gaaboard.com

New memorial unveiled to Seán Russell
A new memorial in honour of Irish republican Seán Russell was unveiled in Dublin's Fairview Park on Sunday, 28 June [2009].
Born in Fairview in 1893 Seán Russell was a veteran of the 1916 Rising, the Tan war and Civil War and was Chief of Staff during the IRA's bombing campaign in England, launched in 1939.The original memorial was badly vandalised in an attack in December 2004.
Last weekend's unveiling ceremony was conducted by the National Graves Association which commissioned the new statue by sculptor Willie Malone. The statue was unveiled by Paddy Ryan and Sean Dougan.
A wreath was laid on behalf of Sinn Féin by the party's Dublin City Council group leader Larry O'Toole.
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/38452



As this article by Henry McDonald* points out, Russell has some more entries on his CV, which his sympathisers curiously omit to mention:

Who do we think we are kidding ... of course the Brits killed Sean Russell

Henry McDonald
Sunday 16 January 2005 - The Observer

Watching Where Eagles Dare for the umpteenth time it suddenly dawned on me why that well-known anti-fascist, progressive, Jew-loving, Irish republican socialist Sean Russell ended up dying on a Nazi submarine in World War Two - the Brits did it. The evidence for this is contained in Alistair MacLean's intricately plotted wartime novel and later film starring Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton. Eastwood and Burton dress up as German officers in order to con the thicko Krauts with the aim of ultimately unmasking the Germans' top agent inside MI6 back in Blighty. Having seen the movie once more I'm convinced that there is nothing the Brits wouldn't do in terms of trickery and chicanery to get their way. Which brings us to the current bout of Nazi-denial in Ireland.
Just before Christmas, persons unknown severed the head of the Sean Russell statue in Fairview Park, North Dublin. The monument was erected by the National Graves Association and honours the IRA's commanding officer during the Second World War. The facts about Russell's tenure as IRA O/C as well as his death are crystal clear. As British cities were relentlessly bombed during the Luftwaffe Blitz Russell dispatched bombers of his own to England. Explosions killed civilians in cities such as Coventry while industries and military installations in Northern Ireland were targeted, all at a time when the Free World was fighting a war of survival against Hitler's armies. Moreover, Russell was feted in Berlin and travelled there voluntarily. In order to aid the IRA campaign to disrupt the British war effort Russell was transported back from Berlin in 1944 on a U-boat. During the voyage home Russell became extremely ill and died before he could be landed back on Irish soil.

Despite these facts there has been an orchestrated campaign of Nazi-like denial ever since Russell's statue was vandalised. Those behind the beheading issued a statement claiming they did so in memory of the millions the Nazis murdered. Regardless of their motivation the act itself was a piece of tokenistic protest posturing. Because if they had really wanted to shine a light into this very dark corner of Irish republican history then the vandals would have been better protesting in Fairview Park, holding seminars to discuss the IRA/Nazi links in the 1940s and publicly challenging anyone, including the Sinn Fein MEP for Dublin Mary Lou McDonald, who rushes to honour Russell as to why they feel it's alright to rally round a statue of one of Adolf Hitler's allies in World War Two. The attack on the monument merely turns Russell into a martyr once more.

Disapproval of the vandalism, however, should not deflect anyone from the truth about what the IRA's O/C and his comrades were up to in the Forties. In his very candid memoir, the late Paddy Devlin admitted that during the war there was a great degree of sympathy for the Nazis inside the IRA in Belfast. Devlin recalled that while in Crumlin Road jail he and his comrades enthusiastically plotted the advance of the Germans into the Soviet Union on a map in their prison cell. Each time news came through the radio about Nazi victories he and the other IRA inmates would cheer to the rafters.

Even in the face of historical fact the Nazi-like denial campaign has been building up steam lately, both in Dublin and Belfast. The NGA, which has vowed to reconstruct the statue, brands anyone linking Russell with the Third Reich as 'ignorant'. The NGA reminds the Irish public that Russell was not alone on the U-boat; the ex-IRA Spanish Civil War veteran Frank Ryan accompanied him on that fated voyage. Usually intelligent republican writers and critics such as Liam O'Ruaric in Belfast have also gone down the Nazi-like denial line pointing to Ryan's presence on the submarine and the fact that so many IRA veterans like him fought on the Republican side in Spain. The latter point is true of course. Irishmen and women like the late Paddy McAllister from the Lower Falls travelled to Spain to defend the Republic. Yet to use their defence of democracy to defend Sean Russell's strategic decision to ally the IRA with Hitler in the war is to insult their memory. And as for Frank Ryan, unlike Russell who was a free agent, the founder of Republican Congress was a virtual prisoner of the Nazis, having been rescued from a Francoist firing squad by German intelligence agents. Of course the invite to Berlin, the S-Plan, the IRA/Nazi alliance, the U-boat and the burial of Russell at sea complete with swastika flag and military honours may have been the work of British intelligence. Yes, of course that's it. The whole thing was an invention by latter-day securocrats aimed at blackening the name of the IRA by associating it with the Nazis. Just like Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood, those German submariners were, in fact, Brit agents and that U-boat came from a deepwater port somewhere in Scotland. Maybe Oliver Stone could make a film about it.


Of course, Sean Russell was only one of a number of Nazi collaboratos amongst Irish Republicans (albeit a leader), as the following demonstrates:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II

And at the same time as leading Republicans such as Gerry Adams's father and Uncle Dominic etc were up to their eyes in the above, young men from the Unionist community such as Capt.Terence O'Neill (Irish Guards Officer), James Chichester-Clarke (wounded at Anzio), or James Molyneaux (6 years in the RAF, present at the liberation of Belsen) were volunteering  to join the fight against Hitler. (All three went on to be leaders of the Ulster Unionist Party, btw)

Yet Sinn Fein claims that they are the Socialists, whiles Unionists are Nazis.  I'm tempted to say that "you couldn't make it up" - only those hypocritical fcukers already have... >:(




* - The usual "shoot the messenger" jibes are understood,  so there's neither use nor value in reproducing them, in an attempt to deflect attention away from the message... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 02:52:15 PM

Of course, Sean Russell was only one of a number of Nazi collaboratos amongst Irish Republicans (albeit a leader), as the following demonstrates:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II

And at the same time as leading Republicans such as Gerry Adams's father and Uncle Dominic etc were up to their eyes in the above, young men from the Unionist community such as Capt.Terence O'Neill (Irish Guards Officer), James Chichester-Clarke (wounded at Anzio), or James Molyneaux (6 years in the RAF, present at the liberation of Belsen) were volunteering  to join the fight against Hitler. (All three went on to be leaders of the Ulster Unionist Party, btw)

Yet Sinn Fein claims that they are the Socialists, whiles Unionists are Nazis.  I'm tempted to say that "you couldn't make it up" - only those hypocritical fcukers already have... >:(




* - The usual "shoot the messenger" jibes are understood,  so there's neither use nor value in reproducing them, in an attempt to deflect attention away from the message...[/i] ::)

what would this 'message' actually be ?


btw :wikipedia is an impecible source alright
and I believe it has been demonstrated on here before that the unionists were guilty of an aparthied system that was not too far removed from what the nazi's implemented, although not to the same level of killing it has to be said.

but please, what IS your message here?

[citation needed]

I'm not going to argue either way but it's a good bit of research there Evilgenius.

Too much time on his hands.

And a General Eric Dorman Smith from Coothill in Co. Cavan was heavily involved in the defeat of Rommell in North Africa.

One assumes that if the likes of Seán Russell is going to be condemned for the actions of his allies, then the likes of Chichester Clarke et al must also be held to the same standard. You do know who Britain's allies were, don't you?

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 03:14:34 PM
One assumes that if the likes of Seán Russell is going to be condemned for the actions of his allies, then the likes of Chichester Clarke et al must also be held to the same standard. You do know who Britain's allies were, don't you?

Not the Poles or the Yankees surely ?

Is there anything on Wikipedia Evil Genius won't w**k over??

As far as the rest of the world knew up until very late on in the world, it was a "normal" war (the atrocities carried out by the Germans, and to a much lesser extent the British only came to light later on).
In warfare is there not an old adage - "my enemys enemy is my friend".


Here EG just for you as I know your a big fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend

Quote from: orangeman on July 09, 2009, 03:21:59 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 03:14:34 PM
One assumes that if the likes of Seán Russell is going to be condemned for the actions of his allies, then the likes of Chichester Clarke et al must also be held to the same standard. You do know who Britain's allies were, don't you?

Not the Poles or the Yankees surely ?

The Poles certainly were their allies. Until the end of the war, when they became the enemy. They must have eaten some evil or something

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell

"...Irish historian Brian Hanley suggests that Russell was not a Nazi..."  Well it says it in Wikipedia so it must be true ???

I would suggest that neither Mr McDonald's article from 2005 nor EG's resurrection of it in 2009 represent "news".

BTW...were not O'Neill, Mollyknocks and Chichester-Clarke allied with Stalin??

Molyneaux was also a member (and one time Vice President) of the Conservative Monday Club which advocated a policy of voluntary, or assisted, repatriation for non-white immigrants...(sound familiar??...)...It was claimed by opponents of the club that many members had drawn closer to the National Front, it being reported as early as 1973 that NF members were moving to take over branches of the club.

Actually Wiikipedia might be useful

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 02:58:36 PM
what would this 'message' actually be ?

but please, what IS your message here?

The "message" is quite simple, actually: namely, whilst the Shinners claim to be a Socialist party, at the same time they made common cause with Fascism during WWII, including eg murdering entirely innocent civilians in England in a bombing campaign, assisting the Luftwaffe in the bombing of Belfast, cheering Hitler's successes against the USSR, and assisting Nazi Agents sent over to the Free State etc.
And far from being repentant about this murkiest and most repugnant of activities, they are actually "honouring" Russell, the most prominent of their Nazi-loving leaders, whilst conveniently attempting to air-brush that particular aspect of his past from the record.
But if such a concept is too difficult for you to follow, just concentrate on the term "hypocrite"... ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 02:58:36 PM
btw :wikipedia is an impecible source alright

I am standing by the sources which I quoted; if you think them unreliable, then it is up to you to demonstrate how. Which, if nothing else, might provide you with an "escape clause" from addressing the main message of this thread...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 02:58:36 PM
and I believe it has been demonstrated on here before that the unionists were guilty of an aparthied system that was not too far removed from what the nazi's implemented, although not to the same level of killing it has to be said.

You may "believe" it, but no such thing has been "demonstrated" on this Board, merely alleged, by you. Moreover, it is notable that when you have sought to repeat your allegation, it has received little or no support from anywhere on this Board, even from amongst "the usual suspects". (I suspect even they find your ludicrous and offensive claims in this respect to be embarrassing).

So if yo0u can manage to find your way back to the real world, perhaps you might care to enlighten us all with your views on Irish Republicanism's collaboration with Nazism during WWII, and their present-day "celebration" of the Collaborator-in-Chief... ::)

Quote from: Denn Forever on July 09, 2009, 03:12:38 PM
And a General Eric Dorman Smith from Coothill in Co. Cavan was heavily involved in the defeat of Rommell in North Africa.

General Smith was only one of many thousands of Irishmen and women, many from the Free State, whose record in the fight against Fascism in WWII was exemplary.

Which prompts the question as to whether the National Graves Commission* will be erecting a statue to Gen.Smith or his colleagues anytime soon?  ::)

(I won't be holding my breath, btw)

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 03:14:34 PM
One assumes that if the likes of Seán Russell is going to be condemned for the actions of his allies, then the likes of Chichester Clarke et al must also be held to the same standard. You do know who Britain's allies were, don't you?

Are we to assume that you see some sort of equivalence between the Allies and the Axis forces during WWII, then?

Jesus H Christ, I've heard it all, now.

P.S. You don't happen to work in the SF Press Office, by any chance?  :o

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:04:55 PM
Are we to assume that you see some sort of equivalence between the Allies and the Axis forces during WWII, then?

Absolutely. If you can't see a comparision between Germany and the Soviet Union you really need to read a bit more.

What's the big deal here anyway? IRA at war with the British seek assistance from the Germans who were conveniently enough at war with the British as well. I'm sure the IRA would have conspired with the Martians if they were also at war with the British at the time.

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
What's the big deal here anyway? IRA at war with the British seek assistance from the Germans who were conveniently enough at war with the British as well. I'm sure the IRA would have conspired with the Martians if they were also at war with the British at the time.

My point exactly, but doesn't suit EG's "agenda" here.

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 03:30:28 PM
Is there anything on Wikipedia Evil Genius won't w**k over??

Wikpedia is neither inherently reliable or inherently unreliable. When I choose to cite it as a reference on this Board, I do so in the full knowledge that any such citation may be challenged.

Mind you, I also do so in the knowledge that any such challenge will invariably be just the usual parrot squawk of "Wiki!, Wiki!", with never any attempt to demonstrate its unreilability or error.

Speaking of which, do you  have any comment on SF's collaboration with the Nazis during WWII, or their (present day) commemoration of collaborator Russell?

(Or are you still too busy trying to prove how Windsor Park was named after the Royal Family in 1905, twelve years before the Royals  even adopted the surname Windsor... ::))

I guess Godwin's law really can't apply here since the Nazi comparison is in the subject heading? Does that mean the 'debate' has run its course before it even started? I think so.

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
What's the big deal here anyway? IRA at war with the British seek assistance from the Germans who were conveniently enough at war with the British as well.

Even if you imagine that allying themselves with the Nazis is nothing to be ashamed of*, how do you square that with the Shinners' claim to be a Socialist party?

Perhaps when every other Socialist party in Europe (and beyond) was fighting and dying in the fight against Hitler and his cronies, their Shinner counterparts in Ireland were alone in being misled by the Nazis' full title?  (To save you Googling, it translates into English as Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party).  ::)


* - Have you any idea what the Nazis were all about?

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
I'm sure the IRA would have conspired with the Martians if they were also at war with the British at the time.

Exactly. Even had the Martians vowed to exterminate every single Jew, Homosexual, Gypsy, Mentally Handicapped etc etc in the world.  

Utterly, utterly shameless, right down to lying through their teeth about it, 64 years later... >:(

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:01:33 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on July 09, 2009, 03:12:38 PM
And a General Eric Dorman Smith from Coothill in Co. Cavan was heavily involved in the defeat of Rommell in North Africa.

General Smith was only one of many thousands of Irishmen and women, many from the Free State, whose record in the fight against Fascism in WWII was exemplary.

Which prompts the question as to whether the National Graves Commission* will be erecting a statue to Gen.Smith or his colleagues anytime soon?  ::)

(I won't be holding my breath, btw)

They have a fine looking memorial already.
http://www.irishwarmemorials.ie/html/showMemorial.php?show=91

You should visit, nice stroll along the Liffey, maybe take in a spot of boating at the adjacent Trinity Boat Club.

And Bertie Ahern was our most prominent Socialist.

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 04:06:57 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:04:55 PM
Are we to assume that you see some sort of equivalence between the Allies and the Axis forces during WWII, then?

Absolutely. If you can't see a comparision between Germany and the Soviet Union you really need to read a bit more.

Wow! So Nazism wasn't really any worse than Communism, then?

I may well be advised to read some more, but I sincerely hope it never covers whatever sh1te you've been reading...

Quote from: Denn Forever on July 09, 2009, 04:30:11 PM
And Bertie Ahern was our most prominent Socalist.

Nope. In fact, he wasn't even your most prominent Hypocrite, either (though he looks to have given it his best shot  ;))

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:23:28 PM

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
What's the big deal here anyway? IRA at war with the British seek assistance from the Germans who were conveniently enough at war with the British as well.

Even if you imagine that allying themselves with the Nazis is nothing to be ashamed of*, how do you square that with the Shinners' claim to be a Socialist party?

Perhaps when every other Socialist party in Europe (and beyond) was fighting and dying in the fight against Hitler and his cronies, their Shinner counterparts in Ireland were alone in being misled by the Nazis' full title?  (To save you Googling, it translates into English as Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party).  ::)


* - Have you any idea what the Nazis were all about?

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
I'm sure the IRA would have conspired with the Martians if they were also at war with the British at the time.

Exactly. Even had the Martians vowed to exterminate every single Jew, Homosexual, Gypsy, Mentally Handicapped etc etc in the world.  

Utterly, utterly shameless, right down to lying through their teeth about it, 64 years later... >:(

Do you have to work at at your verbose pomposity or does it just come naturally to you?

If you look at my posts I don't think I ever stated nor even suggested that Windsor Park was named after the Royal Family.

As I said the information on Sean Russell has been known for years.  Noted historian Brian Hanley (OK I've never heard of him but probably held in higher regard than Henry McDonald) stated...he wasn't a Nazi.  We could list many examples of collaboration of many people with Nazis and other regimes.  Didn't the British and Americans facilitate the escape of many Nazis to South America after the war??  Churchill was well aware taht Stalin was systematically killing his own people and thousands of Poles yet turned a blind eye because the Soviets were on our side.  Are you trying to suggest that Sean Russell, and by extension the 'RA and the current SF leadership were somehow responsible for the actions of the Nazi regime?  Russell is being remembered for his role in the 1916 Rising and War of Indpedence etc, I doubt whether they are celebrating his actions during WW2 much in the same way as you are referencing Molyneaux's and Chichester- Clarke's (he must have been wounded in the head) war exploits and ignoring their support of a regime that denied human rights to many of its citizens.

The 1920s and 1930s in Ireland were a complex time.  I cite the example of my father's uncle who fought at the Battle of Jutland, was burnt out of his house in the 1920s by presumed supporters of his role in WW1, joined the IRA in the 1920s, rejoined the Royal Navy in 1939 (while the IRA was "at war" with Britian), was offered a desk job because of his age, but volunteered for active service, and was lost at sea in 1940.

From the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement

The (recent) furore over Prince Harry of England donning Nazi uniform is astonishing.  There has always been a close association between the Royal Family and the Nazi Party.

The Queen's husband, Prince Philip was trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, Nordic and Aryan myth, and eugenics.  His four brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, were all German who all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Philip was the only boy in the family and his four sisters were considerably older than he "more like aunts than sisters" as one biographer put it. Philip lived with his sisters and their husbands because his parents had a "difficult" home life. His four brothers-in-law were all German and all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Through the influence of his sister, Theodora, young Philip was sent to a German school near Lake Constantine that had been founded by her father-in-law, Max von Baden, and his longtime personal secretary, Kurt Hahn. Though half-Jewish, Hahn was an early supporter of the Nazi Party, and the school was a hotbed of Hitler Youth activity, Nordic and Aryan myth, and eugenics.

Philip's sister Margarita married a Czech-Austrian prince named Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a great-grandson of England's Queen Victoria; Theodora married Berthold, the Margrave of Baden; Cecelia to Georg Donatus, Grand Duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, also a great-grandson of Victoria; and Sophie to Prince Christoph of Hesse.

By 1935 Prince Christoph was chief of the Forschungsamt (directorate of scientific research), a special intelligence operation run by Hermann Göring, and he was also Standartenführer (colonel) of the SS on Heinrich Himmler's personal staff.

The Forschungsamt used electronic intelligence-gathering methods to police the Nazi Party, while working with the Gestapo against the Catholic Church and the Jews.

The son of Sophie and Prince Christoph was named Karl Adolf after Hitler and Prince Philip afterwards took a keen educational interest in his nephew

Prince Christoph's brother, Philip of Hesse, married a daughter of the King of Italy, and became the official liaison between the Nazi and Fascist regimes.

Philip's sister Cecilia and her husband Georg Donatus, hereditary grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, died in 1937 when the plane they were flying to London in crashed. It was a Junkers belonging to Hermann Göring.

According to Newsweek (April 5, 1976) it was known that Prince Bernhard was a member of a special SS intelligence unit in IG Farben and this had originally been pointed out in testimony at the Nuremberg trials.

Bernhard resigned from the SS, in 1937, when he married the future Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. Adolf Hitler forwarded a congratulatory message though Bernhard, who became a naturalised Dutchman.

Philip and Bernhard remained not just distant relatives but close friends and in October, 1961, founded the World Wildlife Fund.

In the Queen's family her Uncle, the former King Edward VIII, had considerable Nazi sympathies as did his mistress and later wife, Wallis Simpson.

Edward's and Wallis' Nazi sympathies were, in part, responsible for him being forced off the throne although the version the public got was that Wallis, as a twice divorced American, would be an unsuitable wife for a King.

In 1945 MI5 officer Anthony Blunt was sent to Germany as a personal emissary of King George VI to retrieve papers written between the Duke of Windsor and Nazi officials that, had they been made public, would probably have destroyed the Royal family.

Many years' later it was revealed that Anthony Blunt was a Soviet spy. He was enabled for many years to maintain his position as survey of the Queen's pictures because of his implied threat to tell all the Nazi secrets of the Duke of Windsor if he were sacked.

"Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot US papers shed light on efforts to spy on fascist sympathizers."

I dunno, 1 statue against a lifetime of paying taxes to keep those parasites in the comfort they're accustomed to? Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 02:58:36 PM
what would this 'message' actually be ?

but please, what IS your message here?

The "message" is quite simple, actually: namely, whilst the Shinners claim to be a Socialist party, at the same time they made common cause with Fascism during WWII, including eg murdering entirely innocent civilians in England in a bombing campaign, assisting the Luftwaffe in the bombing of Belfast, cheering Hitler's successes against the USSR, and assisting Nazi Agents sent over to the Free State etc.
And far from being repentant about this murkiest and most repugnant of activities, they are actually "honouring" Russell, the most prominent of their Nazi-loving leaders, whilst conveniently attempting to air-brush that particular aspect of his past from the record.
But if such a concept is too difficult for you to follow, just concentrate on the term "hypocrite"... ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 02:58:36 PM
btw :wikipedia is an impecible source alright

I am standing by the sources which I quoted; if you think them unreliable, then it is up to you to demonstrate how. Which, if nothing else, might provide you with an "escape clause" from addressing the main message of this thread...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 02:58:36 PM
and I believe it has been demonstrated on here before that the unionists were guilty of an aparthied system that was not too far removed from what the nazi's implemented, although not to the same level of killing it has to be said.

You may "believe" it, but no such thing has been "demonstrated" on this Board, merely alleged, by you. Moreover, it is notable that when you have sought to repeat your allegation, it has received little or no support from anywhere on this Board, even from amongst "the usual suspects". (I suspect even they find your ludicrous and offensive claims in this respect to be embarrassing).

So if yo0u can manage to find your way back to the real world, perhaps you might care to enlighten us all with your views on Irish Republicanism's collaboration with Nazism during WWII, and their present-day "celebration" of the Collaborator-in-Chief... ::)

so the Sinn fein that was set up in the 1980's is linked to nazi germany and facism, but at the same time are claiming to be socialists

ok tell that to the urban constituents of sf in Dublin and other urban places that support them !

if grasping at straws was ever introduced as an olympic sport, then youd win gold each time !
your 'message' is unintelligible if not completly daft !

You are spouting these things, how about you 'PROVE' them from credible sources and not your fantasy island wikipedia !

I think we all saw your failed attempt to argue against thefact that there was an aparthied system in the north for donkeys years !
Must tear you up inside !

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:33:11 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:23:28 PM

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
What's the big deal here anyway? IRA at war with the British seek assistance from the Germans who were conveniently enough at war with the British as well.

Even if you imagine that allying themselves with the Nazis is nothing to be ashamed of*, how do you square that with the Shinners' claim to be a Socialist party?

Perhaps when every other Socialist party in Europe (and beyond) was fighting and dying in the fight against Hitler and his cronies, their Shinner counterparts in Ireland were alone in being misled by the Nazis' full title?  (To save you Googling, it translates into English as Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party).  ::)


* - Have you any idea what the Nazis were all about?

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on July 09, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
I'm sure the IRA would have conspired with the Martians if they were also at war with the British at the time.

Exactly. Even had the Martians vowed to exterminate every single Jew, Homosexual, Gypsy, Mentally Handicapped etc etc in the world.  

Utterly, utterly shameless, right down to lying through their teeth about it, 64 years later... >:(

Do you have to work at at your verbose pomposity or does it just come naturally to you?

Do you have to work at "playing the man", or does that come naturally to you?

Anyhow, now that you have abandoned your earlier, all-too-brief attempt to "play the ball", may I take it that you see nothing wrong with Irish Republicanism actively collaborating with Hitler (at least if it helps them murder civilians in Coventry, at any rate)?

Given the manner in which many are brought up in the wee 6, and the continued expression of their dominance and superiority which will take on its own shining clarity in the coming week, you must feel some empathy with the ethos EG.

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 04:36:07 PM
If you look at my posts I don't think I ever stated nor even suggested that Windsor Park was named after the Royal Family.

Not after I pointed out the chronology.
Rather, you attempted to establish some sort of spurious link between the Windsor area and several streets originally being named after Royal Castles, so that LFC were merely "going with the flow" when choosing the name "Windsor Park" for their new ground.
Though I suppose you should be credited from desisting with that theory, after I demonstrated that it was nonsense (nothing personal, btw).

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 04:36:07 PM
As I said the information on Sean Russell has been known for years.  Noted historian Brian Hanley (OK I've never heard of him but probably held in higher regard than Henry McDonald) stated...he wasn't a Nazi.  We could list many examples of collaboration of many people with Nazis and other regimes.  Didn't the British and Americans facilitate the escape of many Nazis to South America after the war??  Churchill was well aware taht Stalin was systematically killing his own people and thousands of Poles yet turned a blind eye because the Soviets were on our side.  Are you trying to suggest that Sean Russell, and by extension the 'RA and the current SF leadership were somehow responsible for the actions of the Nazi regime?  Russell is being remembered for his role in the 1916 Rising and War of Indpedence etc, I doubt whether they are celebrating his actions during WW2 much in the same way as you are referencing Molyneaux's and Chichester- Clarke's (he must have been wounded in the head) war exploits and ignoring their support of a regime that denied human rights to many of its citizens.

The true story of Sean Russell and his active collaboration with the Nazis has, indeed, been known for many years.
However, my point in opening this thread was to demonstrate that not only do Sinn Fein seek to "honour" this person, nor even that they fail to acknowledge his guilty secret, rather it was that they are actively seeking to re-write history, in the most cynical of ways. Worse still, if they will lie about the past, what is to stop them lying about the present?

Or maybe Gerry Adams wasn't ever in the IRA, nor his father or uncles etc before him?

Perhaps they really do think we were all born yesterday?  :o

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 04:36:07 PM
The 1920s and 1930s in Ireland were a complex time.  I cite the example of my father's uncle who fought at the Battle of Jutland, was burnt out of his house in the 1920s by presumed supporters of his role in WW1, joined the IRA in the 1920s, rejoined the Royal Navy in 1939 (while the IRA was "at war" with Britian), was offered a desk job because of his age, but volunteered for active service, and was lost at sea in 1940.

That period was, indeed, complex, causing many to have to make difficult choices. I for one do not condemn your Great Uncle for joining the IRA in the 20's, even though this would have brought him into direct conflict with my own Grandparents etc both in the Free State and NI, since I don't know what his personal circumstances were etc.

But I do know a fair bit about WWII generally, and consider he made a noble and principled choice in 1939 between fighting against Britain or fighting against the Nazis (or even remaining neutral, for which he could have been forgiven), and I salute him for it. You should be very proud of him (imo).

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 04:37:29 PM
From the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement

The (recent) furore over Prince Harry of England donning Nazi uniform is astonishing.  There has always been a close association between the Royal Family and the Nazi Party.

The Queen's husband, Prince Philip was trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, Nordic and Aryan myth, and eugenics.  His four brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, were all German who all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Philip was the only boy in the family and his four sisters were considerably older than he "more like aunts than sisters" as one biographer put it. Philip lived with his sisters and their husbands because his parents had a "difficult" home life. His four brothers-in-law were all German and all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Through the influence of his sister, Theodora, young Philip was sent to a German school near Lake Constantine that had been founded by her father-in-law, Max von Baden, and his longtime personal secretary, Kurt Hahn. Though half-Jewish, Hahn was an early supporter of the Nazi Party, and the school was a hotbed of Hitler Youth activity, Nordic and Aryan myth, and eugenics.

Philip's sister Margarita married a Czech-Austrian prince named Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a great-grandson of England's Queen Victoria; Theodora married Berthold, the Margrave of Baden; Cecelia to Georg Donatus, Grand Duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, also a great-grandson of Victoria; and Sophie to Prince Christoph of Hesse.

By 1935 Prince Christoph was chief of the Forschungsamt (directorate of scientific research), a special intelligence operation run by Hermann Göring, and he was also Standartenführer (colonel) of the SS on Heinrich Himmler's personal staff.

The Forschungsamt used electronic intelligence-gathering methods to police the Nazi Party, while working with the Gestapo against the Catholic Church and the Jews.

The son of Sophie and Prince Christoph was named Karl Adolf after Hitler and Prince Philip afterwards took a keen educational interest in his nephew

Prince Christoph's brother, Philip of Hesse, married a daughter of the King of Italy, and became the official liaison between the Nazi and Fascist regimes.

Philip's sister Cecilia and her husband Georg Donatus, hereditary grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, died in 1937 when the plane they were flying to London in crashed. It was a Junkers belonging to Hermann Göring.

According to Newsweek (April 5, 1976) it was known that Prince Bernhard was a member of a special SS intelligence unit in IG Farben and this had originally been pointed out in testimony at the Nuremberg trials.

Bernhard resigned from the SS, in 1937, when he married the future Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. Adolf Hitler forwarded a congratulatory message though Bernhard, who became a naturalised Dutchman.

Philip and Bernhard remained not just distant relatives but close friends and in October, 1961, founded the World Wildlife Fund.

In the Queen's family her Uncle, the former King Edward VIII, had considerable Nazi sympathies as did his mistress and later wife, Wallis Simpson.

Edward's and Wallis' Nazi sympathies were, in part, responsible for him being forced off the throne although the version the public got was that Wallis, as a twice divorced American, would be an unsuitable wife for a King.

In 1945 MI5 officer Anthony Blunt was sent to Germany as a personal emissary of King George VI to retrieve papers written between the Duke of Windsor and Nazi officials that, had they been made public, would probably have destroyed the Royal family.

Many years' later it was revealed that Anthony Blunt was a Soviet spy. He was enabled for many years to maintain his position as survey of the Queen's pictures because of his implied threat to tell all the Nazi secrets of the Duke of Windsor if he were sacked.

"Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot US papers shed light on efforts to spy on fascist sympathizers."

I dunno, 1 statue against a lifetime of paying taxes to keep those parasites in the comfort they're accustomed to? Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Good Grief! I get slated for citing Wikipedia, yet you quote* this crowd of loons in Detroit calling themselves "the Nationalist Socialist Movement", without a cheep out of "the usual suspects".
http://www.timesreporter.com/homepage/x1518884444/National-Socialist-Movement-holds-rally-on-Phila-Public-Square
(http://www.timesreporter.com/archive/x1518884470/g113000bca50803541e487c26cabafb8afd09e6c0ce138d.jpg)

Then when I actually get round to browsing through the trash in the actual article you cite, it has precisely nothing to do with the murky relationship between Sinn Fein and the Nazis, but instead is an exercise by you in "whataboutery" of the crassest kind.

If you really want to explore any relationship between the British Royal Family and the Nazis, then why don't you start a separate thread? That way you won't be clogging up this one with utter irrelevancies...  no wait, that can't have been your intention in the first place? Can it?  :o

On second thoughts, maybe you'd be better off rubbing some Brasso into that neck of yours... ::)

* - No actual link, btw  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 05:01:39 PM

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 04:36:07 PM
If you look at my posts I don't think I ever stated nor even suggested that Windsor Park was named after the Royal Family.

Not after I pointed out the chronology.
Rather, you attempted to establish some sort of spurious link between the Windsor area and several streets originally being named after Royal Castles, so that LFC were merely "going with the flow" when choosing the name "Windsor Park" for their new ground.
Though I suppose you should be credited from desisting with that theory, after I demonstrated that it was nonsense (nothing personal, btw).

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 04:36:07 PM
As I said the information on Sean Russell has been known for years.  Noted historian Brian Hanley (OK I've never heard of him but probably held in higher regard than Henry McDonald) stated...he wasn't a Nazi.  We could list many examples of collaboration of many people with Nazis and other regimes.  Didn't the British and Americans facilitate the escape of many Nazis to South America after the war??  Churchill was well aware taht Stalin was systematically killing his own people and thousands of Poles yet turned a blind eye because the Soviets were on our side.  Are you trying to suggest that Sean Russell, and by extension the 'RA and the current SF leadership were somehow responsible for the actions of the Nazi regime?  Russell is being remembered for his role in the 1916 Rising and War of Indpedence etc, I doubt whether they are celebrating his actions during WW2 much in the same way as you are referencing Molyneaux's and Chichester- Clarke's (he must have been wounded in the head) war exploits and ignoring their support of a regime that denied human rights to many of its citizens.

The true story of Sean Russell and his active collaboration with the Nazis has, indeed, been known for many years.
However, my point in opening this thread was to demonstrate that not only do Sinn Fein seek to "honour" this person, nor even that they fail to acknowledge his guilty secret, rather it was that they are actively seeking to re-write history, in the most cynical of ways. Worse still, if they will lie about the past, what is to stop them lying about the present?

Or maybe Gerry Adams wasn't ever in the IRA, nor his father or uncles etc before him?

Perhaps they really do think we were all born yesterday?  :o

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 04:36:07 PM
The 1920s and 1930s in Ireland were a complex time.  I cite the example of my father's uncle who fought at the Battle of Jutland, was burnt out of his house in the 1920s by presumed supporters of his role in WW1, joined the IRA in the 1920s, rejoined the Royal Navy in 1939 (while the IRA was "at war" with Britian), was offered a desk job because of his age, but volunteered for active service, and was lost at sea in 1940.

That period was, indeed, complex, causing many to have to make difficult choices. I for one do not condemn your Great Uncle for joining the IRA in the 20's, even though this would have brought him into direct conflict with my own Grandparents etc both in the Free State and NI, since I don't know what his personal circumstances were etc.

But I do know a fair bit about WWII generally, and consider he made a noble and principled choice in 1939 between fighting against Britain or fighting against the Nazis (or even remaining neutral, for which he could have been forgiven), and I salute him for it. You should be very proud of him (imo).

I don't have the time to check every post but I never stated that WP was named after the Royal Family (as you have suggested) as I knew it wasn't being familair with the chronology well before you reminded me (thanks for that anyway, it's nice when we agree ;))  What were you grandparents circumstances that may have brought them into with my Great Uncle??  It wasn't them who burnt down his house in the 20s was it?!?!?  I'm very proud of everything he did in his life

As for the Shinners, it's a bit of a leap to say that by remembering ~Russell  they're trying to re-write history (imo).  BTW will you be supporting the Saffrons on the 19th??

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:30:50 PM
Wow! So Nazism wasn't really any worse than Communism, then?

I know which ideology murdered more people. You can argue that you shouldn't reduce these things to crude head counts but I'd say it's a more objective measure for evil than, well, whatever it is that you use.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that Seán Russell was one of the good guys. But if you're going to condemn him because of the actions of his allies, I'd expect you to hold others to the same standard.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMso the Sinn fein that was set up in the 1980's is linked to nazi germany and facism, but at the same time are claiming to be socialists

No, Sinn Fein were set up in 1905, and the present leadership claims an unbroken line from that period.

(That's when their Department of Historical Revisionism isn't concealing eg the avowed anti-Semitism of founder Arthur Griffith on the one hand, or his espousal of a Joint Monarchy for Ireland and Great Britain, on the other.  ::) )

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMok tell that to the urban constituents of sf in Dublin and other urban places that support them !

The SF voters of Dublin, is it? I'd certainly tell them all right - if only I could find them!  :D  Perhaps they should get Mary Lou Macdonald to (re-)educate them, seeing as she now has time on her hands!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMif grasping at straws was ever introduced as an olympic sport, then youd win gold each time !

Hilarious.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMyour 'message' is unintelligible if not completly daft !

My message may be "unintelligible" to you, just don't judge the rest of this Board by your own inability to comprehend, reason or acknowldege etc.
As for its being "daft", well maybe it is, but you are the last one who will ever be able to demonstrate it thus, that's for certain.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMYou are spouting these things, how about you 'PROVE' them from credible sources and not your fantasy island wikipedia !

I have made my case, it is up to others to refute it as they may. I'll also let those others judge for themselves the success (or otherwise) of your efforts in that respect.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMI think we all saw your failed attempt to argue against thefact that there was an aparthied system in the north for donkeys years !

Speaking for "all" now, are you?
Strangely I don't see too many of them speaking for you. Indeed, I suspect at least some may actually be highly embarrassed by your posts and wish you'd stop.
But if I'm wrong, no doubt they'll all ride to your rescue, just like a faithful, ahem, "cavalry" always does... ;)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMMust tear you up inside !

