http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7749793.stm
Thing I don't understand is why don't they just join the Irish army? Seems to be like these are young lads who are out looking for some action rather than peace keeping duties.
QuoteThe Irish Defence Force - as the name suggests - is a defence force, it's not an army. It's for purely domestic use
Well that's not true for a start.
QuoteA friend of mine joined a couple of years ago and he was out in Afghanistan this year with the Royal Irish Regiment. He got his action and I want mine
Well good luck to him. I hope he doesn't get more than he bargained for.
QuoteHe got his action and I want mine
How sad.
thought this was very strange also, was going to post it also
Mayonews
Final resting place
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Westport falls silent as Robert McKibben is laid to rest
Marine colleague recalls 'larger-than-life character' whose 'can-do attitude helped him overcome every test'
THE town of Westport came to a standstill yesterday (Monday), as one of its well-known and much-loved sons was laid to rest. Hundreds of people lined the streets shortly after 2pm as the funeral cortege of Marine Robert McKibben, flanked by his colleagues from the Royal Marines, mournfully made its way towards Aughavale Cemetary – stopping first of all at his family home, less than one kilometre from the graveyard.
Marine McKibben, or Robbie as he was known locally, was killed in action in Afghanistan on Wednesday, November 12, alongside fellow Marine Neil Dunstan. Both men were 32 years old.
Robbie's body was flown into Ireland West Airport Knock and transferred to his family home at Carnalurgan on Saturday afternoon, where following a wake he was brought to St Mary's Church in Westport at 7pm on Sunday evening. Despite the bitter cold, huge crowds lined the streets of the town and flowed in behind the hearse, before six uniformed Marines carried his coffin – draped in a Royal Marines flag and with his cap and belt atop – into the church.
With barely room to stand in the church, Fr Denis Carney welcomed the congregation, and, quoting from scripture, told them that 'no greater love can anyone give than to lay down one's life for one's friends'. "Robbie worked for the greater good of humankind and the greatest good of all – peace," he said, adding: "He paid the ultimate price for this and has made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good of the entire world."
During Robbie's Funeral Mass on Monday the church was again packed to capacity as his family, friends and rank and file colleagues from the Marines, along with members of the Irish armed forces, listened to his uncle, Fr Terry O'Malley, tell the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
"In this story two young people are trying to accommodate the sudden and shocking death of their beloved lord. We too are in a similar position with the tragic death of Robbie. Why, oh why, is a question that goes through so many of our hearts and minds," he said.
"We are here this day to recognise and honour the life and sacrifice of Marine Robert McKibben and his family greatly appreciate your presence, your prayer and your comradeship," he added. "Marine Robert McKibben, we salute your life, your service and your sacrifice. We hear reports that you were deemed worthy to enter an even more elite section of your service. We, all your comrades in faith, rejoice that you are for eternity in the service of the almighty," he concluded.
A native of Westport now based in San Francisco, Fr O'Malley was joined in celebrating the Mass by his brother Fr Brendan O'Malley, Fr Denis Carney, Chaplain to the Royal Marines Fr Michael Sharkey, and also by Fr Paddy Gill, Fr Willie Spicer Fr Vincent Kelly and Church of England Minister, Reverend Albert Hempenstal – a former Chaplain to the Royal Marines.
Before the final prayers, Warrant Officer Thomas Roberts of the Royal Marines delivered – to applause – a eulogy on Robbie based on his time in the Marines, on behalf of his many friends in the Marines.
"Marine Robert McKibben was a larger-than-life character, with an easy smile and quick wit," he said. "He was an immensely capable man, yet his humility made him an example and inspiration to all he served with. A true Commando; tough, unassuming and hugely convivial, he viewed life as a glass half-full and had an indomitable sense of humour in the face of any adversity. Regardless of the task or conditions his can-do attitude helped him overcome every test he encountered. Marine McKibben was a key personality within our tight-knit unit of professional specialists; he was held dear by his colleagues and leaves a great void with his passing."
He added that Robbe was a large, friendly and robust Irishman who always had a smile on his face. "He proved time and time again that he was a strong field soldier under the most demanding of conditions and was passionate about his job. Throughout the many hardships presented to him during his career in the Royal Marines he maintained an enviable relaxed attitude to life and conducted himself with great humility. His enthusiasm to achieve the best that he could was infectious and he could always be relied upon to get any job done. Marine McKibben was one of life's characters who touched many of us in a genuine and understated way."
A huge crowd then followed the cortege through Westport and assembled on the hillside of Aughavale Cemetery, where amid scenes of immense grief, and with the sun shining brilliantly through dark clouds which reflected the mood of all present, six Royal Marines lowered Robbie's coffin to his place of eternal rest, as the lamentful sound of a lone uniformed bugler sounding the last post filled the air.
Robert McKibben is survived by his mother Gráinne, father Tony, sisters Carmel, Maggie and Rachal, brother Raymond, girlfriend Nicola, extended family and a wide circle of friends in Ireland and overseas.
Since the end of the Empire, the British Army has continued to attract large numbers of recruits from some of the former colonies. I am not aware of this being especially controversial in any of those countries, the way it is in the Republic.
I'm pleased to see it myself, since not only does it preserve centuries-old traditions, but also because the widest possible recruiting base will lead to the best qualified army, not least in terms of the enormous commitment that these recruits bring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Beharry
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 27, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
Since the end of the Empire, the British Army has continued to attract large numbers of recruits from some of the former colonies. I am not aware of this being especially controversial in any of those countries, the way it is in the Republic.
I'm pleased to see it myself, since not does it preserve centuries-old traditions, but also because the widest possible recruiting base will lead to best qualified army, not least in terms of the enormous commitment that these recruits bring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Beharry
This from someone who thinks the war in Iraq is illegal? You actually want to arm them even more? Do you think arming criminals with better trained army and giving them a wider catchment area is a good thing?
What are the actual figures?
They keep talking about the numbers going from 3% to 14%, but of what - 100, 1000, 10000. It can be very easy to work figures to suit an agenda.
Quote from: Zapatista on November 27, 2008, 02:52:30 PM
This from someone who thinks the war in Iraq is illegal? You actually want to arm them even more? Do you think arming criminals with better trained army and giving them a wider catchment area is a good thing?
Just because I think Britain's involvement in Iraq is wrong does not mean that I would criticise individual soldiers who are serving out there. After all, when you enlist, they do not give you a list of wars in which you may or may not choose to serve. Therefore, if you fear that you may be sent to a conflict with which you may not agree, then you should not join up in the first place. It is voluntary, after all.
And as for our continuing involvement, the responsibility for getting the soldiers out still rests with the people who sent them in i.e the politicians.
Meanwhile, whilst we are still out there, I want to see the best calibre of recruit possible conducting what is a dirty, dangerous and difficult job. People like Marine McKibben from Westport, for example.
Letter in today's Indo
A tale of two sons of Westport
Thursday November 27 2008
Your report (Irish Independent, November 25) on the burial of a British Royal Marine shows a great contrast involving two sons of Westport.
One, Major John McBride, fought in the Second Anglo-Boer war for the freedom of a small country being attacked by what was then the world's greatest empire. He again faced the same empire in arms when fighting for his own country's independence. He was executed for his troubles.
The other, Marine Robert McKibben, died serving the remnant of that same empire in an attempt to suppress the independence of an equally valiant people in Afghanistan. I am willing to bet who will be remembered by history.
BRIAN P O CINNEIDE
ESSENWOOD ROAD, DURBAN 4001, SOUTH AFRICA
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 27, 2008, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on November 27, 2008, 02:52:30 PM
This from someone who thinks the war in Iraq is illegal? You actually want to arm them even more? Do you think arming criminals with better trained army and giving them a wider catchment area is a good thing?
Just because I think Britain's involvement in Iraq is wrong does not mean that I would criticise individual soldiers who are serving out there. After all, when you enlist, they do not give you a list of wars in which you may or may not choose to serve. Therefore, if you fear that you may be sent to a conflict with which you may not agree, then you should not join up in the first place. It is voluntary, after all.
And as for our continuing involvement, the responsibility for getting the soldiers out still rests with the people who sent them in i.e the politicians.
Meanwhile, whilst we are still out there, I want to see the best calibre of recruit possible conducting what is a dirty, dangerous and difficult job. People like Marine McKibben from Westport, for example.
It is clear (and you agree) that the British army get involved and are involved in illegal and morally wrong conflicts. Knowing this do you not think young people should refuse to join in this army and by extension illegal and morally wrong conflict?
You believe
Britain's involvement in Iraq is wrong yet you think they should have a better class of killer there conducting that war. How can you justify this?
Can we rename it to the British and Irish army, like they did with the Rugby team.
Kinda scarey about Private Pyle from Offaly there wanting to become a sniper. Perhaps after years of fun playing Xbox army games he want to try the real thing. When you say you want to be a sniper, it specifically means you want to kill someone or am I looking into it a bit too much. Well at least he's not doing it on the streets I guess.
Quote from: thejuice on November 27, 2008, 03:33:13 PM
Can we rename it to the British and Irish army, like they did with the Rugby team.
Kinda scarey about Private Pyle from Offaly there wanting to become a sniper. Perhaps after years of fun playing Xbox army games he want to try the real thing. When you say you want to be a sniper, it specifically means you want to kill someone or am I looking into it a bit too much. Well at least he's not doing it on the streets I guess.
Too much Call of Duty 4. ;D
Quote from: thejuice on November 27, 2008, 03:33:13 PMWell at least he's not doing it on the streets I guess.
He probably is - just that it's some other country's streets.
Quote from: Declan on November 27, 2008, 03:27:30 PM
Letter in today's Indo
A tale of two sons of Westport
Thursday November 27 2008
Your report (Irish Independent, November 25) on the burial of a British Royal Marine shows a great contrast involving two sons of Westport.
One, Major John McBride, fought in the Second Anglo-Boer war for the freedom of a small country being attacked by what was then the world's greatest empire. He again faced the same empire in arms when fighting for his own country's independence. He was executed for his troubles.
The other, Marine Robert McKibben, died serving the remnant of that same empire in an attempt to suppress the independence of an equally valiant people in Afghanistan. I am willing to bet who will be remembered by history.
BRIAN P O CINNEIDE
ESSENWOOD ROAD, DURBAN 4001, SOUTH AFRICA
So if McBride were alive today, no doubt he would be out in Afghanistan, helping those nice, peace-loving democrats in the Taliban bring justice and equality to all the people of their country, just as his Afrikaaner brothers-in-arms were determined to do for all the people of South Africa a century ago, then... :o
Quite the most fatuous comparison of its type any of us shall read this week, I'd say... ::)
Quote from: Zapatista on November 27, 2008, 03:31:06 PM
It is clear (and you agree) that the British army get involved and are involved in illegal and morally wrong conflicts. Knowing this do you not think young people should refuse to join in this army and by extension illegal and morally wrong conflict?
You believe Britain's involvement in Iraq is wrong yet you think they should have a better class of killer there conducting that war. How can you justify this?
Why do I get the impression you are more concerned with pushing me into a corner and "winning" your point, than in finding out what I really think?
For the record, I consider that Blair lied to the Commons over the justification for going into Iraq, therefore his conduct broke the law. Consequently, I wish that Britian had not joined in the invasion of Iraq.
But we are where we are, so we must make the best of it. And if that means staying on there until such time as our presence starts to do more harm than good, then so be it. (You may well consider that the British presence in Iraq is already doing so, but that is a different matter).
In which case, whilst we are there, then I want to see the best, possible calibre of squaddie out there. Which considering the great majority of Army personnel don't spend their day shooting at Iraqis, and those who do are invariably acting in self-defence, does NOT mean I seek a "better class of killer".
As for new recruits, there are essentially two aspects of their service which need to be considered. The first is whether they have informed themselves properly of what service life entails. A wider, more representative recruitment base means that that well-informed recruits will be more likely to be selected. The second is their motives for joining. However, this must be a matter for the Army to judge, not the recruit himself. But similarly, the wider the recruiting pool, the less dependant the Army will be on recruits whose motives might be suspect.
As for soldiers who have already enlisted, they are always at liberty to resign if they feel that what they are being asked to do is morally unjustifiable. From what I understand, few are doing so; on the contrary, many are sure they are doing a worthwhile job, even in Iraq.
You may, of course, disagree with them, but if so, I would hope that you have reached that conclusion from objective analysis, rather than some simplistic conclusion such as "If they're Brits, then they must be wrong"
Quote"If they're Brits, then they must be wrong"
Any examples of where they have been right??
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 27, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
Since the end of the Empire, the British Army has continued to attract large numbers of recruits from some of the former colonies. I am not aware of this being especially controversial in any of those countries, the way it is in the Republic.
I'm pleased to see it myself, since not only does it preserve centuries-old traditions, but also because the widest possible recruiting base will lead to the best qualified army, not least in terms of the enormous commitment that these recruits bring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Beharry
I would doubt that it is large numbers, what with the well documented cases of racism within the w**ks of the British Army. From distant memory there were very few people of black origin walking the streets with the Brits during the troubles either (I know the colonies would not all be of Black origin), I could be wrong but I would very much see see the British Army as a cold house for minorities, they have had many many problems with racism, sexism, homophobic bullying, intimidation of cadets at training schools etc.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 27, 2008, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on November 27, 2008, 03:31:06 PM
It is clear (and you agree) that the British army get involved and are involved in illegal and morally wrong conflicts. Knowing this do you not think young people should refuse to join in this army and by extension illegal and morally wrong conflict?
You believe Britain's involvement in Iraq is wrong yet you think they should have a better class of killer there conducting that war. How can you justify this?
Why do I get the impression you are more concerned with pushing me into a corner and "winning" your point, than in finding out what I really think?
For the record, I consider that Blair lied to the Commons over the justification for going into Iraq, therefore his conduct broke the law. Consequently, I wish that Britian had not joined in the invasion of Iraq.
But we are where we are, so we must make the best of it. And if that means staying on there until such time as our presence starts to do more harm than good, then so be it. (You may well consider that the British presence in Iraq is already doing so, but that is a different matter).
In which case, whilst we are there, then I want to see the best, possible calibre of squaddie out there. Which considering the great majority of Army personnel don't spend their day shooting at Iraqis, and those who do are invariably acting in self-defence, does NOT mean I seek a "better class of killer".
As for new recruits, there are essentially two aspects of their service which need to be considered. The first is whether they have informed themselves properly of what service life entails. A wider, more representative recruitment base means that that well-informed recruits will be more likely to be selected. The second is their motives for joining. However, this must be a matter for the Army to judge, not the recruit himself. But similarly, the wider the recruiting pool, the less dependant the Army will be on recruits whose motives might be suspect.
As for soldiers who have already enlisted, they are always at liberty to resign if they feel that what they are being asked to do is morally unjustifiable. From what I understand, few are doing so; on the contrary, many are sure they are doing a worthwhile job, even in Iraq.
