If britain invaded the 26 co's

O'Leprosy

If Germany invaded the Ireland during WW2, would we be terrorists to resist ?

Watched a programme on TG4 about Ireland and neutrality during WW 2 a few weeks ago and it said that the army's plans were basically to have a division in the southeast for to counter a German invasion and another near the border to counter a british invasion. Dev had leaked to the Germans that if Germany invaded he would ask britain to join us in trying to repel them, likewise he had leaked to the brits that he would request Germany to join us to fight back. The idea was that the Irish forces would try and delay/bogdown the enemy forces in the southeast or on the border long enough for help to arrive. That was the theory anyway, how effective it would have been is another story.

But if the Germans had invaded and taken over the island, the very first people who would go running to them offering their services would ofcourse have been the unionists. Isn't that right Fred ?

McArmalite wrote:

Fratton Fred wrote:

I beleive up to half of those killed in the troubles were unionists and british solldiers. 499 British soldiers were killed. I suppose Podge or Rodge would probably say " Only 499, pity it wasn't 499,000 "

brianthebard

Why are you asking questions that you already know the answer to? Why don't you look up terrorism in the dictionary and see what that means?

O'Leprosy

brianthebard wrote:

Why are you asking questions that you already know the answer to? Why don't you look up terrorism in the dictionary and see what that means?

Just having a little informal discussion.That's why they are called discussion forums.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote:

Fratton Fred wrote:

I beleive up to half of those killed in the troubles were unionists and british solldiers. 499 British soldiers were killed. I suppose Podge or Rodge would probably say " Only 499, pity it wasn't 499,000 "

glad you enjoy killing so much. I suppose the user name says it all:rolleyes:

LordSutch

If anybody wants a detailed breakdown of who killed who in the Northern Troubles then look-up this link http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/major_killings.html

mountainyman

ArthurF wrote:

If anybody wants a detailed breakdown of who killed who in the Northern Troubles then look-up this link http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/major_killings.html

That presents a false picture of the troubles. Most deaths were single.
Some war more people died in traffic accidents than in the so called conflict.

MM

O'Leprosy

mountainyman wrote:

That presents a false picture of the troubles. Most deaths were single.
Some war more people died in traffic accidents than in the so called conflict.
MM

Quite possible, not trying to undermine you but do you have the stats. to back it up. It's possible that more Americans were killed in traffic accidents during the Vietnam War than in the war itself. Or indeed, and it also goes for the Brits, more getting killed by traffic than killed in Iraq. Does that mean it's also not a war ?

Sand

Just a point Darkman, the PIRA were never capable of defeating the British Army. The British army was composed of armed, trained soldiers often quite experienced, equipped with armour, artillery, air support and a vast logistics network. The PIRA could *never* defeat the British Army in a military struggle. Never. Ever, ever, ever. Well, may...no not ever.

That is why the PIRA expended so much time on throwing nail bombs into London resteraunts, pulling protestant civillians off buses and shooting them along the side of roads, kidnapping mens families to force them to act as suicide bombers, and planting bombs to murder people shopping in towns. And not, you know, defeating the British Army.

Their only hope was the British politicians would defeat themselves and withdraw, allowing for the urban bloodbath/ethnic cleansing the psychos longed for. The PIRA was *never* capable of preventing the British from controlling Northern Ireland, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of its population.

Zambia

O'Leprosy wrote:

Ronnis Falnagan.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8151/ronnie.html

When Flanagan ( the token Catholic to head up the RUC ) was stated by the northern ombudsaman Nuala O'Loan that he was fully aware that Mark Haddock carried out 14 murders since the IRA ceasefire in 1994 , Flanagan said " No. I don't know anything about it " and it was dropped. Flanagan is now Sir Flanagan. I'm sure Amensty Interantional can supply you with the inforamtion you want. As for your contact with ombudsamn. sure you'll get cold feet as it is only blue collar SFers who offically question Brtish 'mistakes'. It's only 'murder' when you don't wear a british uniform isn't it.

I dont want any information , I have no idea what your saying here I said If you have some information on colluders you bring it to the ombudsman...

oh and even proxy bombs are planted by pricks and if you know the brits where behind that see a journalist with your scoop.

Oh and darkman I believe the History channel is showing that program at 9 this friday. The secret history of the IRA. But I still maintain there would be no way the two forces are comparable, unless you can russle up a huge amount more volunteers.

