Sinn Fein vs Sieg Heil - Spot the Difference

[dillinger]

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!

[Evil Genius]

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.  

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...

[Evil Genius]

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" 

[Evil Genius]

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. 

[pintsofguinness]

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. 

[red hander]

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" 

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.

[dillinger]

[/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.

[pintsofguinness]

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?

[boojangles]

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.

[boojangles]

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?

[carribbear]

of their fellow Irishmen and women like me

See, acceptance is the first step.

[MW]

The 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"?

[pintsofguinness]

The 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.

[MW]

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.

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?

[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.

[MW]

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.