Yeah, that's me: so torn up I can hardly type... :D

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 05:25:35 PM
What were you grandparents circumstances that may have brought them into with my Great Uncle??  It wasn't them who burnt down his house in the 20s was it?!?!?  I'm very proud of everything he did in his life

Both my maternal grandparents and their families were all from what is now the Republic. Included in their numbers were some who were intimidated into going North (although others stayed, where their decendants live to this day). Also included amongst them were a couple (or more) RIC men, one of whom at least I know to have been the target of an attempted assassination attempt by (presumably) the IRA, as well as general intimidation etc
To the best of my knowledge, none of my relations ever burnt your Great Uncle's house down (or anyone elses, for that matter), but if they did, then I hope you don't still hold anything against me for it!

Meanwhile, some of my Free State-based ancestors also volunteered to fight in WWII, in common cause with your Great Uncle. Insofar as one may ever claim any sort of "credit" for the deeds of ancestors long-since dead, then I am proud of their efforts, just as you are with your forebears.

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 05:25:35 PM
As for the Shinners, it's a bit of a leap to say that by remembering ~Russell  they're trying to re-write history (imo).

If you go onto An Phoblacht's website and do a search for "Sean Russell", it brings up 1,621 entries. Strangely enough, I couldn't bring myself to read all of them(!), but a quick browse through the first few contained no reference to his activities in Nazi Germany or the circumstances of his death etc, only this brief reference:
"Veteran of the 1916 Rising and former IRA Chief of Staff during the early 1940s, Seán Russell has long been a figure of controversy within Irish republicanism for a number of reasons. These included his decision to launch an armed campaign in Britain during the Second World War and his attempt to acquire arms from Germany. However, Russell was not a fascist, nor did the IRA of that time support the Nazi regime. Indeed, under Russell's direction, the IRA was in contact with numerous foreign agencies, including the Soviet Union and IRA supporters in the USA, for the purpose of acquiring arms"
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/7983

If that is not "sugar-coating the pill", I don't know what is... ::)

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 05:25:35 PM
BTW will you be supporting the Saffrons on the 19th??

Assuming that is a reference to the Antrim Gaelic football team, then I'm afraid I'm otherwise engaged, er, rearranging my sock-drawer that afternoon... :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 04:37:29 PM
From the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement

The (recent) furore over Prince Harry of England donning Nazi uniform is astonishing.  There has always been a close association between the Royal Family and the Nazi Party.

The Queen's husband, Prince Philip was trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, Nordic and Aryan myth, and eugenics.  His four brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, were all German who all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Philip was the only boy in the family and his four sisters were considerably older than he "more like aunts than sisters" as one biographer put it. Philip lived with his sisters and their husbands because his parents had a "difficult" home life. His four brothers-in-law were all German and all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Through the influence of his sister, Theodora, young Philip was sent to a German school near Lake Constantine that had been founded by her father-in-law, Max von Baden, and his longtime personal secretary, Kurt Hahn. Though half-Jewish, Hahn was an early supporter of the Nazi Party, and the school was a hotbed of Hitler Youth activity, Nordic and Aryan myth, and eugenics.

Philip's sister Margarita married a Czech-Austrian prince named Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a great-grandson of England's Queen Victoria; Theodora married Berthold, the Margrave of Baden; Cecelia to Georg Donatus, Grand Duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, also a great-grandson of Victoria; and Sophie to Prince Christoph of Hesse.

By 1935 Prince Christoph was chief of the Forschungsamt (directorate of scientific research), a special intelligence operation run by Hermann Göring, and he was also Standartenführer (colonel) of the SS on Heinrich Himmler's personal staff.

The Forschungsamt used electronic intelligence-gathering methods to police the Nazi Party, while working with the Gestapo against the Catholic Church and the Jews.

The son of Sophie and Prince Christoph was named Karl Adolf after Hitler and Prince Philip afterwards took a keen educational interest in his nephew

Prince Christoph's brother, Philip of Hesse, married a daughter of the King of Italy, and became the official liaison between the Nazi and Fascist regimes.

Philip's sister Cecilia and her husband Georg Donatus, hereditary grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, died in 1937 when the plane they were flying to London in crashed. It was a Junkers belonging to Hermann Göring.

According to Newsweek (April 5, 1976) it was known that Prince Bernhard was a member of a special SS intelligence unit in IG Farben and this had originally been pointed out in testimony at the Nuremberg trials.

Bernhard resigned from the SS, in 1937, when he married the future Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. Adolf Hitler forwarded a congratulatory message though Bernhard, who became a naturalised Dutchman.

Philip and Bernhard remained not just distant relatives but close friends and in October, 1961, founded the World Wildlife Fund.

In the Queen's family her Uncle, the former King Edward VIII, had considerable Nazi sympathies as did his mistress and later wife, Wallis Simpson.

Edward's and Wallis' Nazi sympathies were, in part, responsible for him being forced off the throne although the version the public got was that Wallis, as a twice divorced American, would be an unsuitable wife for a King.

In 1945 MI5 officer Anthony Blunt was sent to Germany as a personal emissary of King George VI to retrieve papers written between the Duke of Windsor and Nazi officials that, had they been made public, would probably have destroyed the Royal family.

Many years' later it was revealed that Anthony Blunt was a Soviet spy. He was enabled for many years to maintain his position as survey of the Queen's pictures because of his implied threat to tell all the Nazi secrets of the Duke of Windsor if he were sacked.

"Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot US papers shed light on efforts to spy on fascist sympathizers."

I dunno, 1 statue against a lifetime of paying taxes to keep those parasites in the comfort they're accustomed to? Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Good Grief! I get slated for citing Wikipedia, yet you quote* this crowd of loons in Detroit calling themselves "the Nationalist Socialist Movement", without a cheep out of "the usual suspects".
http://www.timesreporter.com/homepage/x1518884444/National-Socialist-Movement-holds-rally-on-Phila-Public-Square
(http://www.timesreporter.com/archive/x1518884470/g113000bca50803541e487c26cabafb8afd09e6c0ce138d.jpg)

Then when I actually get round to browsing through the trash in the actual article you cite, it has precisely nothing to do with the murky relationship between Sinn Fein and the Nazis, but instead is an exercise by you in "whataboutery" of the crassest kind.

If you really want to explore any relationship between the British Royal Family and the Nazis, then why don't you start a separate thread? That way you won't be clogging up this one with utter irrelevancies...  no wait, that can't have been your intention in the first place? Can it?  :o

On second thoughts, maybe you'd be better off rubbing some Brasso into that neck of yours... ::)

* - No actual link, btw  ::)

Just pointing out that the scum of the NSM were claiming their own.  Some would argue that Russell's links with the Nazis are "utterly irrelevent" too in context of the times he was living in ... Never hear of the Republican refrain of "England's enemy is Ireland's friend"?  Your shit-stirring over Russell is pathetic ... and if you want to get into 'holocausts' and their perpetrators, for Nazis and the Jews read England and the famine

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 05:35:32 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:30:50 PM
Wow! So Nazism wasn't really any worse than Communism, then?

I know which ideology murdered more people. You can argue that you shouldn't reduce these things to crude head counts but I'd say it's a more objective measure for evil than, well, whatever it is that you use.

No, I don't argue for reducing the assessment of evil down to a crude head count of murder victims - even though as a Unionist from NI, such an exercise would actually "vindicate" my opposition to Republicanism (i.e. Republican terrorists having killed by far the greatest number during The Troubles of any of the various armed Groups involved).

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 05:35:32 PM
Incidentally, I'm not arguing that Seán Russell was one of the good guys.

Good. My gripe is with Sinn Fein, who are arguing that he was "one of the good guys".

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 05:35:32 PM
But if you're going to condemn him because of the actions of his allies, I'd expect you to hold others to the same standard.

In 1939, the UK faced a clear choice between:
1. An alliance with Nazi Germany/Fascist Italy and (later) Imperial Japan; or
2. An alliance with France/Poland and (later) the USSR and USA; or
3. An offer of Neutrality/Non-Aggressiomn from Hitler, on the basis that he would allow Britain to retain its overseas Empire unaffected, on condition that Britain gave him a free hand to carve out an empire of his own for Germany in continental Europe (where the UK had no territory of its own, btw).

I will stand up proudly for the choice which my country eventually made and stood by, even when isolated and alone.

I have no time for those who pusillanimously chose Neturality, still less those who sought to ally themselves with the Fascists.

And worst of all are those who sided with the Fascists, and who now try to deny it, all the while making gratuitous Nazi slurs etc against those who were actually engaged in a life-or-death struggle against  Fascism... >:(

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 06:18:45 PMJust pointing out that the scum of the NSM were claiming their own.

No, you were pointing out an attempt  by those NSM scumbags to claim etc: there is a world of difference.
And in any case, even if it were true, how does it absolve the Shinners from their collaboration with the Nazis during WWII?

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 06:18:45 PM
Some would argue that Russell's links with the Nazis are "utterly irrelevent" too in context of the times he was living in ...

"Some" might indeed try to argue that Russell's Nazi collaboration is "irrelevant" (that's not when they're trying to deny it ever even happened in the first place). However, in raising this statue to the man as a great "hero", the National Graves Association is paying tribute to his record. I do not see how it is at all irrelevant that his record also included active and willing collaboration with the Nazis, whose own record included the deaths of thousands of Irish men, women and children, including hundreds of civilians in the Belfast Blitz.
And that's before we even get to 6 million murdered Jews, whose numbers would undoubtedly have been swollen by the Jewish population of Ireland, had Hitler succeeded in his aim of conquering Europe.  >:(

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 06:18:45 PM
Never hear of the Republican refrain of "England's enemy is Ireland's friend"?

Indeed I have, and insofar as it is used as an excuse by Republicans to ally themselves with Nazism, then it disgusts me.

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 06:18:45 PM
Your shit-stirring over Russell is pathetic

Truth hurting, is it?

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 06:18:45 PM
and if you want to get into 'holocausts' and their perpetrators, for Nazis and the Jews read England and the famine

So are you saying that Russell and SF/IRA were justified in helping Hitler exterminate the Jews etc, because of what had occurred 100 years earlier in Ireland during the Famine?
Worse than pathetic... >:(

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 06:30:14 PM
No, I don't argue for reducing the assessment of evil down to a crude head count of murder victims - even though as a Unionist from NI, such an exercise would actually "vindicate" my opposition to Republicanism (i.e. Republican terrorists having killed by far the greatest number during The Troubles of any of the various armed Groups involved).

Then what measure do you use to determine that Nazism was worse than Communism?

'So are you saying that Russell and SF/IRA were justified in helping Hitler exterminate the Jews etc, because of what had occurred 100 years earlier in Ireland during the Famine?
Worse than pathetic... '

Er, no ... Nowhere in anything I wrote could anyone with an ounce of sense even suggest that is what I was saying (or what I implied) ... and for you to come up with such a conclusion makes me actually worry about your mental state. 

BTW, oh font of all knowledge, show me the evidence Sean Russell helped to exterminate the Jews ... Was he a member of the SS Totenkopf, per chance?  Perhaps a foot soldier in one of the einsatzgruppen, perhaps? Driver of a mobile gas van, eh?  One of the guys who poured Zyklon B into the death chambers at Auswitz, mmm?

Or maybe, like Winston Churchill, he refused to bomb the death camps or the railway lines leading to them even though he was fully aware of what was going on in those camps and what purpose those railway lines served

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread but I'm not sure what EG's point is. Of course the IRA are going to be sympathtic to the Germans as they had a common enemy, no one realised until well into the war that Hitler was exterminating the Jews.  In fact I thought the Allies didn't know until they had the war nearly won and started to come across the camps.

Btw, before you try and paint a picture of the mighty empire going to the Jews rescue, Britain couldnt give a shit what was happening the Jews or any other persecuted miniority nor did the US.  Both were only concerned about themselves and their own security.

And why do you post every little piece of bullshit on this board, whether it be this or something about what Gerry Adams was singing, I think we all see you for the WUM you are now.  You're lucky the moderators on this board are more tolerant than those on owc though I expect if it was one of us making nonsense threads for no reason other than to wind people up we'd be banned. 

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:30:50 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 04:06:57 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:04:55 PM
Are we to assume that you see some sort of equivalence between the Allies and the Axis forces during WWII, then?

Absolutely. If you can't see a comparision between Germany and the Soviet Union you really need to read a bit more.

Wow! So Nazism wasn't really any worse than Communism, then?

I may well be advised to read some more, but I sincerely hope it never covers whatever sh1te you've been reading...

19 million russians died in the early 20th century under communist rule, Hitler killed many millions and both wwere major players in the second world war and killed many millions of people each, there is nothing good about either mode of government, they are dictatorships and dictatorships are repugnant no matter the politics.

EG spot on with your observations as usual.

Perhaps though [in order to stop you descending into Fearonesque behaviour of opening multiple threads on a single theme] you should change the thread title to include ALL the modern-day parties who honour statues of Irish gunrunners who imported guns from Germany in order to undermine the government of the day and at a period when it was clear that a war was inevitable. Then again I suppose the Kaiser wasn't that bad an aul spud.

If you cannot follow my logic I'll give you a couple of clues. The statue in question sits on the driveway to Stormont. It wasn't unveiled by Sinn Fein.

Evil Genius, why do you bother?

why do you insist on coming onto this board and starting discussions with the sole idea of starting an argument. what do you wish to prove. do you aim to win converts to the unionist cause?

Using a sledge hammer to crack a nut!!  :D :D :D :D

Quote from: Keyser soze on July 09, 2009, 08:31:55 PM
EG spot on with your observations as usual.

Perhaps though [in order to stop you descending into Fearonesque behaviour of opening multiple threads on a single theme] you should change the thread title to include ALL the modern-day parties who honour statues of Irish gunrunners who imported guns from Germany in order to undermine the government of the day and at a period when it was clear that a war was inevitable. Then again I suppose the Kaiser wasn't that bad an aul spud.

If you cannot follow my logic I'll give you a couple of clues. The statue in question sits on the driveway to Stormont. It wasn't unveiled by Sinn Fein.

:D :D :D :D

Love that post, hilarious stuff.

Ach everybdy needs to get off eg's back, shure it's full on marching season, the twelfth is just around the corner and whats wrong with a brit winding up the paddies a wee bit. I am sure he has an army of supporters over on owc egging him on, it is a pity that their mods are not as liberal as ours are on here.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 05:38:51 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMso the Sinn fein that was set up in the 1980's is linked to nazi germany and facism, but at the same time are claiming to be socialists

No, Sinn Fein were set up in 1905, and the present leadership claims an unbroken line from that period.

(That's when their Department of Historical Revisionism isn't concealing eg the avowed anti-Semitism of founder Arthur Griffith on the one hand, or his espousal of a Joint Monarchy for Ireland and Great Britain, on the other.  ::) )

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMok tell that to the urban constituents of sf in Dublin and other urban places that support them !

The SF voters of Dublin, is it? I'd certainly tell them all right - if only I could find them!  :D  Perhaps they should get Mary Lou Macdonald to (re-)educate them, seeing as she now has time on her hands!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMif grasping at straws was ever introduced as an olympic sport, then youd win gold each time !

Hilarious.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMyour 'message' is unintelligible if not completly daft !

My message may be "unintelligible" to you, just don't judge the rest of this Board by your own inability to comprehend, reason or acknowldege etc.
As for its being "daft", well maybe it is, but you are the last one who will ever be able to demonstrate it thus, that's for certain.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMYou are spouting these things, how about you 'PROVE' them from credible sources and not your fantasy island wikipedia !

I have made my case, it is up to others to refute it as they may. I'll also let those others judge for themselves the success (or otherwise) of your efforts in that respect.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMI think we all saw your failed attempt to argue against thefact that there was an aparthied system in the north for donkeys years !

Speaking for "all" now, are you?
Strangely I don't see too many of them speaking for you. Indeed, I suspect at least some may actually be highly embarrassed by your posts and wish you'd stop.
But if I'm wrong, no doubt they'll all ride to your rescue, just like a faithful, ahem, "cavalry" always does... ;)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 09, 2009, 04:37:46 PMMust tear you up inside !

Yeah, that's me: so torn up I can hardly type... :D

1905
so you mean the same sinn fein that went on to become Fianna fail ?

unlike yourself I never needed anyones assistence to point out that your lengthy and verbose posts contain no substance or real content, just as your few posts on this thread thus far have proven. People have responded in the past to agree that an apartheid was prevalent - o your whinges are unfounded !

Go prove your stuff from a decent source - not that wikipedia rubbish that anyone can edit and contribute to ! !

Still waiting to see what your point and the point of this thread is other than grasping at straws !
.....again !

Russell got it wrong. He got it really wrong. So what? Many other people got it wrong at that time.

EG - I suggest you read some of the fine books on the history of the IRA to understand what was going on in the mind of the leadership at the time (Bowyer Bell and Tim Pat Coogan are two you should start with). I'm going to use the term IRA to talk about militant republicans of the time as there was really no formed political wing and what was there was a million miles from todays Sinn Fein. The IRA of the time had no knowledge of what was going on in Germany, all they knew was that Germany was at war with Britain and they were at war with Britain. In such cases it is normal for both of the enemies to colaborate. In 1798 the same happened with the Irish and the French, something similar for the Spanish Armada. It has happened before so no great shock it happened then. Now hindsight is a great thing and the people the IRA tried to get into bed with at the time were brutal mass murderers, I don't believe for a minute that if the IRA of the time had of known this that they would have proceeded to deal with Germany, especially since they were a deeply socialist movement as much as republican. I don't believe that it is a period of IRA history that republicans should be proud of. Saying that I think there is nothing wrong with remembering the sacrifice a man made to the cause of republicanism, even if in hindsight he and his organisation made an error of judgement dealing with the Nazi's.

The Nazi's should be ashamed of themselves collaborating with the Marxist Rebels in Ireland  ::)

Quote from: sledge hammer on July 09, 2009, 08:45:45 PM
Evil Genius, why do you bother?

why do you insist on coming onto this board and starting discussions with the sole idea of starting an argument. what do you wish to prove. do you aim to win converts to the unionist cause?

He can't help it...it's the Free Stater in him! ;)

Quote from: sledge hammer on July 09, 2009, 08:45:45 PM
Evil Genius, why do you bother?

why do you insist on coming onto this board and starting discussions with the sole idea of starting an argument

You say it like it's a bad thing

No time today to follow-up some of the more recent posts on this thread, but I shall leave the following items without comment (Btw, the first one wasn't me - I have a cast-iron alibi!  ;))

(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2009/07/09/russell-statue.jpg)
Seán Russell statue vandalised - again
ON Tuesday night/ Wednesday morning the plinth around the newly erected statue to Seán Russell in Fairview Park, Dublin was sprayed with slogans implying that Russell himself and the National Graves Association who erected the statues, were Nazi supporters.
Russell was a veteran of the 1916 Rising and IRA Chief of Staff during the bombing campaign in England, launched in 1939.
The statue, which was badly vandalised four years ago, was only replaced with a bronze sculpture in the past two weeks.
The 2004 atack followed a year-long campaign in the Sunday Independent aimed at discrediting Russell's memory and was claimed by a previously unknown group claiming to  be anti-fascists.
Expressing abhorrence at the latest attack Matt Doyle of the National Graves Association told An Phoblacht on Wednesday: "We're shocked at the whole incident. The monument as it stands now in its desecrated state is actually a monument to gross ignorance.  These people describe themselves as anti-fascist but they won't even have the debate on the man. What Irish patriot will be targeted next?"
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/38492




Meanwhile, Kevin Myers ("Boo! Hiss! etc") has expressed much better than I can why it is repugnant that this individual be commemorated in this way, pointing out inter alia that Dublin is the only capital city in Europe to erect a statue to a Nazi-collaborator...

Eichmann would get a statue if he'd had an Irish grandmother

By Kevin Myers

Friday July 10 2009

It never entered my silly little head that anyone in authority would permit the re-erection of a statue to Sean Russell in Fairview Park, after the original was vandalised four years ago. And equally, in my utter ignorance of the unrepentant attitude of republicans towards their history and their heroes, I assumed that on this occasion, they would let bygones be bygones.

After all, Sean Russell was a Nazi collaborator, who died in a German submarine on his way to cause mayhem in Ireland in 1940.

The statue to him was unveiled in September 1951, when nationalist mythology, a hubristic neutralism, and a profound equivalence towards the Third Reich, were politically dominant in the grisly lunatic asylum that Ireland had become. Dublin Corporation even donated the land for the statue.

And frankly, you could have erected anything in those days, as long as it was anti-British.

Adolf Eichmann would have got a little statue, if someone could have shown he had an Irish grandmother.

For Ireland had turned its back on the world, and was sinking into an impoverished and heathen stupor, in which the primary government activity was to keep out foreign goods and foreign books: some 5,000 titles had been banned by the publications' censors up to 1954.

This was an Ireland which also gave sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, so a mere statue to one of the Third Reich's most dedicated Irish stooges was merely another part of the diseased isolationist culture of the time.

Over half a century on, and Ireland has changed more totally than it is possible to describe. On Sunday, the President will honour the Irish dead of the two world wars, who for the most part served with the British.

Most particularly this Sunday, minds will go back to that summer 70 years ago, before most of us were born, when Hitler's plans to conquer and subjugate Poland were taking final shape.

Over the next six years, thousands of Irish volunteers were to die opposing him. Just one -- Sean Russell -- died in his service. Yet he is the only Irish victim of the Second World War to have a statue in his honour in Dublin. For having earlier offered his services to the Abwehr, German intelligence, in February 1939, with the outbreak of war, he hurried from America to Germany to take his place in the Nazi battleline. Only a perforated ulcer prevented him doing a sovereign service to the Fuehrer.

You can present Russell's role in many lights.

You can say that he was caught up in the republican mood of the time. You can say that he was enraged at the treatment of nationalists in the North. You can say that many decent people sympathised with the IRA's objectives. All true. Comparable justifications can be offered for activists from different nationalist minorities in mainland Europe who sided with Hitler. The fact is that he -- and they -- took the side of the man who led Europe into a Dark Age unprecedented in history.

To raise a statue to such a collaborator with an absolutist evil is self-preening neutralism at its most toxic.

From 1970 on, with the start of the Troubles, Sinn Fein held an annual commemorative rally at the Sean Russell statue. This has continued ever since, even with Sinn Fein's transformation into a largely constitutional party in the European parliament.

This not merely made Dublin the only capital in the EU with a statue to a Nazi collaborator, but it made the Shinners the only party in the parliament to honour such a man. That they were able to get away with this was largely due to the compliance of other Irish parties in the European parliament, who never drew the attention of our fellow Europeans to the presence in their midst of this strange, strange group, who annually paid homage to Ireland's own Quisling.

Four years ago, "vandals" beheaded the statue, to commemorate the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I disagree with that act. It is not up to individuals to decide on public statuary. But at least this deed gave Dublin City Council the opportunity to abolish from view a revolting insult to the millions of victims of the Holocaust.

Instead, the National Grave Association has been allowed to erect a new bronze statue, and it was this which was daubed with anti-Nazi graffiti the other day.

So, how did a statue to a traitor to Ireland, and an ally of the Third Reich, come to be erected as we approach the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War? Who approved this in Dublin City Council?

And what is the prevailing aesthetic which can rule that the destroyers of Nelson's Pillar in Dublin may permanently affect the streetscape of the capital, but that a statue to a Nazi fellow traveller should be restored?

I trust that all EU ambassadors to this country report back to their governments that Dublin has just raised a statue to a Nazi traitor. Maybe they will do what our own political class, either through cowardice or inertia, has failed to do -- namely, to cause it to be eradicated for ever.

kmyers@independent.ie
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/eichmann-would-get-a-statue-if-hed-had-an-irish-grandmother-1815598.html



Meanwhile on the same topic, Jim Cusack adds a few home truths as well (with more than a nod to that well-known right-wing Brit, Eamonn McCann):
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/shinners-set-to-fix-chip-off-the-old-block-121845.html

Classic Myers and I must say a very entertaining polemic.  I would struggle to describe Russell as a "victim" of WW2.  A burst appendix is hardly the same as a bullet in the head on D Day.  But the Shinners need to learn that sometimes peace is more difficult to control than war.  Failure to think before erection has led many's the man into trouble

If Myers expressed the same sense of outrage at the moving of the statue dedicated to the Unknown Soldier in Tallinn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6637895.stm) a few years back - known locally as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist - then he might have a case. But in the Myers world view the Poles were "subjugated" in 1939 and liberated in 1945, so I doubt if any such missive exists

The only crime committed here is the attempt to pervert history by academic morons.
The only thing Russell had in common with Germany was the fight against Britain.
Frank Ryan left the battlefied against Fascists (including Nazi germany) in Spain to get arms from Germany.

Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.
Subhash was not a fascist/racist.

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.

Yitzhak Shamir was a member of Lohamei Herut Yisrael, an organisation that was so determined to end the British mandate in Palestine that it fostered links with Germany during the Second World War. Somehow this man, clearly a virulent anti-Semite, ended up as Prime Minister of Israel

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
The only crime committed here is the attempt to pervert history by academic morons.
The only thing Russell had in common with Germany was the fight against Britain.
Frank Ryan left the battlefied against Fascists (including Nazi germany) in Spain to get arms from Germany.

Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.
Subhash was not a fascist/racist.

sure isnt gordon brown getting all cosy now with old Col Gadaffi !!
boo hiss indeed !!!!

obv this thread must actually have been started to point out historical irony !

As you keep mentioning Lynchboy, an infantile attempt to equalise after the recent outbreak of wannabie fascists, pumping norn iron.

But having supported a few lost causes, like the Malvinas liberation war against the Brits,  who am I talk  after being Junta stained.

Quote from: Lecale2 on July 09, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
Russell got it wrong. He got it really wrong. So what? Many other people got it wrong at that time.

But they don't all get a statue erected in their memory. Victory to the vandals!

All those Brit Empire builders who got it wrong* have statues erected to them.

* They thought that the Sun would never set on the B E ;)

Quote from: Rossfan on July 10, 2009, 09:13:36 PM
All those Brit Empire builders who got it wrong* have statues erected to them.

* They thought that the Sun would never set on the B E ;)

The Brits erected statues to Brit Empire builders - may not agree with it, but can see their logic. But why the fock are the Irish putting up statues to Nazi sympathisers / collaborators / stooges? Thousands of Irishmen took up arms against the Nazis - why not put up a few statues to honour these men?

Power to the painters!

The Brits erected statues to Brit Empire builders - may not agree with it, but can see their logic. But why the fock are the Irish putting up statues to Nazi sympathisers / collaborators / stooges? Thousands of Irishmen took up arms against the Nazis - why not put up a few statues to honour these men?

Power to the painters!

[/quote]

And 'performance artists'...? ;)

Russell believed at the time that he was merely furthering his love for his motherland, and was prepared to sacrifice his own life to further that aim, in alliance with whomsoever was an enemy of the 800 years enemy. The Nazis actually divided Republicans at the time, not because of the death-camps, because the veracity of such assertions was impossible to ascertain in the propaganda-riddled times of that day, but because of their widely propagated ideology.

Bomber Harris was as big a Nazi as any big-booted, goose-stepping Nazi in that he believed that to wipe out every man, woman and child who might contribute to the Axis cause, however passively, was a legitimate war target - the life destroying carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities was as sure of a war crime as any of the modern, or any other, age. Haven't heard the Naive Evil Gimp Genius bleat too loudly about the statue to Harris in London's Strand. Nor any mention of the arch appeaser himself, Chamberlain, who was quite happy to sit down convivially with the Fuhrer, after the Sudetenland had been retaken. But then, however excruciatingly verbose his posts, they never really do get to the point.

Do you not know A Fhear, that it's only Irish Nationalists who can be wrong.
Brits are always right .
( That's in Myersland,EG World and other such one eyed eejits)

Quote from: Rossfan on July 10, 2009, 10:36:34 PM
Do you not know A Fhear, that it's only Irish Nationalists who can be wrong.
Brits are always right .

D'oh!  ;)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 10, 2009, 10:33:10 PM
Russell believed at the time that he was merely furthering his love for his motherland, and was prepared to sacrifice his own life to further that aim, in alliance with whomsoever was an enemy of the 800 years enemy. The Nazis actually divided Republicans at the time, not because of the death-camps, because the veracity of such assertions was impossible to ascertain in the propaganda-riddled times of that day, but because of their widely propagated ideology.

Bomber Harris was as big a Nazi as any big-booted, goose-stepping Nazi in that he believed that to wipe out every man, woman and child who might contribute to the Axis cause, however passively, was a legitimate war target - the life destroying carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities was as sure of a war crime as any of the modern, or any other, age. Haven't heard the Naive Evil Gimp Genius bleat too loudly about the statue to Harris in London's Strand. Nor any mention of the arch appeaser himself, Chamberlain, who was quite happy to sit down convivially with the Fuhrer, after the Sudetenland had been retaken. But then, however excruciatingly verbose his posts, they never really do get to the point.

And the Nazis believed they were only acting in the best interests of the fatherland, so I suppose they were natural bedfellows in a way.  ::)
I don't care what statues the British put up in London - their country, their problem. I do care what gets put up in Ireland. I care that if we put up statues commemorating pricks like Russell, it sends out a very poor image of our country to the outside world.

Russel was a Knight of Templar. It's in a coded message in the Torah, I can't give you the code though.

Ohh, he also invented itchy powder as a lethal weapon.

FAO Evil Genius.

First of all I must respond to your uncompromising stance throughout the thread that it is up to others to disprove the claims you source from Wikipedia and such-like. It is you who is asserting or relaying these claims therefore the onus is on you to provide a reliable source for your indictments. Wikipedia is widely regarded by all reasonable people as being unreliable since absolutely anyone with internet access has the ability to publish information on the site. If the information is sourced correctly and accurately on Wikipedia, which is sometimes the case, then the onus is on you to provide these sources to back-up the claims you have made.

Secondly, before I go any further I would like to point out that to open-minded observers (such as myself) your obvious hatred and bitterness for all things Sinn Féin or Irish Republican taints your posts even when raising a very credible topic such as this one.

So having said this, back to the point in hand. I think the one thing that Evil Genius' posts do highlight very well is the complete lunacy of Sinn Féins claims to have an unbroken line from the Sinn Féin set up in 1905.

I am sincerely interested in your claims about Seán Russell however and the wider relationships of many right-wing figures in Ireland through the last century and I wish to learn more. Starting with the article you posted a link to by Jim Cusack. He claims that the Nazis had the names 3500 Jews in Ireland at the time and were preparing for their extermination. Would such information be backed up by credible sources? (Please resist the temptation to think I am playing dumb here, this is genuine interest).

QuoteIn October 1937, ????????? visited Nazi Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at his Obersalzberg retreat. The visit was much publicised by the German media. During the visit ?????????? gave full Nazi salutes. The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of XXXXXXXXX, believed that ???????? favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany. ?????????'s experience of "the unending scenes of horror" during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered ????????? to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through ???????????. Fellow Nazi Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. ???????????? was a severe loss for us."

The ????????????? settled in France. On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, they were brought back to Britain by Lord Mountbatten in HMS Kelly, and the ???????, already an honorary Field Marshal, was gazetted a Major-General attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the ?????????? had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium. When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940, the ?????????? fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Spain. In July the pair moved to Lisbon, Portugal, where they lived at first in the home of Ricardo de Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts. During the occupation of France, the ????????????? asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so. A "defeatist" interview with the ??????????? that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the ???????????? with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil. In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where in the view of Churchill ?????????? could do the least damage to the British war effort.

?????????? was installed as Governor. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony". The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when ?????????? planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring. However, ????????? was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium." He was praised, even by Dupuch, for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews. He held the post until the end of World War II in 1945.


Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate ???????????? in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain. It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly." Lord Caldecote wrote to Winston Churchill just before the couple were sent to the Bahamas, "?????????? is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue." The latter, but not the former, part of this assessment is corroborated by German operations designed to use ??????????. The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by the German plots that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of ????????????? when they visited Palm Beach, Florida in April 1941.

After the war, ???????? admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."

Another wikipedia story about a historical figure with alleged Nazi sympathies. First prize to whoever is the quickest to work out who ???????????? is and what position he held.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 11, 2009, 08:46:25 AM
And the Nazis believed they were only acting in the best interests of the fatherland, so I suppose they were natural bedfellows in a way.  ::)

Russell was driven by love, the Nazis by hate, or is that a distinction a degree too subtle for your mind?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 11, 2009, 08:46:25 AM
I don't care what statues the British put up in London - their country, their problem. I do care what gets put up in Ireland. I care that if we put up statues commemorating pricks like Russell, it sends out a very poor image of our country to the outside world.

Who claim dominion over part of our country, or is that little detail beyond your grasp too?

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 07:08:11 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 06:30:14 PM
No, I don't argue for reducing the assessment of evil down to a crude head count of murder victims - even though as a Unionist from NI, such an exercise would actually "vindicate" my opposition to Republicanism (i.e. Republican terrorists having killed by far the greatest number during The Troubles of any of the various armed Groups involved).

Then what measure do you use to determine that Nazism was worse than Communism?

At the risk of taking the thread off at a tangent, I feel there is a very significant difference between the two. Communism is/purports to be a system of Government which allows for a fair society, based on Marx's thesis of "From Everyone according to their Ability, to Everyone because of their Need". When stated in those terms, that is arguably an admirable objective.
Of course, we know that various Dictators have used the system of State Control required by Communism to terrorise their people and maintain control for themselves etc. But in doing so, they were actually breaking  their own Constitution and Laws - even if it was impossible to hold them to account for this.

Whereas Fascism was entirely different, in that it sought to make repression and dictatorship etc "legal" by amending the Constitution and Laws, in an effort to avoid accountability by the various Dictators involved. As such, the Nazis claimed they were not eg "abusing Jews' Human Rights", since they considered Jews never had any rights in the first place.

Therefore, it was this important difference which meant that Communist States could be accorded legal recognition by organisations such as the League of Nations or UN, etc, whilst Fascist regimes often were not. Apartheid in SA was similar to Fascism in that respect, in that the SA Apartheid leaders sought to confer legitimacy upon their discrimination etc, by enshrining it in the law.

Quote from: red hander on July 09, 2009, 07:22:22 PM
BTW, oh font of all knowledge, show me the evidence Sean Russell helped to exterminate the Jews ... Was he a member of the SS Totenkopf, per chance?  Perhaps a foot soldier in one of the einsatzgruppen, perhaps? Driver of a mobile gas van, eh?  One of the guys who poured Zyklon B into the death chambers at Auswitz, mmm?

Or maybe, like Winston Churchill, he refused to bomb the death camps or the railway lines leading to them even though he was fully aware of what was going on in those camps and what purpose those railway lines served

Are you saying that Russell should be absolved of his willing military collaboration with the Nazis, on the basis that other world figures like Churchill declined to do all they might have in order to save the Jews, during the course of the war against the Axis?

As an exercise in Whataboutery, I must say that is wearyingly predictable coming from you.

P.S. Before posting further, you might want to get your story straight with Pints of Guinness (see his post #42,), when he attempts to defend Russell on the basis that Nazi persecution of the Jews was NOT widely known until very late in the war... ::)

Quote from: stew on July 09, 2009, 08:26:23 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:30:50 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2009, 04:06:57 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 09, 2009, 04:04:55 PM
Are we to assume that you see some sort of equivalence between the Allies and the Axis forces during WWII, then?

Absolutely. If you can't see a comparision between Germany and the Soviet Union you really need to read a bit more.

Wow! So Nazism wasn't really any worse than Communism, then?

I may well be advised to read some more, but I sincerely hope it never covers whatever sh1te you've been reading...

19 million russians died in the early 20th century under communist rule, Hitler killed many millions and both wwere major players in the second world war and killed many millions of people each, there is nothing good about either mode of government, they are dictatorships and dictatorships are repugnant no matter the politics.

Whilst the victims of Fascist or Communist Dictators will (understandably) not make any distinction in the source of their suffering, it ill-behoves those of us lucky enough to have avoided living under tyranny to reduce the argument to a crass, even trite, headcount of victims, as you seek to do with that post.  ::)

Quote from: Keyser soze on July 09, 2009, 08:31:55 PM
EG spot on with your observations as usual.

Perhaps though [in order to stop you descending into Fearonesque behaviour of opening multiple threads on a single theme] you should change the thread title to include ALL the modern-day parties who honour statues of Irish gunrunners who imported guns from Germany in order to undermine the government of the day and at a period when it was clear that a war was inevitable. Then again I suppose the Kaiser wasn't that bad an aul spud.