You may, of course, disagree with them, but if so, I would hope that you have reached that conclusion from objective analysis, rather than some simplistic conclusion such as "If they're Brits, then they must be wrong"
Your army have been in Iraq and Iran before EG with the same horrendous results. Personnally, I have nothing but disrespect for the type of soldier who joins and army to see some fighting action, or to be a sniper or because they want to kill. I have pity for the guy who joins the british army as they believe they are doing some good when clearly they are being used in illegal and immoral wars. The mass murder of civilians, the flaunting of the geneva convention, torture, propaganda and lies - these are what the British army stand for. It is impossible to be thinking rationally and then to say you were against the illegal invasion of Iraq (and all that goes with it as I have outlined above) but since we are there we should get a good class of killer to inflict themselves on the people of this country. Where are your morals on this EG. Why don't you stop towing this pro brit line and come out and support the innocents that die - the men, women and children that the british army (supposedly acting on your behalf) blows to bits. They could be your children that die but for your fortune to have been born in Ireland. Do you not feel some shame for this or are they just the famous "colateral damage" the generals coldly speak about?
"The Irish Defence Force - as the name suggests - is a defence force, it's not an army," he says.
"It's for purely domestic use. It simply can't compare with the opportunities on offer with the British army."
Opportunities to do what? Their motives are astounding. I would be absolutely ashamed to be related to these extremely naive (at best) eejits.
wee boys with guns
I'll never forget the day army recruiters came into our school and gave a presentation. Only happened once and very conveniently in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. First half was all about the non-combat oppurtunites (joining the army for sky diving, rock climbing, socialising and utter nonsense like that) - then the real shit started. Slides about the atrocities carried out by Saddam and justification for the war. A classmate of mine put it to them that the invasion was motivated by oil rather than self defence - and straight away up comes a new slide with a full list of Saddams arsenal - nuclear warheads, ICBMs, nerve gas, chemical/biological weapons, all the WMDs of the day. And of course a few years later it is revealed to be a shameless pack of lies.
The fact that someone took the decision to distribute that propaganda to schools is outrageous. Imagine that the same individuals who concocted that 'intelligence' as part of a recruitment drive to send young men and women out to kill and be killed still hold their positions in the army and government, never mind locked up as accomplices to mass murder.
Personally think it would be outrageous to join up and fight for those utter bastards
Well said steve
Quote from: AFS on November 27, 2008, 02:53:31 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 27, 2008, 02:39:00 PM
QuoteHe got his action and I want mine
How sad.
What a vile thing to say. Basically an admission that his motivation for being a soldier is to have the opportunity to try to kill people. Truly disgusting.
If they want to be a solider there is an Irish army but clearly they want "action" and we all know what that means, he wants to blow the brians of someone. As hardy says, quite sad.
Will these be the boys we're crying for when they come out on the wrong side of the "action" they were looking for?
fair play to the father, at least he gets it in what must be an impossible time for him. i'm very sorry when any british soldier is killed but they are not heros in my book and should not be remembered as such. if God forbid some lad who wants to be a sniper gets killed then what of it, he made his bed...
Marine's father forgives killers
Marine Robert McKibben died in an explosion in Afghanistan last week
The County Down father of a Royal Marine who died in an explosion in Afghanistan last week has said he has forgiven his son's killers.
Robert McKibben, 32, was killed alongside another marine while on patrol in the Helmand province.
His father Anthony told the Mourne Observer that his son "was a lot like me, I believe that wherever he is now he has forgiven the men responsible.
"He was in someone else's country and understood the situation," he said.
Marine McKibben's remains were flown in to RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire on Wednesday.
His funeral is expected to take place next week in Westport, County Mayo, where he was raised.
A statement from his family in Mayo said "we are all extremely proud of our Robbie".
"He had very definite plans of how he wanted to live his life. He was always thoughtful, considerate and had an amazing sense of humour that touched so many lives.
"He was so full of life and was loved so much by his family and by all his friends. Robbie has left a huge void in our hearts and he will never be forgotten."
When you're a paid carrier of lethal arms in the service of another country, specifically when that same country pursues operations of occupation and suppression overseas, you're a mercenary, never a 'soldier'.
Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on November 27, 2008, 02:31:48 PM
Thing I don't understand is why don't they just join the Irish army? Seems to be like these are young lads who are out looking for some action rather than peace keeping duties.
QuoteThe Irish Defence Force - as the name suggests - is a defence force, it's not an army. It's for purely domestic use
Well that's not true for a start.
QuoteA friend of mine joined a couple of years ago and he was out in Afghanistan this year with the Royal Irish Regiment. He got his action and I want mine
Well good luck to him. I hope he doesn't get more than he bargained for.
A scary attitude and it'd be interesting to see if his British Army superiors still thought this lunatic was a suitable person to join their occupations abroad.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 27, 2008, 04:20:57 PM
Why do I get the impression you are more concerned with pushing me into a corner and "winning" your point, than in finding out what I really think?
For the record, I consider that Blair lied to the Commons over the justification for going into Iraq, therefore his conduct broke the law. Consequently, I wish that Britian had not joined in the invasion of Iraq.
But we are where we are, so we must make the best of it. And if that means staying on there until such time as our presence starts to do more harm than good, then so be it. (You may well consider that the British presence in Iraq is already doing so, but that is a different matter).
In which case, whilst we are there, then I want to see the best, possible calibre of squaddie out there. Which considering the great majority of Army personnel don't spend their day shooting at Iraqis, and those who do are invariably acting in self-defence, does NOT mean I seek a "better class of killer".
As for new recruits, there are essentially two aspects of their service which need to be considered. The first is whether they have informed themselves properly of what service life entails. A wider, more representative recruitment base means that that well-informed recruits will be more likely to be selected. The second is their motives for joining. However, this must be a matter for the Army to judge, not the recruit himself. But similarly, the wider the recruiting pool, the less dependant the Army will be on recruits whose motives might be suspect.
As for soldiers who have already enlisted, they are always at liberty to resign if they feel that what they are being asked to do is morally unjustifiable. From what I understand, few are doing so; on the contrary, many are sure they are doing a worthwhile job, even in Iraq.
You may, of course, disagree with them, but if so, I would hope that you have reached that conclusion from objective analysis, rather than some simplistic conclusion such as "If they're Brits, then they must be wrong"
I am not trying to point score. What I am trying to do is enlighten you. You Evil Genius are a victim. You are a victim of misinformation. I understand were this comes from. Whiskeysteve touched on it earlier. You reached a stage were you were so concrete in your view you had no problem letting the world know it. Now when you see that view is wrong your simply cannot accept it. It's only human. The defence automatically goes up and you become stronger in defending the lie. You then convince yourself more than ever and the spiral continually goes down. Like the child who does something wrong and when quizzed says "he told me to do it" and feels justified in that.
It's very hard to admit you have been wrong. The thing to remember is that when you see you have been wrong you must accept that. If you don't you will always be wrong and fooling no one but youself. It is clear to any person that the British army have a terrible and brutal history. They have ransacked the world. They have destroyed races, cultures and languages. Within Britain this is seen as a proud history. It is a shamefull history. Most people within Britain have been led to believe for most of their lives that being a superpower and ruling half the world with an iron fist is something to be proud of. Their victims know the other side of that Iron Fist and know that there is no pride in Britains history. Until the time comes when British army recruits are honestly educated they will flow to join this proud and powerfull army in the search of Britain lost glory.
The Irish are still victims to the British Colonial education system and still have the wrong view of what Britains role in the worlds is and was. Many Irish are ashamed of the fact they do not speak they Irish language while the British are proud that half the world speak theirs. Tjis is a reverse of how we should feel. The British tried to violently destroy our language and culture and replace with their own. Like the cuckoo the impostor tried to kill and rob another and replace it with their own. The British should be ashamed of levels the English language is spoken when they acknowledge how it happened.
There is absolutely nothing new about Iraq and Afghanistan. You can take them alone to make your points but they do not come alone. You can say that you will wait until good comes from Iraq but they truth is there will be no good. This is an old story. It has been the case for 100s of years. There can be no good coming from it like in the history of the British army there is no good intended.
The type of educated and better solider you claim to be looking for is not the same type the BA are targeting and recruiting. The best educated solider to swell the British ranks is one well educated in taking orders and not ask questions. Reality can often hit home when a soilder is in a place like Iraq and the questions start to surface. When this happens you just replace it with another (weak) motive for doing what they do.
I watched an interview with some squadies in Afganistan and they were asked why they did it. The answer was that they were not there for Queen and Country (they may be the reasons they signed up though) or democracy but thier comrades. They said 'I am here to watch his back and he to watch mine. We are the ones out in the frontline and the most important person to me is the guy watching my back'. It became so localised that they point was completely missed.This weak argument is a diversion from the reality and has these guys had their heads in the sand going round in circles. Your perfectly educated soilder.
A previous post summed it up, these guys are out for "guilt free murder".
They are as bad, if not worse than the scum they march beside in Iraq.
Quote from: Zapatista on November 28, 2008, 08:21:15 AM
What I am trying to do is enlighten you. You Evil Genius are a victim. You are a victim of misinformation. I understand were this comes from. Whiskeysteve touched on it earlier. You reached a stage were you were so concrete in your view you had no problem letting the world know it. Now when you see that view is wrong your simply cannot accept it. It's only human. The defence automatically goes up and you become stronger in defending the lie. You then convince yourself more than ever and the spiral continually goes down. Like the child who does something wrong and when quizzed says "he told me to do it" and feels justified in that.
It's very hard to admit you have been wrong. The thing to remember is that when you see you have been wrong you must accept that. If you don't you will always be wrong and fooling no one but youself.
So you're trying to "enlighten" me, then is it? By informing me I'm a "victim" - a "victim of misinformation" moreover. But help is at hand, since you "understand" me and "where this comes from". And not only am I so "concrete in my [false, misinformed] view", but I cannot even desist from "letting the world know it". Worse, when disabused of my error, I "simply cannot accept it"; then again, maye that's not
so bad, since I am at least "human"*. Nonetheless, I appear doomed to go on forever "defending the lie", and "the spiral continually goes down". Foloowed by some "child", "wrong", "fooling no-one" etc etc etc etc.
Where might I have ended up without you, Zapatista? Out of the goodness of your heart, you are prepared to share the accumulated wisdom of your life and take the time to guide even the most incorrigeably recalcitrant of "victims" back onto the path of true enlightenment. Indeed, such is the total lack of condescension or superciliousness in your message, that the scales have finally fallen from my eyes.
Thank you, Zapatista, for you are surely an Irish Mandela, Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Schweizer all rolled into one. In my new state of grace, I shall no longer do Evil, nor consider myself a Genius.
P.S. Any tips on chatting up women? For with your powers of persuasion, you must be fighting the Supermodels off with a stick...
* - A bit of a relief, really, since I was beginning to fear I was a Labrador Puppy which, for want of proper housetraining from one who "understands", keeps tearing up the furniture...
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on November 27, 2008, 11:05:42 PM
When you're a paid carrier of lethal arms in the service of another country, specifically when that same country pursues operations of occupation and suppression overseas, you're a mercenary, never a 'soldier'.
Nonsense. Or would you consider e.g. people from many parts of the world who joined the fight against the Nazis, prior to any involvement by their own countries, to be "mercenaries"? Or the (British) Indian Army in 1939, perhaps? You know, the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen?
Mercenaries fight purely for money, and will even switch sides and fight against their former comrades, if offered more money. Moreover, they serve in all sorts of conflicts, involving all sorts of shady militias etc, which follow no rules of war and who wouldn't recognise e.g. the Geneva Convention if it were tattooed on their arse.
Whereas when ROI recruits join the British Army, they are joining legally constituted, internationally recognised armed forces, often serving directly on behalf of the EU, NATO or the UN, as in Afghanistan, Cyprus or Sierra Leone, for example. To compare them to mercenaries who e.g. join some rebel force which is seeking to overthrow a Dictator somewhere in Africa, for instance, is an insult to the integrity of recruits concerned, as well as an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us.
These guys want to be professional soldiers, like countlless numbers of Irishmen before them. As to their choice of army, why should it be so surprising if, for instance, they viewed the recent RIR homecoming parade, and decided they wanted to serve with an Irish Regiment of an undefeated army, as they marched proudly through the streets of an Irish city, to the sound of thousands of cheering Irish men, women and children? ;)
Professional soldiers ???
How hard is to ask for your licence?
I heard the RIR had a checkpoint up in the desert in Iraq with a sign......please use dipped headlights!!!
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2008, 04:07:49 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on November 27, 2008, 11:05:42 PM
When you're a paid carrier of lethal arms in the service of another country, specifically when that same country pursues operations of occupation and suppression overseas, you're a mercenary, never a 'soldier'.
Nonsense. Or would you consider e.g. people from many parts of the world who joined the fight against the Nazis, prior to any involvement by their own countries, to be "mercenaries"? Or the (British) Indian Army in 1939, perhaps? You know, the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen?
Mercenaries fight purely for money, and will even switch sides and fight against their former comrades, if offered more money. Moreover, they serve in all sorts of conflicts, involving all sorts of shady militias etc, which follow no rules of war and who wouldn't recognise e.g. the Geneva Convention if it were tattooed on their arse.
Whereas when ROI recruits join the British Army, they are joining legally constituted, internationally recognised armed forces, often serving directly on behalf of the EU, NATO or the UN, as in Afghanistan, Cyprus or Sierra Leone, for example. To compare them to mercenaries who e.g. join some rebel force which is seeking to overthrow a Dictator somewhere in Africa, for instance, is an insult to the integrity of recruits concerned, as well as an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us.
These guys want to be professional soldiers, like countlless numbers of Irishmen before them. As to their choice of army, why should it be so surprising if, for instance, they viewed the recent RIR homecoming parade, and decided they wanted to serve with an Irish Regiment of an undefeated army, as they marched proudly through the streets of an Irish city, to the sound of thousands of cheering Irish men, women and children? ;)
Did you miss the widespread allegations of torture of iraqi detainees? How about a suicide bomber who kills a crowd of people (one horrific act) vs. a bomber who kills a crowd of people (another horrific act dressed up as 'collateral damage'). Legal mass murder, eh?
The idea that one side is constantly fighting a clean, legal war is deluded. Legal in whose eyes? From what I can make out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are widely viewed as unpopular or illegal in the western world.
Very blinkered view of the world
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on November 27, 2008, 03:09:06 PM
What are the actual figures?
They keep talking about the numbers going from 3% to 14%, but of what - 100, 1000, 10000. It can be very easy to work figures to suit an agenda.
Celtic have increased the gap by 75% today.
As regards the rise in recruits from the Republic to the RIR from 3 to 6 to 8?, they are still dwarfed by the rise in recruits and general interest with out and out fascist organisations.
