Sinn Fein vs Sieg Heil - Spot the Difference

[red hander]

'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

[ardmhachaabu]

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

[GalwayBayBoy]

'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.

[Myles Na G.]

'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?

[Evil Genius]

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

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!  ) than in more stable environments.

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 

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...

[lynchbhoy]

'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 !

[lynchbhoy]

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

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!  ) than in more stable environments.

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 

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!)

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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?

[man in black]

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

[Evil Genius]

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...

[man in black]

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.

[020304 Tir Eoghain]

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.

[Myles Na G.]

'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. 

[lynchbhoy]

'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 ?