If you cannot follow my logic I'll give you a couple of clues. The statue in question sits on the driveway to Stormont. It wasn't unveiled by Sinn Fein.

Your post at least takes a different slant in seeking to refute my point from that of "the usual suspects", KS, I'll give you that.

But it's no less wide of the mark for all that. For one thing, the German regimes in 1914 and those of 1943 are/were hardly comparable. And if War between Germany and the UK was "inevitable" as you claim (arguable), when it came to it, there was no hesitation on the part of Carson's gun-runners in throwing in their lot with the UK - as did their opponents amongst Redmond's Irish Volunteers, too, btw.

Whereas Russell was actively collaborating with the Nazi regime even whilst they (Nazis) were at war with half the Free World.

So I can follow your "logic", thank you very much, even if I cannot determine any merit in it whatever.

Keep trying.

P.S. When the new Parliament Building at Stormont was opened in 1932, the ceremony was conducted by the Prince of Wales, not the Kaiser, so I think it fair to say that Britain had long since forgiven Carson and his fellow gun-runners for their earlier activities. Which is not to say that the Kaiser didn't play some small part in the festivities:
"In the main hall, called the Great Hall  [of the Parliament building]  ,a large gold-plated chandelier was hung. It was a gift from King George V and had originally hung in Windsor Castle, where it had been a gift of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. The Kaiser's chandelier had been removed from Windsor and placed in storage during World War I. It was never hung in Windsor again"  ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Buildings_(Northern_Ireland)

Quote from: sledge hammer on July 09, 2009, 08:45:45 PM
Evil Genius, why do you bother?

why do you insist on coming onto this board and starting discussions with the sole idea of starting an argument.

Jeez. Like no-one has ever opened a contentious thread on a Discussion Board before...  :o

If you don't like/agree with what I post, then fine - let's hear your objections.

But if you are unwilling/unable to express them, then why don't you simply click on another thread, instead of attempting to "play the man"?

For that  really is pointless.... ::)

Quote from: stew on July 09, 2009, 09:49:25 PM

Quote from: Keyser soze on July 09, 2009, 08:31:55 PM
EG spot on with your observations as usual.

Perhaps though [in order to stop you descending into Fearonesque behaviour of opening multiple threads on a single theme] you should change the thread title to include ALL the modern-day parties who honour statues of Irish gunrunners who imported guns from Germany in order to undermine the government of the day and at a period when it was clear that a war was inevitable. Then again I suppose the Kaiser wasn't that bad an aul spud.

If you cannot follow my logic I'll give you a couple of clues. The statue in question sits on the driveway to Stormont. It wasn't unveiled by Sinn Fein.

:D :D :D :D

Love that post, hilarious stuff.

Ach everybdy needs to get off eg's back, shure it's full on marching season, the twelfth is just around the corner and whats wrong with a brit winding up the paddies a wee bit.

Seeing as I am both "Brit" and   "Paddy", your attempt at dig spectacularly misses the mark - but never mind.  ::)

Quote from: stew on July 09, 2009, 09:49:25 PM
I am sure he has an army of supporters over on owc egging him on, it is a pity that their mods are not as liberal as ours are on here.

How have any of my posts on this thread required "liberal" application of the Rules from the Mods on this Board?

I have merely expressed an opinion, in moderate tones, and without contravening any Rule, either in spirit or letter. Unless, of course, you feel that there should be no place for someone who dares to express an opinion which deviates from the Nationalist/Republican norm to which GAA fans on here uniformly appear to conform.

"GAA For All", eh? Or should that be "An Ireland of Equals"? "Ourselves Alone", maybe?

I'm afraid Republicanism in all its forms has so many mantras and soundbites etc, that I get confused sometimes... ::)

Quote from: Lecale2 on July 09, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
Russell got it wrong. He got it really wrong. So what? Many other people got it wrong at that time.

Leaving aside the rather extreme nature of Russelll's "error", my point was less a criticism of Russell's wartime collaboration with the Nazis, and more a criticism of Sinn Fein and the National Graves Association, specifically their insistence on continuing to "honour" Russell, even long after his Nazi-aiding activities were widely-known and acknowledged. The hypocrisy of SF simultaneously claiming to be "Socialists" merely makes the spectacle even more revolting (imo).

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 09, 2009, 10:17:29 PM
EG - I suggest you read some of the fine books on the history of the IRA to understand what was going on in the mind of the leadership at the time (Bowyer Bell and Tim Pat Coogan are two you should start with). I'm going to use the term IRA to talk about militant republicans of the time as there was really no formed political wing and what was there was a million miles from todays Sinn Fein. The IRA of the time had no knowledge of what was going on in Germany, all they knew was that Germany was at war with Britain and they were at war with Britain. In such cases it is normal for both of the enemies to colaborate. In 1798 the same happened with the Irish and the French, something similar for the Spanish Armada. It has happened before so no great shock it happened then. Now hindsight is a great thing and the people the IRA tried to get into bed with at the time were brutal mass murderers, I don't believe for a minute that if the IRA of the time had of known this that they would have proceeded to deal with Germany, especially since they were a deeply socialist movement as much as republican. I don't believe that it is a period of IRA history that republicans should be proud of. Saying that I think there is nothing wrong with remembering the sacrifice a man made to the cause of republicanism, even if in hindsight he and his organisation made an error of judgement dealing with the Nazi's.

So IRA men like Russell had no knowledge of what the Nazis were really like, then, even by 1940? A quick conversation with eg Frank Ryan or any of the hundreds of Irishmen and women who fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War might have provided a wee clue, I'd have thought. Might the Luftwaffe's bombing of Guernica, for example, not have given an idea of the type of people they were collaborating with?
Or closer to home, there were any number of Irish men and women living and working in England who might have been able to inform Russell about eg the Kindertransport which was evacuating European Jewish children from Nazi-occupied territories as early as 1938:
http://www.kindertransport.org/history.htm

Or maybe Russell failed to notice at that particular time, seeing as he was so busy collaborating with the German Abwehr over his plans for Operation S-Plan, whereby he and his IRA colleagues were actively planning to bomb England. From 1938... ::)

"And if you know your History..."  ::)

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
As you keep mentioning Lynchboy, an infantile attempt to equalise after the recent outbreak of wannabie fascists, pumping norn iron.

but is it out of guilt or fear I wonder...

I am still not sure of the point of his thread here - is it to ostracise a guy who also supported the german winning of the war, and by default and practically no association, lump in sinn fein and therefore republicanism into the mix of being 'nazi's' because they unveiled a statue dedicated to his 'republican exploits' ? Yeah that makes sense alright !

Maybe the 'nazi' comments of mary mcaleese were too close to the bone ! !

Quote from: deiseach on July 10, 2009, 12:45:58 PM
If Myers expressed the same sense of outrage at the moving of the statue dedicated to the Unknown Soldier in Tallinn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6637895.stm) a few years back - known locally as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist - then he might have a case. But in the Myers world view the Poles were "subjugated" in 1939 and liberated in 1945, so I doubt if any such missive exists

Fcuk me! I thought I'd seen some pretty crass attempts at deflection by "Whataboutery" on this Board, but that one surely deserves some kind of prize!

Myers is not Estonian, Polish, Russian or German, rather he is a citizen of a country which was officially neutral during WWII. Therefore I'm not sure citizens of those countries would especially welcome such an outsider as him coming along and telling them how to deal with their own statues.

Similarly, I'm not sure people in Ireland would particularly welcome Estonians and Poles etc telling them how these things should be done in Ireland, either.

But as an Irishman born-and-bred, Myers surely has the right to an opinion about how the (Irish) National Graves Association and an Irish political party (SF) should commemorate the activities of (arguably) the most prominent Irish Republican activist during what was termed the "Emergency", and in particular of his clear breach of the Policy of Neutrality between the Combattants adopted by the legitimate (Irish) Government of the Irish Free State of the time.

And just in case you missed the link, the clue is to that last paragraph is to be found in the word "Irish".

P.S. Have you any opinion of your own on what Myers actually wrote, or are you only capable of "playing the man"?  ::)

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
The only crime committed here is the attempt to pervert history by academic morons.

I don't consider SF to be "academics", myself, and it is they (and the NGA) who are clearly trying to re-write history with their craven commemoration of Russell.

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
The only thing Russell had in common with Germany was the fight against Britain.
Frank Ryan left the battlefied against Fascists (including Nazi germany) in Spain to get arms from Germany.

Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.
Subhash was not a fascist/racist.

How much did he have in common with his fellow Irish men and women, then? For at the very least, they overwhelmingly maintained a policy of neutrality between the Allies and the Axis, or were part of that significant and noble minority of Irish people, North, south and Overseas, who voluntarily signed up to join the fight against the Nazis.
And even those Irish people who didn't give a stuff about any of this included very many in Belfast, London, Coventry, Glasgow and elsewhere, who were victims of the Luftwaffe's Blitzkrieg on the people of the UK, a Blitzkrieg which was directly aided and abetted by Russell and his comrades in the IRA. That is, when they weren't conducting a bombing campaign of their own in England...   >:(

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
Frank Ryan left the battlefied against Fascists (including Nazi germany) in Spain to get arms from Germany.

Ryan was captured and handed over to the Germans by Franco's forces during the Spanish Civil War. Now his subsequent conduct and its integrity may be a fit subject for debate, but this is not the thread for it, since we are talking about Sean Russell, who willingly and repeatedly went to the Nazis for reasons of mutual support and collaboration.

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.
Subhash was not a fascist/racist.

I fail to understand how anyone could cite the case of Bose, in support of that of Russell, for the parallels between the two are clearly discreditable to Russell.
For instance, by advocating Indian entry into WWII on the side of the Axis, Bose was clearly out of step with the great majority of Indians, who favoured the neutrality advocated eg by Gandhi and Nehru.
And whilst Bose managed to persuade a paltry 40k (approx) of his fellow Indians to join his INA, by contrast, approximately 2.5 million were to serve in the British-Indian Army - the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen (or likely ever will).
Indeed, Indian volunteers were to serve with great courage and distinction in just about every significant theatre of war in which the British were fighting, including Dunkirk, North Africa, Normandy and Italy etc, as well as in India and the Far East, where they came up against Bose's forces and their Japanese Allies.
So Bose failed utterly to persuade his compatriots either to abandon their preferred policy of Neutrality, or to desist from joining in the Allied cause in (relatively) huge numbers and fought a "war" which had never the slightest hope of succeeding, before dying in mysterious circumstances whilst in the care of Axis military forces.

I'm surprised the National Graves Association haven't raised a statue to Bose somewhere al9ong the line, since he was such an anti-democratic, incompetent and unprincipled rogue, that he might have passed for "a tanned Sean Russell"... ::)

Quote from: deiseach on July 10, 2009, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.

Yitzhak Shamir was a member of Lohamei Herut Yisrael, an organisation that was so determined to end the British mandate in Palestine that it fostered links with Germany during the Second World War. Somehow this man, clearly a virulent anti-Semite, ended up as Prime Minister of Israel

And there is a statue of Shamir exactly where in Ireland?  ::)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 10, 2009, 10:33:10 PM
Russell believed at the time that he was merely furthering his love for his motherland, and was prepared to sacrifice his own life to further that aim, in alliance with whomsoever was an enemy of the 800 years enemy.

Hitler  believed at the time that he was "merely furthering his love for his motherland and was prepared to sacrifice his own life to further that aim etc"

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 10, 2009, 10:33:10 PM
The Nazis actually divided Republicans at the time, not because of the death-camps, because the veracity of such assertions was impossible to ascertain in the propaganda-riddled times of that day, but because of their widely propagated ideology.

Certainly Irish Republicans were divided on the subject of Hitler. The majority favoured Neutrality, a minority favoured co-operating with the Allies for the greater good etc and only a tiny minority aligned themselves with Russell in collaborating with the Nazis.
The first two groups (Neutrals and Allies) had exactly the same information on which to make their choice as Russell, etc, they overwhelmingly chose differently from him, yet they appear to receive little or no credit for their judgement and integrity, from those who would defend Russell.
Worse still, even if one were prepared to forgive or overlook Russell's "errors" in 1940 etc, there is no excuse for his successors and apologists continuing to do so in 2009, when we all have the benefit of being able to study the historical record.  >:(

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 10, 2009, 10:33:10 PM
Bomber Harris was as big a Nazi as any big-booted, goose-stepping Nazi in that he believed that to wipe out every man, woman and child who might contribute to the Axis cause, however passively, was a legitimate war target - the life destroying carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities was as sure of a war crime as any of the modern, or any other, age. Haven't heard the Naive Evil Gimp Genius bleat too loudly about the statue to Harris in London's Strand.

Harris was determined that the War against the Fascists had to be won, as quickly as possible. And if his force created enormous numbers of German casualties, the death rate amongst RAF Bomber command flightcrews was also one of the heaviest of any unit serving anywhere in the war - 55k dead out of a total of 125k (45%), plus another 20k wounded or POW's.  Effectively, Harris was determined that in order to destroy the German industry which was maintaining the Nazi war effort, then civilian casualties amongst Germans was an inevitable price to be paid for achieving the greater end.
Now you can argue about the morality or otherwise of such a policy (I'd suggest another thread), but at least he was fighting against  the Nazis, for the sake of his own countrymen, unlike Russell, who was aiding  the Nazis even when their Luftwaffe was killing over 1,000 Irish men, women and children in Belfast, leaving a further nearly 100,000 homeless and traumatised etc:
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_BlitzBelfast_during_the_second_World_War

(And btw, when it comes to statues of WWII combatants in London, you might care to step round the corner from that of Bomber Harris, to inspect the statue of this man in Trafalger Square, the nation's most honoured location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunningham,_1st_Viscount_Cunningham_of_Hyndhope . Note where he came from originally ... ;))

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 10, 2009, 10:33:10 PM
Nor any mention of the arch appeaser himself, Chamberlain, who was quite happy to sit down convivially with the Fuhrer, after the Sudetenland had been retaken. But then, however excruciatingly verbose his posts, they never really do get to the point.

Good grief! Are you really comparing Chamberlain with Russell? I cannot believe that anyone capable of reading and writing could be so utterly stupid to think this a valid analogy, therefore I can only ascribe it to such a visceral hatred of the Brits (or even me, perhaps?), that all logic and reason has entirely disappeared.
For Chamberlain sat down with Hitler in order to try to avoid  war, not help him prosecute it.
And when Hitler went even fiuther than Chamberlain could stomach (i.e. by invading Poland), he (Chamberlain) was the PM who declared war on Hitler.
And when it became clear that his early policy of Appeasement was utterly discredited, Chamberlain at least did the honourable thing and resigned, thereby tacitly confessing to his chronic misjudgement and error.
Whereas 69 years later, apologists for Sean Russell are still  trying to airbrush his Nazi-collaborating past from the record, on the basis that they can forgive just about anything in a man, so long as he hated the Brits sufficiently.  >:(

Which, in case you missed it, was my whole point all along... ::)

At least 10 posts out of the last 12 by one eejit.  :D

Would ya ever get a fcukin life Drochsaoi.

Quote from: slievegullion on July 11, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
FAO Evil Genius.

First of all I must respond to your uncompromising stance throughout the thread that it is up to others to disprove the claims you source from Wikipedia and such-like. It is you who is asserting or relaying these claims therefore the onus is on you to provide a reliable source for your indictments. Wikipedia is widely regarded by all reasonable people as being unreliable since absolutely anyone with internet access has the ability to publish information on the site. If the information is sourced correctly and accurately on Wikipedia, which is sometimes the case, then the onus is on you to provide these sources to back-up the claims you have made.

Wiki has millions of entries. But whilst all should be treated with caution (i.e. because of the nature of the originators etc), that does not mean that every entry automatically lacks authority or credibility.
As regards Russell, I openly chose to cite it, since I believe it to be essentially valid. If you disagree, then tell me how and where it is invalid, otherwise it is your  broadbrush condemnation of everything-Wiki which fails to stand up.

Quote from: slievegullion on July 11, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
Secondly, before I go any further I would like to point out that to open-minded observers (such as myself) your obvious hatred and bitterness for all things Sinn Féin or Irish Republican taints your posts even when raising a very credible topic such as this one.

Your characterisation of me as having "an obvious hatred and bitterness for all things Sinn Féin or Irish Republican" is so far wide of the mark as to contradict your (rather arrogant) claim to be "open minded".
For I have never hidden my contempt for a political party like SF, which could brazenly eg put forward an unrepentant convicted murderer as a political representative (Paul Butler), or appoint a former bomber as "Unionist Outreach Officer" (Martina Anderson), or characterise the abduction, torture and murder of a single mother of 10, Jean McConville, as "wrong, but not a crime" (Mitchel McLaughlin), or refuse to condemn the murder of Garda Gerry McCabe (just about every last f**king one of them) etc etc etc.
However, I have never expressed or felt any hatred for Irish Republicanism per se, since that political movement has, down the centuries, encompassed so many differing activities and personalities etc that it would be prejudiced to do so.
For example, many of the the early leaders of the United Irishmen such as Tone and McCracken seemed to me to have been brave, principled and respectable people, whose example I hope I might have followed, had I been born in that period.
But that was then, and now is now, and when I see the likes of SF attempt to claim for themselves an unbroken Republican ancestry down the centuries, from people like Tone, via pyschopaths like Patrick Pearse or Sean Russell etc, then I find their conceit, deceit and hypocrisy to be nauseating.

Quote from: slievegullion on July 11, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
I think the one thing that Evil Genius' posts do highlight very well is the complete lunacy of Sinn Féins claims to have an unbroken line from the Sinn Féin set up in 1905.

Actually, I cannot quite decide whether the Shinners present claims to legitimacy from the very founding of the Party doesn't actually make them even worse, than if they were to try to distance themselves from it.
For this observer, at least, is not persuaded by the nostagia of a century's passing etc, that the "Class of 1905" were just a bunch of cosy idealists, fighting a fair fight, for a noble cause etc.
For I strongly suspect that if a light were shone into the corners, some rather murky secrets might be revealed, not least the virulent anti-Semitism of Arthur Griffith himself.
Then again, present-day Shinners have been shown to be highly adept at adopting a "pick-and-mix" approach to Irish History, so I don't suppose a minor inconvenience like that would bother them.

Quote from: slievegullion on July 11, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
I am sincerely interested in your claims about Seán Russell however and the wider relationships of many right-wing figures in Ireland through the last century and I wish to learn more.

For the purposes of this thread, I have only concentrated on Russell and his Statue. I have not the time nor the inclination to widen it to encompass other historical figures.

Quote from: slievegullion on July 11, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
Starting with the article you posted a link to by Jim Cusack. He claims that the Nazis had the names 3500 Jews in Ireland at the time and were preparing for their extermination. Would such information be backed up by credible sources? (Please resist the temptation to think I am playing dumb here, this is genuine interest).

I do not know what exact reference Cusack was using, but if you Google "Adolph Eichmann" and the "Wannsee Conference" (or the "Korherr Report"), you will see that the Nazis drew up extermination lists of all the Jewish populations throughout Europe, not just those countries which they were occupying, but also those neutral or client states, including the Irish Free State.
There is little doubt that had the Nazis succeeded in conquering Europe, Irish Jewry would have been exterminated. For one thing, the Free State would have been powerless to resist Hitler's demands for the Jews to be handed over. For another, such was the level of anti-Semitism ("Murderers of Christ" etc) amongst the more right-wing figures in the Roman Catholic Church, and Blueshirts etc, that the Nazis would likely have found willing local collaborators for their dirty work, as they invariably had done in the rest of occupied Europe. After all, the Limerick Pogrom of 1904 was still a matter of living memory for many people.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 11, 2009, 01:32:40 PM

QuoteIn October 1937, ????????? visited Nazi Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at his Obersalzberg retreat. The visit was much publicised by the German media. During the visit ?????????? gave full Nazi salutes. The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of XXXXXXXXX, believed that ???????? favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany. ?????????'s experience of "the unending scenes of horror" during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered ????????? to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through ???????????. Fellow Nazi Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. ???????????? was a severe loss for us."

The ????????????? settled in France. On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, they were brought back to Britain by Lord Mountbatten in HMS Kelly, and the ???????, already an honorary Field Marshal, was gazetted a Major-General attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the ?????????? had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium. When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940, the ?????????? fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Spain. In July the pair moved to Lisbon, Portugal, where they lived at first in the home of Ricardo de Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts. During the occupation of France, the ????????????? asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so. A "defeatist" interview with the ??????????? that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the ???????????? with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil. In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where in the view of Churchill ?????????? could do the least damage to the British war effort.

?????????? was installed as Governor. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony". The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when ?????????? planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring. However, ????????? was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium." He was praised, even by Dupuch, for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews. He held the post until the end of World War II in 1945.


Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate ???????????? in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain. It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly." Lord Caldecote wrote to Winston Churchill just before the couple were sent to the Bahamas, "?????????? is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue." The latter, but not the former, part of this assessment is corroborated by German operations designed to use ??????????. The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by the German plots that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of ????????????? when they visited Palm Beach, Florida in April 1941.

After the war, ???????? admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."

Another wikipedia story about a historical figure with alleged Nazi sympathies. First prize to whoever is the quickest to work out who ???????????? is and what position he held.

Any ideas Evil Genius?

Quote from: Rossfan on July 13, 2009, 02:13:11 PM
At least 10 posts out of the last 12 by one eejit.  :D

Would ya ever get a fcukin life Drochsaoi.

Congratulations - you've proved you can count. Any chance you can also comprehend? Maybe even make a contribution?

No?

Or is that too much to ask?  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 12:42:29 PM
Fcuk me! I thought I'd seen some pretty crass attempts at deflection by "Whataboutery" on this Board, but that one surely deserves some kind of prize

I was wondering how long it would take for you to play the Whataboutery card. I prefer to think of it was what is good for the goose being good for the gander. Myers exhorts the amabassadors to Ireland to bring the news back home that Ireland is honouring a neo-Nazi. If they did, I have no doubt that there isn't a single country in Europe that would be wondering why they are wasting their time and that they have plenty of sulphurous memorials to people considered a hero in one country but a butcher in another country and would rather not have attention drawn to that thank you very much

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 12:42:29 PM
P.S. Have you any opinion of your own on what Myers actually wrote, or are you only capable of "playing the man"?   ::)

From the man who asked whether I worked for the SF press office (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=12936.msg589749#msg589749), that is Daddy Warbucks-rich

Not if it's going to beget  20 or 30 long responses from you.
Sean Russell was a great republican who sought help from our ancient enemy's enemy.
They werent very nice but he was still a good one.
The Government to which you owe allegience are allies with Saudi Arabia ..a Country where women are barely allowed to breathe and have no rights, where Christian worship is punishable by death,where public beheadings take place etc etc
Why dont you fill 3 or 4 pages with that instead of something from the 30s and 40s which we can do nothing about.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 13, 2009, 03:03:21 PM

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 11, 2009, 01:32:40 PM

QuoteIn October 1937, ????????? visited Nazi Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at his Obersalzberg retreat. The visit was much publicised by the German media. During the visit ?????????? gave full Nazi salutes. The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of XXXXXXXXX, believed that ???????? favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany. ?????????'s experience of "the unending scenes of horror" during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered ????????? to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through ???????????. Fellow Nazi Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. ???????????? was a severe loss for us."

The ????????????? settled in France. On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, they were brought back to Britain by Lord Mountbatten in HMS Kelly, and the ???????, already an honorary Field Marshal, was gazetted a Major-General attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the ?????????? had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium. When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940, the ?????????? fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Spain. In July the pair moved to Lisbon, Portugal, where they lived at first in the home of Ricardo de Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts. During the occupation of France, the ????????????? asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so. A "defeatist" interview with the ??????????? that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the ???????????? with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil. In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where in the view of Churchill ?????????? could do the least damage to the British war effort.

?????????? was installed as Governor. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony". The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when ?????????? planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring. However, ????????? was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium." He was praised, even by Dupuch, for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews. He held the post until the end of World War II in 1945.


Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate ???????????? in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain. It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly." Lord Caldecote wrote to Winston Churchill just before the couple were sent to the Bahamas, "?????????? is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue." The latter, but not the former, part of this assessment is corroborated by German operations designed to use ??????????. The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by the German plots that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of ????????????? when they visited Palm Beach, Florida in April 1941.

After the war, ???????? admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."

Another wikipedia story about a historical figure with alleged Nazi sympathies. First prize to whoever is the quickest to work out who ???????????? is and what position he held.

Any ideas Evil Genius?

Quite obviously it is a reference to Edward VIII, whose political views were highly suspect.

That is, the same Edward VIII who was forced by the Establishment to abdicate and banished to a tiny imperial backwater for the duration of the War (to keep him well out of the way), before being shunned and driven into exile following the end of the War.

Such treatment is a world awat from that accorded to Sean Russell in Ireland, not least in that there are no Statues anywhere* in the UK to Edward VII - at least any which post-date the propagation by him of his unacceptable opinions in adulthood.


* - I believe there is a statue of him as a young man in Aberystwyth, commemorating his Investiture as Prince of Wales, which curiously has been vandalised and defaced a number of times since!

Quote from: Rossfan on July 13, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Not if it's going to beget  20 or 30 long responses from you.
Sean Russell was a great republican who sought help from our ancient enemy's enemy.
They werent very nice but he was still a good one.
The Government to which you owe allegience are allies with Saudi Arabia ..a Country where women are barely allowed to breathe and have no rights, where Christian worship is punishable by death,where public beheadings take place etc etc
Why dont you fill 3 or 4 pages with that instead of something from the 30s and 40s which we can do nothing about.

No need for 3 or 4 pages, when "A single picture tells a thousand words":

(http://www.mofa.gov.sa/media/96036_1.jpg)
http://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InNewsItemID=96043

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 03:22:03 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 13, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Not if it's going to beget  20 or 30 long responses from you.
Sean Russell was a great republican who sought help from our ancient enemy's enemy.
They werent very nice but he was still a good one.
The Government to which you owe allegience are allies with Saudi Arabia ..a Country where women are barely allowed to breathe and have no rights, where Christian worship is punishable by death,where public beheadings take place etc etc
Why dont you fill 3 or 4 pages with that instead of something from the 30s and 40s which we can do nothing about.

No need for 3 or 4 pages, when "A single picture tells a thousand words":

(http://www.mofa.gov.sa/media/96036_1.jpg)
http://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InNewsItemID=96043

oh I see, a picture of the saudi ambassador to britain visiting mary mcaleese means we are allies with saudi arabia now 

Brilliant... :D

but then again were there not pics of people throughout history that have been snapped alongside sinister historical figures !
churchill with stalin, paisley with bertie etc etc


plus arent there statues to the fathers of the apartheid in the north of Ireland - craig and carson-  somewhere around belfast ?

Quote from: Rossfan on July 13, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
The Government to which you owe allegience are allies with Saudi Arabia ..a Country where women are barely allowed to breathe and have no rights, where Christian worship is punishable by death,where public beheadings take place etc etc

That's the key. EG fisks the posts of everyone else to muddy the waters regarding his original point: that a man can be condemned by his associations. You don't have to think that Seán Russell was on the side of the angels (I don't think he was) or advocate pulling down memorials to him (I'm very reluctant to airbrush these things out of history; changing the name of Windscale doesn't change what it is) to see the hypocrisy of his position

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 13, 2009, 03:28:12 PM
but then again were there not pics of people throughout history that have been snapped alongside sinister historical figures !
churchill with stalin, paisley with bertie etc etc

;D

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 03:15:12 PM

Quite obviously it is a reference to Edward VIII, whose political views were highly suspect.

That is, the same Edward VIII who was forced by the Establishment to abdicate and banished to a tiny imperial backwater for the duration of the War (to keep him well out of the way), before being shunned and driven into exile following the end of the War.

Such treatment is a world awat from that accorded to Sean Russell in Ireland, not least in that there are no Statues anywhere* in the UK to Edward VII - at least any which post-date the propagation by him of his unacceptable opinions in adulthood.


* - I believe there is a statue of him as a young man in Aberystwyth, commemorating his Investiture as Prince of Wales, which curiously has been vandalised and defaced a number of times since!

According to your beloved wikipedia, the abdication was nothing to do with his Nazi sympathies. And when you say banished, I assume you mean "made governor of".

As for being shunned, again taking wikipedia on trust, Edward in fact did continue to meet with the Royal family, Nazi sympathies notwithstanding. Indeed the current Queen visited her dear old uncle in France, as well as attending his state funeral. In death, they shunned him so badly that his grave lies in the Royal Burial Ground. (Great job this wikipedia).

Have the British Royal family ever apologised for the actions of a Nazi sympathiser in their midst?

(http://estb.msn.com/i/8B/56CA9EE529992F26B6445F5961737.jpg)

A single picture says a thousand words

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 13, 2009, 03:28:12 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 03:22:03 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 13, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Not if it's going to beget  20 or 30 long responses from you.
Sean Russell was a great republican who sought help from our ancient enemy's enemy.
They werent very nice but he was still a good one.
The Government to which you owe allegience are allies with Saudi Arabia ..a Country where women are barely allowed to breathe and have no rights, where Christian worship is punishable by death,where public beheadings take place etc etc
Why dont you fill 3 or 4 pages with that instead of something from the 30s and 40s which we can do nothing about.

No need for 3 or 4 pages, when "A single picture tells a thousand words":

(http://www.mofa.gov.sa/media/96036_1.jpg)
http://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InNewsItemID=96043

oh I see, a picture of the saudi ambassador to britain visiting mary mcaleese means we are allies with saudi arabia now 

Brilliant... :D

Can you not read? This was a visit by the outgoing Saudi Ambassador to Britain and Ireland to McAleese in Aras an Wotsit:
http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=6&engagement=200927&lang=eng

And as for the relationship between the two countries, here is what the Saudis themselves had to say on the occasion:

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to United Kingdom and Ireland, today visited the President of the Republic of Ireland, Mary McAleese, on the occasion of the end of his tenure as non-resident Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland, due to the appointment of a resident Ambassador there in light of the expansion of the Saudi-Irish relations expansion in all fields.

During the meeting, they reviewed the bilateral relations between the two countries and the remarkable development achieved in recent years.

Yep, such has been the "remarkable development" in bilateral relations between the Kingdom and the Republic, that the former are now installing a resident Ambassador in Dublin!

So much for it being a mere Photo-Op, then, eh?  ;)

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 03:59:55 PM
(http://estb.msn.com/i/8B/56CA9EE529992F26B6445F5961737.jpg)

A single picture says a thousand words

In fairness to Jug Ears, I'd say the craic would be ninety altogether were he to hesitate every time a hand was thrust towards him - especially the hand of a black man

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 04:13:10 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 03:59:55 PM
(http://estb.msn.com/i/8B/56CA9EE529992F26B6445F5961737.jpg)

A single picture says a thousand words

In fairness to Jug Ears, I'd say the craic would be ninety altogether were he to hesitate every time a hand was thrust towards him - especially the hand of a black man

It's President Mumbai, no-one would have said it was a race issue.

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:19:32 PM
It's President Mumbai, no-one would have said it was a race issue.

The point is that to have avoided shaking, er, Mugabe's hand, Charles would have to have a policy of scanning the face of every person who has just offered their hand. That would have looked real good had it been Nelson Mandela

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 04:24:48 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:19:32 PM
It's President Mumbai, no-one would have said it was a race issue.

The point is that to have avoided shaking, er, Mugabe's hand, Charles would have to have a policy of scanning the face of every person who has just offered their hand. That would have looked real good had it been Nelson Mandela

It was Pope John Paul II's funeral and he was making the sign of peace, so Charles would have known who was sitting near him.

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:28:23 PM
It was Pope John Paul II's funeral and he was making the sign of peace, so Charles would have known who was sitting near him.

I don't think he did. We'll have to agree to differ on that one

I guess, anyway my point was that pictures don't prove anything.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 13, 2009, 03:48:00 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 03:15:12 PM

Quite obviously it is a reference to Edward VIII, whose political views were highly suspect.

That is, the same Edward VIII who was forced by the Establishment to abdicate and banished to a tiny imperial backwater for the duration of the War (to keep him well out of the way), before being shunned and driven into exile following the end of the War.

Such treatment is a world awat from that accorded to Sean Russell in Ireland, not least in that there are no Statues anywhere* in the UK to Edward VII - at least any which post-date the propagation by him of his unacceptable opinions in adulthood.


* - I believe there is a statue of him as a young man in Aberystwyth, commemorating his Investiture as Prince of Wales, which curiously has been vandalised and defaced a number of times since!

According to your beloved wikipedia, the abdication was nothing to do with his Nazi sympathies. And when you say banished, I assume you mean "made governor of".

After having been forced to abdicate, Edward VIII was sent to Bermuda because he was a complete embarrassment to the Government and country, not least for his political sympathies and associations.
And out of all the possible postings which might have been found for him, the Governorship of Bermuda was judged to be the one which was least visible and important. offering the fewest opportunities to cause bother. This was a man who had, inter alia, briefly been King and Emperor of nearly a fifth of the world's population. Contrast that with the example of Earl Mountbatten (the Queen's Uncle), whose wartime service was rewarded with being appointed last Viceroy of India.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 13, 2009, 03:48:00 PM
As for being shunned, again taking wikipedia on trust, Edward in fact did continue to meet with the Royal family, Nazi sympathies notwithstanding. Indeed the current Queen visited her dear old uncle in France, as well as attending his state funeral. In death, they shunned him so badly that his grave lies in the Royal Burial Ground. (Great job this wikipedia).

Misleading. He had occasional contact with certain members of the Royal Family - his blood relatives, after all. However, neither he nor the Duchess were ever allowed to carry out any official function, nor did the Queen Mother, for instance, ever even speak to him, such was her antipathy towards him. Moreover, he was banished to France for the rest of his life i.e. not even allowed to live in his own country.
As against that, they did allow his body to be interred in this country, but even that was "only" in the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore (alongside a brother, the Duke of Kent).
For according to tradition, British monarchs and former monarchs down the centuries, including his younger brother George VI, are now buried in St.George's Chapel, where the present Queen is expected to be interred when her day comes.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 13, 2009, 03:48:00 PM
Have the British Royal family ever apologised for the actions of a Nazi sympathiser in their midst?

No, and nor should they have to. For what you seem determined to ignore is that the Nazi sympathiser to whom you refer was clearly excluded from public life and so requires no apology on behalf of the nation.
Moreover, the wartime record of George VI and Queen Elizabeth, Earl Mountbatten and the Duke of Edinburgh, even the present Queen herself, demonstrates perfectly clearly where the true attitude of the Royal Family lay towards the Nazis.

But congratulations, you've managed to sidetrack this thread for a few minutes, away from its proper topic, i.e. the commemoration in 2009 by Sinn Fein and the National Graves Association of Ireland's most notorious Nazi collaborator, Sean Russell.

I hope you're all proud of him.  >:(

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
I guess, anyway my point was that pictures don't prove anything.

Too true. Whether Charles meant it or not, EG must condemn him for sharing a congregation with such evil!

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 04:37:18 PM
But congratulations, you've managed to sidetrack this thread for a few minutes, away from its proper topic, i.e. the commemoration in 2009 by Sinn Fein and the National Graves Association of Ireland's most notorious Nazi collaborator, Sean Russell.

I hope you're all proud of him.  >:(

So the existence of this statue means, ipso facto, we are all proud of him. What next? All Brits are proud of Oliver Cromwell because of the statue of him in Westminster? (Cue torturous justifications of Cromwell's actions).

(http://media.southparkstudios.com/media/images/1008/1008_jenkins.jpg)

I knew I seen Evil Genius in South Park

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
I guess, anyway my point was that pictures don't prove anything.

Taken out of context, they don't necessarily mean anthing (or can even be misleading).

However, in response to Rossfan seeking to castigate the UK for its close relations with Saudi Arabia, I took the opportunity to point out that such has been the Irish Republic's increasing relationship with Saudi, that the Saudis have decided to appoint a Resident Ambassador of its own to Ireland.

But rather than spelling it out, I merely posted a photo, with explanatory link. I suppose I might have guessed that Lynchbhoy & Co wouldn't bother to read the link properly  ::)

As for your photograph, the context being a Pope's funeral, I daresay Mugabe was delighted to rub shoulders with the "great and the good" (i.e. to refute suggestions he is a pariah etc). No doubt Charles went along with it, since it was hardly the time or place to stage a diplomatic incident. Moreover, it overlooks the fact that it was the Vatican who invited Mugabe, not Charles...

Perhaps a more relevant photograph might be this one, from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala 2007:
(http://ghana.gov.gh/files/images/chogm_0.jpg)
Mugabe is conspicuous by his absence...

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 04:41:49 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
I guess, anyway my point was that pictures don't prove anything.

Too true. Whether Charles meant it or not, EG must condemn him for sharing a congregation with such evil!