QuoteThe idea that one side is constantly fighting a clean, legal war is deluded. Legal in whose eyes? From what I can make out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are widely viewed as unpopular or illegal in the western world.
Why do people consistently lump Iraq and Afghanistan in the same category of wars?? Afghanistan while maybe unpopular is a legal war under international law, Iraq a blatantly illegal liberal crusade.
I wonder, before he was removed from this Earth, did the young marine feel any remorse for the attrocities committed on many innocent people by his beloved British army during the time of his involvment and of many centuries before.
I don't wish death on anyone but I certainly feel no remorse or loss for a young Irish man with romantic imperial notions and delusions of grandure.
As an Irishman I find it very hard to undrstand how any Irishman, who isnt an out and out Unionist who thinks of the Brits as his army, would join an army which in one guise or another spent 800 + years terrorising,robbing,killing,plundering, burning in our Country.
I doubt if many Poles join the Bundeswehr or the Russian Army.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 30, 2008, 05:55:35 PM
As an Irishman I find it very hard to undrstand how any Irishman, who isnt an out and out Unionist who thinks of the Brits as his army, would join an army which in one guise or another spent 800 + years terrorising,robbing,killing,plundering, burning in our Country.
I doubt if many Poles join the Bundeswehr or the Russian Army.
I suppose you have to assume that's what they are - that or mercenaries, though seeking reward in what they seem to call "action", rather than money. You can't imagine a nationalist going to "fight" for another country.
Well I guess theres a wider range of things you can do in the British than the Irish one. Its just a job for some people. you dont nessesarily end up on the front line. Im sure you've seen plenty of adds on the UK channels about the wide range of jobs in the Army/RAF/Navy. I would like to see more lads and lassies joining our own army but the wide range of jobs isnt likely to be there.
But Im just talking about the non-combatitive jobs.
But if you want to be an engineer why do you have to be an army engineer? same with the other positions offered in the army, if thats what you wanna be then can't you do it outside of the army?
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Quote from: belleaqua on November 29, 2008, 07:31:42 PM
QuoteThe idea that one side is constantly fighting a clean, legal war is deluded. Legal in whose eyes? From what I can make out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are widely viewed as unpopular or illegal in the western world.
Why do people consistently lump Iraq and Afghanistan in the same category of wars?? Afghanistan while maybe unpopular is a legal war under international law, Iraq a blatantly illegal liberal crusade.
How have I lumped them in the same category?
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Disagree. Where there is a choice I would rather work as an engineer on a public project for example than design or build something than contributes to the likes of the war in Iraq
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Yeah true and those guys in the SS who turned on the gas would definately agree.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on November 30, 2008, 08:07:03 PM
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Disagree. Where there is a choice I would rather work as an engineer on a public project for example than design or build something than contributes to the likes of the war in Iraq
Well I guess there are those who would choose the army.
Quote from: doire na raithe on November 30, 2008, 08:12:37 PM
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Yeah true and those guys in the SS who turned on the gas would definately agree.
is it fair to compare every army with the Nazi's?
Thats not what was in question.
I was taking your sweeping statement about "a job being a job" to its obvious conclusion.
well if your a qualified engineer, and in these economic climes there are those who'd be happy for the work even if its in the British Army.
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:42:02 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on November 30, 2008, 08:07:03 PM
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Disagree. Where there is a choice I would rather work as an engineer on a public project for example than design or build something than contributes to the likes of the war in Iraq
Well I guess there are those who would choose the army.
Quote from: doire na raithe on November 30, 2008, 08:12:37 PM
Quote from: thejuice on November 30, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
A jobs a job, wherever you can get it.
Yeah true and those guys in the SS who turned on the gas would definately agree.
is it fair to compare every army with the Nazi's?
Some would choose the army maybe through the lack of jobs out there as you say but many more wouldn't so you're wrong to say a jobs a job IMO.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 28, 2008, 02:21:50 PM
Thank you, Zapatista,
You're welcome.
I note no denial in your post and that you ignored 80% my post you just tried to out patronise me. Good job.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on November 30, 2008, 08:07:03 PM
Disagree. Where there is a choice I would rather work as an engineer on a public project for example than design or build something than contributes to the likes of the war in Iraq
Is is the same working for them as it is investing in them?
http://www.amnesty.ie/amnesty/live/irish/news-events/article.asp?id=18049&page=2156
Government must clarify position on cluster munitions and go further on ethical investment
Quote from: Zapatista on December 01, 2008, 08:38:30 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 28, 2008, 02:21:50 PM
Thank you, Zapatista,
You're welcome.
I note no denial in your post and that you ignored 80% my post you just tried to out patronise me. Good job.
The "denial" was (or should have been) understood. And I did not "ignore 80% of [your] post". Rather I declined to reply to it, since it was overwhelmingly opinion, rant even, rather than fact or reasoning. As such, I didn't see any point in trying to persuade you otherwise.
P.S. I would never try to "out patronise" you - I know when I'm out of my depth... ::)
Quote from: whiskeysteve on November 29, 2008, 06:17:33 PM
From what I can make out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are widely viewed as unpopular or illegal in the western world.
Iraq maybe, but Afghanistan certainly not.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7248.doc.htm
20/12/2001 Press Release SC/7248
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Council 4443rd Meeting (PM)
SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZES INTERNATIONAL SECURITY FORCE FOR AFGHANISTAN;
WELCOMES UNITED KINGDOM'S OFFER TO BE INITIAL LEAD NATION
Resolution 1386 (2001) Adopted Unanimously
The Security Council this afternoon authorized the establishment for six months of an International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, and welcomed the United Kingdom's offer to take the lead in organizing and commanding such a force.
The Council, unanimously adopting resolution 1386 (2001) as orally revised, also called upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the Force and authorized those States participating in it to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate. The resolution also called upon the Force to work in close consultation with the Interim Authority in the implementation of its mandate as well as with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Lakhdar Brahimi.
By other terms of the text, the Council called on all Afghans to cooperate with the Force and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations while encouraging neighbouring countries and other Member States to provide the Force such necessary assistance as might be requested, including the provision of overflight clearances and transit.
The resolution also stressed that the expenses of the Force would be borne by participating Member States concerned; asked the Secretary-General to establish a trust fund through which contributions could be channelled to the countries or operations concerned; and encouraged Member States to contribute to the fund.
Was watching (well it was on in background) Soccer AM on Saturday morning and they do a competition for those serving in the Armed forces, bascially an Iron Soldier type strength test (loading power bags into a jeep).
On Saturday they had Paul McGarths son doing it. He is in the Marines after a short spell playing Rugby. He is UK born. Think it was Mitch. Other brother played underage soccer for Ireland and Liverpool but not sure where he went. Think McGarth mentioned this in his book.
I'm surprised no-one thought to post this particular gem...
From the SF website
Published: 1 December, 2008
Sinn Féin spokesperson on International Affairs Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD has said that Irish neutrality and sovereignty are being violated by the active recruitment of young Irishmen into the British Army. He said it was disgraceful that this was being facilitated by some media outlets, including RTÉ, The Irish Times and Irish editions of British tabloids.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh said:
"Irish neutrality is being violated by the recruitment of young people into the British Army in Ireland. Article 4 of the Hague Convention on neutrality states that 'combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents'.
"Enlistment in the British Army has been stepped up in Ireland with people from the 26 Counties crossing the Border to join in the Six Counties. The British Army carries on active recruitment in the Six Counties, in violation of the principles underlying the Good Friday Agreement. As unemployment grows the danger is that more young Irish people will be duped into joining this mercenary force.
"It is disgraceful that the British Army's public relations offensive in Ireland is being facilitated by certain media outlets. The latest example is today's (Monday) RTÉ 'Morning Ireland' report from Tommy Gorman interviewing Irish members of the British Army's Irish Guards regiment. Tommy Gorman's report was a PR coup for the British Army. There was no mention of the role of the British Army as aggressors and occupiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ireland.
"We have also seen a serving British soldier being given a diary slot in The Irish Times and the Irish editions of British tabloids regularly carry jingoistic articles lauding the British Army.
"The British Army is actively engaged in wars and their recruitment activity in Ireland violates Irish sovereignty and neutrality." ENDS
The "reasoning" behind that little lot is nearly as desperate Radar McElduff's campaign to unify Ireland by painting Northern post boxes green! :D
This would be stopped with a law passed that any irish man or woman who joins any foreign army without government permission loses their citizenship.if you want to be in an army join the irish army.Joining a foreign army you show no loyality.why should ireland benefit you from that?
As a matter of interest, does anybody know whether there are nationality criteria for membership of the British armed forces? I would assume not, if Irish nationals can join, but then Britain does patronise us in several ways by not treating us as it does other sovereign nations. Or to be less long-winded - can a French national join the British army? A citizen of the British Commonwealth?
(References to 'Ireland' and 'Irish' in what follows refer to the Irish state).
That Tommy Gorman piece mentioned in the provo press release was just a snippet from a longer TV feature carried last night in the "Nationwide" TV slot on RTÉ1. I was bit taken aback by it, to be honest. It was a series of interviews with Irish members of the Irish Guards with copious references to the historic context for Irish people joining the British army (much of it pre-independence and so irrelevant), and lots of neutral voice-over commentary about "missions" they've been on, etc. but no reference at all to the controversial nature of many of those missions and no questioning of the issue of citizens of the neutral Irish state participating in illegal wars under a foreign flag and no treatment of the question I asked above about whether Britain recruits foreign citizens from any country other than Ireland. Moreover, it had a very light touch on what the huge majority of the audience for this would certainly have been asking itself - the mentality that allows an Irish national to serve in the British crown forces. It almost came across as a propaganda piece, or at least a normalisation initiative to make it look the most natural thing in the world for Irish people to join the British army. Very strange, I thought.
I wonder how can 10 or so recruits "Swell British Army Ranks"?
Are we talking bulk here?
Quote from: Hardy on December 02, 2008, 03:57:19 PM
As a matter of interest, does anybody know whether there are nationality criteria for membership of the British armed forces? I would assume not, if Irish nationals can join, but then Britain does patronise us in several ways by not treating us as it does other sovereign nations. Or to be less long-winded - can a French national join the British army? A citizen of the British Commonwealth?
http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/howdoijoin/canijoin/Pages/EntryRequirements.aspx
As you will see from the above, it is basically British citizens or Commonwealth citizens, or the last tiny remnants of the Empire, plus Irish citizens. (Also the Gurkhas, who are a special case dating back over 100 years)
As for your "patronising" remark, where Irish citizens were treated differently to those from other sovereign nations (pre-EU, that is), such differential treatment was invariably beneficial to the Irish - e.g. voting rights, no need to carry a Passport, Health & Social Security rights and, it seems, access to the Armed Forces, should they so wish*.
* - This last was never compulsory, btw... ;)
If the Army wanted more Irish recruits (even though Irish troops are already and have been proudly represented in the British Army for hundreds of years) the best thing they could do would be to ban them. That way there would be a call for a Euro Human Rights investigation and citing of the 'Good Friday Agreement' that Irish people are being discriminated against. FFS SF would probably demand a 50:50 recruitment policy ::)
A genuine question: How would a person from Northern Ireland who joined the Irish Army be regarded in the unionist/loyalist community? - As a career soldier, someone committing treason or somewhere in the middle?
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 02, 2008, 05:44:14 PM
A genuine question: How would a person from Northern Ireland who joined the Irish Army be regarded in the unionist/loyalist community? - As a career soldier, someone committing treason or somewhere in the middle?
/Jim.
Deranged? I've never heard of anyone from such a background ever contemplating such a move, far less going ahead with it. As I see it, a military career appeals to some people, but doesn't to others. Obviously the latter would never join the IDF
or any other army.
As for the former, if you want to be a soldier, why would you join the IDF to further your ambitions when the British armed forces are open to you? It's a bit like a young footballer deciding to play for e.g. St. Pats Athletic or Galway Utd or someone, in preference to an offer from Chelsea or Man Utd...
Even those who want to be in the armed forces, but disapprove of Iraq etc, can always find a branch of the Services where they're unlikely to be sent there - the Royal Navy, perhaps, or a specialist unit? Some people on this Board who disapprove of the British Army etc seem to think it is entirely composed of infantry squaddies or Paras, or Marines etc, who are the ones who usually see the dirty end of the action. However, there is a whole range of other specialist units whose duties vary enormously. Which, btw, is likely one of the attractions for Irish recruits, not really available in the IDF.
P.S. To answer your question directly, in the highly unlikely event of an NI Unionist deciding to join the IDF, I'd say the reaction would vary from (benign) bemusement, via suspicion, to outright hostility, depending on how hardline his background/neighbourhood is. But as I say, I really can't imagine it ever happening.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 02, 2008, 06:05:43 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 02, 2008, 05:44:14 PM
A genuine question: How would a person from Northern Ireland who joined the Irish Army be regarded in the unionist/loyalist community? - As a career soldier, someone committing treason or somewhere in the middle?
/Jim.
Deranged? I've never heard of anyone from such a background ever contemplating such a move, far less going ahead with it. As I see it, a military career appeals to some people, but doesn't to others. Obviously the latter would never join the IDF or any other army.
As for the former, if you want to be a soldier, why would you join the IDF to further your ambitions when the British armed forces are open to you? It's a bit like a young footballer deciding to play for e.g. St. Pats Athletic or Galway Utd or someone, in preference to an offer from Chelsea or Man Utd...
Even those who want to be in the armed forces, but disapprove of Iraq etc, can always find a branch of the Services where they're unlikely to be sent there - the Royal Navy, perhaps, or a specialist unit? Some people on this Board who disapprove of the British Army etc seem to think it is entirely composed of infantry squaddies or Paras, or Marines etc, who are the ones who usually see the dirty end of the action. However, there is a whole range of other specialist units whose duties vary enormously. Which, btw, is likely one of the attractions for Irish recruits, not really available in the IDF.
P.S. To answer your question directly, in the highly unlikely event of an NI Unionist deciding to join the IDF, I'd say the reaction would vary from (benign) bemusement, via suspicion, to outright hostility, depending on how hardline his background/neighbourhood is. But as I say, I really can't imagine it ever happening.
I see. Why would a unionist join an army thats only missions are as peace keepers when the can join an army that goes around the world slaughtering civilians, torturing prisoners, dropping cluster bombs and flouting all of the laws of war. If that is the case what does that say of the mindset of your average unionist?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 02, 2008, 08:32:59 PM
I see. Why would a unionist join an army thats only missions are as peace keepers when the can join an army that goes around the world slaughtering civilians, torturing prisoners, dropping cluster bombs and flouting all of the laws of war. If that is the case what does that say of the mindset of your average unionist?
