Islandbridge on Saturday.

Not exactly  major event then  ::)
No doubt the Belfast Mayor will attend the next commemoration in Cork for the 2 lord Mayors who gave their lives for Freedom and the right of the democratic will of the people to be respected.

This respect and mutual niceness could never be simply a one way street now could it. ;)

Quote from: Rossfan on July 09, 2012, 02:59:01 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2012, 02:44:40 PM
Commendable

About 300 people attended the ceremony at the National War Memorial Gardens at Islandbridge on Saturday.

Not exactly  major event then  ::)

Regardless of whether there were 300 present or 3 million, don't you think it commendable that the civic leaders of Ireland's two largest cities came together to commemorate 49,000 war dead, drawn as they were from all classes and creeds, and from all over the island?

I personally am gratified and encouraged that this terrible sacrifice may now be viewed* in strictly non-partisan terms.



* - Even if some other gombeens still cannot...  ::)

Quote from: Rossfan on July 09, 2012, 02:59:01 PMNo doubt the Belfast Mayor will attend the next commemoration in Cork for the 2 lord Mayors who gave their lives for Freedom and the right of the democratic will of the people to be respected.

Seeing as the events you refer to are/were both local and partisan, I don't see why he should.

Quote from: Rossfan on July 09, 2012, 02:59:01 PMThis respect and mutual niceness could never be simply a one way street now could it. ;)

You seem confused.

In attending this ceremony, Robinson was not making any sort of concession or concilation towards a political rival etc in another juridiction.

Rather he and O'Muire were too Irishmen who had come together on behalf of the people they represent, to commemorate all of Ireland's dead from that War.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2012, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 09, 2012, 02:59:01 PMNo doubt the Belfast Mayor will attend the next commemoration in Cork for the 2 lord Mayors who gave their lives for Freedom and the right of the democratic will of the people to be respected.

Seeing as the events you refer to are/were both local and partisan, I don't see why he should.

Well Irishmen fighting for the British army is partisan , especially as that army killed one of Cork's Lord Mayors and the other died on hunger strike while imprisoned by the British government.
Yet  years later we're now being told that  fighting for the British Army was "non partisan" but getting killed by them is "partisan".
I think a lot of the "non nationalist" population needs to "move on" too ... like their Queen did in May 2011  ;)