Sinn Fein vs Sieg Heil - Spot the Difference

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Impartial journalism! 
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

[Evil Genius]

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.

[boojangles]

What did Sinn Fein ever do on YOU Evil Genius??

[Evil Genius]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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 ?

[lynchbhoy]

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 !

[Main Street]

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.

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.  

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.

[MW]

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".

[Rossfan]

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"

[MW]

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! 
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)

[MW]

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?

[Rossfan]

[
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.

[MW]

(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.

[MW]

Er...what?

[MW]

Yes.

What that has to do with Henry Allingham is beyond me, though.