Aye, because "slaughtering, torturing, bombing and flouting etc" is all the British armed forces ever do, all the time, every last one of the 100,000 of them, even when they're back in Catterick or Aldershot... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 03, 2008, 12:44:45 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 02, 2008, 08:32:59 PM
I see. Why would a unionist join an army thats only missions are as peace keepers when the can join an army that goes around the world slaughtering civilians, torturing prisoners, dropping cluster bombs and flouting all of the laws of war. If that is the case what does that say of the mindset of your average unionist?
Aye, because "slaughtering, torturing, bombing and flouting etc" is all the British armed forces ever do, all the time, every last one of the 100,000 of them, even when they're back in Catterick or Aldershot... ::)
Throw your eyes up to heavan all you like EG. The fact is the British army has been involved in this type of things for centuries and continues to have been for the past decades. Not every soldier gets to break the geneva convention (although it sounds like many of them are only too happy to). You see as a soldiers you do as you are told. You sign away your right to have your own opinions and act on them. So if the commander says go drop a cluster bomb on that market because we think a "terrorist" might be there buying his mother a bag of apples, then the cluster bomb gets dropped. By joining the British army you put yourself in the position that you may be asked to carry out horrific deeds like these. By joining the Irish army you know that you will not be asked to do anything but act in a peacekeeping capacity. If you choose to join one over the other then it says a lot about your character.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 02, 2008, 06:05:43 PM
Deranged? I've never heard of anyone from such a background ever contemplating such a move, far less going ahead with it. As I see it, a military career appeals to some people, but doesn't to others. Obviously the latter would never join the IDF or any other army.
As for the former, if you want to be a soldier, why would you join the IDF to further your ambitions when the British armed forces are open to you? It's a bit like a young footballer deciding to play for e.g. St. Pats Athletic or Galway Utd or someone, in preference to an offer from Chelsea or Man Utd...
Even those who want to be in the armed forces, but disapprove of Iraq etc, can always find a branch of the Services where they're unlikely to be sent there - the Royal Navy, perhaps, or a specialist unit? Some people on this Board who disapprove of the British Army etc seem to think it is entirely composed of infantry squaddies or Paras, or Marines etc, who are the ones who usually see the dirty end of the action. However, there is a whole range of other specialist units whose duties vary enormously. Which, btw, is likely one of the attractions for Irish recruits, not really available in the IDF.
P.S. To answer your question directly, in the highly unlikely event of an NI Unionist deciding to join the IDF, I'd say the reaction would vary from (benign) bemusement, via suspicion, to outright hostility, depending on how hardline his background/neighbourhood is. But as I say, I really can't imagine it ever happening.
I asked the questioned because I believe that the direct answer to my question is a lot less on the benign side and more towards hostility. Joining an army of a foreign power!?!!? How disloyal etc.. I think it's a point that many unionists should take on board before lecturing Irish people who have a similar reaction to people joining the British Army. That's before we even talk about the emotiveness to those in the Republic who have relatives (very recent, in my case grandparents) who were at the receiving end of said British Army.
Also tbhe Irish Army have a very proud record in the field of peace-keeping. Personally if I was inclined towards military service I'd rather be working in Chad with the Rangers and regular troops than illegally occupying Iraq.
I think anyone how doesn't consider the above emotiveness is arrogant and anyone who demeans the Irish peacekeeping contribution is ignorant.
/Jim.
As an outsider from the Irish that is on here the way I see it is that Irish people have joined the Army for centuries through choice; more Irish people have chosen to live in the UK than in the Republic of Ireland for years; they work in the UK, pay taxes in the UK, vote in the UK, work in the UK civil service, work in the UK government, support UK teams, watch UK television, have a UK culture. The Irish are basically British but then when it comes to saying they are Irish they tend to think of themselves as a Nation with lots of anti-British stuff. It's denial and if it hurts their pocket then they delve more into the British culture and psyche. Wee moans about the Army are just more of the nonsense which they haven't really subscribed to or else moans from those that are deluded Shinner types.
I must remember not to shop in the Republic in the interests of patriotism ::)
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:36:06 AM
Wee moans about the Army are just more of the nonsense which they haven't really subscribed to or else moans from those that are deluded Shinner types.
You see there's the arrogance again...they are a multitude of (perfectly valid) reasons other than "nonsense" and "Shinner delusion" why an Irish person would have an issue with the British Army and those that join it but hey let's ignore that just because they have the temerity to shop in Tesco and watch Coronation Street.
And for the record Roger there is hell of a lot more to Irish culture and identity than being anti-British.
/Jim.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:36:06 AM
The Irish are basically British
Neither politically, socially, ethnically etc etc.
Lads stop feeding this troll.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 09:41:40 AM
You see there's the arrogance again...they are a multitude of (perfectly valid) reasons other than "nonsense" and "Shinner delusion" why an Irish person would have an issue with the British Army and those that join it but hey let's ignore that just because they have the temerity to shop in Tesco and watch Coronation Street.
I can understand why people have an issue with people joining the Army but not why Irish people in particular join it. They've done it for years.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 09:41:40 AMAnd for the record Roger there is hell of a lot more to Irish culture and identity than being anti-British.
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:36:06 AM
As an outsider from the Irish that is on here the way I see it is that Irish people have joined the Army for centuries through choice; more Irish people have chosen to live in the UK than in the Republic of Ireland for years; they work in the UK, pay taxes in the UK, vote in the UK, work in the UK civil service, work in the UK government, support UK teams, watch UK television, have a UK culture. The Irish are basically British but then when it comes to saying they are Irish they tend to think of themselves as a Nation with lots of anti-British stuff. It's denial and if it hurts their pocket then they delve more into the British culture and psyche. Wee moans about the Army are just more of the nonsense which they haven't really subscribed to or else moans from those that are deluded Shinner types.
I must remember not to shop in the Republic in the interests of patriotism ::)
With respect what a load of rubbish Roge.
Watching Aston Villa on BBC1 makes me a brit then? A lot of Irish people had to choose to live in the UK rather than Ireland because of the building boom post 1945, they went were work was available. Irish history will show you that we have a history of migration and as a result hundreds of thousands of UK residents would claim Irish roots rather than British (I know this from my own epxeriences), their work ethic led them to where the work was and has established a massive Irish diaspora throughout the UK and indeed further afield What were people to do? Not work for UK companies or government? Such a choice would then clearly identify them as bigoted or small minded.
The Irish are def not 'basically British' indeed they have a culture respected and envied all around the world, we are proud of our identity and respect peoples right to be British also. To say you are Irish is nothing to do with anti-britishness, far from it my friend it is a unique identity like Britishness, I am proud to be Irish and equally proud of my repsect for other cultures.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
Wow ignorance to go with the arrogance.
/Jim.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
Have to say thats fairly insulting stuff there Roger.
I know plenty who speak Irish fluently, and they are certainly not all anti british.
As for made up sports, all sports are made up ffs. Are you complaining about when they where made?
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
What a twat
Giving 'themmuns' a bad name ::)
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
Have to say thats fairly insulting stuff there Roger.
I know plenty who speak Irish fluently, and they are certainly not all anti british.
As for made up sports, all sports are made up ffs. Are you complaining about when they where made?
Your spot on there Nifan even though fairly insulting is putting it midly , then again he is a troll so i wouldn't bother with him too much
Don't forget the fact that these solldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan can run around playing soldiers (with the obligatory bandanas and wrap around sunglasses) and come back treated like "heroes" while being pretty sure that they won't get hurt or killed. Casualty rates are by and large minimal.
Imo there wouldn't be the same rush "to arms" if the body bags were coming back by the planeload. A tad of the bullyboy element involved imo.
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 10:01:56 AM
Have to say thats fairly insulting stuff there Roger.
I suppose it's a bit harsh but I just don't get the "Irish" culture that the "Irish" have. I do see it as largely anti-British and feel totally outside it. Yet I see massive overlaps and to me it is just a British region in denial with some nasty bits bolted on. I can't see why Irish people wouldn't join the Army as they have been doing it for years. To talk about migration of workers and all that is fine. I actually agree. The people of these islands are so overlapped or interbred or whatever that any differences are diluted I don't see any ethnic differences or social differences beyond regional culture. I do see a Political difference from those in the Republic of Ireland and others who shout as loudly as they can to try and demonstrate a difference though.
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 10:01:56 AM
I know plenty who speak Irish fluently, and they are certainly not all anti british.
Fair point, but read what I wrote. Who is promoting most this cultural language and for what reason?
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 10:01:56 AM
As for made up sports, all sports are made up ffs. Are you complaining about when they where made?
No but what was the reason for making them up? Most sports are made up for sports reasons.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 09:41:40 AM
You see there's the arrogance again...they are a multitude of (perfectly valid) reasons other than "nonsense" and "Shinner delusion" why an Irish person would have an issue with the British Army and those that join it but hey let's ignore that just because they have the temerity to shop in Tesco and watch Coronation Street.
I can understand why people have an issue with people joining the Army but not why Irish people in particular join it. They've done it for years.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 09:41:40 AMAnd for the record Roger there is hell of a lot more to Irish culture and identity than being anti-British.
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
Ha Ha. This coming from a tradition that dresses up in bowler hats each year, wears a sash, Burn the pope, Gerry Adams on a bonfire to celebrate a victory of one english king over another. A victory for protestanism sponsored by the pope that happened 100's of years ago. Pretty funny there Roger.
True colours shining through as ever, I knew it wouldnt be long
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2008, 10:19:54 AM
Ha Ha. This coming from a tradition that dresses up in bowler hats each year, wears a sash, Burn the pope, Gerry Adams on a bonfire to celebrate a victory of one english king over another. A victory for protestanism sponsored by the pope that happened 100's of years ago. Pretty funny there Roger.
I have never been a member of a Church or religious Order or a Political party or Politico-cultural grouping of any sort.
Quote from: An Fear Rua on December 03, 2008, 10:21:51 AM
True colours shining through as ever, I knew it wouldnt be long
I have never made any bones about my different view on what goes for the definitive "Irish" culture on here.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 10:23:41 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2008, 10:19:54 AM
Ha Ha. This coming from a tradition that dresses up in bowler hats each year, wears a sash, Burn the pope, Gerry Adams on a bonfire to celebrate a victory of one english king over another. A victory for protestanism sponsored by the pope that happened 100's of years ago. Pretty funny there Roger.
I have never been a member of a Church or religious Order or a Political party or Politico-cultural grouping of any sort.
I never wore a Leprecaun suit either Roger but I assumed you were making stupid general comments about the Irish and not personally about me. I likewise gave you, tongue in cheek, a little of your own generalisations back.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 10:19:50 AM
I suppose it's a bit harsh but I just don't get the "Irish" culture that the "Irish" have. I do see it as largely anti-British and feel totally outside it. Yet I see massive overlaps and to me it is just a British region in denial with some nasty bits bolted on.
Any cursory research into Irish literature or music for example would dispel that fairly quick. Irish culture existed independently of British culture and then became entwined. The differences are more pre-existing than add-ons. No doubt you have no desire/need/intent to do such research: fair enough. But then please don't pontificate about what you don't know about.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 10:19:50 AM
Who is promoting most this cultural language and for what reason?
Be less insular Roger, look outside the Northern Ireland context. Many academics, hobbyists and people from genuine Gaeltachts promote the language. This would include many British people from Scotland.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 10:19:50 AM
No but what was the reason for making them up? Most sports are made up for sports reasons.
Michael Cusack started the GAA in response to a highly politicised effort to eradicate certain aspects of culture. This is historical fact. It is evidence by British statute books from approx. 1750 - 1890. It in no way takes away from the merits of the games themselves.
/Jim.
Keep this up Roger and you could pip the bard for Numpty of the year!
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 10:37:09 AMAny cursory research into Irish literature or music for example would dispel that fairly quick. Irish culture existed independently of British culture and then became entwined. The differences are more pre-existing than add-ons. No doubt you have no desire/need/intent to do such research: fair enough. But then please don't pontificate about what you don't know about.
I have no doubt that there was a separate culture on this island at one stage. Is that the culture now? Is that Irish or Irish culture? I just see the cultures now pretty much intertwined (to use your word) and those that are highlighting differences tend to have a Political objective in this. Those of us from Ireland who are British have largely lost out on a richer cultural exposure of the many cultural aspects of this island because culture has largely been designed to be different in order to make a Political point.
Btw, Jim I only gave my opinion or pontificated, surely that is allowed even though it is a difference of opinion or pontification?
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 10:37:09 AM
Be less insular Roger, look outside the Northern Ireland context. Many academics, hobbyists and people from genuine Gaeltachts promote the language. This would include many British people from Scotland.
The language bit is completely lost on me. I just don't see the need for it as I speak for communication. If people want to learn it I am all for it as I would be any other harmless pastime. The vastly different promotion of the "Irish" language in Ireland (both ROI and NI) in proportion to other pastimes by groups and governments is Political though. In NI the context is particularly horrendous. I don't know how those particular users sit with the users in the ROI but I once spoke to a Gaeltachter in Galway once and he said he hates the Northern Irish users of the language as he said they murder it.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 10:37:09 AMMichael Cusack started the GAA in response to a highly politicised effort to eradicate certain aspects of culture. This is historical fact. It is evidence by British statute books from approx. 1750 - 1890. It in no way takes away from the merits of the games themselves.
The GAA is still highly Political and sets itself out as anti-British. It is not a part of "Irish" that I could associate with yet it is definitively Irish.
All in all Jim there are a whole raft of cultural quirks and debates to be had. I just don't get the anti-British bits and because the cultures are so intertwined and the people of these islands have co-habited and interbred that to be shocked at why an Irish person would join the Army is surprising apart from the usual Irish=anti-British quarters. I could understand why someone would say they didn't want anyone to join the Army because of what is involved, but that wouldn't matter whether the recruit was from Dingle, Donaghadee or Donnnigton.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
I have no doubt that there was a separate culture on this island at one stage. Is that the culture now? Is that Irish or Irish culture? I just see the cultures now pretty much intertwined (to use your word) and those that are highlighting differences tend to have a Political objective in this. Those of us from Ireland who are British have largely lost out on a richer cultural exposure of the many cultural aspects of this island because culture has largely been designed to be different in order to make a Political point.
You are saying two different things in one sentence:
- There are people who highlight the differences between the cultures to make a political point
- These differences are largely "designed" into the cultures for political reasons
The former is a reasonable point and one that could be made about "British" and "Irish" people of all hues.
The latter is very dubious. It is reasonable to say it is an opinion but backing it up with a rationale of "
I just don't get it" is nonsensical, particularly when contrary evidence is so readily available. Do you think that Book of Kells, Annals of the Four Master or 18th century Róisín Dubh style poetry was engineered in 1920's Ireland to somehow justify the existance of a separate state.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
The language bit is completely lost on me. I just don't see the need for it as I speak for communication. If people want to learn it I am all for it as I would be any other harmless pastime. The vastly different promotion of the "Irish" language in Ireland (both ROI and NI) in proportion to other pastimes by groups and governments is Political though. In NI the context is particularly horrendous. I don't know how those particular users sit with the users in the ROI but I once spoke to a Gaeltachter in Galway once and he said he hates the Northern Irish users of the language as he said they murder it.