I prefer to place the "blame" on those who invited Mugabe, not those who happened to be seated close to him...

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 04:45:50 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 04:37:18 PM
But congratulations, you've managed to sidetrack this thread for a few minutes, away from its proper topic, i.e. the commemoration in 2009 by Sinn Fein and the National Graves Association of Ireland's most notorious Nazi collaborator, Sean Russell.

I hope you're all proud of him.  >:(

So the existence of this statue means, ipso facto, we are all proud of him. What next? All Brits are proud of Oliver Cromwell because of the statue of him in Westminster? (Cue torturous justifications of Cromwell's actions).

By "all" I meant those who either defend Russell, or those who refuse to condemn him. Which if the responses to this thread are anything to go by, would appear to be a majority of posters.

Personally, if I were a citizen of the Republic, I'd be ashamed that even in 2009, people are paying fresh tribute to such a man in my name.

As for Cromwell et alia, I suggest you take his case up with whoever put his statue up there in the first place... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 04:55:20 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 04:41:49 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on July 13, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
I guess, anyway my point was that pictures don't prove anything.

Too true. Whether Charles meant it or not, EG must condemn him for sharing a congregation with such evil!

I prefer to place the "blame" on those who invited Mugabe, not those who happened to be seated close to him...

He wasn't invited.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 04:03:37 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 13, 2009, 03:28:12 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 03:22:03 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 13, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Not if it's going to beget  20 or 30 long responses from you.
Sean Russell was a great republican who sought help from our ancient enemy's enemy.
They werent very nice but he was still a good one.
The Government to which you owe allegience are allies with Saudi Arabia ..a Country where women are barely allowed to breathe and have no rights, where Christian worship is punishable by death,where public beheadings take place etc etc
Why dont you fill 3 or 4 pages with that instead of something from the 30s and 40s which we can do nothing about.

No need for 3 or 4 pages, when "A single picture tells a thousand words":

(http://www.mofa.gov.sa/media/96036_1.jpg)
http://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InNewsItemID=96043

oh I see, a picture of the saudi ambassador to britain visiting mary mcaleese means we are allies with saudi arabia now 

Brilliant... :D

Can you not read? This was a visit by the outgoing Saudi Ambassador to Britain and Ireland to McAleese in Aras an Wotsit:
http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=6&engagement=200927&lang=eng

And as for the relationship between the two countries, here is what the Saudis themselves had to say on the occasion:

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to United Kingdom and Ireland, today visited the President of the Republic of Ireland, Mary McAleese, on the occasion of the end of his tenure as non-resident Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland, due to the appointment of a resident Ambassador there in light of the expansion of the Saudi-Irish relations expansion in all fields.

During the meeting, they reviewed the bilateral relations between the two countries and the remarkable development achieved in recent years.

Yep, such has been the "remarkable development" in bilateral relations between the Kingdom and the Republic, that the former are now installing a resident Ambassador in Dublin!

So much for it being a mere Photo-Op, then, eh?  ;)

and that makes us 'allied' to saudi arabia how exactly in the same way as the brits?
are we suddenly supplying weaponry too !

the base of that barrel must be worn thin now !

please tell us what point you are trying  (but failing) to make in this thread as yer making a paisley of it (an utter mess) !

yet again you show that you have no substence to your claims and posts !

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 04:59:44 PM
Personally, if I were a citizen of the Republic, I'd be ashamed that even in 2009, people are paying fresh tribute to such a man in my name.

As for Cromwell et alia, I suggest you take his case up with whoever put his statue up there in the first place... ::)

So I should feel ashamed for being the citizen of a Republic that allows such a monster to be honoured, yet you get a free pass from shame in being a subject to a Kingdom that allows such a monster to be honoured because you didn't erect the statue? Come on, you can do better than that.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 13, 2009, 05:09:51 PM
please tell us what point you are trying  (but failing) to make in this thread as yer making a paisley of it (an utter mess) !

His point is that all Irishmen should be ashamed that a man who collaborated with the Nazis is being honoured. It's a simple point, made all the simpler by what the historian Norman Davies referred to as 'the Allied scheme of history', i.e. that anyone who fought the Nazis was Good and that anyone who failed to fight the Nazis was Evil. So Poland was Good in 1939 when it resisted Germany and Evil in 1943 when it dared to question who killed 20,000+ of their officer corps in Katyn. Once viewed through that prism, all else falls into place.

When the oul bastard finally dies, the British government are going to give Thatcher a state funeral, and no doubt there'll also be a statue of the twisted whore put up at Westminster ... this the woman who allied herself with the facsist, murderous regime of Pinochet during the 1982 Malvinas war, a regime that overthrew the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and was responsible for the 'disappearance' (i.e murder) of 30-40,000 'opponents' (i.e innocent socialists) of the regime.  Pinochet's bona fides would have been well-known in 1982.

Sean Russell died in a German U-Boat in 1940.  The Nazi's 'Final Solution' only became official (secret) policy after January 1942 and the Wannasee Conference. Germany's anti-Jewish policies, of course, would have been well-known before that  (certainly in May 1938 when the England football team to a man gave the Nazi salute to the dignitaries' box before a friendly in Berlin ... a game that Hitler didn't even bother his hole to attend BTW).

Your harping on about Russell being culpable in the Holocaust is not only pathetic, but factually incorrect.  As someone who is left-wing and anti-facsist in my politics, I don't have the slightest problem with the statue of this republican hero being put up ... at least he was true to his beliefs, unlike the subject of that statue up at Stormont who proclaimed loyalty to the crown but ran guns in 1912 from a country that was on an obvious collision course with Britain, and who fomented mutiny among the crown's forces ... typical unionist hypocrisy

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 05:13:55 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 04:59:44 PM
Personally, if I were a citizen of the Republic, I'd be ashamed that even in 2009, people are paying fresh tribute to such a man in my name.

As for Cromwell et alia, I suggest you take his case up with whoever put his statue up there in the first place... ::)

So I should feel ashamed for being the citizen of a Republic that allows such a monster to be honoured, yet you get a free pass from shame in being a subject to a Kingdom that allows such a monster to be honoured because you didn't erect the statue? Come on, you can do better than that.

You should feel whatever you want to feel - I was just saying how I would feel in such circumstances and why.

As for Cromwell etc, I have always been entirely consistent in my opinion that no-one should take undue pride in the achievements of ancestors long dead, or feel guilt or remorse for their misdeeds etc, since such behaviour only leads to the abuse of History and the avoidance of repsonsibility. And this applies to memorials to public figures, as much as anyone else.

Therefore, I had no time for my former Prime Minister "apologising" for The Irish Famine, for example, whilst refusing to apologise for taking us into Iraq under false pretences. Or for an even more recent example, I thought it shameful the way the present PM sought to treat the Gurkhas, only public opinion refused to let him get away with it.

P.S. There's a statue of Boadicea just up the way from Cromwell. Any idea whether I should apologise for her as a "Terrorist", or feel proud of her as a "Freedom Fighter"?  ::)

Quote from: red hander on July 13, 2009, 05:28:42 PM
When the oul b**tard finally dies, the British government are going to give Thatcher a state funeral, and no doubt there'll also be a statue of the twisted whore put up at Westminster ... this the woman who allied herself with the facsist, murderous regime of Pinochet during the 1982 Malvinas war, a regime that overthrew the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and was responsible for the 'disappearance' (i.e murder) of 30-40,000 'opponents' (i.e innocent socialists) of the regime.  Pinochet's bona fides would have been well-known in 1982.

Sean Russell died in a German U-Boat in 1940.  The Nazi's 'Final Solution' only became official (secret) policy after January 1942 and the Wannasee Conference. Germany's anti-Jewish policies, of course, would have been well-known before that  (certainly in May 1938 when the England football team to a man gave the Nazi salute to the dignitaries' box before a friendly in Berlin ... a game that Hitler didn't even bother his hole to attend BTW).

Your harping on about Russell being culpable in the Holocaust is not only pathetic, but factually incorrect.  As someone who is left-wing and anti-facsist in my politics, I don't have the slightest problem with the statue of this republican hero being put up ... at least he was true to his beliefs, unlike the subject of that statue up at Stormont who proclaimed loyalty to the crown but ran guns in 1912 from a country that was on an obvious collision course with Britain, and who fomented mutiny among the crown's forces ... typical unionist hypocrisy

If the brits ever errect a statue of that tr**p thatcher it will not last a crack, the feckin thing will be destroyed inside a month and should be. Hateful racist sc**bag.she was a blight on the world stage but typical of what the brits offer up as an effective leader.

Quote from: red hander on July 13, 2009, 05:28:42 PM
When the oul b**tard finally dies, the British government are going to give Thatcher a state funeral, and no doubt there'll also be a statue of the twisted whore put up at Westminster ... this the woman who allied herself with the facsist, murderous regime of Pinochet during the 1982 Malvinas war, a regime that overthrew the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and was responsible for the 'disappearance' (i.e murder) of 30-40,000 'opponents' (i.e innocent socialists) of the regime.  Pinochet's bona fides would have been well-known in 1982.

Do try and keep up...
(http://www.parliament.uk/images/upload/84487.jpg)
http://www.parliament.uk/visiting/exhibitionsandevents/exhibitions/thatcher_statue.cfm

Btw, if you are personally so worked-up about Thatcher's relationship with Pinochet, I hope you aren't also a Catholic. From 'The Tablet' in 1999:
"It emerged last week that the Holy See had intervened with the British Government on behalf of General Pinochet. The chairman of the Latin America Bureau in London examines the changing relationship between the Catholic Church and the Chilean regime since the coup in 1973. THE Catholic church is as divided today about General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte as it has ever been since he seized power from Chile?s elected left-wing Government on 11 September 1973.

Last week it became clear that the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, intervened last November on the general?s behalf with the British Government and with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Cardinal Sodano was on the staff of the nunciature in Santiago before, during and after Pinochet?s coup against Allende in 1973, becoming nuncio himself from 1977 to 1988. Now he wanted the general to escape extradition to Spain and be sent back to Chile. There, as the most casual political observer knows, the chances of any sort of trial are minimal, even non-existent. According to Mgr Piero Pioppo, secretary at the nunciature in Santiago, Cardinal Sodano?s intervention was the result of an appeal from the Chilean Government to the Holy See that Chile?s sovereignty in the matter of Pinochet should be respected"
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/6703

Quote from: red hander on July 13, 2009, 05:28:42 PM
Sean Russell died in a German U-Boat in 1940.  The Nazi's 'Final Solution' only became official (secret) policy after January 1942 and the Wannasee Conference. Germany's anti-Jewish policies, of course, would have been well-known before that  (certainly in May 1938 when the England football team to a man gave the Nazi salute to the dignitaries' box before a friendly in Berlin ... a game that Hitler didn't even bother his hole to attend BTW).

Your harping on about Russell being culpable in the Holocaust is not only pathetic, but factually incorrect.  As someone who is left-wing and anti-facsist in my politics, I don't have the slightest problem with the statue of this republican hero being put up ... at least he was true to his beliefs, unlike the subject of that statue up at Stormont who proclaimed loyalty to the crown but ran guns in 1912 from a country that was on an obvious collision course with Britain, and who fomented mutiny among the crown's forces ... typical unionist hypocrisy

I never claimed that Russell was personally culpable for the Holocaust. However, by 1940, Russell knew (or should have known) fine well what Fascism was all about, following eg the Nazi intervention in the Spanish Civil War in 1936, or the flood of Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe to the UK and elsewhere from the mid-30's. Yet whilst by 1939 the overwhelming majority of Irish people used this as evidence for adopting Neutrality, or even joining up with the Allies, Russell was the leader of a tiny minority who still went ahead and made common cause with Hitler.
And nearly 70 years later, people who should know better are still making excuses for him, presumably solely out of the anti-British prejudice they share with Russell.

P.S. I am not an England football fan, but insofar as that team represented the UK, I for one have no trouble at all in declaring it shameful that they gave the Nazi salute.

Evil G has way too much time on his hands.

He must be a civil servant  ;D

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 05:34:22 PM
You should feel whatever you want to feel - I was just saying how I would feel in such circumstances and why.

Your circumstances are inconsistent, unless you think that there should be a statute of limitations (so to speak) on outrage about memorials. In that situation, the Shinners would be justified in saying that if we wait long enough the future EG's can't have a problem with a statue to Seán Russell because "no-one should take undue pride in the achievements of ancestors long dead, or feel guilt or remorse for their misdeeds etc, since such behaviour only leads to the abuse of History and the avoidance of repsonsibility"

Quote from: deiseach on July 13, 2009, 05:26:13 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 13, 2009, 05:09:51 PM
please tell us what point you are trying  (but failing) to make in this thread as yer making a paisley of it (an utter mess) !

His point is that all Irishmen should be ashamed that a man who collaborated with the Nazis is being honoured. It's a simple point, made all the simpler by what the historian Norman Davies referred to as 'the Allied scheme of history', i.e. that anyone who fought the Nazis was Good and that anyone who failed to fight the Nazis was Evil. So Poland was Good in 1939 when it resisted Germany and Evil in 1943 when it dared to question who killed 20,000+ of their officer corps in Katyn. Once viewed through that prism, all else falls into place.

So if you follow such a simplistic view of History (I don't, btw), tell me what was actually "good" about Sean Russell's collaboration with the Nazis? And if that collaboration was somehow justified by his opposition to the Brits etc, does that mean that the great majority of Irish Republicans of the period who chose not to exploit "Ireland's opportunity" during "England's Peril" etc were somehow less noble or patriotic than Russell?

Remember, Russell and his IRA cronies (including a certain Uncle Dominic Adams) collaborated directly with the Luftwaffe when they blitzed Belfast, killing over a thousand of their (IRA's) fellow Irish men, women and children... >:(

Maybe I am guilty of over-simplification, but personally I think that was utterly shameful, such that all those who seek to defend him in the present day now that the record is known, are guilty of nauseating cant, with those who also call themselves "socialists" being especially repugnant for their hypocrisy.  :o

P.S. Nowhere have I ever defended the cover-up over Katynh, a subject in which I happen to have a close personal interest. But that said, had I been in the position of Churchill or Roosevelt etc, I'm not sure I would have done anything different. That's because their position was one of "needs must". Whereas Russell's collaboration with the Nazis was a decision born entirely out of free choice.

It's truly remarkable that those who profess to hate and despise the British cannot conduct any kind of debate or discussion without bringing the British into it. Remarkable? Sorry, I meant laughable.  ;)
Once again, I don't care what the British do, or what statues they put up in their country. I don't care who their politicians consort with or whether or not they'll get a state funeral when they die. I do care what happens in Ireland. I don't want visitors to my country to think that the Irish as a nation feel it's appropriate to honour a p***k who thought it a good move to ally himself and his cause with Nazi Germany. What next? Maybe a statue in Galway in memory of William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce, another flake who brought shame on his country.
Power to the Fairview Park Vandals!

'I never claimed that Russell was personally culpable for the Holocaust'

Then maybe it was the Bard of Dunclug who typed this in a few days ago:  'So are you saying that Russell and SF/IRA were justified in helping Hitler exterminate the Jews etc, because of what had occurred 100 years earlier in Ireland during the Famine?  Worse than pathetic...'

Did you fall on your head when you were younger?  

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 13, 2009, 06:13:37 PM
It's truly remarkable that those who profess to hate and despise the British cannot conduct any kind of debate or discussion without bringing the British into it. Remarkable? Sorry, I meant laughable.  ;)
Once again, I don't care what the British do, or what statues they put up in their country. I don't care who their politicians consort with or whether or not they'll get a state funeral when they die. I do care what happens in Ireland. I don't want visitors to my country to think that the Irish as a nation feel it's appropriate to honour a p***k who thought it a good move to ally himself and his cause with Nazi Germany. What next? Maybe a statue in Galway in memory of William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce, another flake who brought shame on his country.
Power to the Fairview Park Vandals!

If Joyce was Irish then how come he was hanged for treason?  Any half-decent lawyer could have got him off if that was the case.  Joyce wasn't Irish, and what's more he never considered himself Irish either, so stop talking shite. 

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 06:09:30 PM
So if you follow such a simplistic view of History (I don't, btw), tell me what was actually "good" about Sean Russell's collaboration with the Nazis? And if that collaboration was somehow justified by his opposition to the Brits etc, does that mean that the great majority of Irish Republicans of the period who chose not to exploit "Ireland's opportunity" during "England's Peril" etc were somehow less noble or patriotic than Russell?

I don't follow such a simplistic view of history and nowhere have I stated that Russell was on the side of Good. In fact I have specifically said that that is not what is I am saying (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=12936.msg589832#msg589832). Just so we can avoid these straw men arguments, I do not think Seán Russell's actions were moral. Okay?

'If Joyce was Irish then how come he was hanged for treason?  Any half-decent lawyer could have got him off if that was the case.  Joyce wasn't Irish, and what's more he never considered himself Irish either, so stop talking shite.'
He was born in New York, his father was naturalised Irish, he lived in Ireland for a time as a child, and he is buried in Ireland. That makes him as Irish as De Valera. Check your facts before you dive in.  ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 13, 2009, 06:13:37 PM
Once again, I don't care what the British do, or what statues they put up in their country. I don't care who their politicians consort with or whether or not they'll get a state funeral when they die. I do care what happens in Ireland. I don't want visitors to my country to think that the Irish as a nation feel it's appropriate to honour a p***k who thought it a good move to ally himself and his cause with Nazi Germany. What next? Maybe a statue in Galway in memory of William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce, another flake who brought shame on his country.
Power to the Fairview Park Vandals!

Check the subject heading. It is titled "Sinn Fein vs Sieg Heil - Spot the Difference". The crux of the matter is EG's assertion that collaborating with the Nazi's makes you a Nazi - or was the 'spot the difference' more than a rhetorical device? I think this is a fatuous argument and if one is going to make then you have to assume that collaborating with the Soviet Union made you a Bolshevik.

As for the specifics of the Russell case, I'd be reluctant to have the statue removed. It smacks of present-centred revisionism, i.e. he's an embarrassment to us now so let's get rid of it. I'd have felt the same about Nelson's Pillar or that statue of Queen Victoria that is now in Canberra, or one of Lord Haw Haw if one had ever been erected (oddly enough, no one ever did).

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 13, 2009, 01:15:55 PM

Quote from: Main Street on July 10, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
Same as Subhash Chandra Bose in India, started an army of liberation by also recruiting Indian pows, got help from Germany and Japan, waged war against the Brits with his Indian National Army during ww2 to liberate India from the Brits.
Subhash was not a fascist/racist.

I fail to understand how anyone could cite the case of Bose, in support of that of Russell, for the parallels between the two are clearly discreditable to Russell.
For instance, by advocating Indian entry into WWII on the side of the Axis, Bose was clearly out of step with the great majority of Indians, who favoured the neutrality advocated eg by Gandhi and Nehru.
And whilst Bose managed to persuade a paltry 40k (approx) of his fellow Indians to join his INA, by contrast, approximately 2.5 million were to serve in the British-Indian Army - the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen (or likely ever will).
Indeed, Indian volunteers were to serve with great courage and distinction in just about every significant theatre of war in which the British were fighting, including Dunkirk, North Africa, Normandy and Italy etc, as well as in India and the Far East, where they came up against Bose's forces and their Japanese Allies.
So Bose failed utterly to persuade his compatriots either to abandon their preferred policy of Neutrality, or to desist from joining in the Allied cause in (relatively) huge numbers and fought a "war" which had never the slightest hope of succeeding, before dying in mysterious circumstances whilst in the care of Axis military forces.

I'm surprised the National Graves Association haven't raised a statue to Bose somewhere al9ong the line, since he was such an anti-democratic, incompetent and unprincipled rogue, that he might have passed for "a tanned Sean Russell"... ::)

What utter pointless drivel. You are not much of a debater as well a piss poor academic.
Whether Bose failed or succeeded  as a freedom fighter according to your interpretation of wikipedia, is besides the point.

What is relevant to freedom fighters like Russell, is Bose took all assistance available from Germany and Japan, weapons, money to wage war against the Brits, is regarded as a patriot, a freedom fighter in Bengal and India with not the slightest stain of being regarded as a fascist sympathiser.
Plus plenty of statutes, buildings, streets, schools named after Bose the freedom fighter, in Kolkata.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 13, 2009, 06:30:03 PM
'If Joyce was Irish then how come he was hanged for treason?  Any half-decent lawyer could have got him off if that was the case.  Joyce wasn't Irish, and what's more he never considered himself Irish either, so stop talking shite.'
He was born in New York, his father was naturalised Irish, he lived in Ireland for a time as a child, and he is buried in Ireland. That makes him as Irish as De Valera. Check your facts before you dive in.  ;)

Joyce was hanged for treason to Britain.  If he was Irish, then the only country that could have hanged him for treason was Ireland.  Like I said, had he been Irish, any half-decent lawyer could have got him off the treason charge in the British court by not only invoking his Irish citizenship, but his American citizenship.  I think you'll find he carried a British passport.  Joyce disdained his Irish links and his Irish neighbours, even as a young boy he considered himself English.  Maybe you should check your facts before you jump in and set yourself up as board arbiter of what Irishness is and who is Irish

EG - Would you be shocked if I told you that during WW2 that Jews in Israel actually visited the Nazi's to request  help them in their fight against arabs, a fight in which they were not to bothered about human rights or murder of innocents. Does this mean that Israeli jews are actually anti jewish? History is indeed a complex thing, try not to over simplify it.

http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_collaboration_with_the_nazis.htm

'Joyce was hanged for treason to Britain.  If he was Irish, then the only country that could have hanged him for treason was Ireland.  Like I said, had he been Irish, any half-decent lawyer could have got him off the treason charge in the British court by not only invoking his Irish citizenship, but his American citizenship.  I think you'll find he carried a British passport.  Joyce disdained his Irish links and his Irish neighbours, even as a young boy he considered himself English.  Maybe you should check your facts before you jump in and set yourself up as board arbiter of what Irishness is and who is Irish'

Whether he rejected his Irish roots is neither here nor there - roots are roots. As for setting myself up as an arbiter of who or what is Irish - we're only having this dicussion because you said - and I quote verbatim - 'Joyce wasn't Irish'. Are you having a laugh or what?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 13, 2009, 09:28:18 PM
'Joyce was hanged for treason to Britain.  If he was Irish, then the only country that could have hanged him for treason was Ireland.  Like I said, had he been Irish, any half-decent lawyer could have got him off the treason charge in the British court by not only invoking his Irish citizenship, but his American citizenship.  I think you'll find he carried a British passport.  Joyce disdained his Irish links and his Irish neighbours, even as a young boy he considered himself English.  Maybe you should check your facts before you jump in and set yourself up as board arbiter of what Irishness is and who is Irish'

Whether he rejected his Irish roots is neither here nor there - roots are roots. As for setting myself up as an arbiter of who or what is Irish - we're only having this dicussion because you said - and I quote verbatim - 'Joyce wasn't Irish'. Are you having a laugh or what?

I'll type slowly so you can follow this ... 'What next? Maybe a statue in Galway in memory of William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce, another flake who brought shame on his country.'  Shame on what country? Why would the Irish feel shame about the actions of someone who wasn't Irish bringing shame on England?  He wasn't Irish, if he had been he COULDN'T have been hanged for treason by England as Ireland was a sovereign nation in 1946 and such a hanging would have been against international law.  The reason the English could string him up was because he was the (very) proud possessor of a British passport, a much-loved document that got him a rope necktie ... now such simple logic shouldn't be too difficult for even you to follow

Quote from: red hander on July 13, 2009, 10:02:18 PM
I'll type slowly so you can follow this ... 'What next? Maybe a statue in Galway in memory of William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce, another flake who brought shame on his country.'  Shame on what country? Why would the Irish feel shame about the actions of someone who wasn't Irish bringing shame on England?  He wasn't Irish, if he had been he COULDN'T have been hanged for treason by England as Ireland was a sovereign nation in 1946 and such a hanging would have been against international law.  The reason the English could string him up was because he was the (very) proud possessor of a British passport, a much-loved document that got him a rope necktie ... now such simple logic shouldn't be too difficult for even you to follow

I wouldn't count on that

Quote from: red hander on July 13, 2009, 10:02:18 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 13, 2009, 09:28:18 PM
'Joyce was hanged for treason to Britain.  If he was Irish, then the only country that could have hanged him for treason was Ireland.  Like I said, had he been Irish, any half-decent lawyer could have got him off the treason charge in the British court by not only invoking his Irish citizenship, but his American citizenship.  I think you'll find he carried a British passport.  Joyce disdained his Irish links and his Irish neighbours, even as a young boy he considered himself English.  Maybe you should check your facts before you jump in and set yourself up as board arbiter of what Irishness is and who is Irish'

Whether he rejected his Irish roots is neither here nor there - roots are roots. As for setting myself up as an arbiter of who or what is Irish - we're only having this dicussion because you said - and I quote verbatim - 'Joyce wasn't Irish'. Are you having a laugh or what?

I'll type slowly so you can follow this ... 'What next? Maybe a statue in Galway in memory of William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce, another flake who brought shame on his country.'  Shame on what country? Why would the Irish feel shame about the actions of someone who wasn't Irish bringing shame on England?  He wasn't Irish, if he had been he COULDN'T have been hanged for treason by England as Ireland was a sovereign nation in 1946 and such a hanging would have been against international law.  The reason the English could string him up was because he was the (very) proud possessor of a British passport, a much-loved document that got him a rope necktie ... now such simple logic shouldn't be too difficult for even you to follow

Joyce most certainly did not consider himself Irish. He was a staunch conservative unionist despite having an Irish Catholic father. Educated as a child in Galway alright before his family moved to England where he fell in with the British fascists under Mosley.

'I'll type slowly so you can follow this ...'
I suspect you type slowly most of the time, particularly when it comes to those really difficult words like 'arbiter', which you use without any real understanding of what they mean. Joyce's British passport was the reason the English were able to hang him. So what? Many people who hold British passports have their roots in other countries. William Joyce was as Irish as Eamon de Valera. Whether he was proud or ashamed of his roots does not matter - that's the thing about roots, you can't change them. You may wish he wasn't Irish, but unfortunately for you, noone made you arbiter of all things Irish. Incidentally, the subject of this thread is Sean Russell. Got any views on him?

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
EG - Would you be shocked if I told you that during WW2 that Jews in Israel actually visited the Nazi's to request  help them in their fight against arabs, a fight in which they were not to bothered about human rights or murder of innocents.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_collaboration_with_the_nazis.htm

Assuming it is true, I would find it shocking, but not surprising. After all, there are eg ultra-conservative Jews who do not recognise the State of Israel, frequently clashing violently with the IDF etc. Or there was this bunch of nutters, who are now in prison in Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
Does this mean that Israeli jews are actually anti jewish?

Of course not. It simply means that every state/tribe/religion/people etc has it share of head-cases, with that share liable to be larger in places like the Middle East (or Ireland!  :o) than in more stable environments.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
History is indeed a complex thing, try not to over simplify it.

History is often complex, but it is also sometimes much more simple. Which latter point brings me back to Sean Russell - for what I hope will be the final time  :D

Namely, when faced with a difficult situation in 1939 etc, most Irish people assumed a position of Neutrality, with a significant minority (both North and South) throwing their lot in with the Allies in the fight against Fascism. Personally, I admire the latter greatly, but accept that many Neutrals were in a difficult position, so would not rush to judge any individual without knowing more about his/her circumstances etc.

However, when it comes to that very tiny minority of Irish people like Russell who actively collaborated with the Nazis, then I do, indeed, take a simple view of them. Frankly, they were nasty, bigoted extremists, of whom the best that could be said was that they did not give a fcuk about what the Nazis were doing elsewhere, so long as it might help them achieve their own, selfish ends. As such, they were despicable imo.

But however much contempt I might feel for them, I suppose I must acknowledge that i was not living in their time. No such qualification exists for the people who today, with the benefit of a reasonably clear historical record, still insist on "honouring" low-life like Russell. For it is clear that these supporters are prepared to forgive any sin, so long as the sinner hated the Brits sufficiently.

Which would be bad enough in any circumstances, but when these are (so-called) Socialists, who are prepared to overlook the sin of Nazi-collaboration, it demonstrates to me that these apologists are every bit as hate-filled as their "hero" was before them.

That simple enough for you?

P.S. I only briefly flicked through the Link you cite, but considering its origins, I wonder will those who seek to castigate me over occasionally quoting Wiki will have anything to say about the credibility of your sources? Indeed, someone else earlier cited a crackpot US Neo-Nazi source to support some point or other against me, without being challenged, as well... ::)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 07:51:13 AM
'I'll type slowly so you can follow this ...'
I suspect you type slowly most of the time, particularly when it comes to those really difficult words like 'arbiter', which you use without any real understanding of what they mean. Joyce's British passport was the reason the English were able to hang him. So what? Many people who hold British passports have their roots in other countries. William Joyce was as Irish as Eamon de Valera. Whether he was proud or ashamed of his roots does not matter - that's the thing about roots, you can't change them. You may wish he wasn't Irish, but unfortunately for you, noone made you arbiter of all things Irish. Incidentally, the subject of this thread is Sean Russell. Got any views on him?

right then
so you brought up the subject of joyce and were well and truely caned into losing the daft argument you put up (bit like evil eejit) and now want to change the goalposts back again !

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 12:00:42 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
EG - Would you be shocked if I told you that during WW2 that Jews in Israel actually visited the Nazi's to request  help them in their fight against arabs, a fight in which they were not to bothered about human rights or murder of innocents.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_collaboration_with_the_nazis.htm

Assuming it is true, I would find it shocking, but not surprising. After all, there are eg ultra-conservative Jews who do not recognise the State of Israel, frequently clashing violently with the IDF etc. Or there was this bunch of nutters, who are now in prison in Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
Does this mean that Israeli jews are actually anti jewish?

Of course not. It simply means that every state/tribe/religion/people etc has it share of head-cases, with that share liable to be larger in places like the Middle East (or Ireland!  :o) than in more stable environments.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
History is indeed a complex thing, try not to over simplify it.

History is often complex, but it is also sometimes much more simple. Which latter point brings me back to Sean Russell - for what I hope will be the final time  :D

Namely, when faced with a difficult situation in 1939 etc, most Irish people assumed a position of Neutrality, with a significant minority (both North and South) throwing their lot in with the Allies in the fight against Fascism. Personally, I admire the latter greatly, but accept that many Neutrals were in a difficult position, so would not rush to judge any individual without knowing more about his/her circumstances etc.

However, when it comes to that very tiny minority of Irish people like Russell who actively collaborated with the Nazis, then I do, indeed, take a simple view of them. Frankly, they were nasty, bigoted extremists, of whom the best that could be said was that they did not give a fcuk about what the Nazis were doing elsewhere, so long as it might help them achieve their own, selfish ends. As such, they were despicable imo.

But however much contempt I might feel for them, I suppose I must acknowledge that i was not living in their time. No such qualification exists for the people who today, with the benefit of a reasonably clear historical record, still insist on "honouring" low-life like Russell. For it is clear that these supporters are prepared to forgive any sin, so long as the sinner hated the Brits sufficiently.

Which would be bad enough in any circumstances, but when these are (so-called) Socialists, who are prepared to overlook the sin of Nazi-collaboration, it demonstrates to me that these apologists are every bit as hate-filled as their "hero" was before them.

That simple enough for you?

P.S. I only briefly flicked through the Link you cite, but considering its origins, I wonder will those who seek to castigate me over occasionally quoting Wiki will have anything to say about the credibility of your sources? Indeed, someone else earlier cited a crackpot US Neo-Nazi source to support some point or other against me, without being challenged, as well... ::)

10 pages later and yer still squirming around with non answers and still nothing but a tenuous daft link with nothing to back up your thread title !
Superb, 'all verbose but no content' as per usual !
;)  (back at ya!)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 12:00:42 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
EG - Would you be shocked if I told you that during WW2 that Jews in Israel actually visited the Nazi's to request  help them in their fight against arabs, a fight in which they were not to bothered about human rights or murder of innocents.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_collaboration_with_the_nazis.htm

Assuming it is true, I would find it shocking, but not surprising. After all, there are eg ultra-conservative Jews who do not recognise the State of Israel, frequently clashing violently with the IDF etc. Or there was this bunch of nutters, who are now in prison in Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm

The people in the BBC link you refer to simply aren't Jewish. Another case of muddying the waters to try and deflect from the holes in your argument being exposed.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on July 14, 2009, 12:21:34 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 12:00:42 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
EG - Would you be shocked if I told you that during WW2 that Jews in Israel actually visited the Nazi's to request  help them in their fight against arabs, a fight in which they were not to bothered about human rights or murder of innocents.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_collaboration_with_the_nazis.htm

Assuming it is true, I would find it shocking, but not surprising. After all, there are eg ultra-conservative Jews who do not recognise the State of Israel, frequently clashing violently with the IDF etc. Or there was this bunch of nutters, who are now in prison in Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm

The people in the BBC link you refer to simply aren't Jewish. Another case of muddying the waters to try and deflect from the holes in your argument being exposed.

I never claimed they were Jews, merely a "bunch of nutters". Though to borrow Woody Allen's great gag, they could be described as "Jew-ish"  ;), on account of how they came to be in Israel in the first place:
"The suspects all migrated to Israel under the Law of Return which allows anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent to become a citizen"

None of which in any way alters my main point, which is that Russell, like those Israeli Neo-Nazis, was actually an aberration from amongst the great majority of his people, who thankfully declined to join him in his (imo) shameful collaboration with the Nazis during WWII.

So when it comes to judging him, unlike those who constitute his latter-day apologists, I am actually on the side of the majority of the Irish people of the day.

What about you?

Does anyone know the figures as to how many Jews were killed in the holocaust ?

Quote from: man in black on July 14, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
Does anyone know the figures as to how many Jews were killed in the holocaust ?

Yes. No. Possibly.

P.S. Is your question simply an attempt to sidetrack this thread from the subject of the "honouring" of Ireland's best-known Nazi collaborator? For if it is, it is crass in the extreme...

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 12:39:47 PM

Quote from: man in black on July 14, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
Does anyone know the figures as to how many Jews were killed in the holocaust ?

Yes. No. Possibly.

P.S. Is your question simply an attempt to sidetrack this thread from the subject of the "honouring" of Ireland's best-known Nazi collaborator? For if it is, it is crass in the extreme...

No. I was asking a simple question FFS.
And anyway as its been explained many times on this thread, Germany and Ireland has a common enemy at the time. I see no problem with Russell dealing with the Nazi's. The same way as i see no problem with Churchill dealing with uncle Joe.

He was born in New York, his father was naturalised Irish, he lived in Ireland for a time as a child, and he is buried in Ireland. That makes him as Irish as De Valera. Check your facts before you dive in.


Actually he was buried in London after he was hanged. His remains were brought over to Galway to
be re-interred a couple of years ago.

'Actually he was buried in London after he was hanged. His remains were brought over to Galway to
be re-interred a couple of years ago.'

Think you need to check that. I was in Galway about 20 years ago and followed a guide book direction to his grave. (yeah I know. I'm strange like that) And why were his remains brought to Ireland at all?

'right then
so you brought up the subject of joyce and were well and truely caned into losing the daft argument you put up (bit like evil eejit) and now want to change the goalposts back again !'
Wide of the mark as per usual. Your consistency deserves some sort of recognition.  ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 02:19:08 PM

'right then
so you brought up the subject of joyce and were well and truely caned into losing the daft argument you put up (bit like evil eejit) and now want to change the goalposts back again !'
Wide of the mark as per usual. Your consistency deserves some sort of recognition.  ;)

which is wide of the mark - the fact you got tanned in the 'debate'
or that it was you that brought up joyce ?
:D

'which is wide of the mark - the fact you got tanned in the 'debate'
or that it was you that brought up joyce?'
Therein lies your problem - you think everything is a 'fact', or that something has been 'demonstrated' simply because you say so. Scary.  :o

Myles Na G. when you get to my age a couple of decades seem like a couple of years! :'( It was 1974 or 1975
i think the ceremony took place.

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on July 14, 2009, 03:32:12 PM
Myles Na G. when you get to my age a couple of decades seem like a couple of years! :'( It was 1974 or 1975
i think the ceremony took place.

My grandmother would occasionally refer to the Christmas where her next door neighbour died as evidence of why she wasn't that fond of Christmas - reminded her of who was gone, which in her case (she died last November aged 103) was everybody. A few years back I asked here when that happened and she said "15 or 20 years ago". I was skeptical and asked my uncle, who replied "1957". :D

Quote from: man in black on July 14, 2009, 12:45:21 PM
And anyway as its been explained many times on this thread, Germany and Ireland has a common enemy at the time. I see no problem with Russell dealing with the Nazi's. The same way as i see no problem with Churchill dealing with uncle Joe.