Some people see it as critical to their identity. It happens: Belgium, Basque country, Brittany, Wales. You admit you don't get it but you still weigh in with a definitive view on their motivation. You think that is reasonable?
As for someone from Galway and their views on Northern Irish language that could be as much about dialect as anything else. Like any language there are dialects and pronounciation nuances from region to region. Akin to English and Ulster-Scots maybe?
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
The GAA is still highly Political and sets itself out as anti-British. It is not a part of "Irish" that I could associate with yet it is definitively Irish.
Fair enough but again you were having a pop the games ("made up") not the organisation.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
All in all Jim there are a whole raft of cultural quirks and debates to be had. I just don't get the anti-British bits and because the cultures are so intertwined and the people of these islands have co-habited and interbred that to be shocked at why an Irish person would join the Army is surprising apart from the usual Irish=anti-British quarters. I could understand why someone would say they didn't want anyone to join the Army because of what is involved, but that wouldn't matter whether the recruit was from Dingle, Donaghadee or Donnnigton.
Listen Roger someone could be anti-British Army without being anti-British. Someone from Donnington is not going to have immediate family/friends who suffered at the hands of the British Army where as some from Dingle or Donaghadee may well have. Then there is also plenty of people (as there is plenty of British people) who would see joining an army of any other state as disloyal.
Oodles of reasons: so why go with lazy, hackneyed and jaundiced view of Irish=Anti-British?
/Jim.
Roger, just because some of the people who promote the irish language do it for the wrong reason doesnt mean that they all do.
Some of the gobshites that might talk about NI football would make me cringe, but that doesnt mean they own it.
The evidence would appear to be that Roger is intolerant with a heavy negative edge.
Not understanding something is enough evidence for him to have oodles of disdain.
And being blind to evidence that would counter his prejudice.
Strange for a guy who professes a hatred for intolerance and bigotry.
Culture is also about respect for diversity in human expression. Roger would appear to a exhibit a severe lack of a few important components of culture.
Is intolerance and disdain such an important part of the Irish Brits culture?
I feel that a lot of British Irishmen lose out on Irish culture because the Irishness that is dominant has been highly Politicised which has the effect of excluding people from it. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Is that intolerance or bogotry? It possibly, even probably, has led to a prejudice in me against things "Irish" because the dominant thread in Irish culture appears to be anti-Brit. Is that right? I would argue ye, but it may possibly not be but that is the perception. It doesn't mean that I am any less Irish in my mind though, but I just can't identify with that sort of Irishness and don't like it being presented as Irish. I think there is a whole pile more to being Irish than the narrow version that this board subscribes to. Now, the questions and the type of discussion that Jim Murphy is conducting is reasonable, interesting, and informative. However, it isn't for this thread. What I don't get is that so many people in Ireland have a British culture and have contributed to British culture, country and Army for hundreds of years. Why is it a surprise now that Irish people are doing this at the moment? The criticism that I have heard has been from the anti-Brit brigade of Ireland so that's to be expected, but others?
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 12:18:34 PM
Roger, just because some of the people who promote the irish language do it for the wrong reason doesnt mean that they all do.
Some of the gobshites that might talk about NI football would make me cringe, but that doesnt mean they own it.
In Northern Ireland what percentage of those promoting the language are of the gobshite / Political division type though? That's before we discuss do we actually even need it for those that just like it? My view on the latter is yes but don't spend disproportionate public funds on it, my view on the former is that it is a Political thing often promoted by the abhorrent. "Every word spoken in Irish is a nail toward a united Ireland" - to even consider such a term with what people speak is mad in my view and whatever this Irish is should be opposed. If these Shinners and republicans hijack their language then the language enthusiasts know where the remedy needs applied, not with those put off it by these people.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 01:04:35 PM
In Northern Ireland what percentage of those promoting the language are of the gobshite / Political division type though?
No idea, and id suggest you have no idea what most Irish language promotion a lot of people not in the public eye for politics would say.
If a politician (of any persuasion) spouts off about the irish language it is highly likely that it will make the media than if someone tries to promote it.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 12:54:50 PM
I feel that a lot of British Irishmen lose out on Irish culture because the Irishness that is dominant has been highly Politicised which has the effect of excluding people from it. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Is that intolerance or bogotry? It possibly, even probably, has led to a prejudice in me against things "Irish" because the dominant thread in Irish culture appears to be anti-Brit. Is that right? I would argue ye, but it may possibly not be but that is the perception. It doesn't mean that I am any less Irish in my mind though, but I just can't identify with that sort of Irishness and don't like it being presented as Irish. I think there is a whole pile more to being Irish than the narrow version that this board subscribes to. Now, the questions and the type of discussion that Jim Murphy is conducting is reasonable, interesting, and informative. However, it isn't for this thread. What I don't get is that so many people in Ireland have a British culture and have contributed to British culture, country and Army for hundreds of years. Why is it a surprise now that Irish people are doing this at the moment? The criticism that I have heard has been from the anti-Brit brigade of Ireland so that's to be expected, but others?
Whether the points I made are relevant to the thread or not is a moot point. There were in direct answer to a post you made and deserve answer.
Either way you have changed your point from first post to last by moving from a position of mocking Irish culture to claiming to be excluded from it due to various reasons.
I would suggest if you want to engage in "reasonable, interesting and informative" debate you would select something akin to the latter position so we could look at those reasons that contribute to your alienation, rather than having to deal with blanket insults.
And as for the actual thread started. The title of the original article is a nonsense by your reasoning. If the Irish were always joining the British Army "for hundreds of years" then the current climate is no different really and doesn't deserve comment. As for Sinn Féin/republicans being unhappy about it: what do you expect given their political outlook?
/Jim.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 01:04:35 PM
In Northern Ireland what percentage of those promoting the language are of the gobshite / Political division type though? That's before we discuss do we actually even need it for those that just like it? My view on the latter is yes but don't spend disproportionate public funds on it, my view on the former is that it is a Political thing often promoted by the abhorrent. "Every word spoken in Irish is a nail toward a united Ireland" - to even consider such a term with what people speak is mad in my view and whatever this Irish is should be opposed. If these Shinners and republicans hijack their language then the language enthusiasts know where the remedy needs applied, not with those put off it by these people.
So the point moves from "Irish is a language cobbled together for political purposes" to "The Irish language has been hijacked for political purposes".
I reiterate if you started with the latter viewpoint you would not have alienated a vast swathe of people who might actually have been willing to discuss the latter.
/Jim.
Lads, why give this guy any attention??
His posts on this thread have shown some truly shocking anti Irish bigotry, along with lies and insults.
A wind up merchant if I ever saw one.
Quote from: his holiness nb on December 03, 2008, 01:30:42 PM
Lads, why give this guy any attention??
His posts on this thread have shown some truly shocking anti Irish bigotry, along with lies and insults.
A wind up merchant if I ever saw one.
I wouldn't be surprised if the posts are coming from a computer currently held in a PSNI forensic lab ;)
True, probably the most insulting posts since the bards endorsement of the famine song and wishing death on posters on here.
Roger, you wouldnt happen to be a UUP councillor would you? :D
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 01:24:14 PM
Either way you have changed your point from first post to last by moving from a position of mocking Irish culture to claiming to be excluded from it due to various reasons.
I explained my jaundiced view on the dominant "Irish culture" in relation to games (made up for Political reasons), a cobbled together language which has been hijacked for Political reasons, and the main day in Irish culture is a leprechaun booze up and songs lamenting how bad Britain is. Those are the main highlights of modern Irish culture as different from British culture in my view and I stand by that original post yet the Irish have been big contributors to British culture, country and army. So why the surprise that Irishmen are in the army??
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 01:24:14 PM
I would suggest if you want to engage in "reasonable, interesting and informative" debate you would select something akin to the latter position so we could look at those reasons that contribute to your alienation, rather than having to deal with blanket insults.
When one asks about Irish culture or one sees evidence of Irish culture people don't talk about or see the Book of Kells or the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland and yet these are things that are actually historically interesting and a much wider perspective of Ireland and how it has come to be where it is now. What you do hear about is games, language, songs etc which by and large are pretty much anti-Brit and dominated by a mono-cultural view of Ireland which totally denies the true nature of Ireland in my view. Whether this is true or not for all of Ireland, then I defer to your better knowledge but in this part of Ireland and from my experience of the Republic that's the case.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 03, 2008, 01:24:14 PMAnd as for the actual thread started. The title of the original article is a nonsense by your reasoning. If the Irish were always joining the British Army "for hundreds of years" then the current climate is no different really and doesn't deserve comment. As for Sinn Féin/republicans being unhappy about it: what do you expect given their political outlook?
Agree, I think I have expressed my view with more frustration than you find suitable and apologies for anything you found insulting in doing so.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2008, 04:07:49 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on November 27, 2008, 11:05:42 PM
When you're a paid carrier of lethal arms in the service of another country, specifically when that same country pursues operations of occupation and suppression overseas, you're a mercenary, never a 'soldier'.
Nonsense. Or would you consider e.g. people from many parts of the world who joined the fight against the Nazis, prior to any involvement by their own countries, to be "mercenaries"? Or the (British) Indian Army in 1939, perhaps? You know, the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen?
Erm, in case it has slipped your notice, neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis posed any kind of expansionist problem. And despite Saddam's designs on sadism, he wasn't quite in the same league as Hitler. So, my point remains, when non-native nationals enlist for an army other than their own, when that army is currently involved in offensive aggression, they're mercenaries.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2008, 04:07:49 PM
Mercenaries fight purely for money, and will even switch sides and fight against their former comrades, if offered more money. Moreover, they serve in all sorts of conflicts, involving all sorts of shady militias etc, which follow no rules of war and who wouldn't recognise e.g. the Geneva Convention if it were tattooed on their arse.
Yep.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2008, 04:07:49 PM
Whereas when ROI recruits join the British Army, they are joining legally constituted, internationally recognised armed forces, often serving directly on behalf of the EU, NATO or the UN, as in Afghanistan, Cyprus or Sierra Leone, for example. To compare them to mercenaries who e.g. join some rebel force which is seeking to overthrow a Dictator somewhere in Africa, for instance, is an insult to the integrity of recruits concerned, as well as an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us.
Would this be the same kind of international recognition as that was afforded Saddam in the 1980s, or the international recognition of Hitler's seizure of the Sudetenland, a recognition bestowed by Chamberlain no less (and Daladier), in 1938?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2008, 04:07:49 PM
These guys want to be professional soldiers, like countlless numbers of Irishmen before them. As to their choice of army, why should it be so surprising if, for instance, they viewed the recent RIR homecoming parade, and decided they wanted to serve with an Irish Regiment of an undefeated army, as they marched proudly through the streets of an Irish city, to the sound of thousands of cheering Irish men, women and children? ;)
"undeafeated army"?!... Like Afghanistan and Iraq have been such resounding victories. And why couldn't the British Army parade through a city in Britain, why is it that no Britons wanted them to parade through their town or city? Was that because they were fighting such a glorious and virtuous war? Or was it more that the Britons could see it for what it was, and that that wasn't pretty.
Quotea cobbled together language which has been hijacked for Political reasons
The earliest writings in Irish date back to the 4th century AD. How on earth is that a cobbled together language? It has evolved and changed over time like any langauge does. Your recent posts are certainly doing you no favours.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
A few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British...
Probably one of the most stupid statements on this board I've had the misfortune to bear witness to (yep, that's saying something!) :P ???
- Irish is the oldest written language in Europe (Basque being the oldest spoken)
- Only about a millenium older than the English language
- Not cobbled together from various linguistic roots, i.e., not a melange of latin and germanic tongues (like English)
Personally I thought that this was the most revealing. Roger has the direct line to the true nature of Ireland.
"What you do hear about is games, language, songs etc which by and large are pretty much anti-Brit and dominated by a mono-cultural view of Ireland which totally denies the true nature of Ireland in my view"
I think you'll find that I gave my view and the perception that is Irish culture. I don't know anyone who thinks of the Book of Kells as the dominant thing in Irish culture. I never claimed a "direct line" or any such thing.
Viewpoints are clearly not welcomed here if they aren't popular and perceptions if not accurate to someone else's perceptions are "stupid". It would be wonderful to live in a simplistic world but it clearly exists only here and nowhere else ::)
Quote from: AFS on December 03, 2008, 04:27:52 PM
Just because something promotes Irish culture, be it the GAA, promotion of the Irish language, etc., does not mean that it is automatically anti-British. I think this is a major point Roger fails to understand.
GAA is anti-British and I believe the language is hijacked by the most anti-British. Pity these things are the dominant make up of what is perceived as Irish culture. As I have stated this has been detrimental to understanding and indeed ownership / contribution of others.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
few made up sports heavily submerged in anti-British stuff, a cobbled together language hi-jacked by the most anti-British, and dressing up as leprechauns on St Patrick's (a Brit) day and getting pished to then sing traditional laments generally about how bad the Brits are. Riverdance wasn't bad mind.
well this viewpoint is definately not welcome here ::) is that what you really think we are like as a people ?
Roder, it is obvious you do not know that many people involved with promoting the Irish language. From my experience there are some who would fit your view, but many others who certainly dont.
Quote
I don't know anyone who thinks of the Book of Kells as the dominant thing in Irish culture
And? It is a part of Irish culture. So is the language, music etc.
I
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 04:28:18 PM
Viewpoints are clearly not welcomed here if they aren't popular and perceptions if not accurate to someone else's perceptions are "stupid".
I don't care much for the 'popularity' of viewpoints, much more for the veracity. Are you saying then that the only thing wrong with your remark about the Irish language is that it lacks popularity, but is otherwise enlightened?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 05:03:56 PM
I don't care much for the 'popularity' of viewpoints, much more for the veracity. Are you saying then that the only thing wrong with your remark about the Irish language is that it lacks popularity, but is otherwise enlightened?
The language has certainly been high-jacked in Northern Ireland for anti-Brit purposes and it is a fairly Political thing in the Republic as it is not for communication purposes. Jim Murphy explained about identity etc which is fair enough. But for me I couldn't care if it was Irish or English, cobbled, uncobbled, evolved or otherwise as long as I could communicate. The promotion of Irish is largely Political and not about communication. For me hobbyists can get on with it but it has no value for me and is a Political issue that needn't be, but is.
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 04:36:30 PM
Roder, it is obvious you do not know that many people involved with promoting the Irish language. From my experience there are some who would fit your view, but many others who certainly dont.
True. I couldn't care about any language especially, but one that is fairly useless even less. If people want to learn it, fine. However, it is most apparent when it is being used for Political reasons.
Quote from: nifan on December 03, 2008, 04:36:30 PM
And? It is a part of Irish culture. So is the language, music etc.
I
True. But the contemporary culture of Ireland hardly oozes the Book of Kells and is more closely defined in things that are Political, usually with a strong whiff of 'Brits-to-blame' jammed together with what is actually British culture.
Which aspects of British culture would that be?
QuoteTrue. I couldn't care about any language especially, but one that is fairly useless even less. If people want to learn it, fine. However, it is most apparent when it is being used for Political reasons.
Your entitled to not care, but many people do. Latin and Greek are next to useless but some people are extremely interested in these languages, even though these languages arent even indigenous to the area.
it is most apparent to YOU when used for political reasons.
It is obviously not so apparent to you when people study it from school upwards, including to PhD level, when they go to the gaeltacht etc etc.
QuoteTrue. But the contemporary culture of Ireland hardly oozes the Book of Kells and is more closely defined in things that are Political, usually with a strong whiff of 'Brits-to-blame' jammed together with what is actually British culture.
And British culture rarely oozes the magna carta.
You sound like some of the posters from here who claimed any sort of unionist/NI culture was simply anti-irishness.
You cant discount elements of irish culture and then accept elements of shared or british culture.
Quote from: Roger on December 03, 2008, 04:28:18 PM
I think you'll find that I gave my view and the perception that is Irish culture. I don't know anyone who thinks of the Book of Kells as the dominant thing in Irish culture. I never claimed a "direct line" or any such thing.
As the person who first mentioned them, the point about the Book of Kells and the Annals was not to claim their "dominance" but to illustrate the long lineage of the Irish language and culture. It was to rebut your assertion that Irish language and culture was formed of "British Culture with some anti-Brit stuff stuck on" and that the Irish Language was cobbled together.
I don't know what you mean by dominance of one item in a culture to be honest.
There is no doubt that the Gaelic revival in the latter part of the last century (including the GAA formation) had political overtones. However this has to be taken in the context of the highly politicised efforts to eradicate said culture in the years predating that. The Penal Laws of the late 18th century and the National School Act of 1836 were political acts to eradicate aspects of Irish culture (especially the language). So there was a political kickback from that...so what?
That does not invalidate the long cultural history that pre-dated these events.
It also makes a mockery of your blanket dismissal of Irish culture.
/Jim.
You lot must be bored to reply to this clown, let's face it he doesn't deserve replies.
nifan, I have met quite a lot of 'youseuns' who have the same respect for the language as some of 'ussuns' to the extent that they organise classes in some quite unexpected locations and are well-attended by genuine folks who want to learn it.
I am convinced that Roger's rantings about Irish Culture are are more a fear on his behalf, he is so ambivalent and blind towards Irish culture that he cannot even appreciate its values and place within society. His view is sadly shared by a large amount of Love Ulster types, their paranoia towards Irishness and Irish people is actually dangerous. It is exactly the kind of rubbish that loyalists have been fed for years by politicians i.e. Dublin is the enemy and hate all things associated with it. If they say it enough they will believe, sad.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGkhPx529g (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGkhPx529g)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 02:01:57 PM
Erm, in case it has slipped your notice, neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis posed any kind of expansionist problem. And despite Saddam's designs on sadism, he wasn't quite in the same league as Hitler. So, my point remains, when non-native nationals enlist for an army other than their own, when that army is currently involved in offensive aggression, they're mercenaries.
Once again, you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan in your attempt to discredit those of whom you disapprove. Afghanistan is/was an entirely legal operation, sanctioned by the UN (including unanimously by the Security Council), as I posted elsewhere.
As for Iraq not posing "any kind of expansionist problem", that is not a concept which would find much favour in Kuwait or Iran, for example. As for "Saddam's designs on sadism", I have no idea what this means; nonetheless, "Not as Bad as Hitler" hardly counts as a character reference, especially for someone who is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone who has ever lived.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 02:01:57 PM
Would this be the same kind of international recognition as that was afforded Saddam in the 1980s, or the international recognition of Hitler's seizure of the Sudetenland, a recognition bestowed by Chamberlain no less (and Daladier), in 1938?
Obviously not. There is no question that the British Government is the legitimate authority, with its duly constituted armed forces being equally legitimate.
Speaking of which, it is notable, I think, that it was the British Government
and army which eventually stood up to Hitler in 1939, thereby dividing the German assault onto two fronts and buying crucial time for the Allies to mobilise and prevent them conquering the whole of Europe. And as I noted, and you have ignored, critical to the British effort was e.g. the over 1 million Indian Nationals who volunteered to join the British Army and fight in campaigns stretching from the Far East, to North Africa, and to Europe etc. So once again, would you say these soldiers were "mercenaries"?
Indeed closer to home, would you characterise as "mercenaries" all those hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women who joined the British Army in the First and Second World Wars?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 02:01:57 PM
"undeafeated army"?!... Like Afghanistan and Iraq have been such resounding victories. And why couldn't the British Army parade through a city in Britain, why is it that no Britons wanted them to parade through their town or city? Was that because they were fighting such a glorious and virtuous war? Or was it more that the Britons could see it for what it was, and that that wasn't pretty.
How has this idea arisen that the British Army cannot "parade through a city in Britain" or that "no Britons [want] then to parade through their town or city"? That is a myth, as testified by any number of warmly received parades the length and breadth of the UK.
Indeed, for Irish Regiments alone, there have been such parades in Liverpool and Shropshire (never mind those other British towns/cities, Belfast and Ballymena):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xxdNgsIkh9M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaRdosqwXo&feature=related
Or the briefest of searches on YouTube reveals e.g. The Royal Anglians in Norwich:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bgRRC19uOrY&feature=related
The Gurkhas in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cxAJSfv7q7Y&feature=related
The Royal Engineers, also in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ttW9CIMqInA&feature=related
The Royal Green Jackets receiving the Freedom of Westminster:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VPqenl0NpOs&feature=related
The Yorkshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWlIx1QOZ0&feature=related
Or the Combined Services in Winchester:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q56R0X3Xxeg&feature=related
Or the Hampshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f8mJagGXhaI&feature=related
The Argyles in Stirling:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NCrKriXvkLo&feature=related
The Coldstreams in Windsor:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MCq_IPLQIs4&feature=related
Just because there were no counterdemonstrations organised to make such parades "newsworthy" does not mean they are not happening...
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 11:29:48 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 02:01:57 PM
Erm, in case it has slipped your notice, neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis posed any kind of expansionist problem. And despite Saddam's designs on sadism, he wasn't quite in the same league as Hitler. So, my point remains, when non-native nationals enlist for an army other than their own, when that army is currently involved in offensive aggression, they're mercenaries.
Once again, you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan in your attempt to discredit those of whom you disapprove. Afghanistan is/was an entirely legal operation, sanctioned by the UN (including unanimously by the Security Council), as I posted elsewhere.
As for Iraq not posing "any kind of expansionist problem", that is not a concept which would find much favour in Kuwait or Iran, for example. As for "Saddam's designs on sadism", I have no idea what this means; nonetheless, "Not as Bad as Hitler" hardly counts as a character reference, especially for someone who is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone who has ever lived.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 02:01:57 PM
Would this be the same kind of international recognition as that was afforded Saddam in the 1980s, or the international recognition of Hitler's seizure of the Sudetenland, a recognition bestowed by Chamberlain no less (and Daladier), in 1938?
Obviously not. There is no question that the British Government is the legitimate authority, with its duly constituted armed forces being equally legitimate.
Speaking of which, it is notable, I think, that it was the British Government and army which eventually stood up to Hitler in 1939, thereby dividing the German assault onto two fronts and buying crucial time for the Allies to mobilise and prevent them conquering the whole of Europe. And as I noted, and you have ignored, critical to the British effort was e.g. the over 1 million Indian Nationals who volunteered to join the British Army and fight in campaigns stretching from the Far East, to North Africa, and to Europe etc. So once again, would you say these soldiers were "mercenaries"?
Indeed closer to home, would you characterise as "mercenaries" all those hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women who joined the British Army in the First and Second World Wars?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2008, 02:01:57 PM
"undeafeated army"?!... Like Afghanistan and Iraq have been such resounding victories. And why couldn't the British Army parade through a city in Britain, why is it that no Britons wanted them to parade through their town or city? Was that because they were fighting such a glorious and virtuous war? Or was it more that the Britons could see it for what it was, and that that wasn't pretty.
How has this idea arisen that the British Army cannot "parade through a city in Britain" or that "no Britons [want] then to parade through their town or city"? That is a myth, as testified by any number of warmly received parades the length and breadth of the UK.
Indeed, for Irish Regiments alone, there have been such parades in Liverpool and Shropshire (never mind those other British towns/cities, Belfast and Ballymena):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xxdNgsIkh9M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaRdosqwXo&feature=related
Or the briefest of searches on YouTube reveals e.g. The Royal Anglians in Norwich:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bgRRC19uOrY&feature=related
The Gurkhas in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cxAJSfv7q7Y&feature=related
The Royal Engineers, also in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ttW9CIMqInA&feature=related
The Royal Green Jackets receiving the Freedom of Westminster:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VPqenl0NpOs&feature=related
The Yorkshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWlIx1QOZ0&feature=related
Or the Combined Services in Winchester:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q56R0X3Xxeg&feature=related
Or the Hampshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f8mJagGXhaI&feature=related
The Argyles in Stirling:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NCrKriXvkLo&feature=related
The Coldstreams in Windsor:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MCq_IPLQIs4&feature=related
Just because there were no counterdemonstrations organised to make such parades "newsworthy" does not mean they are not happening...
Only you could equate a country of extremely poor people with hardly a thing to their name joining the army of the country that was responsible for their woes as being some sort of endorsement for that army. When people have children that are hungry they will do just about anything to put food on the table. Of course there were others that had some sort of idiotic military tradition.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 04, 2008, 11:38:39 AM
Only you could equate a country of extremely poor people with hardly a thing to their name joining the army of the country that was responsible for their woes as being some sort of endorsement for that army. When people have children that are hungry they will do just about anything to put food on the table. Of course there were others that had some sort of idiotic military tradition.
Ah right, so all the millions who have volunteered from all over the world down the centuries were either starving or idiots. Thanks for clearing that one up.
P.S. To which category do those present-day volunteers from the Republic of Ireland belong?
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 11:29:48 AM
Once again, you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan in your attempt to discredit those of whom you disapprove. Afghanistan is/was an entirely legal operation, sanctioned by the UN (including unanimously by the Security Council), as I posted elsewhere.
As for Iraq not posing "any kind of expansionist problem", that is not a concept which would find much favour in Kuwait or Iran, for example. As for "Saddam's designs on sadism", I have no idea what this means; nonetheless, "Not as Bad as Hitler" hardly counts as a character reference, especially for someone who is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone who has ever lived.
1. The UN does not exactly have an exemplary record where its sanctions, unanimous or otherwise, are concerned. And, they really have been vindicated where Afghanistan is concerned, haven't they?
2. Kuwait and Iran, vis-à-vis Iraq's expansionist aspirations, were not contemporary issues, i.e., there was absolutely no chance of Saddam attempting a land-grab. If there had, the US and Britain would not have had to fabricate so many lies in an effort to justify their 'war'. A measure of your desperation to justify that you have to reach back so far, methinks :P
3. Perhaps the now close to one million dead Iraqis as a result of the US and Britains' 'Shock-and-Awe' (read total destruction) invasion and occupation might find the distinction between Hitler and Bush and Blair a little difficult to discern too.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 11:29:48 AM
Obviously not. There is no question that the British Government is the legitimate authority, with its duly constituted armed forces being equally legitimate.
Speaking of which, it is notable, I think, that it was the British Government and army which eventually stood up to Hitler in 1939, thereby dividing the German assault onto two fronts and buying crucial time for the Allies to mobilise and prevent them conquering the whole of Europe. And as I noted, and you have ignored, critical to the British effort was e.g. the over 1 million Indian Nationals who volunteered to join the British Army and fight in campaigns stretching from the Far East, to North Africa, and to Europe etc. So once again, would you say these soldiers were "mercenaries"?
Indeed closer to home, would you characterise as "mercenaries" all those hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women who joined the British Army in the First and Second World Wars?
I did draw a distinction between defensive operations and offensive aggression. I would be prepared to give benefit of the doubt to those who signed up in good faith when faced with the Nazi threat. You cant's seem to understand that anyone who signs up at the current time will undoubtedly be involved in overseas offensive operations on the behalf of a country other than their own, ergo, they are mercenaries.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 11:29:48 AM
How has this idea arisen that the British Army cannot "parade through a city in Britain" or that "no Britons [want] then to parade through their town or city"? That is a myth, as testified by any number of warmly received parades the length and breadth of the UK.
When was the most recent of those parades in Britain? I've no doubt there was a time, whilst the general populace were still of the opinion that these 'wars' were somewhat noble in nature, that such parades were quite acceptable, even desirable. That was before they were disabused of such flights of fancy, however.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 04, 2008, 11:38:39 AM
Only you could equate a country of extremely poor people with hardly a thing to their name joining the army of the country that was responsible for their woes as being some sort of endorsement for that army. When people have children that are hungry they will do just about anything to put food on the table. Of course there were others that had some sort of idiotic military tradition.
Ah right, so all the millions who have volunteered from all over the world down the centuries were either starving or idiots. Thanks for clearing that one up.
P.S. To which category do those present-day volunteers from the Republic of Ireland belong?
The later.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 12:18:43 PM
1. The UN does not exactly have an exemplary record where its sanctions, unanimous or otherwise, are concerned. And, they really have been vindicated where Afghanistan is concerned, haven't they?
It might not be a perfect Referee, but the UN is the only one we've got. Therefore, if you can't/won't accept even the UN's legitmacy, then there is little point in my trying to debate with you.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 12:18:43 PM
2. Kuwait and Iran, vis-à-vis Iraq's expansionist aspirations, were not contemporary issues, i.e., there was absolutely no chance of Saddam attempting a land-grab. If there had, the US and Britain would not have had to fabricate so many lies in an effort to justify their 'war'. A measure of your desperation to justify that you have to reach back so far, methinks :P
I agree Saddam could (and should) have been "boxed in" by sanctions etc without the need for the invasion; however, that does not mean he still was not harbouring expansionist ambitions, nor that the passage of a mere decade or two in any way lessened the fears of his neighbours (or the Kurds, for that matter).
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 12:18:43 PM
3. Perhaps the now close to one million dead Iraqis as a result of the US and Britains' 'Shock-and-Awe' (read total destruction) invasion and occupation might find the distinction between Hitler and Bush and Blair a little difficult to discern too.
Perhaps so, but for all that I deplore the way Blair deceived us into the invasion, it is still ridiculous for people in your or my situation to compare him with Hitler.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 12:18:43 PM
I did draw a distinction between defensive operations and offensive aggression. I would be prepared to give benefit of the doubt to those who signed up in good faith when faced with the Nazi threat. You cant's seem to understand that anyone who signs up at the current time will undoubtedly be involved in overseas offensive operations on the behalf of a country other than their own, ergo, they are mercenaries.