Indeed. Russell also visited the US and USSR in his attempt to raise support for the republican cause and was supportive of his friend Frank Ryan fighting the fascists in Spain. Foreign wars were of no concern to him, though the thread does reminds me of our old next door neighbour who used to tell us how she'd make a point of breaking the blackouts in Lurgan in the hope of guiding the German bombers to Belfast.

Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:34:00 PM
Russell also visited the US and USSR in his attempt to raise support for the republican cause and was supportive of his friend Frank Ryan fighting the fascists in Spain. Foreign wars were of no concern to him, though the thread does reminds me of our old next door neighbour who used to tell us how she'd make a point of breaking the blackouts in Lurgan in the hope of guiding the German bombers to Belfast.

The difference is that Russell did not assist either the USA or USSR in their war effort, in return for any assistance gained from them.

Whereas, by actively collaborating with the Nazis, Russell and the IRA inter alia  assisted the Luftwaffe directly in bombing their own fellow Irish men, women and children in Belfast and elsewhere.

P.S. Your neighbour sounds like a right nasty oul  c u n t.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 05:25:38 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:34:00 PM
Russell also visited the US and USSR in his attempt to raise support for the republican cause and was supportive of his friend Frank Ryan fighting the fascists in Spain. Foreign wars were of no concern to him, though the thread does reminds me of our old next door neighbour who used to tell us how she'd make a point of breaking the blackouts in Lurgan in the hope of guiding the German bombers to Belfast.

The difference is that Russell did not assist either the USA or USSR in their war effort, in return for any assistance gained from them.

Whereas, by actively collaborating with the Nazis, Russell and the IRA inter alia  assisted the Luftwaffe directly in bombing their own fellow Irish men, women and children in Belfast and elsewhere.

P.S. Your neighbour sounds like a right nasty oul  c u n t.

I wouldnt say nasty, more brainless

*Oh yas, zer is ze light left on, zat must be Loirgan - now we know ezactly ver ze Belfast iz*  ::)

Comic genius, comic genius

'Indeed. Russell also visited the US and USSR in his attempt to raise support for the republican cause and was supportive of his friend Frank Ryan fighting the fascists in Spain. Foreign wars were of no concern to him, though the thread does reminds me of our old next door neighbour who used to tell us how she'd make a point of breaking the blackouts in Lurgan in the hope of guiding the German bombers to Belfast.'

Probably not your intention, but your post speaks volumes about republicans and the republican mindset. I think you're absolutely right about Russell. I think the wider political picture was of no concern to him. I think he was genuinely incapable of looking at the world situation and making sense of it - all he cared about was taking a kick at the Brits. The wider ramifications of a Nazi victory, the morality of supporting them - all that was beyond the scope of this Little Irelander. Likewise your old neighbour. My father's family lost their house and most of their possessions during one of the bombing raids on Belfast. The house across the street from theirs took a direct hit and several people were killed. Over a 1000 people - Irish people, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, atheists - died in Belfast as a result of the raids. But that wouldn't matter to your old neighbour. As long she thought 'the Brits' were getting a pasting, she'd be happy. This is precisely why we should not allow statues of these blinkered, hate-filled morons to be erected in our parks and public spaces.

Quote from: full back on July 14, 2009, 05:33:00 PM
I wouldnt say nasty, more brainless

*Oh yas, zer is ze light left on, zat must be Loirgan - now we know ezactly ver ze Belfast iz*  ::)

Comic genius, comic genius

Kinda like my wife's great uncle Charles - he loved Hitler so much that he was convinced that mowing a swastika into his lawn would cause the Luftwaffe to pass him by

For the record I have no problem with extreme Nationalists putting up a Statue to a republican leader of a previous era.
And to clarify ...I have no objection to them putting up statues to leaders/activists of later eras either. ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 05:45:32 PM
'Indeed. Russell also visited the US and USSR in his attempt to raise support for the republican cause and was supportive of his friend Frank Ryan fighting the fascists in Spain. Foreign wars were of no concern to him, though the thread does reminds me of our old next door neighbour who used to tell us how she'd make a point of breaking the blackouts in Lurgan in the hope of guiding the German bombers to Belfast.'

Probably not your intention, but your post speaks volumes about republicans and the republican mindset. I think you're absolutely right about Russell. I think the wider political picture was of no concern to him. I think he was genuinely incapable of looking at the world situation and making sense of it - all he cared about was taking a kick at the Brits. The wider ramifications of a Nazi victory, the morality of supporting them - all that was beyond the scope of this Little Irelander. Likewise your old neighbour. My father's family lost their house and most of their possessions during one of the bombing raids on Belfast. The house across the street from theirs took a direct hit and several people were killed. Over a 1000 people - Irish people, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, atheists - died in Belfast as a result of the raids. But that wouldn't matter to your old neighbour. As long she thought 'the Brits' were getting a pasting, she'd be happy. This is precisely why we should not allow statues of these blinkered, hate-filled morons to be erected in our parks and public spaces.

Where did that Hate come from? Why would Russell have been filled with Hatred? 
Myles do you believe that Ireland would have 26 of its 32 Counties free if Republicans back around the the 20s had persisted with peaceful means?

Quote from: boojangles on July 14, 2009, 06:13:15 PM

Myles do you believe that Ireland would have 26 of its 32 Counties free if Republicans back around the the 20s had persisted with peaceful means?

If I might intervene, the answer to your question would appear to be "No".

But in dealing with Russell, you and just about everyone else is missing/dodging what is for me a key point. Namely, that there were many, many thousands of Republicans who were active in the War of Independence etc.

Yet 20 years later, the vast majority of those self-same activists declined to collaborate with the Nazis in their fight against the Allies. Therefore, if Russell was right/entitled to seize the opportunity, does that mean that all the others were no longer "true" Republicans? Does it mean that having "liberated" the 26 counties, they no longer gave a damn about the 6?

And that's before you get to the many thousands of Irishmen, North and South, who actually volunteered to fight for the Allies, including some, such as Quinn Martin's grandfather, who had fought the Brits in 1920 etc.

And all of that is before you get back to what would have happened in Ireland, had Russell's Nazi friends actually won the War. For as was seen even with territories which were not actually occupied by the Germans, such as Vichy France and Italy, there is no doubt that even after any "free" and "independent" United Ireland was permitted to be established by the Germans, they would have come calling on the Dail with their lists of Irish Jews, Communists, Trades Unionists and Gypsies etc, as well as carefully selected representatives from the Unionist population of Ireland.

Then again, a ruthless sc**bag like Sean Russell doubtless didn't give a flying fcuk about any of those people, either...  >:(

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 05:25:38 PM
The difference is that Russell did not assist either the USA or USSR in their war effort, in return for any assistance gained from them.

Whereas, by actively collaborating with the Nazis, Russell and the IRA inter alia  assisted the Luftwaffe directly in bombing their own fellow Irish men, women and children in Belfast and elsewhere.

Actually he did but I wouldn't expect you to actually inform yourself about anything before you go of on an ill-informed rant about something.

The real difference is that some of us here know more about Russell than you can ever invent or desperately glean from Wiki. Russell was no fascist, in fact I challenge you to produce any evidence that he helped the Luftwaffe bomb anywhere. If you cannot you should retract your lies, though God knows, I wonder why people even bother to reply to you any more considering the amount of bullshit you've been caught out with.

Quote
P.S. Your neighbour sounds like a right nasty oul  c u n t.

Never a better woman graced County Armagh. 

'Where did that Hate come from? Why would Russell have been filled with Hatred? 
Myles do you believe that Ireland would have 26 of its 32 Counties free if Republicans back around the the 20s had persisted with peaceful means?'
Who knows how things would've turned out - had the struggle for independence remained political rather physical, I think independence would undoubtedly have been delayed, possibly for decades. I think a 32 county Ireland would have gained independence at some point after the second world war, possibly with some constitutional link to Britain left in place. Whatever scenario you care to imagine, I think an independent, 32 county Ireland would have been much, much closer today had we not had the various armed campaigns that have only served to deepen the divisions in our country.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 12:00:42 PM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
EG - Would you be shocked if I told you that during WW2 that Jews in Israel actually visited the Nazi's to request  help them in their fight against arabs, a fight in which they were not to bothered about human rights or murder of innocents.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_collaboration_with_the_nazis.htm

Assuming it is true, I would find it shocking, but not surprising. After all, there are eg ultra-conservative Jews who do not recognise the State of Israel, frequently clashing violently with the IDF etc. Or there was this bunch of nutters, who are now in prison in Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
Does this mean that Israeli jews are actually anti jewish?

Of course not. It simply means that every state/tribe/religion/people etc has it share of head-cases, with that share liable to be larger in places like the Middle East (or Ireland!  :o) than in more stable environments.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 13, 2009, 09:02:18 PM
History is indeed a complex thing, try not to over simplify it.

History is often complex, but it is also sometimes much more simple. Which latter point brings me back to Sean Russell - for what I hope will be the final time  :D

Namely, when faced with a difficult situation in 1939 etc, most Irish people assumed a position of Neutrality, with a significant minority (both North and South) throwing their lot in with the Allies in the fight against Fascism. Personally, I admire the latter greatly, but accept that many Neutrals were in a difficult position, so would not rush to judge any individual without knowing more about his/her circumstances etc.

However, when it comes to that very tiny minority of Irish people like Russell who actively collaborated with the Nazis, then I do, indeed, take a simple view of them. Frankly, they were nasty, bigoted extremists, of whom the best that could be said was that they did not give a fcuk about what the Nazis were doing elsewhere, so long as it might help them achieve their own, selfish ends. As such, they were despicable imo.

But however much contempt I might feel for them, I suppose I must acknowledge that i was not living in their time. No such qualification exists for the people who today, with the benefit of a reasonably clear historical record, still insist on "honouring" low-life like Russell. For it is clear that these supporters are prepared to forgive any sin, so long as the sinner hated the Brits sufficiently.

Which would be bad enough in any circumstances, but when these are (so-called) Socialists, who are prepared to overlook the sin of Nazi-collaboration, it demonstrates to me that these apologists are every bit as hate-filled as their "hero" was before them.

That simple enough for you?

P.S. I only briefly flicked through the Link you cite, but considering its origins, I wonder will those who seek to castigate me over occasionally quoting Wiki will have anything to say about the credibility of your sources? Indeed, someone else earlier cited a crackpot US Neo-Nazi source to support some point or other against me, without being challenged, as well... ::)

Just for your information the people who went from Israel to the nazis may have been nutters and extremists, but they were also part of the Israeli administration of the time, not some minute bunch of lunatics. Of course, like Russell, they did not know the sheer brutality and master plan of the nazis, which only came to light later. My point is that there is nothing knew in a group aligning itself with a enemy of their enemy. For what it is worth, I believe that the same policy is deeply flawed and has a habit of biting you in the arse in future (see US/UK vrs Bin Laden, Sadaam etc etc. I still see nothing wrong with remembering a man who devoted his life to the republican cause.

ps - I first read of the Israel Nazi link in Robert Fisks "The war for civilisation", I could find no link to that book on the net so you'll have to take my word for it. The link above was the best I could retrieve on the issue at short notice.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 07:26:13 PM
'Where did that Hate come from? Why would Russell have been filled with Hatred? 
Myles do you believe that Ireland would have 26 of its 32 Counties free if Republicans back around the the 20s had persisted with peaceful means?'
Who knows how things would've turned out - had the struggle for independence remained political rather physical, I think independence would undoubtedly have been delayed, possibly for decades. I think a 32 county Ireland would have gained independence at some point after the second world war, possibly with some constitutional link to Britain left in place. Whatever scenario you care to imagine, I think an independent, 32 county Ireland would have been much, much closer today had we not had the various armed campaigns that have only served to deepen the divisions in our country.

I honestly don't think peaceful means could have been upheld.The British forces were more than forceful in their treatment of Irish/Catholics in this country for too long.It was not possible for people to stand idly by and watch their own people being slaughtered.
It is very sad to think that we could have an independent 32 county Ireland now.But TBH I feel that there are/were far too many people who never had any intention of being part of a United Ireland, without a Union with Britain. The armed struggle went on on both sides.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 05:45:32 PM
Probably not your intention, but your post speaks volumes about republicans and the republican mindset. I think you're absolutely right about Russell. I think the wider political picture was of no concern to him. I think he was genuinely incapable of looking at the world situation and making sense of it - all he cared about was taking a kick at the Brits. The wider ramifications of a Nazi victory, the morality of supporting them - all that was beyond the scope of this Little Irelander. Likewise your old neighbour. My father's family lost their house and most of their possessions during one of the bombing raids on Belfast. The house across the street from theirs took a direct hit and several people were killed. Over a 1000 people - Irish people, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, atheists - died in Belfast as a result of the raids. But that wouldn't matter to your old neighbour. As long she thought 'the Brits' were getting a pasting, she'd be happy. This is precisely why we should not allow statues of these blinkered, hate-filled morons to be erected in our parks and public spaces.

Probably not given that her father and uncle were murdered by the B Specials, her house was burned down and her brother blinded by other unionist but hey who cares?

Same challenge to you Myles, produce the evidence that Russell colluded with the Nazis.

'Probably not given that her father and uncle were murdered by the B Specials, her house was burned down and her brother blinded by other unionist but hey who cares?
And...what? The death of hundreds of Irish people in Belfast was a comfort to her? 

Same challenge to you Myles, produce the evidence that Russell colluded with the Nazis.'
1. Both Russell and the Nazis were engaged in a campaign of bombing Britain.
2. Russell travelled to Berlin.
3. He got a lift home in a U Boat.
That'll do for me.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 08:50:02 PM
'Probably not given that her father and uncle were murdered by the B Specials, her house was burned down and her brother blinded by other unionist but hey who cares?
And...what? The death of hundreds of Irish people in Belfast was a comfort to her? 

Same challenge to you Myles, produce the evidence that Russell colluded with the Nazis.'
1. Both Russell and the Nazis were engaged in a campaign of bombing Britain.
2. Russell travelled to Berlin.
3. He got a lift home in a U Boat.
That'll do for me.

Belfast wasn't bombed by the Luftwaffe until 1941, how the f**k could Sean Russell have anything to do with it if he was dead?   The London blitz didn't begin until September 7 1940, three weeks after his death.  Don't let the facts get in the way of your usual anti-republican bullshit

'Belfast wasn't bombed by the Luftwaffe until 1941, how the f**k could Sean Russell have anything to do with it if he was dead?   The London blitz didn't begin until September 7 1940, three weeks after his death. '

Don't think I've claimed anywhere that Russell was personally responsible for the bombing of Belfast in general, or the bombing of my granda's house in particular.

3 weeks after his death, you say? So that's what he was discussing in Berlin. Thanks.  ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 14, 2009, 08:50:02 PM
'Probably not given that her father and uncle were murdered by the B Specials, her house was burned down and her brother blinded by other unionist but hey who cares?
And...what? The death of hundreds of Irish people in Belfast was a comfort to her? 

Same challenge to you Myles, produce the evidence that Russell colluded with the Nazis.'
1. Both Russell and the Nazis were engaged in a campaign of bombing Britain.
2. Russell travelled to Berlin.
3. He got a lift home in a U Boat.
That'll do for me.

So you don't have any evidence then?

Russell spent less than 3 months in Germany in 1940 and died before the Germans started bombing England and over a year before they bombed Belfast. While he was there he was also in contact with various US citizens who were resident there at the time - does that also make them Nazis? 

You mention a U-boat but fail to mention who was on the U-boat with him. Was the other passenger also a Nazi?

Do you know why the original Russell statue was vandalised?

I'm sure you'll be watching this with pride later in the week:

http://library.digiguide.com/lib/uk-tv-highlight/Britain%27s+Nazi+King+-+Revealed-7558/Documentary/ (http://library.digiguide.com/lib/uk-tv-highlight/Britain%27s+Nazi+King+-+Revealed-7558/Documentary/)

Still waiting Myles.

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 09, 2009, 03:47:52 PM
Molyneaux was also a member (and one time Vice President) of the Conservative Monday Club which advocated a policy of voluntary, or assisted, repatriation for non-white immigrants...(sound familiar??...)...It was claimed by opponents of the club that many members had drawn closer to the National Front, it being reported as early as 1973 that NF members were moving to take over branches of the club.

So...being a member of a right-wing Conservative Party pressure group that at one time advocated voluntary repatriation of immigrants is some sort of equivalent in your book to being a terrorist aligned to the Third Reich during the Second World War?

Jesus f**king christ, it's history, for god's sake. Republicanism today is hardly going mental for the Nazis' domestic or foreign policy, so even if Russell was a fully paid up member of Hitler's boys it hardly makes any of us holocaust deniers or neo-Nazis. 2 + 2 only equals 5 in the place where there is no darkness.

There's a statue of Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament. Is this statue a commemoration of the slaughter of thousands of Irishmen? Is the statue of Nelson Mandela in London a tribute to his 'terrorist' activities?

Get a f**king grip.

Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 17, 2009, 01:51:05 AM
Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

Adam and Eve

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 17, 2009, 01:51:05 AM
Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

I see EG and Myles have ran away from this thread once their lies have been exposed or maybe they're still too shamefaced to show up again after the English king was exposed as an Nazi on telly last night. 

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 10:02:21 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 17, 2009, 01:51:05 AM
Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

I see EG and Myles have ran away from this thread once their lies have been exposed or maybe they're still too shamefaced to show up again after the English king was exposed as an Nazi on telly last night. 

Watched that show, very interesting alright - but wtf was the attraction with Wallace Simpson (she bedded alot of the high and mighty)?

weren't the germans Nazis. Isn't the queen german? And the loyalists pledge allegience to her?

so Nazi = Loyalist

Quote from: carribbear on July 17, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
weren't the germans Nazis. Isn't the queen german? And the loyalists pledge allegience to her?

so Nazi = Loyalist

Mary was right then.  ;)

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

Didnt the Finns fight on the same side as the Germans in WW2 ( due to the Russkis stealing a load of their territory).
I suppose that makes all Finns evil (in EGworrld/Myersland etc)

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

"There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make"Maiden speech in the Dail by republican TD Oliver J. Flanagan who was not kicked out of FG but was returned again 13 times by the electorate and spent 43 years as a TD.  Enoch Powell looks very liberal compared to that boy.

Quote from: Roger on July 17, 2009, 01:26:40 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

"There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make"Maiden speech in the Dail by republican TD Oliver J. Flanagan who was not kicked out of FG but was returned again 13 times by the electorate and spent 43 years as a TD.  Enoch Powell looks very liberal compared to that boy.

Fine Gael and a Republican...I think not ;)

Quote from: Roger on July 17, 2009, 01:26:40 PM
"There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make"Maiden speech in the Dail by republican TD Oliver J. Flanagan who was not kicked out of FG but was returned again 13 times by the electorate and spent 43 years as a TD.  Enoch Powell looks very liberal compared to that boy.

Maybe but I don't see FG on the thread title.

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

What exactly was he referring to here? Immigration??

Quote from: boojangles on July 17, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
What exactly was he referring to here? Immigration??

Aye

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 01:39:46 PM

Quote from: Roger on July 17, 2009, 01:26:40 PM
"There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make"Maiden speech in the Dail by republican TD Oliver J. Flanagan who was not kicked out of FG but was returned again 13 times by the electorate and spent 43 years as a TD.  Enoch Powell looks very liberal compared to that boy.

Maybe but I don't see FG on the thread title.

I don't see UUP in the thread title.

Quote from: Roger on July 17, 2009, 02:03:43 PM
Maybe but I don't see FG on the thread title.

I don't see UUP in the thread title.
[/quote]

The original author must have forgotten to add it.

Quote from: Roger on July 17, 2009, 02:03:43 PM
I don't see UUP in the thread title.

In light of the unionist who started the thread being unable to present any evidence to support his lies (again), I thought it opportune to point out the hypocrisy of a unionist attempting to slug someone else with the references to Nazis and racism by pointing out one example of how that tradition is ingrained within unionism. Feel free to drag in other political traditions if you like, but they'll probably be as irrelevant as the Oliver J example.

Quote from: Donagh on July 16, 2009, 09:01:03 AM
Still waiting Myles.

Sorry to keep you waiting Donagh - I've been busy folding up my sash and putting it away until next year  ;)

The evidence against Russell is circumstantial - possibly wouldn't get a conviction in a criminal court, but would probably be good enough for a civil case. That'll do for me.

 ;D
Is that answering a question?
Are we are suppose to be able to read your mind, to know what you consider to be circumstantial evidence?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 17, 2009, 01:51:05 AM
Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

Yes. What a bizarre question.

There's more genetic varation in one troupe of chimpanzees than there is among all of homo sapiens today. To most species, we'd all be virtually clones. All due to our recent genetic origin in Africa.

Care to explain why on earth you ask? :-\

I remember reading briefly about that headcase Flanagan before, were there even any Jews in Ireland and what was his beef with them?  Was he just a religious nut and did his hatred stem from the bible?

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

Actually, he was Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West when he gave that speech.

Interesting that you prefer to think of a speech given over 40 years ago, by a Conservative MP who later became an Ulster Unionist, giving a dire warning on his views of the dangers of mass immigration, to, for example, what happened this very week in the action of the DUP MEP in refusing to take her seat next to the BNP's Nick Griffin, or the denunication of racism from the Twelfh field platform by the Orange Order's spokesman this week...

Quote from: Chrisowc on July 17, 2009, 07:32:09 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 17, 2009, 01:51:05 AM
Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

Adam and Eve

No, actually, Rastus and Ludabel!  ;)

This thread is hilarious, I reckon EG and Myles think they're smart but in reality they make eejits out of themselves on a regular basis, did I see EG arguing on another thread that Gerry Kelly wouldn't tell lies?  :D

So Russell came back from the dead to guide german bombers to Belfast with the help of Donagh's neighbour.   :D


(http://www.rafbombercommand.com/pics/archive/seven_b_three.jpg)

(http://gpinochet.tripod.com/historicas5.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/09/article-0-021DB633000004B0-810_468x322.jpg)


EG, I'm assuming disaprove of Britain's honouring of Churchill? (among others)   

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

By the way, while his views on immigration would have been far away from mine, it rises little beyond trite to simply call Enoch Powell "racist".

For example:

Quote
On 27 July 1959 Powell gave his speech on Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human" but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'." Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa then different methods were acceptable:

"Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility."

Denis Healey, MP from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes".

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 10:17:38 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

By the way, while his views on immigration would have been far away from mine, it rises little beyond trite to simply call Enoch Powell "racist".

For example:

Quote
On 27 July 1959 Powell gave his speech on Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human" but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'." Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa then different methods were acceptable:

"Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility."
Denis Healey, MP from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes".

Please.Since when did Britain have the highest standards in acceptance of its responsibilities???? If he hadnt finished up with that bullshit,it mite have been considered a memorable speech.

Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 01:00:05 PM
Please.Since when did Britain have the highest standards in acceptance of its responsibilities???? If he hadnt finished up with that bullshit,it mite have been considered a memorable speech.

It's called the white man's burden.

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:51:31 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

Actually, he was Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West when he gave that speech.

Interesting that you prefer to think of a speech given over 40 years ago, by a Conservative MP who later became an Ulster Unionist, giving a dire warning on his views of the dangers of mass immigration, to, for example, what happened this very week in the action of the DUP MEP in refusing to take her seat next to the BNP's Nick Griffin, or the denunication of racism from the Twelfh field platform by the Orange Order's spokesman this week...

In fairness the whole 'refusing to take her seat' thing is a gimmick and nothing else. Diane Dodds may not be a racist but I think the point about Enoch Powell is that when he was considered too much of a liability for the tories he handily won a seat in North Down, which was apparently the only place that someone like him could go to. This being a Conservative party which took a long time to move into the era of political correctness.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we would be able to see plenty of republican support for anti-Nazi sentiments in the same manner as Diane's 'meaningful' snub.

Enoch Powell was elected to represent South Down as a UUP member.

Quote from: stibhan on July 19, 2009, 04:15:01 AM

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:51:31 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

Actually, he was Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West when he gave that speech.

Interesting that you prefer to think of a speech given over 40 years ago, by a Conservative MP who later became an Ulster Unionist, giving a dire warning on his views of the dangers of mass immigration, to, for example, what happened this very week in the action of the DUP MEP in refusing to take her seat next to the BNP's Nick Griffin, or the denunication of racism from the Twelfh field platform by the Orange Order's spokesman this week...

In fairness the whole 'refusing to take her seat' thing is a gimmick and nothing else. Diane Dodds may not be a racist but I think the point about Enoch Powell is that when he was considered too much of a liability for the tories he handily won a seat in North Down, which was apparently the only place that someone like him could go to. This being a Conservative party which took a long time to move into the era of political correctness.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we would be able to see plenty of republican support for anti-Nazi sentiments in the same manner as Diane's 'meaningful' snub.

Two points here.

You appear very confused about Powell's departure from the Conservative Party. He wasn't "considered too much of a liability for the Tories" - he quit the Conservative Party over their support for British membership of the EEC. He urged people to vote Labour in the general election as they opposed EEC membership, but was hardly going to join a socialist party as a conservative. So he chose a conservative party, one which that same year had quit the Conservative whip at Westminster and which also opposed EEC membership. By the way, he was elected in South Down.

And if you think Dodds's action was meaningless, you could look for example at the attention given to opposing racism in their last NI election manifesto...

Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 01:00:05 PM

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 10:17:38 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

By the way, while his views on immigration would have been far away from mine, it rises little beyond trite to simply call Enoch Powell "racist".

For example:

Quote
On 27 July 1959 Powell gave his speech on Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human" but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'." Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa then different methods were acceptable:

"Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility."
Denis Healey, MP from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes".

Please.Since when did Britain have the highest standards in acceptance of its responsibilities???? If he hadnt finished up with that bullshit,it mite have been considered a memorable speech.

That's quite a misreading there :-\

Powell wasn't saying that Britain "had the highest standards..." - he was saying that Britain should always live up to the highest of its own standards. The British government should treat Africans and Asians as it would Britons, and treat all according to the same high standard.

Quote from: deiseach on July 18, 2009, 03:40:31 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 01:00:05 PM
Please.Since when did Britain have the highest standards in acceptance of its responsibilities???? If he hadnt finished up with that bullshit,it mite have been considered a memorable speech.

It's called the white man's burden.

That's not the meaning of "white man's burden" :-\

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:38:41 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 17, 2009, 01:51:05 AM
Evil Genius (and MW, and whomsoever): do you realise your ancestors were African? Mine too, and, believe it or not, from exactly the same place in Africa! Spooky or what! *

* A few words please, don't bore me to death with the verbiage.

Yes. What a bizarre question.

There's more genetic varation in one troupe of chimpanzees than there is among all of homo sapiens today. To most species, we'd all be virtually clones. All due to our recent genetic origin in Africa.

Care to explain why on earth you ask? :-\

Are you there, FOSB? ???

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 12:16:51 AM
That's not the meaning of "white man's burden" :-\

What do you think it means?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/1890sc_Pears_Soap_Ad.jpg)

Powell's comments remind me of something said by another prominent Unionist politician:

QuoteIt is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house. they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel, he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consider and kindness, they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church

Quote from: deiseach on July 20, 2009, 12:41:29 AM
Powell's comments remind me of something said by another prominent Unionist politician:

QuoteIt is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house. they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel, he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consider and kindness, they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church

And O'Neill was the moderate...............

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 12:16:51 AM

Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 01:00:05 PM

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 10:17:38 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

By the way, while his views on immigration would have been far away from mine, it rises little beyond trite to simply call Enoch Powell "racist".

For example:

Quote
On 27 July 1959 Powell gave his speech on Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human" but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'." Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa then different methods were acceptable:

"Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility."
Denis Healey, MP from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes".

Please.Since when did Britain have the highest standards in acceptance of its responsibilities???? If he hadnt finished up with that bullshit,it mite have been considered a memorable speech.

That's quite a misreading there :-\

Powell wasn't saying that Britain "had the highest standards..." - he was saying that Britain should always live up to the highest of its own standards. The British government should treat Africans and Asians as it would Britons, and treat all according to the same high standard.

Quote from: deiseach on July 18, 2009, 03:40:31 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 01:00:05 PM
Please.Since when did Britain have the highest standards in acceptance of its responsibilities???? If he hadnt finished up with that bullshit,it mite have been considered a memorable speech.

It's called the white man's burden.

That's not the meaning of "white man's burden" :-\

I dont think its a misreading.Britain had only bad standards in accepting its own responsibilities.Human rights,prisoners rights,I could go on.

Quote from: deiseach on July 20, 2009, 12:34:42 AM

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 12:16:51 AM
That's not the meaning of "white man's burden" :-\

What do you think it means?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/1890sc_Pears_Soap_Ad.jpg)

That it was the "white man's" duty to undertake colonial activity outside Europe in order to provide benefit to the colonised people.

Which is not what Powell was stating in that quote.

Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 12:57:10 AM
I dont think its a misreading.Britain had only bad standards in accepting its own responsibilities.Human rights,prisoners rights,I could go on.

Stripe me pink ::)

The point is not whether Britain's standards were objectively high. It was that whatever the highest of these standards were, no less should be applied across the board.

Powell was saying Britain should not treat Africans or Asians under its government by any lower standard than the best standard by which it would treat Britons.

Seriously, is this too hard to grasp? :-\

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 01:08:50 AM

Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 12:57:10 AM
I dont think its a misreading.Britain had only bad standards in accepting its own responsibilities.Human rights,prisoners rights,I could go on.

Stripe me pink ::)

The point is not whether Britain's standards were objectively high. It was that whatever the highest of these standards were, no less should be applied across the board.

Powell was saying Britain should not treat Africans or Asians under its government by any lower standard than the best standard by which it would treat Britons.

Seriously, is this too hard to grasp? :-\

Its not hard to grasp. Basically he is saying,treat everybody bad. I don't expect you to understand wher Im coming from. I'm basically having a dig at Britains record in treating some of its 'citizens'.
Is that too hard to grasp?

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

Ah yes, Powell's famous "Rivers of Blood" speech, in which the noted Classicist alluded to Virgil's "Aeneid", as he campaigned against immigration to the UK.
Yes, quite a newsworthy statement to make.
In 1968.

Btw, who was it complained on the "More Double Standards" thread, one day after this post, about "some irrelevant rant about something that happened 40 years ago"?  A poster calling himself "Donagh" or somesuch?  :D

P.S. Powell refused an invitation to stand for the National Front after he left the Conservatives, and also refused to join the Orange Order upon becoming a Unionist MP in 1974. Speaking of which, one of his first major interventions as a Unionist MP came soon after:
"In the aftermath of the 21 November 1974 Birmingham pub bombings by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the government passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act. During its second reading Powell warned of passing legislation "in haste and under the immediate pressure of indignation on matters which touch the fundamental liberties of the subject; for both haste and anger are ill counsellors, especially when one is legislating for the rights of the subject". He said terrorism was a form of warfare which could not be prevented by laws and punishments but by the aggressor's certainty that the war was impossible to win."
"Like The Roman", Simon Heffer, Pg.742

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 02:29:38 PM
He said terrorism was a form of warfare which could not be prevented by laws and punishments but by the aggressor's certainty that the war was impossible to win."

Bloody hell. 10/10 for that one.

Quote from: deiseach on July 20, 2009, 02:33:03 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 02:29:38 PM
He said terrorism was a form of warfare which could not be prevented by laws and punishments but by the aggressor's certainty that the war was impossible to win."

Bloody hell. 10/10 for that one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8158074.stm

Whilst I have no desire to be labelled a member of the "Sarah Kennedy/Enoch was Right Camp"  ::), nonetheless those who simplistically dismiss Powell as some sort of bonkers, Right Wing Nazi-type simply do not know what they are talking about.

For whilst many of the policies he advocated were undoubtedly right-wing, sometimes offensively so, nonetheless they were always argued from an impeccably reasoned position. Indeed Powell was probably the most intellectual politician Britain has seen since in over half a century.

For example, he was at 26 the youngest ever British Professor (of Classics). He was implacably anti-Hitler and correctly foresaw the dangers of Appeasement, writing of Chamberlain after Munich:
"I do here in the most solemn and bitter manner curse the Prime Minister of England for having cumulated all his other betrayals of the national interest and honour, by his last terrible exhibition of dishonour, weakness and gullibility. The depths of infamy to which our accurst 'love of peace' can lower us are unfathomable"
And upon joining the British Army during WWII, not only did he become its youngest ever Brigadier, but astonishingly did so after having joined as a Private!
He spoke many languages fluently, apparently learning new ones for recreation, as well as scholarship.

Of course, like many true intellectuals, he sometimes applied logic and reasoning to an extent which produced absurd or unworkable results. Moreover, he cared little who he offended, so long as his case stood up (in his terms).

Nonetheless, whether loved or loathed, he was a very complex character, who always offered others the careful consideration he himself so rarely received.

EG you never answered me, do you condem Churchill for his links with Stalin?

Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 01:27:56 PM

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 01:08:50 AM

Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 12:57:10 AM
I dont think its a misreading.Britain had only bad standards in accepting its own responsibilities.Human rights,prisoners rights,I could go on.

Stripe me pink ::)

The point is not whether Britain's standards were objectively high. It was that whatever the highest of these standards were, no less should be applied across the board.

Powell was saying Britain should not treat Africans or Asians under its government by any lower standard than the best standard by which it would treat Britons.

Seriously, is this too hard to grasp? :-\

Its not hard to grasp. Basically he is saying,treat everybody bad. I don't expect you to understand wher Im coming from. I'm basically having a dig at Britains record in treating some of its 'citizens'.
Is that too hard to grasp?

No, I know exactly what you're doing. "Have a go at the Brits" time again, eh.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that at some point, Britain may actually have treated someone reasonably well.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 05:08:33 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 20, 2009, 02:33:03 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 02:29:38 PM
He said terrorism was a form of warfare which could not be prevented by laws and punishments but by the aggressor's certainty that the war was impossible to win."

Bloody hell. 10/10 for that one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8158074.stm

Whilst I have no desire to be labelled a member of the "Sarah Kennedy/Enoch was Right Camp"  ::)

On that note, Powell's dire predictions of massive and violent racial rifts haven't come to pass. He would probably have been surprised by how well many immigrants and their descendents have integrated.

Though if Powell were around today, he could probably point to the 7/7 bombings. Who would have envisaged back in the 1960s that 40 years later Britons would massacre innocent Londoners in the name of Islamism.

I would be pretty sure he would find the rise of the BNP a very bad phenomenon, mind you.

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 11:33:33 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 01:27:56 PM

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 01:08:50 AM

Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 12:57:10 AM
I dont think its a misreading.Britain had only bad standards in accepting its own responsibilities.Human rights,prisoners rights,I could go on.

Stripe me pink ::)

The point is not whether Britain's standards were objectively high. It was that whatever the highest of these standards were, no less should be applied across the board.

Powell was saying Britain should not treat Africans or Asians under its government by any lower standard than the best standard by which it would treat Britons.

Seriously, is this too hard to grasp? :-\

Its not hard to grasp. Basically he is saying,treat everybody bad. I don't expect you to understand wher Im coming from. I'm basically having a dig at Britains record in treating some of its 'citizens'.
Is that too hard to grasp?

No, I know exactly what you're doing. "Have a go at the Brits" time again, eh.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that at some point, Britain may actually have treated someone reasonably well.

What are you talking about? Admitting Britain may have actually treated somebody well? Im sure they have treated thousands upon thousands  of people well,That is their obligation after all.Do you think they deserve credit for that?
My point is the people they didnt treat well.
10 out of 10 for observation tho-When I said I was basically having a dig at Britain on its record on treating some of its so called citizens-It mite have given it away maybe!!

So in other words, you recognise that among Britain's standards, to which Powell referred, there are some which could be identified as the highest? You recognise that some people were treated well?

Remind me again what your problem was with Powell's quote? ::)

While you're at it, care to rethink "Basically he is saying,treat everybody bad"?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 20, 2009, 07:11:31 PM
EG you never answered me, do you condem Churchill for his links with Stalin?

Absolutely not, essentially for three reasons.

First, whilst Stalin was personally every bit as nasty as Hitler, nonetheless Communism is/was not so inherently evil as Fascism (imo). That is because if you look at the Marxist principles* which underlie Communism (or should do, at any rate), they are basically reasonable, if not even admirable. Therefore, when Stalin was conducting his reign of terror, he was breaking  his own Constitution and Laws. Whereas, when Hitler was doing so, he was doing so entirely in accordance with  Fascist Law, designed as it was to legitimise Racism and anti-Semitism etc.