Perhaps the problem is one of terminology. When I hear the word "mercenary", I think of people like this (
after he started meddling in Angola and Equitorial Guinea, obviously):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mann
What you and other critics appear not to accept is that all sorts of different people have all sorts of motives for becoming a soldier, and simply to lump together as "mercenaries" all those who are not serving their "own" country is an insult. For such people include not only those such as Irishmen or Indians who served in the BA down the centuries, but also e.g. those who from outside Spain who fought on opposing sides for the International Brigades or the Royalists during the Spanish Civil War.
Now you and I may agree easily enough on which of those sets of combattants we prefer, but by your definition, both sides may equally be called "mercenaries".
Tricky, isn't it?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 12:18:43 PM
When was the most recent of those parades in Britain? I've no doubt there was a time, whilst the general populace were still of the opinion that these 'wars' were somewhat noble in nature, that such parades were quite acceptable, even desirable. That was before they were disabused of such flights of fancy, however.
Afaik, most were within the last year, with all within the last two or three years. Certainly all were since Iraq and Afghanistan. The RIR Parade in Shropshire, for instance, was in August or September this year - just before those in Belfast and Ballymena. ;)
Believe me, such Parades are happening all the time throughout the UK. It is only those in NI which are deemed to be "newsworthy" enough to command attention from the national media.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
It might not be a perfect Referee, but the UN is the only one we've got. Therefore, if you can't/won't accept even the UN's legitmacy, then there is little point in my trying to debate with you.
Or you could at least admit there hand was forced and that they got it horribly wrong.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
I agree Saddam could (and should) have been "boxed in" by sanctions etc without the need for the invasion; however, that does not mean he still was not harbouring expansionist ambitions, nor that the passage of a mere decade or two in any way lessened the fears of his neighbours (or the Kurds, for that matter).
Bullsh*t. He was neutered, rendered incapable of evening attempting expansion. And if there was such a clear and present danger why wasn't that adduced as
casus belli for the grimy 'war'?
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
Perhaps so, but for all that I deplore the way Blair deceived us into the invasion, it is still ridiculous for people in your or my situation to compare him with Hitler.
In your opinion (you can only be killed once, by whomsoever by whatever means).
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
Perhaps the problem is one of terminology. When I hear the word "mercenary", I think of people like this (after he started meddling in Angola and Equitorial Guinea, obviously):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mann
What you and other critics appear not to accept is that all sorts of different people have all sorts of motives for becoming a soldier, and simply to lump together as "mercenaries" all those who are not serving their "own" country is an insult. For such people include not only those such as Irishmen or Indians who served in the BA down the centuries, but also e.g. those who from outside Spain who fought on opposing sides for the International Brigades or the Royalists during the Spanish Civil War.
Now you and I may agree easily enough on which of those sets of combattants we prefer, but by your definition, both sides may equally be called "mercenaries".
Tricky, isn't it?
Except that the volunteers who fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War were not waged. Not really that tricky, they took no money,
per se, to fight for their beliefs. And money has been my
key criterion all along.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
Afaik, most were within the last year, with all within the last two or three years. Certainly all were since Iraq and Afghanistan. The RIR Parade in Shropshire, for instance, was in August or September this year - just before those in Belfast and Ballymena. ;)
Believe me, such Parades are happening all the time throughout the UK. It is only those in NI which are deemed to be "newsworthy" enough to command attention from the national media.
Yet, military personnel in Britain have been lately advised not to wear their uniforms in civvy-street, obviously because the population in Britain are so very proud of them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505864/Afghan-heroes-home-Christmas-forced-change-uniforms-freezing-runway-using-airport-terminal.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/07/military
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3500926.ece
EG - What is your opinion on countries that enabled Sadam to become expansionist for a time. I'm talking about the US, British and Germans that sold Sadam gas that he used 1st against the Iranians in the Iran v Iraq war, a war he started with the blessing of the west for fear of Iran. He then went on to use them against the Kurds after the Iranians had vacated the Kurdish villages of Iraq. Do you see nothing even slightly wrong with arming a mass murder, standing by as he does your dirty deeds and then sending an army in to overthrow him for having "weapons of mass destruction" - weapons your government gave him? Don't you see anything wrong with this picture when millions of people get killed for being in the middle of these little games? This is quite clearly morally wrong.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on December 03, 2008, 07:12:17 PM
I am convinced that Roger's rantings about Irish Culture are are more a fear on his behalf, he is so ambivalent and blind towards Irish culture that he cannot even appreciate its values and place within society. His view is sadly shared by a large amount of Love Ulster types, their paranoia towards Irishness and Irish people is actually dangerous. It is exactly the kind of rubbish that loyalists have been fed for years by politicians i.e. Dublin is the enemy and hate all things associated with it. If they say it enough they will believe, sad.
I have no fear of "Irish Culture", I am Irish. I just don't like parts of the republican Irish culture which is dominant in the republic and trumpeted by republicans in N Ireland. Can't see how that is dangerous. Are the frequent ranters on here about other Irish cultures such as Orangism dangerous or is that just a culture that shouldn't be allowed in Ireland and Irish culture? There is a mix of cultures in Ireland, I just don't like the anti-Brit bits which in my view are in the games, songs, place names, general psyche that Brits are to blame and are not nice people, whilst Irishmen have been contributing positively to British culture, country and army for hundreds of years to the present time and are so entwined as someone else on here has said.
I have however noted that many British Irishmen have a jaundiced view and indeed a prejudice to "Irish" culture in general which has been to their loss. I would include myself in that, which is nothing to be proud of but I think it's fairly honest approach and not dangerous in the slightest. I think when people cover up or deny their prejudices it is more dangerous.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
It might not be a perfect Referee, but the UN is the only one we've got. Therefore, if you can't/won't accept even the UN's legitmacy, then there is little point in my trying to debate with you.
Or you could at least admit there hand was forced and that they got it horribly wrong.
Whose "hand was forced"? If you mean the UN, they authorised Afghanistan, but declined to authorise Iraq, which is proof that they can resist being "forced" to approve anything they don't like.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
I agree Saddam could (and should) have been "boxed in" by sanctions etc without the need for the invasion; however, that does not mean he still was not harbouring expansionist ambitions, nor that the passage of a mere decade or two in any way lessened the fears of his neighbours (or the Kurds, for that matter).
Bullsh*t. He was neutered, rendered incapable of evening attempting expansion. And if there was such a clear and present danger why wasn't that adduced as casus belli for the grimy 'war'?
Actually, the WMD, and their capacity to threaten neighbouring states as far as Cyprus
were adduced by the US/UK as the
casus belli. The fact that no WMD's were subsequently found, or even whether that might have been expected, is a separate matter.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
Perhaps so, but for all that I deplore the way Blair deceived us into the invasion, it is still ridiculous for people in your or my situation to compare him with Hitler.
In your opinion (you can only be killed once, by whomsoever by whatever means).
Obviously an Iraqi who suffered during the invasion is going to think less fabourably about Bush/Blair than e.g. a German anti-Semite might about Hitler. They will both be subjective. But if you honestly consider that e.g. Blair is as bad as Hitler, then you either lack objectivity or you are an idiot.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
Perhaps the problem is one of terminology. When I hear the word "mercenary", I think of people like this (after he started meddling in Angola and Equitorial Guinea, obviously):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mann
What you and other critics appear not to accept is that all sorts of different people have all sorts of motives for becoming a soldier, and simply to lump together as "mercenaries" all those who are not serving their "own" country is an insult. For such people include not only those such as Irishmen or Indians who served in the BA down the centuries, but also e.g. those who from outside Spain who fought on opposing sides for the International Brigades or the Royalists during the Spanish Civil War.
Now you and I may agree easily enough on which of those sets of combattants we prefer, but by your definition, both sides may equally be called "mercenaries".
Tricky, isn't it?
Except that the volunteers who fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War were not waged. Not really that tricky, they took no money, per se, to fight for their beliefs. And money has been my key criterion all along.
Actually I thought your key criteria were a combination of money and fighting for a country other than ones own.
So do you consider e.g. those Irish people like O'Duffy who volunteered to fight (unwaged) for the Catholic/Royalist forces in 1935 not to be mercenaries, but those other Irish people who joined the British Army four years later to fight Hitler for pay to be so?
Or was e.g. Marine McKibbin from Westport still a mercenary had he actually been able to earn more money in Civvy Street than he did in the RM?
Indeed, there will be many
British-born soldiers in the BA who remain in service, despite the fact they could easily earn more if they left.
And how do you assess volunteers born in the Commonwealth, who therefore have a connection with the UK that is not one of birthplace?
The fact that all of the above may have volunteered to join a legitimate army and fight in recognised conflicts, without money being their primary consideration, counts more for me in defining them than the country they were born in. Which is why I prefer to call them
professional soldiers, rather than use your perjorative term, mercenaries.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2008, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 01:11:53 PM
Afaik, most were within the last year, with all within the last two or three years. Certainly all were since Iraq and Afghanistan. The RIR Parade in Shropshire, for instance, was in August or September this year - just before those in Belfast and Ballymena. ;)
Believe me, such Parades are happening all the time throughout the UK. It is only those in NI which are deemed to be "newsworthy" enough to command attention from the national media.
Yet, military personnel in Britain have been lately advised not to wear their uniforms in civvy-street, obviously because the population in Britain are so very proud of them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505864/Afghan-heroes-home-Christmas-forced-change-uniforms-freezing-runway-using-airport-terminal.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/07/military
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3500926.ece
You originally claimed that no homecoming parades are able to be held anywhere in the UK, on the basis that they attract such opprobrium from the general population, indeed are not wanted to be held in the first place. That is patent nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that such parades are now becoming the norm, rather than the exception, as the Armed Services return home to base after each overseas tour. And if I could be arsed, I could easily provide many more examples to prove that when they do so, the reception by all the local people who turn out is overwhelmingly welcoming, as those video clips demonstrate.
So that when you cite a few isolated examples e.g. of CO's requiring individual soldiers to wear civvies rather than uniform when out and about, you are clearly backtracking. Of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provoked opposition amongst a section of the population, such that if on a night out, some squaddies e.g. from Catterick should decide to nip into Bradford for a curry, then it is only sensible not to wear uniform when entering an overwhelmingly Muslim area.
Indeed, long before the army was ever in Iraq or Afghanistan, soldiers have often had to take such precautions to avoid e.g. punch-ups with the locals, or rows over girls etc, when out in their local town centre on a Saturday night.
But none of this detracts from the fact that the average British citizen, even including many who disapprove of the invasion of Iraq etc, are quite capable of distinguishing between the politicians who send the forces in, and the the individual squaddies who make up those forces. Which is why all are pleased to see them home safe and sound from having done their duty.
P.S. Having just re-read properly the four links you make, three of those are actually the same incident, whereby RAF Regiment personnnel were advised not to wear uniform when out in Peterborough, and the fourth was an airport requiring soldiers to change into civvies when passing through the main terminal etc. Yet closer reading reveals that Wittering was likely an overreaction by a desk-bound staff officer or somesuch, and the Birmingham Airport incident appears to have followed confusion from the fact that some individual airlines do not carry anyone in military uniform, for security purposes.
So considering there are hundreds of thousands of military and related service personnel stationed on thousands of sites throughout the UK, if that's the best you can come up with, that's very poor indeed! :D
Has to be in the running for the GAAboard awards for longest post of the year :'(
Quote from: full back on December 04, 2008, 04:29:16 PM
Has to be in the running for the GAAboard awards for longest post of the year :'(
That's the "So What?" and the "Adding Absolutely Nothing to a Serious Debate" Awards firmly sewn up for this year, too, I'd guess...
Talk about boring people to death............. :-[
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 04:25:19 PM
Whose "hand was forced"? If you mean the UN, they authorised Afghanistan, but declined to authorise Iraq, which is proof that they can resist being "forced" to approve anything they don't like.
The absence of proof, is not proof of absence. That they failed to authorise Iraq, does not mean that the Afghan resolution was free of coercion.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 04:25:19 PM
Actually, the WMD, and their capacity to threaten neighbouring states as far as Cyprus were adduced by the US/UK as the casus belli. The fact that no WMD's were subsequently found, or even whether that might have been expected, is a separate matter
You claimed he had creditable expansionist aspirations, which is patent nonsense. That they had to fabricate 'evidence' to prove he had WMDs, proves nothing other than they lied to invade.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 04:25:19 PM
Obviously an Iraqi who suffered during the invasion is going to think less fabourably about Bush/Blair than e.g. a German anti-Semite might about Hitler. They will both be subjective. But if you honestly consider that e.g. Blair is as bad as Hitler, then you either lack objectivity or you are an idiot.
You speak as though Bush and Blair come out of this with some kind of perverted honour. Insofar as the suffering Iraqis are concerned, Bush and Blair are every bit as bad as Hitler where Iraq is concerned -- you can't get any deader than dead, for example. In fact, the Germans did not wreak as much destruction as a matter of routine war, the
Blitzkriegs notwithstanding. Your naivity in relation to this 'war' is rather enlightening, if somewhat unsurprising.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 04:25:19 PM
Actually I thought your key criteria were a combination of money and fighting for a country other than ones own.
So do you consider e.g. those Irish people like O'Duffy who volunteered to fight (unwaged) for the Catholic/Royalist forces in 1935 not to be mercenaries, but those other Irish people who joined the British Army four years later to fight Hitler for pay to be so?
Or was e.g. Marine McKibbin from Westport still a mercenary had he actually been able to earn more money in Civvy Street than he did in the RM?
Indeed, there will be many British-born soldiers in the BA who remain in service, despite the fact they could easily earn more if they left.
And how do you assess volunteers born in the Commonwealth, who therefore have a connection with the UK that is not one of birthplace?
The fact that all of the above may have volunteered to join a legitimate army and fight in recognised conflicts, without money being their primary consideration, counts more for me in defining them than the country they were born in. Which is why I prefer to call them professional soldiers, rather than use your perjorative term, mercenaries.
Ho hum, look at what I originally said, money yes, and the fact that it is for a country other than your own is, sort of, blindingly obvious. You have your preference, I have mine.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2008, 04:25:19 PM
You originally claimed that no homecoming parades are able to be held anywhere in the UK, on the basis that they attract such opprobrium from the general population, indeed are not wanted to be held in the first place. That is patent nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that such parades are now becoming the norm, rather than the exception, as the Armed Services return home to base after each overseas tour. And if I could be arsed, I could easily provide many more examples to prove that when they do so, the reception by all the local people who turn out is overwhelmingly welcoming, as those video clips demonstrate.
So that when you cite a few isolated examples e.g. of CO's requiring individual soldiers to wear civvies rather than uniform when out and about, you are clearly backtracking. Of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provoked opposition amongst a section of the population, such that if on a night out, some squaddies e.g. from Catterick should decide to nip into Bradford for a curry, then it is only sensible not to wear uniform when entering an overwhelmingly Muslim area.
Indeed, long before the army was ever in Iraq or Afghanistan, soldiers have often had to take such precautions to avoid e.g. punch-ups with the locals, or rows over girls etc, when out in their local town centre on a Saturday night.
But none of this detracts from the fact that the average British citizen, even including many who disapprove of the invasion of Iraq etc, are quite capable of distinguishing between the politicians who send the forces in, and the the individual squaddies who make up those forces. Which is why all are pleased to see them home safe and sound from having done their duty.
P.S. Having just re-read properly the four links you make, three of those are actually the same incident, whereby RAF Regiment personnnel were advised not to wear uniform when out in Peterborough, and the fourth was an airport requiring soldiers to change into civvies when passing through the main terminal etc. Yet closer reading reveals that Wittering was likely an overreaction by a desk-bound staff officer or somesuch, and the Birmingham Airport incident appears to have followed confusion from the fact that some individual airlines do not carry anyone in military uniform, for security purposes.
So considering there are hundreds of thousands of military and related service personnel stationed on thousands of sites throughout the UK, if that's the best you can come up with, that's very poor indeed! :D
OK, so I should proof-read what I post links to in future :P, though the fact that RAF,
even the RAF, personnel have to be circumspect about what they wear in public is a powerful indication of just how unpopular these squalid little wars are. And you have actually succeeded now in boring me to death. So, I'm dead!
Quote from: Roger on December 04, 2008, 04:10:56 PM
I just don't like the anti-Brit bits which in my view are in the games, songs, place names, general psyche that Brits are to blame and are not nice people,
I know I shouldnt even bother to reply to such an unknowing eejit but ..For your info Roger you thicko - 95% of Irish place names ( i.e in all 32 Counties) are simply anglicised spellings/pronunciations of the original Irish langauge names for the places which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.
They were there long before there were such things as "Brits" and you can rest assured they will still be there long after there are such things as "Brits"
3,000 years of culture and heritage will not disappear because some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2008, 09:37:22 PM
some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.
I assume you are talking about derry. Why must everyone make such a fecking deal about what people choose to call the place.
No Nifan - I'm talking about those "anti Brit" placenames like Ballymena/Baile Meanach,Ballynahinch/Baile na hInse,Ballynafeigh/Baile na ....?,Larne/Latharna,Shankill/Sean Chill,.............and about 100,000 more all over Ireland that were getting up that Roger's nose. :D
Maybe he should move to more Brit named places like Salthill or Strandhill or Summerhill.......
I'm not sure how you got onto Doire/Derry unless amybe you just wanted to plug tyour own place? ;)
I misread country for county....
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2008, 09:37:22 PMI know I shouldnt even bother to reply to such an unknowing eejit but ..For your info Roger you thicko - 95% of Irish place names ( i.e in all 32 Counties) are simply anglicised spellings/pronunciations of the original Irish langauge names for the places which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.
They were there long before there were such things as "Brits" and you can rest assured they will still be there long after there are such things as "Brits"
3,000 years of culture and heritage will not disappear because some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.
The personal insults are amusing but you have taken the wrong end of the stick. Whilst not overly clear I was actually referring to the Republic of Ireland and the way it is named Ireland and the way Northern Ireland is The North, "here" or 6 Counties. That said, Nifan and your own wee conversation could highlight the county situation in Londonderry, and that's before Offaly and Laois are considered. Counties are not 3000 years of Gaelic culture but they were British administrative areas but whilst convenient for republicans too in that culture some names are just too Brit to handle.
Quote from: Roger on December 05, 2008, 09:14:52 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2008, 09:37:22 PMI know I shouldnt even bother to reply to such an unknowing eejit but ..For your info Roger you thicko - 95% of Irish place names ( i.e in all 32 Counties) are simply anglicised spellings/pronunciations of the original Irish langauge names for the places which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.
They were there long before there were such things as "Brits" and you can rest assured they will still be there long after there are such things as "Brits"
3,000 years of culture and heritage will not disappear because some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.
The personal insults are amusing but you have taken the wrong end of the stick. Whilst not overly clear I was actually referring to the Republic of Ireland and the way it is named Ireland and the way Northern Ireland is The North, "here" or 6 Counties. That said, Nifan and your own wee conversation could highlight the county situation in Londonderry, and that's before Offaly and Laois are considered. Counties are not 3000 years of Gaelic culture but they were British administrative areas but whilst convenient for republicans too in that culture some names are just too Brit to handle.
What's the beef with Offaly and Laois? Unhappy they are no longer King's County and Queen's County???????
Do you think that after the British government authorised a war of terror on people that said people really wanted to have their area named after the head of said government?
Time to get real here. You are really clutching at straws now. Just like people could be anti-British Army with being anti-British, so too someone might just be anti-King/Queen.
/Jim.
QuoteI just don't like parts of the republican Irish culture which is dominant in the republic
Mmmm - Where do you start analysing this? Not even a grasp of the Queen's English.
Quote from: Roger on December 05, 2008, 09:14:52 AM
and that's before Offaly and Laois are considered.
People can rename the counties, towns etc of their country in whatever manner they choose, god knows our lot renamed enough. We have to accept those things and move on.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 05, 2008, 10:19:19 AM
What's the beef with Offaly and Laois? Unhappy they are no longer King's County and Queen's County???????
I gave my view only to be called names by those in denial. Personally the anti-Brit sentiment south of the border doesn't effect me but observing isn't a crime. I mentioned the names given by republican culture to places in Ireland, but was really referring to the names of the states in Ireland. I was pulled up for it on a tangent about ancient names of places in Ireland but that tangential argument interestingly highlights the county system (British) which was adopted by republicans and anything too Brit got renamed something more in keeping with the republican Politics but which was never the name for that county dating back 3000 years. Currently the county system has seen two changed and one other has people in denial about it for this reason.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 05, 2008, 10:19:19 AMDo you think that after the British government authorised a war of terror on people that said people really wanted to have their area named after the head of said government?
Comments like to make worthy the anti-Brit nature within "Irish" culture (ie that of Irish Republicans) but this has moved from denial to justification of it.
Quote from: nifan on December 05, 2008, 10:39:09 AM
People can rename the counties, towns etc of their country in whatever manner they choose, god knows our lot renamed enough. We have to accept those things and move on.
Fair point. But you can't deny the reason for it and call anyone who observes it as stupid and chat about 3000 years of history for a county. What about the names of the states in Ireland? Who has moved on?
Quote from: full back on December 04, 2008, 04:36:00 PM
Talk about boring people to death............. :-[
Agree!
I never read eg's posts zzzzzzzzzz
Why people are engaging with the board's new found bigot is beyond me too.
I suppose it's much easier to dismiss the differing viewpoint out of hand and simply insult the poster. Nice wee Utopian bubble you got there pintsofguinness ;)
I don't have much time for viewpoints based on either sheer incredible ignorance or bigotry, sorry.
Quote from: Roger on December 05, 2008, 10:42:40 AM
Comments like to make worthy the anti-Brit nature within "Irish" culture (ie that of Irish Republicans) but this has moved from denial to justification of it.
No actually comments like that set the context of the time. You were the one that said that you had issue with "current" Irish culture. Well no-one is renaming is renaming counties these days. Do you want to name counties back from the 1920's changes?
Since you have come on here you have flip-flopped on your time. You conceded you are prejudiced (but said it is with good reason and your are happy to remain so) and no point (even matters of fact) has changed your outlook.
Then when people say the are not going to engage with you give a riposte about differing view points.
You yourself are consistently dismissive of any "differing viewpoint", no matter how reasonably put, so what's the point.
People said you were a WUM and I am beginning to think they are right. I actually think you are trying to goad people into a reaction so you can feel satisfied that your prejudices are correct. A sort of on-line Willie Frazer.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 05, 2008, 12:32:15 PM
No actually comments like that set the context of the time. You were the one that said that you had issue with "current" Irish culture. Well no-one is renaming is renaming counties these days. Do you want to name counties back from the 1920's changes?
If you read the posts I was actually talking about the current inaccuracy of naming the two states. Others leapt onto ancient history which simply highlighted more recent "Irish" culture which dominates the current culture. There was a Republic of Ireland judge either this year or last that said he didn't want to hear "Londonderry" in his court. The road signs in the Republic currently have the wrong name for Londonderry in the Republic of Ireland. This is the same cultural view that daminates and accepted as Irish that changed Offaly and Laois.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 05, 2008, 12:32:15 PMSince you have come on here you have flip-flopped on your time. You conceded you are prejudiced (but said it is with good reason and your are happy to remain so) and no point (even matters of fact) has changed your outlook.
I stated I had a jaundiced view / prejudice towards "Irish" culture generally because of the anti-British nature of a lot of Irish culture therefore missing out on the bits that are actually shared and culturally rich. No one else has any prejudice on here but me of course, they simply deny alternative viewpoints and say Irish = Ireland = Republic of Ireland and anyone else is given personal insults.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 05, 2008, 12:32:15 PMThen when people say the are not going to engage with you give a riposte about differing view points.
You yourself are consistently dismissive of any "differing viewpoint", no matter how reasonably put, so what's the point.
Hang on a minute Jim. The only thing I've been dismissive of is the Irish language but I'd be equally dismissive of Ulster Scots, Latin, Ancient Greek or any language like that. I'm supportive of the right to learn it but I just don't want taxes disproportionately funding this hobby which is really about a Poltical issue. Additionally I'm not dismissive of others' views but in context of this response from you I'm simply observing that the viewpoint exists whereas people seem to be denying them. You yourself stated the Republic of Ireland is not anti-Brit but justified the reason for an action that demonstrated anti-Britishness. I simply observed it, I didn't say anything about it. In the context of time, the state of the Republic is relatively new, so anything in that time is pretty relevant.
The kind of stuff that I have been saying is what that Irish peace and reconciliation group in the Republic stated about the ROI culture and treatment of non-nationalists/non-republican ethos in Ireland. They produced a report and it infuriated the ROI government and was dismissed out of hand yet they were represented by a significant number of peace campaigners from down south. Seems to me that a strict policy of denial, dismissal and status quo is the consistent theme when it comes to any criticism of anything "Irish".
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 05, 2008, 12:32:15 PMPeople said you were a WUM and I am beginning to think they are right. I actually think you are trying to goad people into a reaction so you can feel satisfied that your prejudices are correct. A sort of on-line Willie Frazer.
Let's just leave it there then.
Quote from: Roger on December 05, 2008, 01:01:52 PM
road signs in the Republic currently have the wrong name for Londonderry in the Republic of Ireland.
What a silly incorrect comment.
1-there's no such place as "Londonderry" in the 26 Cos.
2- the vast majority of people who live in thst City by the Foyle which is administered by the
Derry City Council call the place
Derry( which is an anglicised phonetic spelling of Doire - they left out the Colmcille because Prods seem to think he was a Scottish saint called Columba).
Those who benefitted from militaristic violence to take the land off the people who had been there for about 2500 years added a London to the front of it because they were some City of London traders.
So who changed names there? ;)
I suggest Roger( if you are a real poster not a WUM) you learn a biteen of Irish History before you start tying yourself in knots here.
Quote from: Roger on December 05, 2008, 01:01:52 PM
You yourself are consistently dismissive of any "differing viewpoint", no matter how reasonably put, so what's the point.
Hang on a minute Jim. The only thing I've been dismissive of is the Irish language but I'd be equally dismissive of Ulster Scots, Latin, Ancient Greek or any language like that. I'm supportive of the right to learn it but
I just don't want taxes disproportionately funding this hobby which is really about a Poltical issue. Additionally I'm not dismissive of others' views but in context of this response from you I'm simply observing that the viewpoint exists whereas people seem to be denying them. You yourself stated the Republic of Ireland is not anti-Brit but justified the reason for an action that demonstrated anti-Britishness. I simply observed it, I didn't say anything about it. In the context of time, the state of the Republic is relatively new, so anything in that time is pretty relevant.
[/quote]
the funding of the six counties would fall into your categorisation !
presumably you feel the same way about this too (and the 'union') :D
If there is no such place to people from the '26 Cos' because you don't like the name then that is their prerogative, but that doesn't make it correct or me a WUM for simpling observing anti-British attitude on a name change.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 05, 2008, 03:14:05 PM
the funding of the six counties would fall into your categorisation !
presumably you feel the same way about this too (and the 'union') :D
And people think I'm on the wind up! ::)
Quote from: Roger on December 05, 2008, 03:16:46 PM
If there is no such place to people from the '26 Cos' because you don't like the name then that is their prerogative, but that doesn't make it correct or me a WUM for simpling observing anti-British attitude on a name change.
maybe you should go meet/find some unionist/loyalists from Derry to find out that they actually call it Derry !
::)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 05, 2008, 03:22:05 PM
maybe you should go meet/find some unionist/loyalists from Derry to find out that they actually call it Derry !
::)
Some do, some dont
some will call it either, often using Londonderry in more official conversation
Some seemingly randomly choose what to call it.
Roger will soon put manners on those who dont call it his way ;)
Quote from: nifan on December 05, 2008, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 05, 2008, 03:22:05 PM
maybe you should go meet/find some unionist/loyalists from Derry to find out that they actually call it Derry !
::)
Some do, some dont
some will call it either, often using Londonderry in more official conversation
Some seemingly randomly choose what to call it.
you know as well as I do that there is a significant amount just call it derry as you yourself have admitted to doing
conversely I dont know any Derry folk (sorry meant nationalist/catholics) that call it london Derry.
the only ones that might are the tyronies - who seem quite loyal to the queen for some unknown reason.
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 05, 2008, 04:14:13 PM
you know as well as I do that there is a significant amount just call it derry as you yourself have admitted to doing
conversely I dont know any Derry folk (sorry meant nationalist/catholics) that call it london Derry.
the only ones that might are the tyronies - who seem quite loyal to the queen for some unknown reason.
:D
Why tell me "you know as well as I do that there is a significant amount...." when i just said that some do.
I have met a few catholics who use the term Londonderry, but they seem to do so when talking "officially". It would be a negligibly small number.
Ive always called it Derry for as long as I can remember, but Ive no problem with londonderry being used either.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 05, 2008, 03:05:45 PM
I suggest Roger( if you are a real poster not a WUM) you learn a biteen of Irish History before you start tying yourself in knots here.
Far too late for that Rossfan :D
I'm just amazed that people are either bothering to engage this Roger character.
He is quite clearly on here purely to throw insults and get a reaction.
Either that or he actually beleives what he posts, which isnt very believable.
Quote from: his holiness nb on December 05, 2008, 05:22:21 PM
.
or he actually beleives what he posts,
No one could be that daft :D .... could they... ::)