Secondly and more importantly, Churchill's co-operation with Stalin was anything but willing (unlike, say, Sean Russell's co-operation with the Nazis). For when the UK declared war on Germany in September 1939, it did so alongside France (only), following the German invasion of Poland (the three countries had a tripartite mutual defence Pact). At that stage, the USSR was actually an ally  of Germany, under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed just a few weeks previously. Indeed, not only did Stalin use the German attack on Poland and the West as a pretext for making territorial gains of his own in Eastern Europe, but the two countries actually assisted each other, with German arms and machinery going to the USSR and oil, in desperately short supply in Germany due to the British Naval blockade, going the other way.

Of course, the Mol-Ribb Pact was a mere convenience for both parties, since neither was yet ready to take on the other. Nonetheless, Churchill did not conclude Britain's alliance with the USSR until after  Hitler commenced his surprise attack on the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) in June 1941. At which point, whilst Churchill would 'unsay no word' of his previous clear and unequivocal opposition to Communism, nonetheless this was for him a direct attack on the Russian people by a greater evil, so that  'the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe'.

Finally, if you study what drove Hitler on, it was the inherently racist-motivated desire for Lebensraum for the German people, to be carved out by force in Eastern Europe. It was not ever his design to go to war with Britain, but when Britain surprised him by declaring war over Poland, he hoped to force the UK to sue for peace by the threat of invasion. Indeed, had the UK permitted him a free hand on the Continent, Hitler would happily have allowed us to keep our overseas Empire unmolested. By contrast, Soviet Communism was a declared enemy of Western-style democracy, wherever it was manifested.

Therefore had he been operating purely out of self-interest, nothing would have suited Churchill and the UK more than to watch the two great enemies of Democracy fight each other to a standstill in Europe, whilst the British Empire, undrained by any war effort, continued to grow ever stronger elsewhere. Consequently, I have no doubt whatever over the righteousness of the the UK's strategic wartime alliance with the USSR, any more than I have of its prosecution within NATO, of the Cold War against the USSR, in the decades which followed the Axis defeat in 1945.

And if you want to know what Churchill thought about that,  I suggest you read the following:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/churchill-iron.html


* - "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" etc

Quote from: MW on July 21, 2009, 12:19:19 AM
So in other words, you recognise that among Britain's standards, to which Powell referred, there are some which could be identified as the highest? You recognise that some people were treated well?

Remind me again what your problem was with Powell's quote? ::)

While you're at it, care to rethink "Basically he is saying,treat everybody bad"?

Just read back on my posts there good man.Your comprehension off a line from Powells speech is completely different to mine. I read it that he is saying Britain has the highest of standards in accepting its responsibilities,which I disagree with.You read it a different way.We are in disageement from the start,so everything else said is immaterial.Understood?

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
Just read back on my posts there good man.Your comprehension off a line from Powells speech is completely different to mine. I read it that he is saying Britain has the highest of standards in accepting its responsibilities,which I disagree with.You read it a different way.We are in disageement from the start,so everything else said is immaterial.Understood?

Your understanding is incorrect, whereas MW's is correct. That is, Powell was arguing for the highest standard of treatment for all British citizens equally, both within and outwith the UK. And notwithstanding his position on mass immigration, if you study his record in this regard generally, it is clear he was always entirely consistent.

The fact that all British citizens, home and overseas, may not actually have been treated equally by the Government of the day (or before or since) is another matter.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:43:22 AM

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
Just read back on my posts there good man.Your comprehension off a line from Powells speech is completely different to mine. I read it that he is saying Britain has the highest of standards in accepting its responsibilities,which I disagree with.You read it a different way.We are in disageement from the start,so everything else said is immaterial.Understood?

Your understanding is incorrect, whereas MW's is correct. That is, Powell was arguing for the highest standard of treatment for all British citizens equally, both within and outwith the UK. And notwithstanding his position on mass immigration, if you study his record in this regard generally, it is clear he was always entirely consistent.

The fact that all British citizens, home and overseas, may not actually have been treated equally by the Government of the day (or before or since) is another matter.

OK Im sorry MW. I just seen another chance to 'Have a go at the Brits'. My bad.

Meanwhile, back on the subject of Sean Russell's statue, they're even stirring in the Rebel County:


http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2009/07/15/story96349.asp
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 :

Why do our political leaders gloss over Dublin's dirty little secret?

Sad to say, it's a telling sign that when a statue to a Nazi collaborator goes up in Dublin, the least that happens is a splash of emulsion. Can you imagine if a statue to Marshal Pétain were erected in Paris? Or one to Quisling in Oslo? Or even of Mussolini in Italy?

SINN Féin have a way of testing everyone's patience. If asked "do you condemn attacks on property?", I suspect 99% of us would say "yes". But when that attack amounts to spray-painting a monument to a Nazi collaborator? Now that's a difficult one.

Would I succumb to the temptation to do it myself? Certainly not.

Would I encourage someone else to do it? Emphatically, no.

But, if I were a judge, would I fine or jail someone for doing it? Errr...

Yes, not for the first time, the Seán Russell statue in Dublin has been vandalised, just weeks after the latest version was unveiled with much pomp by the spuriously official-sounding National Graves Association (NGA).

Some very naughty person has painted "Hitler's friend" on the statue. For some reason, republicans from the Provo tradition sound surprised. "There seems to be some group in the area who are hellbent on destroying it," Cllr Christy Burke was quoted as saying.

I wonder why that might be, Christy? He now wants CCTV cameras trained on the site in Fairview Park. I wondered why Burke resigned from Sinn Féin last month. Now we might have a clue: unlike Sinn Féin, he supports CCTV cameras to combat crime. Or maybe he just supports them when it's the "desecration" of the republican holy of holies? Perhaps he'll write in and let us know.

According to Burke, all these attacks are "costing the NGA a lot of money". If you do write in, Christy, maybe you could explain where all this money came from in the first place? Otherwise, we'll be forced to draw our own conclusions.

And while you're at it, could we have a clear condemnation of those who scrawl "IRA" on roads and walls, and splatter propagandist murals on the sides of people's houses for them, without being asked?

I know, I know: I'm in danger of sounding facetious. But if Provo types, even recently resigned ones, don't understand what all the fuss is about, they live in smaller bubbles than we thought.

To recap on the history for a moment... Seán Russell was the leader of the IRA who declared war on Britain in 1939 and launched a bombing campaign in British cities, complementing that of the Luftwaffe. The IRA campaign claimed seven dead and almost 200 wounded, the vast, vast majority of them civilians.

Using the novelist Francis Stuart as an emissary, the IRA had opened up contact with the Abwehr, the military-controlled German foreign intelligence service. Twelve Abwehr agents landed in the Free State between 1939 and 1943, aiming to make contact with the IRA and develop plans for joint action in the North.

Éamon de Valera responded swiftly to this direct threat to his pledge that Ireland would not be used as a base for attacks on Britain and introduced the Offences Against the State Act. Several imprisoned IRA men went on hunger strike in response and rather than see them die, de Valera released some.

Sensing weakness, the IRA launched a raid on the Irish army's munitions store in Phoenix Park. Having learned his lesson, de Valera warned the IRA that Easter Rising veterans or not, such activities would not be tolerated. The IRA, in turn, started referring to him as "Judas".

That brief summary would probably not be contested, even by Christy Burke or Larry O'Toole, the leader of the Sinn Féin group on Dublin City Council, who laid a wreath at the recent unveiling, although Sinn Féin/NGA representatives sometimes overlook the dead and wounded, preferring to stress the attacks in Britain were aimed at telecommunications installations.

The real question is, though, was Russell justified? From a Provo point of view, there is no question: "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity", as Matt Doyle of the NGA puts it. Besides, Russell wasn't involved in sending Jews to death camps or anything (although his convenient death from a burst stomach ulcer in 1940 on board a Nazi U-boat — followed by burial complete with swastika and German military honours — means we can only speculate how far he would have taken his alliance with the Führer).

If it was quite as simple as that, many nationally-minded people might be tempted to shrug. It does beg the question, though, why invest all those euro in a massive bronze statue to the man? (It's "a significant work of art", you know, with a GPS tracking device in its head, apparently). The war on Britain was, after all, a pathetic failure.

As another NGA apologist puts it delicately, "the campaign ran itself into the ground long before any tangible republican objectives could be secured".

Whether or not Russell was actually doctrinally a Nazi is debatable. What is known from several accounts of people then in the IRA was that Nazi sympathies were strong in republican circles. When news of German victories came through on the radio in Crumlin Road jail in Belfast, the IRA prisoners cheered to the rafters.

But for most people, it was very possible to seek an end to partition, support Irish neutrality in the Second World War and still have been able to see that Irish issues paled beside those at stake when the free world was fighting for its very survival.

For the NGA to point out that Russell also sought aid from the Soviet Union a decade earlier and argue, on that basis, that he couldn't have been a fascist only reveals another truth: that Seán Russell was a complete fanatic with a very strange set of priorities. Moreover, he was a fool if he thought Hitler would conquer Britain and turn it into a German colony but leave little Ireland blissfully alone to go its own sweet way.

NOW it is true that all sorts of people — not least those living under the yoke of the 20th century's other monstrous ideology, Marxist-Leninism — formed tactical alliances with Nazi Germany. But when those people are honoured, it's cause for most of Europe to demand their political descendents be banned.

Sad to say, it's a telling sign that when a statue to a Nazi collaborator goes up in Dublin, the least that happens is a splash of emulsion. Can you imagine if a statue to Marshal Pétain were erected in Paris? Or one to Quisling in Oslo? Or even of Mussolini in Italy?

Couldn't a superficially cogent argument be made that these men too were not Nazis in the strictest sense, but merely entered alliances with Hitler for the greater good of their homelands? But wouldn't such arguments be met by riots in the streets?

Needless to say, I condemn rioting too, but why is it that Dublin's dirty little secret — or should that be Dublin City Council's little secret, for the park where the Russell statue stands belongs to them? — isn'tbeing raised in the Dáil, in Brussels and beyond? In a society that extols human equality, officially despises antisemitism, holds gay and straight people, black and white people to be fundamentally worthy of respect, why has the very existence of a monument to Nazi collaboration not been questioned by anyone higher up the political pecking order than local councillors from Fine Gael and Labour?

Seán Russell is a disgrace, but so is the omerta sometimes from people who, in their heart of hearts, know better.

wonderful, an excuse for someone with an anti sinn fein agenda to allow them to let off that little daft rant !


so russell (who I didnt know much of to be honest - so much for being a well known 'hereo' among republicans) was captain of the luftwaffe or something like that ! !  :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 11:39:11 AM

why has the very existence of a monument to Nazi collaboration not been questioned by anyone higher up the political pecking order than local councillors from Fine Gael and Labour?

Because people Don't give a f**k!! EG and the odd Journalist can make what they like out of it,but thats the bottom line.Shame comes from within-not what other people try to make you ashamed off. Now get over it,because everybody else has.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:20:31 PM
so russell (who I didnt know much of to be honest - so much for being a well known 'hereo' among republicans) was captain of the luftwaffe or something like that ! !  :D

Russell was sufficiently "heroic" amongst Republicans for them to erect a Statue to him in Dublin. If you are too ignorant to have known much about him, then that is your problem - compounded by your insisting on commenting on him nonetheless...  :o

P.S. FYI, he was not a "captain of the luftwaffe or something like that"; rather he was an IRA leader who collaborated with the Nazis before and during the 2nd World War. I assume you know at least a little about the 2nd World War - it was in all the papers... ::)

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:24:47 PM
Shame comes from within

And you apparently have none.

Congratulations - you have that much in common with Russell, at least.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:35:13 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:24:47 PM
Shame comes from within

And you apparently have none.

Congratulations - you have that much in common with Russell, at least.

No.

I would have a few things in common with Russell Im sure.

If you feel so strongly about it,why don't you round up Kevin Myers and the D4 set and go to your local County councillor and complain????
Or do you even live in this country???

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:43:05 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:35:13 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:24:47 PM
Shame comes from within

And you apparently have none.

Congratulations - you have that much in common with Russell, at least.

No.

I would have a few things in common with Russell Im sure.

If you feel so strongly about it,why don't you round up Kevin Myers and the D4 set and go to your local County councillor and complain????
Or do you even live in this country???

If by "this country" you mean the Irish Republic, then no, I do not. However, since I live in the UK, and SF are helping administer British rule in that part of the UK dearest to me, I am always concerned to see what they are up to, whether it be at home or in a foreign country... ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:32:54 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:20:31 PM
so russell (who I didnt know much of to be honest - so much for being a well known 'hereo' among republicans) was captain of the luftwaffe or something like that ! !  :D

Russell was sufficiently "heroic" amongst Republicans for them to erect a Statue to him in Dublin. If you are too ignorant to have known much about him, then that is your problem - compounded by your insisting on commenting on him nonetheless...  :o

P.S. FYI, he was not a "captain of the luftwaffe or something like that"; rather he was an IRA leader who collaborated with the Nazis before and during the 2nd World War. I assume you know at least a little about the 2nd World War - it was in all the papers... ::)

maybe he meant something to some people and while I admit I am not up on the republicans list of heroes etc, I have heard plenty from Irish history and russell wasnt one of them. Irish history is something I used to read quite a lot about.

so what big plans and world war II initiatives did russel help the nazi's and germans with in the war then.
Jeez maybe I should have been reading german /war history and saw russel standing beside itler on the podium.

yer a great laugh - trying to big up this guy and his 'influence' in the ww2 !

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:43:05 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:35:13 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:24:47 PM
Shame comes from within

And you apparently have none.

Congratulations - you have that much in common with Russell, at least.

No.

I would have a few things in common with Russell Im sure.

If you feel so strongly about it,why don't you round up Kevin Myers and the D4 set and go to your local County councillor and complain????
Or do you even live in this country???

If by "this country" you mean the Irish Republic, then no, I do not. However, since I live in the UK, and SF are helping administer British rule in that part of the UK dearest to me, I am always concerned to see what they are up to, whether it be at home or in a foreign country... ;)

so you dont live in Ireland then , over the water in England !
:D

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:52:24 PM

maybe he meant something to some people and while I admit I am not up on the republicans list of heroes etc, I have heard plenty from Irish history and russell wasnt one of them. Irish history is something I used to read quite a lot about.

If you don't know about an IRA Leader who has had a statue erected in his "honour" in Dublin by the NGA, then maybe you've been reading the wrong history books.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:52:24 PM
so what big plans and world war II initiatives did russel help the nazi's and germans with in the war then.
Jeez maybe I should have been reading german /war history and saw russel standing beside itler on the podium.
yer a great laugh - trying to big up this guy and his 'influence' in the ww2 !

Even if Russell was actually to prove an ineffectual leader, the record of his willing collaboration with the Nazi regime is quite clear. Personally I don't find the following a subject for levity:

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-holocaust&month=9710&week=b&msg=/SHct1PpljHPcfOUXhraOw&user=&pw=
I helped Hitler bomb Belfast, says IRA man
Electronic Telegraph, 12 October 1997, Issue 871
By Jacqui Thornton


THE IRA provided the Nazis with vital military intelligence during the
Second World War, a former Irish senator will claim this week.
It is alleged that the information about vulnerable targets in Belfast
aided Luftwaffe bombing raids that left 1,100 people dead and 25,000
homeless.
The claims by Sam McAughtry, an RAF veteran of the Battle of Britain, are
based on confessions of a former IRA activist. The source gathered the
evidence in Belfast before and after the Germans carried out the four
bombing raids of 1941. Now an elderly man, the source - who refuses to be
identified for fear of reprisals - admits he gave guidance on targets and
reported on damage of two highly destructive raids on the city's
docklands.
The information was passed to his "Officer Commanding" in the IRA and fed
to the German legation in Dublin and then into Germany itself.  Ireland
remained neutral throughout the war. Mr McAughtry says that the former
activist is now ashamed and appalled that as a young man he actively helped
the Nazis to kill his fellow countrymen.
The former senator, who stood down from his post in July, is a respected
independent with a Protestant Unionist background. He will make the
allegations in a controversial documentary to be screened on Channel 4 on
Wednesday.
Although the former IRA activist is not interviewed on screen, the former
senator describes his confession as impeccable. He says: "The IRA were
particularly involved in reporting the damage done in the first raid so
that it could be destroyed in the second." Channel 4 made its own inquiries
to verify the story.
The timing of the documentary will be particularly embarrassing for Sinn
Fein as it claims that Dominic Adams - the uncle of Gerry - was
quartermaster under Sean Russell, the then Chief of Staff for the IRA in
its campaign against English targets in 1939.
It shows footage of how Russell collaborated with the Nazis on a U-boat on
Operation Pigeon but died before it could come to fruition.
It also contains interviews with Republican supporters who worked with
Edmund Veesenmeyer, at one time Hitler's security officer, who was later
sentenced to 20 years at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity.
The director of the film, Gerry Greg, said: "The programme simply tells an
English audience a few things they did not know about the people they're
negotiating with at Stormont."
He said he believed that "hundreds" of IRA activists were used to gather
information harmful to the Allies.
"Irishmen were not going to fight England's war, they were going to fight
their own. But Catholics and Protestants perished," he said.  "Even if the
reports were simply to say that civilian morale was shattered, that was
enough."

the Irish history books dont make a big deal of him.

As for your 'russell plots world domination with hitler'

well that ranks up there with the people that 'saw aliens' and helped the aliens kidnap elvis !

I am sure he sided with the germans, but the level is in question, I very much doubt he played much part in helping them.
Unless the ira at the time had more advanced electronic systems, information and weapons that we actually realised !
(hint - no they didnt)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 01:07:47 PM

The claims by Sam McAughtry, an RAF veteran of the Battle of Britain, are
based on confessions of a former IRA activist.
Mr McAughtry says that the former
activist is now ashamed and appalled that as a young man he actively helped
the Nazis to kill his fellow countrymen.
Although the former IRA activist is not interviewed on screen,
The director of the film, Gerry Greg, said: "The programme simply tells an
English audience a few things they did not know about the people they're
negotiating with at Stormont."He said he believed that "hundreds" of IRA activists were used to gather
information harmful to the Allies.
"Irishmen were not going to fight England's war, they were going to fight
their own. But Catholics and Protestants perished," he said.  "Even if the
reports were simply to say that civilian morale was shattered, that was
enough."

Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:32:35 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 01:07:47 PM

The claims by Sam McAughtry, an RAF veteran of the Battle of Britain, are
based on confessions of a former IRA activist.
Mr McAughtry says that the former
activist is now ashamed and appalled that as a young man he actively helped
the Nazis to kill his fellow countrymen.
Although the former IRA activist is not interviewed on screen,
The director of the film, Gerry Greg, said: "The programme simply tells an
English audience a few things they did not know about the people they're
negotiating with at Stormont."He said he believed that "hundreds" of IRA activists were used to gather
information harmful to the Allies.
"Irishmen were not going to fight England's war, they were going to fight
their own. But Catholics and Protestants perished," he said.  "Even if the
reports were simply to say that civilian morale was shattered, that was
enough."

Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Indeed I wonder how many WW2 IRA veterans are sitting in Stormont?

/Jim.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:20:31 PM
so russell (who I didnt know much of to be honest - so much for being a well known 'hereo' among republicans) was captain of the luftwaffe or something like that ! !  :D

Russell in the matters that are important, in his responsibility as COS, he was inept and strategically naive.
I certainly don't regard him as a hero in the responsibility that was accorded him.

There was an attempt by revisionist historians like David O'Donoghue to portray Frank Ryan as an Irish version of Quisling,
like many of Irish revisionist historians, he used false memory as historical fact combined with postmortem interviews as support

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
the Irish history books dont make a big deal of him.

Whether a "big deal" or not, history records that Russell was an IRA leader who actively and willingly collaborated with the Nazis. and despite this fact, SF and the NGA make a big enough "deal" to erected a statue in his "honour" even 60 years later - which was my point all along.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
As for your 'russell plots world domination with hitler'

No, I never claimed that - that is your transparent attempt at diversion.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
well that ranks up there with the people that 'saw aliens' and helped the aliens kidnap elvis !

Puerile.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
I am sure he sided with the germans, but the level is in question, I very much doubt he played much part in helping them.
Unless the ira at the time had more advanced electronic systems, information and weapons that we actually realised !
(hint - no they didnt)

Whether he was effectual or had any great technical capacity etc is decidedly NOT the "question"; rather there is a principle at stake here. And whatever your attempts at obfuscation or denial, your inability or unwillingness to recognise that says it all.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:32:35 PM


Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Journalist with a documentary to promote, actually, but it is the substance of his story which is significant, not the billing.

Speaking of which, Sam McAughtry was a man of greater integrity than you or I could ever lay claim to. If you read one of the volumes of his autobiography, "Sam's War", he describes his involvement in WWII - on the opposite side from Russell. In his RAF unit, there were several volunteers from the Free State, with whom Sam and the other Ulstermen became firm and lifelong friends. You can imagine his anger and dismay upon learning that while those (genuinely) "united Irishmen" were bravely fighting Fascism in Europe, other Irish "patriots" were in league with the Nazis, even to the extent of helping them bomb his family, friends and neighbours to smithereens back in Belfast.

People like Sam McAughtry are a million times more worthy of commemoration than a murderous sc**bag like Sean Russell, and would be, were there not so many fcuked-up apologists in Ireland, even 60 years later.  >:(

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 03:40:07 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
the Irish history books dont make a big deal of him.

Whether a "big deal" or not, history records that Russell was an IRA leader who actively and willingly collaborated with the Nazis. and despite this fact, SF and the NGA make a big enough "deal" to erected a statue in his "honour" even 60 years later - which was my point all along.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
As for your 'russell plots world domination with hitler'

No, I never claimed that - that is your transparent attempt at diversion.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
well that ranks up there with the people that 'saw aliens' and helped the aliens kidnap elvis !

Puerile.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
I am sure he sided with the germans, but the level is in question, I very much doubt he played much part in helping them.
Unless the ira at the time had more advanced electronic systems, information and weapons that we actually realised !
(hint - no they didnt)

Whether he was effectual or had any great technical capacity etc is decidedly NOT the "question"; rather there is a principle at stake here. And whatever your attempts at obfuscation or denial, your inability or unwillingness to recognise that says it all.

you use the word puile and I think this is very apt for your attempt to link russell and his wish to see a german victory in ww2 with modern day sinn fein and republicanism.
I am sure in your own mind that russell and his 'abillities' offered great and profound help to the german war campaign - but in reality that some ira COS in  a'quiet period' where the IRA were not really up to much - to you seems like he was almost stalinesque in stature and importance says it all.
yes , purile indeed !  I think you are facing into the wind there, try not to get too wet!

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 03:59:51 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:32:35 PM


Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Journalist with a documentary to promote, actually, but it is the substance of his story which is significant, not the billing.

Speaking of which, Sam McAughtry was a man of greater integrity than you or I could ever lay claim to. If you read one of the volumes of his autobiography, "Sam's War", he describes his involvement in WWII - on the opposite side from Russell. In his RAF unit, there were several volunteers from the Free State, with whom Sam and the other Ulstermen became firm and lifelong friends. You can imagine his anger and dismay upon learning that while those (genuinely) "united Irishmen" were bravely fighting Fascism in Europe, other Irish "patriots" were in league with the Nazis, even to the extent of helping them bomb his family, friends and neighbours to smithereens back in Belfast.

People like Sam McAughtry are a million times more worthy of commemoration than a murderous sc**bag like Sean Russell, and would be, were there not so many fcuked-up apologists in Ireland, even 60 years later.  >:(

gosh , where is wikipedia when you need it for an 'opinion' !

we presume you know all this from first hand knowledge ?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 01:40:55 PM
Indeed I wonder how many WW2 IRA veterans are sitting in Stormont?

They might be a bit young to have "volunteered" themselves, but I daresay you wouldn't have to go too far back in the Family Album of a few of them, to find a few of Hitler's willing accomplices - more's the shame.  >:(

back to the thread title
still no sign of actual comparison between modern day sf and whoever it is that evil myles is trying to tie in ?

or is the threadtitle actually correct and it is a difference spotting exercise ...

I'll start
1. the second word of one of them starts with an 'F' , the other starts with a 'H'

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 04:02:58 PM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 01:40:55 PM
Indeed I wonder how many WW2 IRA veterans are sitting in Stormont?

They might be a bit young to have "volunteered" themselves, but I daresay you wouldn't have to go too far back in the Family Album of a few of them, to find a few of Hitler's willing accomplices - more's the shame.  >:(

So the sins of the father are visited on the son then? You need to take a look at yourself.

Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 01:56:14 PM
Russell in the matters that are important, in his responsibility as COS, he was inept and strategically naive.
I certainly don't regard him as a hero in the responsibility that was accorded him.

Had Russell proven to have been capable and efficient at what he attempted, would that mean who would accord him greater "respect"?

Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 01:56:14 PM
There was an attempt by revisionist historians like David O'Donoghue to portray Frank Ryan as an Irish version of Quisling,
like many of Irish revisionist historians, he used false memory as historical fact combined with postmortem interviews as support

No-one other than Donagh has alluded in this thread to Ryan, and he only did so as a pitifully transparent attempt to cloud the issue. The fact is, a statue has been erected to a notorious Fascist collaborator in the Irish capital, and the only people who are revising Russell's history are the NGA and those self-styled "Socialists", Sinn Fein.  :o

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 03:59:51 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:32:35 PM


Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Journalist with a documentary to promote, actually, but it is the substance of his story which is significant, not the billing.

Speaking of which, Sam McAughtry was a man of greater integrity than you or I could ever lay claim to. If you read one of the volumes of his autobiography, "Sam's War", he describes his involvement in WWII - on the opposite side from Russell. In his RAF unit, there were several volunteers from the Free State, with whom Sam and the other Ulstermen became firm and lifelong friends. You can imagine his anger and dismay upon learning that while those (genuinely) "united Irishmen" were bravely fighting Fascism in Europe, other Irish "patriots" were in league with the Nazis, even to the extent of helping them bomb his family, friends and neighbours to smithereens back in Belfast.

People like Sam McAughtry are a million times more worthy of commemoration than a murderous sc**bag like Sean Russell, and would be, were there not so many fcuked-up apologists in Ireland, even 60 years later.  >:(

Thats a good one!! We are all fucked up Apologists,bar of course Mr EVIL 'Iv got an agenda,and won't let it rest,even though most people don't giv a f**k anymore GENIUS.
I used to actually think people were harsh on you on this Board.You could hav even called me an Evil Genius Apologist- Now thats a fucked up apologist if ever there was one!!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:00:30 PM
you use the word puile and I think this is very apt for your attempt to link russell and his wish to see a german victory in ww2 with modern day sinn fein and republicanism.

It is not I who is linking Russell with SF, it is they themselves  who are doing so, with their enthusiastic endorsement of a notorious Fascist collaborator, even long after the truth about him has become known.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:00:30 PM
I am sure in your own mind that russell and his 'abillities' offered great and profound help to the german war campaign - but in reality that some ira COS in  a'quiet period' where the IRA were not really up to much - to you seems like he was almost stalinesque in stature and importance says it all.
yes , purile indeed !  I think you are facing into the wind there, try not to get too wet!

It is no thanks to Russell that his attempts to aid the Nazis were ineffectual, rather there is a principle at stake. Then again, I can discern little regard for principle or integrity in any of your posts on this topic; maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since that is something which could also be said about the subject matter himself.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:01:36 PM
gosh , where is wikipedia when you need it for an 'opinion' !

we presume you know all this from first hand knowledge ?

I "know" it specifically from having read some of McAughtry's books and also from having studied the period out of personal interest.

I presume EG and other Unionists will also hang their heads in shame for the sins of their predecessors.... Stealing lands that didnt belong to them,
denying civil rights to native Irish/Nationalists/Catholics for 470 years,
Engaging in repression and wholescale murder of the plain people of Ireland,
Running a rotten political slum for 50 odd years,
Disgraceful pogroms towards Catholics and .....
there isnt room to write all the shite that shower visited on us.

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:07:22 PM
back to the thread title
still no sign of actual comparison between modern day sf and whoever it is that evil myles is trying to tie in ?

It was not I who drew SF into the thread title, but SF themselves (alone).  For if you read the report I linked from An Poblacht in the opening post, you will see that SF were in the forefront of the unveiling of the the new statue of Russell, whilst these "Socialists [sic] carefully omitted all mention of his Nazi collaborationalist past:

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/38452
New memorial unveiled to Seán Russell
A new memorial in honour of Irish republican Seán Russell was unveiled in Dublin's Fairview Park on Sunday, 28 June.
Born in Fairview in 1893 Seán Russell was a veteran of the 1916 Rising, the Tan war and Civil War and was Chief of Staff during the IRA's bombing campaign in England, launched in 1939.
The original memorial was badly vandalised in an attack in December 2004.
Last weekend's unveiling ceremony was conducted by the National Graves Association which commissioned the new statue by sculptor Willie Malone. The statue was unveiled by Paddy Ryan and Sean Dougan.
A wreath was laid on behalf of Sinn Féin by the party's Dublin City Council group leader Larry O'Toole.

Quote from: stibhan on July 21, 2009, 04:07:51 PM
So the sins of the father are visited on the son then? You need to take a look at yourself.

No-one* should have to apologise for any wrongs committed by their father etc, loften ong before they were even born. Then again, I have never demanded that, on this thread or any other.

What I am concerned about is people proudly commemorating evil committed by a previous generation, even attempting to make personal capital out of it, as SF clearly are doing with their air-brushed version of the "history" of Sean Russell.

* - Conveniently enough, I'd say, if you consider the wartime activities of the likes of Gerry Adams Sr. and his brother Dominic...  :o

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 04:19:29 PM
Thats a good one!! We are all fucked up Apologists,bar of course Mr EVIL 'Iv got an agenda,and won't let it rest,even though most people don't giv a f**k anymore GENIUS.
I used to actually think people were harsh on you on this Board.You could hav even called me an Evil Genius Apologist- Now thats a fucked up apologist if ever there was one!!

I'm distraught, absolutely distraught... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 04:20:18 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:00:30 PM
you use the word puile and I think this is very apt for your attempt to link russell and his wish to see a german victory in ww2 with modern day sinn fein and republicanism.

It is not I who is linking Russell with SF, it is they themselves  who are doing so, with their enthusiastic endorsement of a notorious Fascist collaborator, even long after the truth about him has become known.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:00:30 PM
I am sure in your own mind that russell and his 'abillities' offered great and profound help to the german war campaign - but in reality that some ira COS in  a'quiet period' where the IRA were not really up to much - to you seems like he was almost stalinesque in stature and importance says it all.
yes , purile indeed !  I think you are facing into the wind there, try not to get too wet!

It is no thanks to Russell that his attempts to aid the Nazis were ineffectual, rather there is a principle at stake. Then again, I can discern little regard for principle or integrity in any of your posts on this topic; maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since that is something which could also be said about the subject matter himself.

nope you are trying to make the link from russel to being some kind of german army maestro masterminding the war on behalf of the german army and hitler etc
though to be fair to you, there are some others writing fables in the press/mediastating similar.

sf are commemorating his leadership/period at the helm etc.

thats the difference, you still however , have not made a decent link on this thread which I expect is the 'point' of what you were 'trying' to do !
tentetive if not purile - is a fail - in any persons book !

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 04:22:43 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 04:01:36 PM
gosh , where is wikipedia when you need it for an 'opinion' !

we presume you know all this from first hand knowledge ?

I "know" it specifically from having read some of McAughtry's books and also from having studied the period out of personal interest.

well knowing that your usual sources of info are works of fiction etc  , that hardly surprises me you have no decent 'source' !

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 04:39:21 PM
as SF clearly are doing with their air-brushed version of the "history" of Sean Russell.

EG,

You are jumping all over the place at this stage.   I don't think that SF are air-brushing their version of history.  Apart from Mary Lou McDonald whom I heard making the faux-paux of denying that Russell was ever involved with the Gerries (for which Marian Finucane tore her a new one), I have never heard any Shinner deny Russells activities.  Neither have I heard them deny the activities of the IRA in Belfast during WW2.

However, I have heard them rationalise these activities (The old enemy of my enemy, Britain's strife/Ireland's opportunity etc..).  These rationalisations have been at the core of republicanism from day one.

Do you think you are the only one around with this insight?

or, do you think you can change the outlook of the republican-minded contributors here?

/Jim.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 03:59:51 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:32:35 PM


Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Journalist with a documentary to promote, actually, but it is the substance of his story which is significant, not the billing.

All I seem to get from the piece are the beliefs and opinions of two men who clearly have an agenda against the "old" IRA and republicans.
I would be very dubious as the the actual factual content of the program (seeing as the Producer has already stated that he has an ulterior reason for producing the show).
Nether the less I will be watching the show tomorrw evening, just as I did the show last week about britains nazi king.  ;)
I

Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2009, 04:24:35 PM
I presume EG and other Unionists will also hang their heads in shame for the sins of their predecessors.... Stealing lands that didnt belong to them,
denying civil rights to native Irish/Nationalists/Catholics for 470 years,
Engaging in repression and wholescale murder of the plain people of Ireland,
Running a rotten political slum for 50 odd years,
Disgraceful pogroms towards Catholics and .....
there isnt room to write all the shite that shower visited on us.

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Someone once said something about England's failing being that she does not remember her History, whereas Ireland's is that she does not forget hers. And reading your rant (above) is clear proof of the truth of the second half of that observation.

For myself, I have never accepted either that people should claim credit for the good deeds of their forebears, or have to feel guilty for their misdeeds, since each just leads to perpetuation of old slights and grievances.

Instead, I firmly believe that if progress is ever to be made, each of us must account for our own deeds and misdeeds.

Which is where this statue came in. Personally, I can live with the "career" of people like Russell as a matter of mere historical interest, regardless of what one thinks of him. Rather, what struck me about this latest episode is that latter-day apologists are incapable of consigning Russell and his type to the grave, but instead insist on raising him on a plinth, as an "role model" to be emulated by future generations etc.

Worse, in order to do so, they are taking great care to rewrite the true history of someone who was actually an unreconstructed Fascist collaborator. Which would be bad enough in itself, had they not also the brass neck to call themselves "Socialists".

Worst of all, at the same time as they are carrying on like this, they are also declaring that they wish to "reach out" to a million of their fellow Irishmen and women like me, in order to create "An Ireland of Equals".

Well I'm sorry, I will accept that with the times that are in it, it is necessary to include people like that in the governance of NI etc. But if SF truly imagine that Unionists will somehow be charmed or inveigled by them into an "Ireland" which is built on their particular brand of lies and hypocrisy, then they really don't have a f**king clue.

As for what people think that says about me, then they must make up their own mind; however, I am entirely happy to answer and account for my own views and opinions, as expressed by me on this Board.

What did Sinn Fein ever do on YOU Evil Genius??

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 04:51:56 PM
I don't think that SF are air-brushing their version of history.  Apart from Mary Lou McDonald whom I heard making the faux-paux of denying that Russell was ever involved with the Gerries (for which Marian Finucane tore her a new one)  I have never heard any Shinner deny Russells activities.

Really? If you do a search for "Sean Russell" on An Phoblacht, there are any number of articles on him; how many do you think deal honestly with what he actually got up to with his Nazi friends?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 04:51:56 PM
Neither have I heard them deny the activities of the IRA in Belfast during WW2.

Now you really are having a laugh! When Gerry Adams can't even admit that he was in the IRA, do you really expect him to own up to what his father, uncle and (I daresay) half his mother's family were up to a generation earlier?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 04:51:56 PM
However, I have heard them rationalise these activities (The old enemy of my enemy, Britain's strife/Ireland's opportunity etc..).  These rationalisations have been at the core of republicanism from day one.

Yep, and they stink.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 04:51:56 PM
Do you think you are the only one around with this insight?

Not terribly bothered, if truth be told. Whether people agree or disagree with me, I suspect the overwhelming majority of posters are long-since bored witless by all this; so be it.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 04:51:56 PM
or, do you think you can change the outlook of the republican-minded contributors here?

Evidently not. Then again, not everyone on here is "republican-minded", I'm pleased to say.

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 05:01:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2009, 04:24:35 PM
I presume EG and other Unionists will also hang their heads in shame for the sins of their predecessors.... Stealing lands that didnt belong to them,
denying civil rights to native Irish/Nationalists/Catholics for 470 years,
Engaging in repression and wholescale murder of the plain people of Ireland,
Running a rotten political slum for 50 odd years,
Disgraceful pogroms towards Catholics and .....
there isnt room to write all the shite that shower visited on us.

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Someone once said something about England's failing being that she does not remember her History, whereas Ireland's is that she does not forget hers. And reading your rant (above) is clear proof of the truth of the second half of that observation.

For myself, I have never accepted either that people should claim credit for the good deeds of their forebears, or have to feel guilty for their misdeeds, since each just leads to perpetuation of old slights and grievances.

Instead, I firmly believe that if progress is ever to be made, each of us must account for our own deeds and misdeeds.

Which is where this statue came in. Personally, I can live with the "career" of people like Russell as a matter of mere historical interest, regardless of what one thinks of him. Rather, what struck me about this latest episode is that latter-day apologists are incapable of consigning Russell and his type to the grave, but instead insist on raising him on a plinth, as an "role model" to be emulated by future generations etc.

Worse, in order to do so, they are taking great care to rewrite the true history of someone who was actually an unreconstructed Fascist collaborator. Which would be bad enough in itself, had they not also the brass neck to call themselves "Socialists".

Worst of all, at the same time as they are carrying on like this, they are also declaring that they wish to "reach out" to a million of their fellow Irishmen and women like me, in order to create "An Ireland of Equals".

Well I'm sorry, I will accept that with the times that are in it, it is necessary to include people like that in the governance of NI etc. But if SF truly imagine that Unionists will somehow be charmed or inveigled by them into an "Ireland" which is built on their particular brand of lies and hypocrisy, then they really don't have a f**king clue.

As for what people think that says about me, then they must make up their own mind; however, I am entirely happy to answer and account for my own views and opinions, as expressed by me on this Board.

while I believe that sf are moving away from the marxist leanings and maybe even away from the true socalist agenda they have been observing in dublin as well as in the north of Ireland , how or why can they not say they are socialists because of your fixation on trying to make russell into one of hitlers army council ?

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
Evidently not. Then again, not everyone on here is "republican-minded", I'm pleased to say.

looks like you are one of the people that take the time to read or listen to the sf press
(though your interpretation is obv suspect)
the rest of us couldnt be arsed, but you will be taken to task though (and corrected ) when you insist on making such ridiculous leaps and attempts at re-writes/equalising or so on !

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 01:56:14 PM
Russell in the matters that are important, in his responsibility as COS, he was inept and strategically naive.
I certainly don't regard him as a hero in the responsibility that was accorded him.

Had Russell proven to have been capable and efficient at what he attempted, would that mean who would accord him greater "respect"?

What a dumb question.

Would I have more or less respect for Russell as COS of the IRA, if he was more capable of implementing a strategy that I regard as poor to begin with?
I disagree with the military strategy,  would I have more respect for him if he were more capable with implementing it?
I don't know.

QuoteNo-one other than Donagh has alluded in this thread to Ryan, and he only did so as a pitifully transparent attempt to cloud the issue. The fact is, a statue has been erected to a notorious Fascist collaborator in the Irish capital, and the only people who are revising Russell's history are the NGA and those self-styled "Socialists", Sinn Fein.  :o

???
No one has denied that  Russell collaberated with the Nazi Fascists government of Germany.

You have failed on any historical level to argue your original agenda successfully.
I am not surprised, because you base your arguments on revisionists who have a habit of prioritising emotional agenda ahead of substance.

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:55:09 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:43:22 AM

Quote from: boojangles on July 21, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
Just read back on my posts there good man.Your comprehension off a line from Powells speech is completely different to mine. I read it that he is saying Britain has the highest of standards in accepting its responsibilities,which I disagree with.You read it a different way.We are in disageement from the start,so everything else said is immaterial.Understood?

Your understanding is incorrect, whereas MW's is correct. That is, Powell was arguing for the highest standard of treatment for all British citizens equally, both within and outwith the UK. And notwithstanding his position on mass immigration, if you study his record in this regard generally, it is clear he was always entirely consistent.

The fact that all British citizens, home and overseas, may not actually have been treated equally by the Government of the day (or before or since) is another matter.

OK Im sorry MW. I just seen another chance to 'Have a go at the Brits'. My bad.

You were indeed wrong.

You saw a statement from Powell, relating to some people exusing the death of 12 Kenyans, saying that the government should always apply its highest standards equally for all British subjects, whether in Britain, Africa or Asia, and all you were able to pick up in your rush to have a go was "Britain" and "highest standards".

Presumably all these British "Subjects" ( not citizens LIKE us) in Asia and Africa were asked for and GAVE permission before their lands were taken over and made such "subjects" ::)

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 21, 2009, 01:40:55 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:32:35 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 01:07:47 PM

The claims by Sam McAughtry, an RAF veteran of the Battle of Britain, are
based on confessions of a former IRA activist.
Mr McAughtry says that the former
activist is now ashamed and appalled that as a young man he actively helped
the Nazis to kill his fellow countrymen.
Although the former IRA activist is not interviewed on screen,
The director of the film, Gerry Greg, said: "The programme simply tells an
English audience a few things they did not know about the people they're
negotiating with at Stormont."He said he believed that "hundreds" of IRA activists were used to gather
information harmful to the Allies.
"Irishmen were not going to fight England's war, they were going to fight
their own. But Catholics and Protestants perished," he said.  "Even if the
reports were simply to say that civilian morale was shattered, that was
enough."

Impartial journalism!  :D
Man with an agenda eh!  ::)

Indeed I wonder how many WW2 IRA veterans are sitting in Stormont?

/Jim.

Well, 7 months after that article was written, Joe Cahill (a pretty senior figure in the provisional republican "movement" at the time of writing) ran as a Sinn Féin candidate in the Assembly election.

(Though "veteran" isn't the word I would use - "murderer" is)

Quote from: Rossfan on July 22, 2009, 09:54:45 PM
Presumably all these British "Subjects" ( not citizens us) in Asia and Africa were asked for NS GAVE permission before their lands were taken over and made such "subjects" ::)

Oh dear oh dear. Another one decides to ignore the point of the post and just have a go at the Brits.

Your point about "subjects" is puerile. Prior to 1983, the terms "British subject" and (from 1948) "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" (CUKC) were the correct terms for what today would be British nationals and citizens.

And no, such permission was given by the populations at large at the time of incorporation into the British empire. Care to explain how this has relevance to my point that what Powell was arguing for was the highest standard of treatment for all British subjects/CUKCs?

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 10:04:29 PM
[
And no, such permission was given by the populations at large at the time of incorporation into the British empire. Care to explain how this has relevance to my point that what Powell was arguing for was the highest standard of treatment for all British subjects/CUKCs?

Giving the Asians and Africans back their lands and paying reparations for all the evils inflicted on them would have served them better.

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 10:32:22 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
(Though "veteran" isn't the word I would use - "murderer" is)

Henry Allingham - WW1 veteran murderer?

Henry Allingham fought, alongside and against millions of other servicemen, in a declared war between the legitimate armed services of a number sovereign states (unless you think the First World Wat wasn't a war ::))

Joe Cahill and his gang gunned down a policeman and he was convicted of murder.

Says a hell of a lot about you that you try to draw a comparison between them.

Er...what?

Yes.

What that has to do with Henry Allingham is beyond me, though.

Not all acts of killing are indeed 'murder'..

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:01:56 PM

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 10:32:22 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
(Though "veteran" isn't the word I would use - "murderer" is)

Henry Allingham - WW1 veteran murderer?

Henry Allingham fought, alongside and against millions of other servicemen, in a declared war between the legitimate armed services of a number sovereign states (unless you think the First World Wat wasn't a war ::))

Joe Cahill and his gang gunned down a policeman and he was convicted of murder.

Says a hell of a lot about you that you try to draw a comparison between them.

Of course it's different MW.   ::)

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 11:15:15 PM
The word 'legitimate' is strange. "Here, Allingham, you are allowed to murder people. You, you and you can too. Hold on there a second, Paddy, you can't. Out you go".

Well unless paddy is murdering for the brits, then he's grand.

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:01:56 PM

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 10:32:22 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
(Though "veteran" isn't the word I would use - "murderer" is)

Henry Allingham - WW1 veteran murderer?

Henry Allingham fought, alongside and against millions of other servicemen, in a declared war between the legitimate armed services of a number sovereign states (unless you think the First World Wat wasn't a war ::))

Joe Cahill and his gang gunned down a policeman and he was convicted of murder.

Says a hell of a lot about you that you try to draw a comparison between them.

'Declared war'?  And here's me thinking for years it was fall-out between inbred European toffs (including your beloved Saxe-Coburg Gothas) with the working class of the Continent used as soldierly cannon-fodder to settle the argument between these royal f**k-ups

So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

Quote from: red hander on July 22, 2009, 11:22:57 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:01:56 PM

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 10:32:22 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
(Though "veteran" isn't the word I would use - "murderer" is)

Henry Allingham - WW1 veteran murderer?

Henry Allingham fought, alongside and against millions of other servicemen, in a declared war between the legitimate armed services of a number sovereign states (unless you think the First World Wat wasn't a war ::))

Joe Cahill and his gang gunned down a policeman and he was convicted of murder.

Says a hell of a lot about you that you try to draw a comparison between them.

'Declared war'?  And here's me thinking for years it was fall-out between inbred European toffs (including your beloved Saxe-Coburg Gothas) with the working class of the Continent used as soldierly cannon-fodder to settle the argument between these royal f**k-ups

Yes, declared war, as in the governments of sovereign states declared war on each other, and sent their uniformed servicemen (or "soldierly cannon-fodder" if you prefer) out to fight.

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

But it's fine for you to call Joe Cahill a murderer, a lowlife action.  

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

But it's fine for you to call Joe Cahill a murderer, a lowlife action.  

Joe Cahill was convicted of the murder of a policeman - he went out with an IRA murder gang to murder a police officer.

Pretty far removed from the uniformed servicemen of the First World War.

Joe Cahill was a murderer, that's simply a fact, and that's without even getting into his subsequent terrorist "career" leading the PIRA death squads.

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 11:29:06 PM
They really are the people.

Who are "they"?

And what do you mean by "the people"?

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 11:34:01 PM
When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

What's that a quote from?

MW is correct I'm afraid.

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:33:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

But it's fine for you to call Joe Cahill a murderer, a lowlife action.  

Joe Cahill was convicted of the murder of a policeman - he went out with an IRA murder gang to murder a police officer.

Pretty far removed from the uniformed servicemen of the First World War.

Joe Cahill was a murderer, that's simply a fact, and that's without even getting into his subseqent terrorist "career" leading the PIRA death squads.

Convicted of "murder" by a government/judiciary who kept it's hold on Ireland, a country it has no right to be near, by murdering.  Where the poles, french etc who fought back against Nazi Germany after their country was invaded murderers too?

The fact that you say he was a murderer doesnt make it so, no matter how many times you can squeeze in the word.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:38:31 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:33:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

But it's fine for you to call Joe Cahill a murderer, a lowlife action.  

Joe Cahill was convicted of the murder of a policeman - he went out with an IRA murder gang to murder a police officer.

Pretty far removed from the uniformed servicemen of the First World War.

Joe Cahill was a murderer, that's simply a fact, and that's without even getting into his subseqent terrorist "career" leading the PIRA death squads.

Convicted of "murder" by a government/judiciary who kept it's hold on Ireland, a country it has no right to be near, by murdering.  

The government and judiciary were from Ireland. And Constable Murphy, Cahill's victim, was Irish, too.

Quote
Where the poles, french etc who fought back against Nazi Germany after their country was invaded murderers too?

No, they weren't. They were fighting in the Second World War. You remember the whole "World War" thing, covered above?

Quote
[The fact that you say he was a murderer doesnt make it so, no matter how many times you can squeeze in the word.

Correct. The fact he participated in the murder of a policeman, and was convicted of this crime, makes it so.

And he is recognised as such under the law of this country today (the law of which is itself recognised by among others, the Irish Government, the EU, the United Nations and for that matter your erstwhile ideological allies in Sinn Féin)

Do yourself a favour, you and hardstation both - if you want to try to defend Cahill, feel free. But it doesn't do your case much good to try to besmirch and slur a recently-deceased First World War veteran.

QuoteThe government and judiciary were from Ireland.

The government and judiciary were anything but irish.

Why would it be ok for a french man to pick up a gun to defend his country from a foreign occupier but it's not ok for Joe Cahill to do the same?

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that, at sometime in his life, Joe Cahill was on on the prowl to kill a policeman.
I hope he didn't waste his bullets.

Joe was beacon of rebel light amidst an apartheid like statelet.

Quote from: MW on July 23, 2009, 12:06:59 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:38:31 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:33:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

But it's fine for you to call Joe Cahill a murderer, a lowlife action.  

Joe Cahill was convicted of the murder of a policeman - he went out with an IRA murder gang to murder a police officer.

Pretty far removed from the uniformed servicemen of the First World War.

Joe Cahill was a murderer, that's simply a fact, and that's without even getting into his subseqent terrorist "career" leading the PIRA death squads.

Convicted of "murder" by a government/judiciary who kept it's hold on Ireland, a country it has no right to be near, by murdering.  

The government and judiciary were from Ireland. And Constable Murphy, Cahill's victim, was Irish, too.

Quote
Where the poles, french etc who fought back against Nazi Germany after their country was invaded murderers too?

No, they weren't. They were fighting in the Second World War. You remember the whole "World War" thing, covered above?

Quote
[The fact that you say he was a murderer doesnt make it so, no matter how many times you can squeeze in the word.

Correct. The fact he participated in the murder of a policeman, and was convicted of this crime, makes it so.

And he is recognised as such under the law of this country today (the law of which is itself recognised by among others, the Irish Government, the EU, the United Nations and for that matter your erstwhile ideological allies in Sinn Féin)

Do yourself a favour, you and hardstation both - if you want to try to defend Cahill, feel free. But it doesn't do your case much good to try to besmirch and slur a recently-deceased First World War veteran.

Classic British logic which if carried through makes George Washington a terrorist ... Irish resistance fighters have just as much right to fight for Irish freedom as French resistance fighters had to fight for French freedom... what's more, if the Nazis had invaded England in 1940, English freedom fighters would have had the right to fight the invaders for English freedom

I cannot remeber the Brits decalring "war" on the people of Afghanistan or Iraq.
Does that mean by MW's logic that all the deaths there are murder?
When will be heaving the trials?

One mans hero = another mans murderer.

You will find this fits most conflicts throughout the world and down through history. :-\

This particular tangent has seen comparisons made between WWI veteran Henry Allingham and Joe Cahill.

I don't suppose too many people (in the ROI, at least) know much about Allingham, but he was exceptional not just for his longevity, but for his humanity and compassion in seeing that the sacrifice of his fellow veterans (and enemy combatants too, btw) were never forgotten by succeeding generations. In doing so, he never showed any bitterness or hatred, merely sadness, and if he ever felt guilt, it was only in that he had survived whilst so many others perished.

Of course, I would expect that more people on here know about Joe Cahill, but going by the lack of objection to the reverence certain posters are according him, it seems that they may not.

Cahill first came to public attention in 1942, when he was part of a gang which murdered a working class, Catholic father of nine from the Falls Road, Patrick Murphy, for the sole "crime" of becoming a policeman.  

Throughout his subsequent "career", Cahill was notable for his consistently adhering to the hardest of lines, always scorning, indeed violently opposing, those Republicans who were less extreme than he. By 1970, he had become Belfast leader of the (Provisional) IRA, a period which saw many of their most grisly crimes, such as the Abercorn bombing*, right through to his suspected ordering of the bombing campaign in England which included the Warrington Bomb**.

Perhaps most notable of all was his involvement in, and reaction to, Bloody Friday***, when over 20 bombs were planted in Belfast, many with no warning, resulting in the murders of nine innocent civilians and injury to nearly 150 others, many of them horribly mutilated. As this extract from Cahill's Obituary in the Guardian records:

"Another peace initiative, this time involving Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw, foundered in July 1972. An Irish MP met Cahill at a house in Dublin in a last-ditch bid to save a further ceasefire, but during the conversation Cahill, clearly forewarned, interrupted the pleading and turned on the television news, where first reports of the Bloody Friday bombings, which left 11 dead in 26 explosions, were coming in. 'That's the way it's got to be,' said an unapologetic Cahill. The MP rushed outside and was sick in the garden"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jul/26/guardianobituaries.northernireland

To compare someone like Henry Allingham to a bigoted, pyschopathic monster like Cahill says everything about the people making such comparisons, and nothing whatever about Allingham.


* - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/bulldozers-move-in-on-abercorn-13905084.html
** - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm
*** - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2132219.stm

...and you dare to call me a terrorist, while you look down your gun, when I think of all the deeds that you have done...

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 07:11:12 PM
This particular tangent has seen comparisons made between WWI veteran William Allingham and Joe Cahill.

I don't suppose too many people (in the ROI, at least) know much about Allingham, but he was exceptional not just for his longevity, but for his humanity and compassion in seeing that the sacrifice of his fellow veterans (and enemy combattants too, btw) were never forgotten by succeeding generations. In dpoing so, he never showed any bitterness or hatred, merely sadness, and if he ever felt guilt, it was only in that he had survived whilst so many others perished.

Of course, I would expect that more people on here know about Joe Cahill, but going by the lack of objection to the reverence certain posters are according him, it seems that they may not.

Cahill first came to public attention in 1942, when he was part of a gang which murdered a working class, Cathoic father of nine from the Falls Road, Patrick Murphy, for the sole "crime" of becoming a policeman.  

Throughout his subsequent "career", Cahill was notable for his consistently adhering to the hardest of lines, always scorning, indeed violently opposing, those Repuiblicans who were less extreme than he. By 1970, he had become Belfast leader of the (Provisional) IRA, a period which saw many of their most grisly crimes, such as the Abercorn bombing*, right through to his suspected ordering of the bombing campaign in England which included the Warrington Bomb**.

Perhaps most notable of all was his involvement in, and reaction to, Bloody Friday***, when over 20 bombs were planted in Belfast, many with no warning, resulting in the murders of nine innocent civilians and injury to nearly 150 others, many of them horribly mutilated. As this extract from Cahill's Obituary in the Guardian records:

"Another peace initiative, this time involving Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw, foundered in July 1972. An Irish MP met Cahill at a house in Dublin in a last-ditch bid to save a further ceasefire, but during the conversation Cahill, clearly forewarned, interrupted the pleading and turned on the television news, where first reports of the Bloody Friday bombings, which left 11 dead in 26 explosions, were coming in. 'That's the way it's got to be,' said an unapologetic Cahill. The MP rushed outside and was sick in the garden"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jul/26/guardianobituaries.northernireland

To compare someone like William Allingham to a bigoted, pyschopathic monster like Cahill says everything about the people making such comparisons, and nothing whatever about Allingham.


* - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/bulldozers-move-in-on-abercorn-13905084.html
** - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm
*** - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2132219.stm

William Allingham...is he not a poet from Ballyshannon??  Right enough some of his stuff was murder ;)

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 23, 2009, 07:19:16 PM
William Allingham...is he not a poet from Ballyshannon??  Right enough some of his stuff was murder ;)

Oops! I meant, of course, Henry Allingham.

As it happens, I was reading about some Irish poets the other day, and I think William A got a name-check:

UP the airy mountain,   
  Down the rushy glen,   
We daren't go a-hunting   
  For fear of little men;

I had an Aunt who somehow believed in that sort of bollox - my poor mother (her sister) was mortified...

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on July 23, 2009, 07:19:16 PM
William Allingham...is he not a poet from Ballyshannon??  Right enough some of his stuff was murder ;)

Oops! I meant, of course, Henry Allingham.

As it happens, I was reading about some Irish poets the other day, and I think William A got a name-check:

UP the airy mountain,   
  Down the rushy glen,   
We daren't go a-hunting   
  For fear of little men;

I had an Aunt who somehow believed in that sort of bollox - my poor mother (her sister) was mortified...

Which one owned the hotel in Bundoran??

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 07:11:12 PM
To compare someone like William Allingham to a bigoted, pyschopathic monster like Cahill says everything about the people making such comparisons, and nothing whatever about Allingham.

Two men react to two different situations in, well, different ways. Very useful contribution. I should post a comparision between Daniel O'Connell and Reginald Dyer as a contrast between the peace-loving nature of Irish nationalism and the blood-thirsty, civilian-slaughtering bent of British imperialism

Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM
Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

Don't be holding your breath

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM
Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

See my post of July 21st, 12.20 am (post #220) - or are you still ignoring the "hard answers"?  ::)

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 07:50:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM
Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

Don't be holding your breath

You might benefit from looking at post #220 as well... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:20:15 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 20, 2009, 07:11:31 PM
EG you never answered me, do you condem Churchill for his links with Stalin?

Absolutely not, essentially for three reasons.

First, whilst Stalin was personally every bit as nasty as Hitler, nonetheless Communism is/was not so inherently evil as Fascism (imo). That is because if you look at the Marxist principles* which underlie Communism (or should do, at any rate), they are basically reasonable, if not even admirable. Therefore, when Stalin was conducting his reign of terror, he was breaking  his own Constitution and Laws. Whereas, when Hitler was doing so, he was doing so entirely in accordance with  Fascist Law, designed as it was to legitimise Racism and anti-Semitism etc.

Secondly and more importantly, Churchill's co-operation with Stalin was anything but willing (unlike, say, Sean Russell's co-operation with the Nazis). For when the UK declared war on Germany in September 1939, it did so alongside France (only), following the German invasion of Poland (the three countries had a tripartite mutual defence Pact). At that stage, the USSR was actually an ally  of Germany, under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed just a few weeks previously. Indeed, not only did Stalin use the German attack on Poland and the West as a pretext for making territorial gains of his own in Eastern Europe, but the two countries actually assisted each other, with German arms and machinery going to the USSR and oil, in desperately short supply in Germany due to the British Naval blockade, going the other way.

Of course, the Mol-Ribb Pact was a mere convenience for both parties, since neither was yet ready to take on the other. Nonetheless, Churchill did not conclude Britain's alliance with the USSR until after  Hitler commenced his surprise attack on the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) in June 1941. At which point, whilst Churchill would 'unsay no word' of his previous clear and unequivocal opposition to Communism, nonetheless this was for him a direct attack on the Russian people by a greater evil, so that  'the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe'.

Finally, if you study what drove Hitler on, it was the inherently racist-motivated desire for Lebensraum for the German people, to be carved out by force in Eastern Europe. It was not ever his design to go to war with Britain, but when Britain surprised him by declaring war over Poland, he hoped to force the UK to sue for peace by the threat of invasion. Indeed, had the UK permitted him a free hand on the Continent, Hitler would happily have allowed us to keep our overseas Empire unmolested. By contrast, Soviet Communism was a declared enemy of Western-style democracy, wherever it was manifested.

Therefore had he been operating purely out of self-interest, nothing would have suited Churchill and the UK more than to watch the two great enemies of Democracy fight each other to a standstill in Europe, whilst the British Empire, undrained by any war effort, continued to grow ever stronger elsewhere. Consequently, I have no doubt whatever over the righteousness of the the UK's strategic wartime alliance with the USSR, any more than I have of its prosecution within NATO, of the Cold War against the USSR, in the decades which followed the Axis defeat in 1945.

And if you want to know what Churchill thought about that,  I suggest you read the following:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/churchill-iron.html


* - "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" etc

I do apologise, I completley missed your answer (at the second time I'd to ask my question).

Nice try but it's really irrelevant.  It's irrelevant what communisms true principle where (you're right, they didnt involve slaughtering) the point is stalin slaughtered a hell of a lot more people then Hitler.  It didnt stop Churchill being his buddy though.  Fact is, chuchill united with a mass murderer to fight a common enemy.  If you want to convince us he was right and Russell (if he even did help the germans) was wrong you'll have to do better than talking about communisms true principles. 

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 08:09:24 PM

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 07:50:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM
Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

Don't be holding your breath

You might benefit from looking at post #220 as well... ::)

I did look at the post, unfortunately I dozed off after about the third paragraph ... having looked at it again with matchsticks propping my eyelids, it still doesn't answer the question you were asked

Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2009, 12:51:32 AM
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that, at sometime in his life, Joe Cahill was on on the prowl to kill a policeman.
I hope he didn't waste his bullets.

Joe was beacon of rebel light amidst an apartheid like statelet.

[/quote   Not really relavant but, my friend is a nephew of Tom Williams and he hated Joe Cahill because his uncle got hanged and Joe did not!

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 08:21:55 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:20:15 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 20, 2009, 07:11:31 PM
EG you never answered me, do you condem Churchill for his links with Stalin?

Absolutely not, essentially for three reasons.

First, whilst Stalin was personally every bit as nasty as Hitler, nonetheless Communism is/was not so inherently evil as Fascism (imo). That is because if you look at the Marxist principles* which underlie Communism (or should do, at any rate), they are basically reasonable, if not even admirable. Therefore, when Stalin was conducting his reign of terror, he was breaking  his own Constitution and Laws. Whereas, when Hitler was doing so, he was doing so entirely in accordance with  Fascist Law, designed as it was to legitimise Racism and anti-Semitism etc.

Secondly and more importantly, Churchill's co-operation with Stalin was anything but willing (unlike, say, Sean Russell's co-operation with the Nazis). For when the UK declared war on Germany in September 1939, it did so alongside France (only), following the German invasion of Poland (the three countries had a tripartite mutual defence Pact). At that stage, the USSR was actually an ally  of Germany, under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed just a few weeks previously. Indeed, not only did Stalin use the German attack on Poland and the West as a pretext for making territorial gains of his own in Eastern Europe, but the two countries actually assisted each other, with German arms and machinery going to the USSR and oil, in desperately short supply in Germany due to the British Naval blockade, going the other way.

Of course, the Mol-Ribb Pact was a mere convenience for both parties, since neither was yet ready to take on the other. Nonetheless, Churchill did not conclude Britain's alliance with the USSR until after  Hitler commenced his surprise attack on the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) in June 1941. At which point, whilst Churchill would 'unsay no word' of his previous clear and unequivocal opposition to Communism, nonetheless this was for him a direct attack on the Russian people by a greater evil, so that  'the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe'.

Finally, if you study what drove Hitler on, it was the inherently racist-motivated desire for Lebensraum for the German people, to be carved out by force in Eastern Europe. It was not ever his design to go to war with Britain, but when Britain surprised him by declaring war over Poland, he hoped to force the UK to sue for peace by the threat of invasion. Indeed, had the UK permitted him a free hand on the Continent, Hitler would happily have allowed us to keep our overseas Empire unmolested. By contrast, Soviet Communism was a declared enemy of Western-style democracy, wherever it was manifested.

Therefore had he been operating purely out of self-interest, nothing would have suited Churchill and the UK more than to watch the two great enemies of Democracy fight each other to a standstill in Europe, whilst the British Empire, undrained by any war effort, continued to grow ever stronger elsewhere. Consequently, I have no doubt whatever over the righteousness of the the UK's strategic wartime alliance with the USSR, any more than I have of its prosecution within NATO, of the Cold War against the USSR, in the decades which followed the Axis defeat in 1945.

And if you want to know what Churchill thought about that,  I suggest you read the following:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/churchill-iron.html


* - "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" etc

Nice try but it's really irrelevant.  It's irrelevant what communisms true principle where (you're right, they didnt involve slaughtering) the point is stalin slaughtered a hell of a lot more people then Hitler.  It didnt stop Churchill being his buddy though.  Fact is, chuchill united with a mass murderer to fight a common enemy.  If you want to convince us he was right and Russell (if he even did help the germans) was wrong you'll have to do better than talking about communisms true principles. 

Your attempt to rebut my justification of the relationship between Churchill and Stalin is really quite pathetic, even by your usual standards. For one thing, it only addresses the first of my points, and even then you traduce it, by claiming that I am somehow condoning the slaughter of millions of innocent Russians on account of the USSR's liberal-sounding Constitution. I was not; rather I was pointing out that in time of war, the UK was co-operating with another sovereign state, both of them having been attacked by Nazi Germany. The fact that the USSR's leader was a tyrant was hardly the fault of the UK, any more than it was of the Soviets themselves - Stalin was breaking his own laws and constitution etc.

Moreover, I might have added - though I would have hoped it obvious - that in co-operating with Stalin in the desperate fight to stop Hitler conquering Europe, it is not as if Churchill/UK were actively helping him slaughter his own people[. Whereas, by assisting the Nazis, the IRA under Sean Russell were directly assisting them in killing thousands of Irishmen, including later over a thousand entirely innocent civilians in Belfast during the Blitz, incl;uding Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, men, women and children.

And as it happens, Stalin was remarkably effective in mobilising heroic Russian resistance to the Germans, in what became known as the Great Patriotic War. So that even now, many Russian veterans of that War will attest to Stalin's achievement. Of course, Stalin is not someone to whom I could ever give a good reference, but I hardly think it my place to criticise Russians for how they regard their former leader.

Finally, you ignore completely the concept of choosing "the lesser of two evils", something which the overwhelming majority of Irish people managed, not just in WWII, but also in WWI, when Unionists and Nationalists nobly put aside their petty differences, for the sake of defeating a much greater enemy. Or were those who favoured a policy of Irish Neutrality towards the Germans "quislings", whilst those who opposed the Nazis were "traitors"? Because if Russell and his tiny band of "patriots" were correct, then everyone else must have been wrong.

So suck on that when you've had a chance, and then get back to me.  Oh, and you might also want to address the 2nd and 3rd points from my earlier reply (above), which I note you have completely ignored.  

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 08:21:55 PM
I do apologise, I completley missed your answer (at the second time I'd to ask my question).

Yeah right - I exist solely in order to jump at your command... ::)

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 08:43:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 08:09:24 PM

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 07:50:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM
Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

Don't be holding your breath

You might benefit from looking at post #220 as well... ::)

I did look at the post, unfortunately I dozed off after about the third paragraph ... having looked at it again with matchsticks propping my eyelids, it still doesn't answer the question you were asked

At least POG had the good grace to accept that I had answered him, even if he didn't accept my case.

Whereas having been found out whilst acting as his lapdog, the best you can come up with is the above wheedling nonsense.

To paraphrase the old saying, "It is better to post nothing and be thought a fool, than to put finger to keyboard and confirm it"  :o

Quote from: dillinger on July 23, 2009, 08:52:29 PM

Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2009, 12:51:32 AM
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that, at sometime in his life, Joe Cahill was on on the prowl to kill a policeman.
I hope he didn't waste his bullets.

Joe was beacon of rebel light amidst an apartheid like statelet.

Not really relavant but, my friend is a nephew of Tom Williams and he hated Joe Cahill because his uncle got hanged and Joe did not!

As I understand it, all six IRA men were sentenced to hang, but the Pope asked the British Government for a Pardon. The Pardon was granted for the other five, but not for Williams, because as leader of the gang, he stood up and took full responsibility.

So it was no thanks to Cahill that he himself was spared, but no blame on him that Williams wasn't, either. 

EG, I'm not sure what points you want me to answer when they are completely irrelevant.  Fact is, Stalin was killing millions, Churchill was fully aware of Stalin's (and Lenin's) crimes but still sought fit to be buddy up to him.  Why? Because they had a common enemy.  Not only this but after the war, knowing about the crimes committed by the USSR the US and UK thought it appropriate to had over more land and people for Stalin and his hench men to terrorise! The "Red Army" (when they werent shooting their own soldiers) often brought as much terror in many cases as the Nazis did. 

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 08:58:11 PM

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 08:43:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 08:09:24 PM

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 07:50:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM
Btw EG, I'm still waiting on you to tell me why it was ok for Churchill to buddy up to Stalin.

Or are you still ignoring the hard questions?

Don't be holding your breath

You might benefit from looking at post #220 as well... ::)

I did look at the post, unfortunately I dozed off after about the third paragraph ... having looked at it again with matchsticks propping my eyelids, it still doesn't answer the question you were asked

At least POG had the good grace to accept that I had answered him, even if he didn't accept my case.

Whereas having been found out whilst acting as his lapdog, the best you can come up with is the above wheedling nonsense.

To paraphrase the old saying, "It is better to post nothing and be thought a fool, than to put finger to keyboard and confirm it"  :o

Ooooh, that's me slapped on the wrist in your typically patronising way, Einstein ... I still contend you haven't answered the question, but then you never do once you're 'found out', as you regularly are, on this board.

[/quote]   Not reallyI understand it, all six IRA men were sentenced to hang, but the Pope asked the British Government for a Pardon. The Pardon was granted for the other five, but not for Williams, because as leader of the gang, he stood up and took full responsibility.

So it was no thanks to Cahill that he himself was spared, but no blame on him that Williams wasn't, either. 
[/quote] Not sure about the Pope bit EG, according to my friend his uncle was hanged because he was the leader.

Quote from: dillinger on July 23, 2009, 10:52:02 PM

Not reallyI understand it, all six IRA men were sentenced to hang, but the Pope asked the British Government for a Pardon. The Pardon was granted for the other five, but not for Williams, because as leader of the gang, he stood up and took full responsibility.

So it was no thanks to Cahill that he himself was spared, but no blame on him that Williams wasn't, either. 
[/quote] Not sure about the Pope bit EG, according to my friend his uncle was hanged because he was the leader.
[/quote]
They others got their death sentences commuted but Williams didnt has he admited to being the leader.

How was that Cahill's fault?

This thread and the other one on Republicans double standards are just pointless. EG and MW have their views,and by god do they know how to get them across but we cant expect them to ever come round to our way of thinking.We see people who took on the British like Joe Cahill as freedom fighters,EG etc see them as murderers. There are 2 sides to every story,and all the arguing in the world will still never change anybodys deep rooted beliefs. For every Russell there is a Churchill,for every Adams there is a Thatcher.

Quote from: hardstation on July 23, 2009, 11:36:40 PM

Quote from: boojangles on July 23, 2009, 11:20:07 PM
For every Russell there is a Churchill,for every Adams there is a Thatcher.

What?

EG maintains Russell collaborated wit the Germans,someone else says Churchill colloborated wit the Russians.
I say Thatcher was responsible for countless needless deaths,other people would say the same for Gerry Adams.See what I mean?

Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 05:01:34 PM
of their fellow Irishmen and women like me

See, acceptance is the first step.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 12:17:11 AM

QuoteThe government and judiciary were from Ireland.

The government and judiciary were anything but irish.

Why would it be ok for a french man to pick up a gun to defend his country from a foreign occupier but it's not ok for Joe Cahill to do the same?

Constable Patrick Murphy - "foreign occupier"?

Quote from: MW on July 23, 2009, 11:55:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 12:17:11 AM

QuoteThe government and judiciary were from Ireland.

The government and judiciary were anything but irish.

Why would it be ok for a french man to pick up a gun to defend his country from a foreign occupier but it's not ok for Joe Cahill to do the same?

Constable Patrick Murphy - "foreign occupier"?

Yes.

Quote from: red hander on July 23, 2009, 04:40:40 PM

Quote from: MW on July 23, 2009, 12:06:59 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:38:31 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:33:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 22, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
So neither of you can tell the difference between a declared war between the armed services of sovereign states, like the First World War, and committing murder. Says a lot for your addled outlooks.

As for hardstation's attempt to label Henry Allingham, one of the last remaining First World War veterans when he passed away last week, as a murderer - what a lowlife action. Plumbing new depths again, well done.

But it's fine for you to call Joe Cahill a murderer, a lowlife action.  

Joe Cahill was convicted of the murder of a policeman - he went out with an IRA murder gang to murder a police officer.

Pretty far removed from the uniformed servicemen of the First World War.

Joe Cahill was a murderer, that's simply a fact, and that's without even getting into his subseqent terrorist "career" leading the PIRA death squads.

Convicted of "murder" by a government/judiciary who kept it's hold on Ireland, a country it has no right to be near, by murdering.  

The government and judiciary were from Ireland. And Constable Murphy, Cahill's victim, was Irish, too.

Quote
Where the poles, french etc who fought back against Nazi Germany after their country was invaded murderers too?

No, they weren't. They were fighting in the Second World War. You remember the whole "World War" thing, covered above?

Quote
[The fact that you say he was a murderer doesnt make it so, no matter how many times you can squeeze in the word.

Correct. The fact he participated in the murder of a policeman, and was convicted of this crime, makes it so.

And he is recognised as such under the law of this country today (the law of which is itself recognised by among others, the Irish Government, the EU, the United Nations and for that matter your erstwhile ideological allies in Sinn Féin)

Do yourself a favour, you and hardstation both - if you want to try to defend Cahill, feel free. But it doesn't do your case much good to try to besmirch and slur a recently-deceased First World War veteran.

Classic British logic which if carried through makes George Washington a terrorist ... Irish resistance fighters have just as much right to fight for Irish freedom as French resistance fighters had to fight for French freedom... what's more, if the Nazis had invaded England in 1940, English freedom fighters would have had the right to fight the invaders for English freedom

When was Northern Ireland invaded, please tell me? Don't think there was an invasion in 1940, hmm?

Nothing to do with "classic British logic" - there's international law and convention that deals with war. The Irish Government is among the many states signed up to it.

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2009, 05:02:01 PM
I cannot remeber the Brits decalring "war" on the people of Afghanistan or Iraq.
Does that mean by MW's logic that all the deaths there are murder?
When will be heaving the trials?

Nothing to do with "MW's logic" either. I'm going to stick my neck out and assume you've actually heard of the Geneva Conventions, for example?

They have some pretty clear cut rulings on declared war.

Armed conflict by states in which they do not declare war is also dealt with by the Conventions.

The brit's lecturing on declared wars, funny.   ::)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: MW on July 23, 2009, 11:55:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 12:17:11 AM

QuoteThe government and judiciary were from Ireland.

The government and judiciary were anything but irish.

Why would it be ok for a french man to pick up a gun to defend his country from a foreign occupier but it's not ok for Joe Cahill to do the same?

Constable Patrick Murphy - "foreign occupier"?

Yes.

Very interesting. An Irishman who joins the police becomes a "foreigner" and an "occupier".

I'm guessing you see the officers of the PSNI in the same light too.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:03:30 AM
The brit's lecturing on declared wars, funny.   ::)

Where?

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:06:00 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: MW on July 23, 2009, 11:55:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 12:17:11 AM

QuoteThe government and judiciary were from Ireland.

The government and judiciary were anything but irish.

Why would it be ok for a french man to pick up a gun to defend his country from a foreign occupier but it's not ok for Joe Cahill to do the same?

Constable Patrick Murphy - "foreign occupier"?

Yes.

Very interesting. An Irishman who joins the police becomes a "foreigner" and an "occupier".

I'm guessing you see the officers of the PSNI in the same light too.

instruments of foreign occupation, yup

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:06:22 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:03:30 AM
The brit's lecturing on declared wars, funny.   ::)

Where?

you

Quote from: hardstation on July 23, 2009, 11:59:24 PM
+1 for the yes brigade.

Ah, you've reappeared (with another inane comment).

Care to provider an answer to this?

Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 11:34:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on July 22, 2009, 11:29:06 PM
They really are the people.

Who are "they"?

And what do you mean by "the people"?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:07:12 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:06:00 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: MW on July 23, 2009, 11:55:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 23, 2009, 12:17:11 AM

QuoteThe government and judiciary were from Ireland.

The government and judiciary were anything but irish.

Why would it be ok for a french man to pick up a gun to defend his country from a foreign occupier but it's not ok for Joe Cahill to do the same?

Constable Patrick Murphy - "foreign occupier"?

Yes.

Very interesting. An Irishman who joins the police becomes a "foreigner" and an "occupier".

I'm guessing you see the officers of the PSNI in the same light too.

instruments of foreign occupation, yup

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:06:22 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:03:30 AM
The brit's lecturing on declared wars, funny.   ::)

Where?

you

So you actually did mean it in the singular.

First of all, I don't regard it as acceptable discourse to be referred to as "the Brit".

And second, I'm not "lecturing on declared war" - I've simply pointed out there's international law and convention that deals with it.

Not that anyone's comment on the fact that there is international law relating to declared war is any less valid or relevant because they happen to be British - that would simply be base prejudice.

I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:11:12 AM
We are the people

Surely you have heard it before. Stop pretending you haven't.
When we do it, it's ok. We are the people.

I'm not pretending I haven't heard it.

I'm simply wondering how a Protestant/loyalist slogan relates to me pointing out that under all international law and conventions, the servicemen of the First World War were not "murderers" as you tried to suggest.

Unless you think that all the sovereign states who are signed up to the Geneva Conventions, (not to mention many millions, very probably billions, of people around the world) are evil Prods?

Ask yourself why you made that comment. Then perhaps you could tell me?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

Jees! pints are you carrying the fight to the invaders? or do you mean someone else?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

"Fight" the "invaders" appears to mean a lot of slaughtering Irish people in cold blood.

I'm well aware that I'm discussing this with someone who thinks the RIRA and CIRA actually have a "right" to carry on their murder campaigns today - this "invasion" is sill happening in the present day in that extremist worldview.

Quote from: longrunsthefox on July 24, 2009, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

Jees! pints are you carrying the fight to the invaders? or do you mean someone else?

Dont follow?

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:24:12 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

"Fight" the "invaders" appears to mean a lot of slaughtering Irish people in cold blood.

I'm well aware that I'm discussing this with someone who thinks the RIRA and CIRA actually have a "right" to carry on their murder campaigns today - this "invasion" is sill happening in the present day in that extremist worldview.

You cant invade countries and expect people not to fight back.

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:23:35 AM
They are murderers, as much as any man who lifts gun to kill people. Due to them 'being allowed' to do this, they really must be the people.

Why do you apply a Protestant/loyalist slogan to every serviceman who's fought in their state's armed forces in a declared war? ???

And no, they are not murderers - you should try to learn that "murder" and "killing" do not mean the same thing.

Murder is a matter of law, a specific crime, and there is no legal definition of murder that would include anything like Soldier A from the Republic of X shooting dead Soldier B from the Kingdom of Y, on the battlefield after X and Y had declared war on each other.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:27:14 AM

Quote from: longrunsthefox on July 24, 2009, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

Jees! pints are you carrying the fight to the invaders? or do you mean someone else?

Dont follow?

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:24:12 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

"Fight" the "invaders" appears to mean a lot of slaughtering Irish people in cold blood.

I'm well aware that I'm discussing this with someone who thinks the RIRA and CIRA actually have a "right" to carry on their murder campaigns today - this "invasion" is sill happening in the present day in that extremist worldview.

You cant invade countries and expect people not to fight back.

Yeeesss...so tell me, when was Northern Ireland invaded?

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:32:10 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:27:14 AM

Quote from: longrunsthefox on July 24, 2009, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

Jees! pints are you carrying the fight to the invaders? or do you mean someone else?

Dont follow?

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:24:12 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:16:22 AM
I dont give a shite what law says what, if a country is invaded then the people of that country have every right to pick up a gun and fight the invaders.  They have done it all over the world down the centuries.  They have every right to do it in Ireland too. 

"Fight" the "invaders" appears to mean a lot of slaughtering Irish people in cold blood.

I'm well aware that I'm discussing this with someone who thinks the RIRA and CIRA actually have a "right" to carry on their murder campaigns today - this "invasion" is sill happening in the present day in that extremist worldview.

You cant invade countries and expect people not to fight back.

Yeeesss...so tell me, when was Northern Ireland invaded?

about 800 years ago with the rest of Irleand

What I mean pints is t is just usually people who eulogise most about fighting the invaders really mean someone other than themselves do it... you mean you are on for fighting the invaders or think others should do it? 

Quote from: longrunsthefox on July 24, 2009, 12:36:49 AM
What I mean pints is t is just usually people who eulogise most about fighting the invaders really mean someone other than themselves do it... you mean you are on for fighting the invaders or think others should do it? 

I think people have the right to do it.  Whether they do or not is up to themselves, I wouldnt condem anyone who does.

OK  ::)

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:38:09 AM
Declared war...shoot every German f**ker you see.

Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there...

Quote
Constable Murphy - "Hold the phone boys, is this a declared war?"

Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:46:00 AM

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:38:09 AM
Declared war...shoot every German f**ker you see.

Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there...

Quote
Constable Murphy - "Hold the phone boys, is this a declared war?"

Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

Aye just keep telling yourself that MW  ::)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:49:22 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:46:00 AM

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:38:09 AM
Declared war...shoot every German f**ker you see.

Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there...

Quote
Constable Murphy - "Hold the phone boys, is this a declared war?"

Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

Aye just keep telling yourself that MW  ::)

Which part of what I said was factually incorrect?

Who said what you said was factually incorrect?

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:52:59 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:46:00 AM

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 12:38:09 AM
Declared war...shoot every German f**ker you see.

Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there...

Quote
Constable Murphy - "Hold the phone boys, is this a declared war?"

Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

"I was shot dead but in fairness I was fair game"

"I was shot dead but the b**tards weren't even wearing a uniform, cnuts".

I'm struggling to see what your point is. Are you saying there isn't any such thing was international law on war, such as the Geneva Conventions?

And servicemen in wars, like the First and Second World Wars, have generally been pretty clear that they were "fair game" for their enemy counterparts, and vice versa.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:56:37 AM
Who said what you said was factually incorrect?

That's what's meant by "keep telling yourself that".

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:00:10 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:56:37 AM
Who said what you said was factually incorrect?

That's what's meant by "keep telling yourself that".

no it's not - I think it's funny that you and other unionists cling to anything to try and paint a picture of nationalists/republicans being the bad ones, the big bad terrorists who arent stupid enough to openly bare arms and wear a uniform, do you want them to paint a target on their back as well?  you never hear of guerilla warfare?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 01:04:40 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:00:10 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:56:37 AM
Who said what you said was factually incorrect?

That's what's meant by "keep telling yourself that".

no it's not - I think it's funny that you and other unionists cling to anything to try and paint a picture of nationalists/republicans being the bad ones, the big bad terrorists who arent stupid enough to openly bare arms and wear a uniform, do you want them to paint a target on their back as well?  you never hear of guerilla warfare?

You might equate "nationalists" with "the IRA" but I do not, so cut out the pretence that I am "painting a picture of nationalists" being anything.

I've heard of guerilla warfare, yes (and there are interntional conventions relating to that too - e.g. carrying arms openly). Have you ever heard of terrorism?

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:14:41 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 01:04:40 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:00:10 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:56:37 AM
Who said what you said was factually incorrect?

That's what's meant by "keep telling yourself that".

no it's not - I think it's funny that you and other unionists cling to anything to try and paint a picture of nationalists/republicans being the bad ones, the big bad terrorists who arent stupid enough to openly bare arms and wear a uniform, do you want them to paint a target on their back as well?  you never hear of guerilla warfare?

You might equate "nationalists" with "the IRA" but I do not, so cut out the pretence that I am "painting a picture of nationalists" being anything.

I've heard of guerilla warfare, yes (and there are interntional conventions relating to that too - e.g. carrying arms openly). Have you ever heard of terrorism?

yeah its what the big bad IRA done on the innocent peace loving protestants  :o  ::)

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 01:08:04 AM

QuoteAre you saying there isn't any such thing was international law on war, such as the Geneva Conventions?

Yes.

Then you live in a wierd fantasy world, because international law on war, including the Geneva Convention, does exist.

Quote

QuoteAnd servicemen in wars, like the First and Second World Wars, have generally been pretty clear that they were "fair game" for their enemy counterparts, and vice versa.

Yes.

If you agree with this, then what's your point?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 01:16:26 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:14:41 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 01:04:40 AM

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:00:10 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:56:37 AM
Who said what you said was factually incorrect?

That's what's meant by "keep telling yourself that".

no it's not - I think it's funny that you and other unionists cling to anything to try and paint a picture of nationalists/republicans being the bad ones, the big bad terrorists who arent stupid enough to openly bare arms and wear a uniform, do you want them to paint a target on their back as well?  you never hear of guerilla warfare?

You might equate "nationalists" with "the IRA" but I do not, so cut out the pretence that I am "painting a picture of nationalists" being anything.

I've heard of guerilla warfare, yes (and there are interntional conventions relating to that too - e.g. carrying arms openly). Have you ever heard of terrorism?

yeah its what the big bad IRA done on the innocent peace loving protestants  :o  ::)

Indeed it was.

Among others.

I don't usually post on topics other than the Cork hurling strike but I was wondering if there is another board mirroring this one where mw's views are predominant.

Quote from: dowling on July 24, 2009, 01:26:10 AM
I don't usually post on topics other than the Cork hurling strike but I was wondering if there is another board mirroring this one where mw's views are predominant.

There is, it's called OWC (our wee country)

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:17:17 AM

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 01:08:04 AM

QuoteAre you saying there isn't any such thing was international law on war, such as the Geneva Conventions?

Yes.

Then you live in a wierd fantasy world, because international law on war, including the

Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 01:17:17 AM

Quote from: hardstation on July 24, 2009, 01:08:04 AM

QuoteAre you saying there isn't any such thing was international law on war, such as the Geneva Conventions?

Yes.

Then you live in a wierd fantasy world, because international law on war, including the Geneva Convention, does exist.

Quote

QuoteAnd servicemen in wars, like the First and Second World Wars, have generally been pretty clear that they were "fair game" for their enemy counterparts, and vice versa.

Yes.

If you agree with this, then what's your point?

, does exist.

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with how battle is actually conducted or defining who is a combatant or a so called terrorist.
Primarily it is for the treatment of combatants after/during the battle, the protection of civilians and medical distribution and supplies.
All of which are regularly circumvented and ignored  even to this day by the so called more civilized war mongers.

All this talk of sovereign states reminds me of a comment attributed to Brendan Behan: "The terrorist is the one with the small bomb (http://www.antiwar.com/quotes.php)".

(http://www.portraits.co.uk/images/henry1.jpg)

You get medals for killing foreigners in that army. He'll rot in hell.

'1st point - balls if it exists on the 'battlefield'.

2nd point - Constable Murphy was "fair game" even though some bucko in Europe didn't agree. '

The vast majority of Irish people - people actually living on the island, unlike PoG who preaches war against the invader while living in...err...the land of the invader - don't / didn't agree with so called armed stuggle either. The fact that a minority of pricks take it upon themselves to wage war doesn't make them freedom fighters. It makes them sectarian / political fanatics in most cases. Those people like Constable Murphy and the present generation of recruits to the PSNI are doing better service for their country than all the martyrs to the cause who gave their lives 9and took other peoples) for 'mother Ireland'. Slan (I know you like that sort of thing).
 

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 06:27:57 PM
'1st point - balls if it exists on the 'battlefield'.

2nd point - Constable Murphy was "fair game" even though some bucko in Europe didn't agree. '

The vast majority of Irish people - people actually living on the island, unlike PoG who preaches war against the invader while living in...err...the land of the invader - don't / didn't agree with so called armed stuggle either. The fact that a minority of pricks take it upon themselves to wage war doesn't make them freedom fighters. It makes them sectarian / political fanatics in most cases. Those people like Constable Murphy and the present generation of recruits to the PSNI are doing better service for their country than all the martyrs to the cause who gave their lives 9and took other peoples) for 'mother Ireland'. Slan (I know you like that sort of thing).
 

Is that the same vast majority of Irish people who voted for republican candidates in 1918, had their democratic wishes ignored and had partition enforced to establish a sectarian, apartheid regime in the six north-eastern counties of the country? When the ballot box is ignored is it any wonder the bullet is employed?  BTW, Murphy was a traitor to his people and you know what happens traitors, even those who aren't Irish, no matter how many times you argue the fact

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 06:27:57 PM
'1st point - balls if it exists on the 'battlefield'.

2nd point - Constable Murphy was "fair game" even though some bucko in Europe didn't agree. '

The vast majority of Irish people - people actually living on the island, unlike PoG who preaches war against the invader while living in...err...the land of the invader - don't / didn't agree with so called armed stuggle either. The fact that a minority of pricks take it upon themselves to wage war doesn't make them freedom fighters. It makes them sectarian / political fanatics in most cases. Those people like Constable Murphy and the present generation of recruits to the PSNI are doing better service for their country than all the martyrs to the cause who gave their lives 9and took other peoples) for 'mother Ireland'. Slan (I know you like that sort of thing).
 

and the people who colluded with loyalist paramilitarties to murder nationalists, the people who gunned down nationalists and catholics, who blinded children with plastic bullets, who covered up british army murder of nationalists...."and you dare to call me a terrorist, while you look down your gun"


I suppose the ones in iraq shooting at US and British soldiers are terrorists too?

'Is that the same vast majority of Irish people who voted for republican candidates in 1918, had their democratic wishes ignored and had partition enforced to establish a sectarian, apartheid regime in the six north-eastern counties of the country? When the ballot box is ignored is it any wonder the bullet is employed?  BTW, Murphy was a traitor to his people and you know what happens traitors, even those who aren't Irish, no matter how many times you argue the fact'

Why do you ignore all the elections after 1918? Would it be because that's the only one that gives you the result you want? Why do those who voted in 1918 have a right to dictate what happens in Ireland in the latter half of the 20th and the early 21st century? The party which puts forward a justification for 'armed struggle' has polled badly in Ireland in virtually every recent election. The Shinners can't even buy a vote in the republuc at present, nor could they when the violence was at it's height. Yet still they claim to represent the people of this country!

'and the people who colluded with loyalist paramilitarties to murder nationalists, the people who gunned down nationalists and catholics, who blinded children with plastic bullets, who covered up british army murder of nationalists...."and you dare to call me a terrorist, while you look down your gun"


I suppose the ones in iraq shooting at US and British soldiers are terrorists too?

What about republicans who colluded with the security forces to murder nationalists, or do they not count? What about republicans who murdered nationalists without any help at all? wHAT ABOUT REPUBLICANS WHO CRIPPLED CHILDREN WITH THEIR PUNISHMENT BEATINGS AND SHOOTINGS, WHO TOOK MOTHERS FROM THEIR KIDS, MURDERED THEM AND HID THE BODIES?

Quote

What about republicans who colluded with the security forces to murder nationalists, or do they not count? What about republicans who murdered nationalists without any help at all? wHAT ABOUT REPUBLICANS WHO CRIPPLED CHILDREN WITH THEIR PUNISHMENT BEATINGS AND SHOOTINGS, WHO TOOK MOTHERS FROM THEIR KIDS, MURDERED THEM AND HID THE BODIES?

What about them?  Why don't you answer my questions?

'What about them?  Why don't you answer my questions?'

You only asked one question, about Iraq. I don't know anything about Iraq other than what I see in the media, and since I don't believe this always presents an acuurate, unbiased picture, I have no view on the specifics of the situation. On principle, I'm generally anti war, so I opposed the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why don't you answer my questions?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 07:16:38 PM
'What about them?  Why don't you answer my questions?'

You only asked one question, about Iraq. I don't know anything about Iraq other than what I see in the media, and since I don't believe this always presents an acuurate, unbiased picture, I have no view on the specifics of the situation. On principle, I'm generally anti war, so I opposed the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why don't you answer my questions?

what question?

interesting who you're heros are (the ones "doing a better service for their country" but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "better service for their country") and you're "anti war".

'Why do those who voted in 1918 have a right to dictate what happens in Ireland in the latter half of the 20th and the early 21st century?'

They don't ... but they had a right to say (you used the word dictate, which is ironic) what happened in Ireland in 1918 and beyond.     Like the previous 800 years, their wishes were ignored by the colonial invaders.  What right had the undemocratic, sectarian, apartheid unionist regime to dictate what happened in the six counties from 1921-69?  What right had a foreign power to dictate what happens on Irish soil for 800 years?  Think you've answered your own question there ... now calm down with the caps key there, you'll be busting a blood vessel son  ;)

Constable Murphy, whether he knew it or not or liked it or not, was helping to keep the Nationalist/Catholic population in their 2nd class place so that the Orange Order and Unionist Parties could maintain their Sectarian Statelet.
Don't know if it's right to consider that a Capital Offence but was he not killed in a shoot out between two groups of armed men? ( Or am I mixing this up with another case?)

Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 12:11:30 AM

Quote from: stibhan on July 19, 2009, 04:15:01 AM

Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:51:31 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now."

Enoch Powell, Ulster Unionist MP for South Down.

Actually, he was Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West when he gave that speech.

Interesting that you prefer to think of a speech given over 40 years ago, by a Conservative MP who later became an Ulster Unionist, giving a dire warning on his views of the dangers of mass immigration, to, for example, what happened this very week in the action of the DUP MEP in refusing to take her seat next to the BNP's Nick Griffin, or the denunication of racism from the Twelfh field platform by the Orange Order's spokesman this week...

In fairness the whole 'refusing to take her seat' thing is a gimmick and nothing else. Diane Dodds may not be a racist but I think the point about Enoch Powell is that when he was considered too much of a liability for the tories he handily won a seat in North Down, which was apparently the only place that someone like him could go to. This being a Conservative party which took a long time to move into the era of political correctness.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we would be able to see plenty of republican support for anti-Nazi sentiments in the same manner as Diane's 'meaningful' snub.

Two points here.

You appear very confused about Powell's departure from the Conservative Party. He wasn't "considered too much of a liability for the Tories" - he quit the Conservative Party over their support for British membership of the EEC. He urged people to vote Labour in the general election as they opposed EEC membership, but was hardly going to join a socialist party as a conservative. So he chose a conservative party, one which that same year had quit the Conservative whip at Westminster and which also opposed EEC membership. By the way, he was elected in South Down.

And if you think Dodds's action was meaningless, you could look for example at the attention given to opposing racism in their last NI election manifesto...

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I'm not confused on his departure from the Conservative Party, I'm well aware of it. Edward Heath considered him the reason that the Tories lost the election, a consideration which was also agreed by a certain Enoch Powell. He is therefore by definition an electoral liability, which is the only liability there is in politics. There is little debate as to this. I would suggest that his anti-EU stance was symptomatic of a type of racism which proffered English as being atop a hierarchy of nationalities, something that appears fairly evident in his most famous speech.

Dodd's action is meaningless because she would be better tackling the racists in her patch, nationalist and unionist, than attempting to make a political gesture. I should hardly think that any immigrant will now feel safe in their homes because she decided to snub a political figure remote from the racist actions on this island. Apologies for the North Down mistake.

'what question?

interesting who you're heros are (the ones "doing a better service for their country" but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "better service for their country") and you're "anti war". '

The questions would be the sentences with a question mark at the end.  ;) Duck them if you want.
Police men and women are public servants. They don't wage war.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 07:53:18 PM
'what question?

interesting who you're heros are (the ones "doing a better service for their country" but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "better service for their country") and you're "anti war". '

The questions would be the sentences with a question mark at the end.  ;) Duck them if you want.
Police men and women are public servants. They don't wage war.

You just keep saying what about this and that and I'm asking wht about them? What do you want me to answer?

The police men and women in the six counties are paramilitarties with the backing of the state.

They don't ... but they had a right to say (you used the word dictate, which is ironic) what happened in Ireland in 1918 and beyond.     Like the previous 800 years, their wishes were ignored by the colonial invaders.  What right had the undemocratic, sectarian, apartheid unionist regime to dictate what happened in the six counties from 1921-69?  What right had a foreign power to dictate what happens on Irish soil for 800 years?  Think you've answered your own question there ... now calm down with the caps key there, you'll be busting a blood vessel son    

So what about voters after 1918? What about their rights? They consistently rejected the Shinners, yet militant republicans still claim to represent the people.

You just keep saying what about this and that and I'm asking wht about them? What do you want me to answer?

The police men and women in the six counties are paramilitarties with the backing of the state.

I want your views. That's why I've asked what you think. Keep on ducking.

As for your definition of police - you've just defined every police force in the world.

You want my views?

QuoteWhat about republicans who murdered nationalists without any help at all?

You'll have to give speific examples if you want my views.

QuotewHAT ABOUT REPUBLICANS WHO CRIPPLED CHILDREN WITH THEIR PUNISHMENT BEATINGS AND SHOOTINGS

If the so called police force would do their job rather than terrorising republican paramilitarties wouldnt have to police their own communites and issue punishment in the only way they could.

Quote
WHO TOOK MOTHERS FROM THEIR KIDS, MURDERED THEM AND HID THE BODIES?

If you're talking about Jean McConville then yes, that was a terrible act.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
They don't ... but they had a right to say (you used the word dictate, which is ironic) what happened in Ireland in 1918 and beyond.     Like the previous 800 years, their wishes were ignored by the colonial invaders.  What right had the undemocratic, sectarian, apartheid unionist regime to dictate what happened in the six counties from 1921-69?  What right had a foreign power to dictate what happens on Irish soil for 800 years?  Think you've answered your own question there ... now calm down with the caps key there, you'll be busting a blood vessel son    

So what about voters after 1918? What about their rights? They consistently rejected the Shinners, yet militant republicans still claim to represent the people.

What happened in Ireland in 1918 had fundamental repercussions for the history of the country, unlike any election before or since ... you cannot, like your English friends, simply ignore that fact and hope it goes away, you cannot ignore the fact that your English friends rode roughshod over the democratic wishes of the vast majority of Irish people and split the country in two  ... the message that their actions sent out is there for all to see, your English friends can't complain about 'terrorism' when it is them who caused it in the first place ... your hypocrisy is all you have

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 06:27:57 PM
The vast majority of Irish people - people actually living on the island, unlike PoG who preaches war against the invader while living in...err...the land of the invader - don't / didn't agree with so called armed stuggle either. The fact that a minority of pricks take it upon themselves to wage war doesn't make them freedom fighters. It makes them sectarian / political fanatics in most cases. Those people like Constable Murphy and the present generation of recruits to the PSNI are doing better service for their country than all the martyrs to the cause who gave their lives 9and took other peoples) for 'mother Ireland'. Slan (I know you like that sort of thing).
 

Myles Na G - Nationalist. You can't help yourself, can you.

Now can we have your prediction for the Antrim game at the weekend?  :D

'What happened in Ireland in 1918 had fundamental repercussions for the history of the country, unlike any election before or since ... you cannot, like your English friends, simply ignore that fact and hope it goes away, you cannot ignore the fact that your English friends rode roughshod over the democratic wishes of the vast majority of Irish people and split the country in two  ... the message that their actions sent out is there for all to see, your English friends can't complain about 'terrorism' when it is them who caused it in the first place ... your hypocrisy is all you have'

Just because you like the result, that doesn't make it any more special or relevant. And who the fock are my English friends and how are they relevant to this conversation? Why is it that Irish republicans are toatlly obsessed with the English / British?
 

Myles Na G - Nationalist. You can't help yourself, can you.

Now can we have your prediction for the Antrim game at the weekend?    

nationalist - republican. You just can't tell the difference, can you?
 

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 09:02:23 PM
'What happened in Ireland in 1918 had fundamental repercussions for the history of the country, unlike any election before or since ... you cannot, like your English friends, simply ignore that fact and hope it goes away, you cannot ignore the fact that your English friends rode roughshod over the democratic wishes of the vast majority of Irish people and split the country in two  ... the message that their actions sent out is there for all to see, your English friends can't complain about 'terrorism' when it is them who caused it in the first place ... your hypocrisy is all you have'

Just because you like the result, that doesn't make it any more special or relevant. And who the fock are my English friends and how are they relevant to this conversation? Why is it that Irish republicans are toatlly obsessed with the English / British?
 

Loved the result, mate ... No more special or relevant?  Er, your English friends partitioned the country afterwards, ignoring (like you all night) the democratic wishes of the vast majority of Irish people (who you seem to think you represent) ... No more special or relevant?  The country was only partitioned once, resulting in a 58-year apartheid regime on Irish soil and then 40 years of the Troubles (wee bit of a coincidence, do you not think?) ... not special or relevant?  Reality dodging par execellence MnaG

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 09:03:54 PM
Myles Na G - Nationalist. You can't help yourself, can you.

Now can we have your prediction for the Antrim game at the weekend?    

nationalist - republican. You just can't tell the difference, can you?
 

I think youre the one who's more than a little confused about your identity ;)

As always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.
Sir Hamar Greenwood was Chief Secretary at the time. (I think I got his job title right.)
He sanctioned the formation of both the Black and Tans and the Auxiliary Police.
I'd like to say that the regular British army personnel would be generally regarded as having acted in a normal manner and never resorted to acts of thuggery and lawlessness that characterised the other two official forces. I have been told this by many people who had lived through this period and I'm referring to southern Ireland.

I'm not sure as to what happened in the north of the country but in the south, the Tans and the Auxies won a worldwide reputation for their actions.
They burned, raped and pillaged on a massive scale. I doubt any one would seriously deny this and they acted with the full knowledge and consent of HMG and of course of the Chief Secretary, Hamar Greenwood.
Could they be said to have acted in conformance with the Geneva Convention or any other convention you care to mention?
Their officially admitted aim was to flush out the IRA but that doesn't concern me here. Their actions in the name of HMG does concern me.
ASAIK, the British government had signed up to this treaty by 1919; it had possibly done this a lot earlier. 
Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?

Quote from: carribbear on July 24, 2009, 09:22:21 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 09:03:54 PM
Myles Na G - Nationalist. You can't help yourself, can you.

Now can we have your prediction for the Antrim game at the weekend?    

nationalist - republican. You just can't tell the difference, can you?
 

I think youre the one who's more than a little confused about your identity ;)

When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.

When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.

Where has anyone recently asked me about my identity? Point out the question about my identity that I've supposedly ducked. If you're referring to the request for a prediction in the Antrim match, then (a) he's taking the piss; and (b) an interest or disinterest in gaelic games has no bearing on someone's identity. So where's this question you're talking about?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 12:30:59 PM
When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.

Where has anyone recently asked me about my identity? Point out the question about my identity that I've supposedly ducked. If you're referring to the request for a prediction in the Antrim match, then (a) he's taking the piss; and (b) an interest or disinterest in gaelic games has no bearing on someone's identity. So where's this question you're talking about?

More ducking and diving than Paul Berry in a Belfast Hotel Spa.

Quote from: carribbear on July 25, 2009, 01:53:44 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 12:30:59 PM
When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.

Where has anyone recently asked me about my identity? Point out the question about my identity that I've supposedly ducked. If you're referring to the request for a prediction in the Antrim match, then (a) he's taking the piss; and (b) an interest or disinterest in gaelic games has no bearing on someone's identity. So where's this question you're talking about?

More ducking and diving than Paul Berry in a Belfast Hotel Spa.

So there was no question then? Thank you for clearing that up. T

Id be interested in hearing your response to Lar Naparka 's question myles

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 02:23:04 PM

Quote from: carribbear on July 25, 2009, 01:53:44 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 12:30:59 PM
When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.
Where has anyone recently asked me about my identity? Point out the question about my identity that I've supposedly ducked. If you're referring to the request for a prediction in the Antrim match, then (a) he's taking the piss; and (b) an interest or disinterest in gaelic games has no bearing on someone's identity. So where's this question you're talking about?

More ducking and diving than Paul Berry in a Belfast Hotel Spa.

So there was no question then? Thank you for clearing that up. T

I did ask for your Antrim prediction but as having 'a passing interest' you might not have an opinion. You're a queer fella alright ;)
To be honest I don't really care what you write, we all know the mask is off.

Where am I?, Are those my feet? whats going on?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2009, 03:00:48 PM
Id be interested in hearing your response to Lar Naparka 's question myles

He posed more than one, but his final query: 'Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?' My answer to that would be a clear and unequivocal yes - I think the British acted outside the normally accepted rules of warfare. Contrary to the perceived wisdom on here, I am not an apologist either for British foreign policy, nor for the actions of the British armed forces. Having said that, I would go on to point out that it was not just the British who acted outside the rules at this particular time in Irish history. When the British had packed up and gone home, there was the Irish civil war. More people died in this conflict between erstwhile comrades than had been killed in the Tan War. Whats more, some of the brutality and the atrocities carried out by Irishmen on Irishmen made the Black and Tans look like the Boy Scouts. 

Maybe you could answer this point

QuoteAs always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Maybe you could answer this point

QuoteAs always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.

Can you cite a single post I've made on here which uses the word 'terrorist' to describe anybody? Since it's not a word I use, I don't believe it's for me to answer that particular point.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 04:37:59 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Maybe you could answer this point

QuoteAs always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.

Can you cite a single post I've made on here which uses the word 'terrorist' to describe anybody? Since it's not a word I use, I don't believe it's for me to answer that particular point.

So you think the IRA were/are freedom fighters?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 09:02:23 PM
'What happened in Ireland in 1918 had fundamental repercussions for the history of the country, unlike any election before or since ... you cannot, like your English friends, simply ignore that fact and hope it goes away, you cannot ignore the fact that your English friends rode roughshod over the democratic wishes of the vast majority of Irish people and split the country in two  ... the message that their actions sent out is there for all to see, your English friends can't complain about 'terrorism' when it is them who caused it in the first place ... your hypocrisy is all you have'

Just because you like the result, that doesn't make it any more special or relevant. And who the fock are my English friends and how are they relevant to this conversation? Why is it that Irish republicans are toatlly obsessed with the English / British?  

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've ever heard posed on this board...  Can you really not seem to work out an anwer to this???

So you think the IRA were/are freedom fighters?

Again, not a phrase I'd use. It's the mirror image of 'terrorists' - totally without meaning.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've ever heard posed on this board...  Can you really not seem to work out an anwer to this???

I can, but I suspect you wouldn't like it.  ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 05:57:51 PM
So you think the IRA were/are freedom fighters?

Again, not a phrase I'd use. It's the mirror image of 'terrorists' - totally without meaning.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've ever heard posed on this board...  Can you really not seem to work out an anwer to this???

I can, but I suspect you wouldn't like it.  ;)

Try me.

Try me.

It's how Irish republicans define themselves - not by what or who they are, but by what or who they aren't. Everything has to be compared and contrasted with the British. It's almost as if republicans can't act or form an opinion without first checking what the British are doing or have done in the past. It's like an insecurity tic.

Myles that answer almost made me laugh ???

Have you any examples of this 'definition' you speak of? ... or are you just waffling again...??

Irish republicanism stems from the French revolution which had repersussions in many countries through out the world. It is a whole lot more than just a hatred of the English. However, defining it as such gives the anti republican brigade a nice simple black and white enemy to oppose. The founding fathers of Irish republicanism were almost all protestant and had their family roots in England.

Quote from: Main Street on July 25, 2009, 10:47:10 AM

Quote from: carribbear on July 24, 2009, 09:22:21 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 24, 2009, 09:03:54 PM
Myles Na G - Nationalist. You can't help yourself, can you.

Now can we have your prediction for the Antrim game at the weekend?    

nationalist - republican. You just can't tell the difference, can you?
 

I think youre the one who's more than a little confused about your identity ;)

When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.

Myles Na G.

QuoteWhere has anyone recently asked me about my identity?

;D

Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 25, 2009, 04:13:29 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2009, 03:00:48 PM
Id be interested in hearing your response to Lar Naparka 's question myles

He posed more than one, but his final query: 'Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?' My answer to that would be a clear and unequivocal yes - I think the British acted outside the normally accepted rules of warfare. Contrary to the perceived wisdom on here, I am not an apologist either for British foreign policy, nor for the actions of the British armed forces. Having said that, I would go on to point out that it was not just the British who acted outside the rules at this particular time in Irish history. When the British had packed up and gone home, there was the Irish civil war. More people died in this conflict between erstwhile comrades than had been killed in the Tan War. Whats more, some of the brutality and the atrocities carried out by Irishmen on Irishmen made the Black and Tans look like the Boy Scouts. 

I've very little problem with your observations here, Myles. However, while you may have most of your facts right in the second part of your post that I'm quoting above; I don't see the relevance of this part at all.
In my original post I posed some queries alright but they were directed at the role played by British armed forces, with the full backing of their government, in a campaign that went on or a long period of time.
I had read some of MW's recent posts and I think it's fair to say that he has pointed out that international laws do exist and they outline the conditions under which the forces of a sovereign state may wage war against the forces of another sovereign state. I don't think that any country could start a war without the expectation that some of its people will kill others on the opposing side.
I've picked out some of his comments that I have selected randomly- I have only started reading this topic in the last few days and I haven't any desire to trawl back through the earlier posts. I read enough at a time when MW was very active to pose some questions.
I've no problem in saying that Constable Murphy was murdered and not killed under any convention of war.  However what happens when the roles are reversed? I'm referring to killings that were carried out by the armed forces of a sovereign state with the full knowledge of its government. The Tans/Auxies burned down the centre of Cork city. Now, the reason I'm told for this orgy of wanton destruction was that it was in response to actions by the IRA in the area.
But it was not directed at armed opponents.  Its aim was to cow the people of Cork and force IRA sympathisers in the locality to abandon their support for the 'boys.'
I doubt very much if my granny's ducks were wearing uniforms, bearing arms or involved n any sort of subversive activity when they were mowed down by a lorry load of drunken Tans. The Tans had the habit of careering at high seed through the rural roads of East Mayo, where I come from, deliberately ploughing through flocks of geese or ducks they encountered. My grandparents had the roof of their house destroyed by a burst from a Lewis gun on the same occasion.
I know that IRA atrocities certainly occurred but I'm not referring to them here.
They could well be the subject of another discussion but they were not covered by an article of the Geneva Convention or any other aspirational waffle anyone would care to mention.
The Tans on the other hand were.
My point is that I see eff all merit in referring to any sort of protocol when the signatories don't bother to abide by the rules. There have been numerous acts of illegal actions carried out by sovereign states around the world that broke any accepted protocol in existence. The Americans in Vietnam and later in Iraq come to mind, but I don't see any evidence that anything the Americans or indeed the British may have carried out elsewhere had the the official blessing of their respective governments.
I'm reproducing some of MW's comments here that set me thinking. I'm not in any way having a go at MW by doing this. It's just that he set me thinking...

QuoteThen you live in a wierd fantasy world, because international law on war, including the Geneva Convention, does exist.
Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there..
Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

 
;D

So there was no question, Main Street? You just made that bit up? What a guy!

:D :D

Someone's been reading the board :



(http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/00377/statue_indo_377999t.jpg)


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/we-must-fight-todays-ira-fascists-and-remove-the-sean--russell-statue-1847609.html (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/we-must-fight-todays-ira-fascists-and-remove-the-sean--russell-statue-1847609.html)