McArmalite

Sand wrote:

Just a point Darkman,.....
That is why the PIRA expended so much time on throwing nail bombs into London resteraunts, pulling protestant civillians off buses and shooting them along the side of roads, kidnapping mens families to force them to act as suicide bombers, and planting bombs to murder people shopping in towns. And not, you know, defeating the British Army.

Their only hope was the British politicians would defeat themselves and withdraw, allowing for the urban bloodbath/ethnic cleansing the psychos longed for.

So melodramatic aren't we. As Fratton Fred would say "
here we go again. The Podge and Rodge guide to alternative history." Still he didn't like my "499 British soldiers were killed. I suppose Podge or Rodge would probably say " Only 499, pity it wasn't 499,000 ":D

Sand wrote:

The PIRA was *never* capable of preventing the British from controlling Northern Ireland, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of its population.

What majority ? An artifical majority in an artifical state formed against the wishes of the real majority. Anyway, it's an artifical state that has only maybe 2 decades left to run.;)

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote:

So melodramatic aren't we. As Fratton Fred would say "
here we go again. The Podge and Rodge guide to alternative history." Still he didn't like my "499 British soldiers were killed. I suppose Podge or Rodge would probably say " Only 499, pity it wasn't 499,000 ":D

I didn't like it because it is a pathetic statement, said in jest or not

Sand

So melodramatic aren't we.

Nothing dramatic about it actually, despite it sounding insane this was what Adams and Co were up to before they dressed up in suits and ties. You mightnt like accepting that, but thats your own issue/politics.

What majority ? An artifical majority in an artifical state formed against the wishes of the real majority. Anyway, it's an artifical state that has only maybe 2 decades left to run.

Yes, that majority, the majority Adams and Co accepted after wasting 30 years time trying to murder and terrorise that majority. Thats the majority, yep.

iamhunted

give it up sand. your anti nationalist stance is old hat (and boring) at this stage.

Sand

give it up sand. your anti nationalist stance is old hat (and boring) at this stage.

/me shrugs - Despite your 26 posts, 2 months of me not knowing/caring who you are you still seem motivated to A) Read my posts and Hit reply and respond to them - badly, but hey you try.

Back to the IRBB with you.

mountainyman

darkman2 wrote:

Im interested in just how effective the IRA was in the early 70's which some here are disputing. I think the figures ive just given speak for themseves.

The position is flawed, badly flawed. The IRA were effective but your assumption is that the British would never have escalated their behaviour to deal with the IRA.

The figures also show that between September and December attacks declined by 25%.

The British killed 100,000 people in Kenya.

Only 3,000 people died in the whole of the troubles. It was toytown war. More people died in road accidents.

The whole thing was a joke.

MM

Zambia

The British killed 100,000 people in Kenya?

Have you a reference for this ?

Besides more people died of Malaria in Kenya during the British occupation does that make it a "Joke"

LordSutch

mountainyman wrote:

The British killed 100,000 people in Kenya.

Maybe? (I dont have the figures to hand) but do not forget that approximately one third of that "British" army were Irish!

mountainyman wrote:

Only 3,000 people died in the whole of the troubles. It was toytown war. More people died in road accidents.

Only 3,000 people died & it was a "toytown war"

mountainyman wrote:

The whole thing was a joke. MM

Some Joke mountainyman ~ would you like to reflect on your Postings? or are you quite happy with what you have just said?

O'Leprosy

mountainyman wrote:

The position is flawed, badly flawed. The IRA were effective but your assumption is that the British would never have escalated their behaviour to deal with the IRA.

The figures also show that between September and December attacks declined by 25%.

The British killed 100,000 people in Kenya.

Only 3,000 people died in the whole of the troubles. It was toytown war. More people died in road accidents.

The whole thing was a joke.

MM

My reply to your previous posting regarding deaths during the troubles -
Quite possible, not trying to undermine you but do you have the stats. to back it up. It's possible that more Americans were killed in traffic accidents during the Vietnam War than in the war itself. Or indeed, and it also goes for the Brits, more getting killed by traffic than killed in Iraq. Does that mean it's also not a war ?

As regards the whole thing been a joke, if you had been maimed or a family member/friend killed, you wouldn't be refrring to it as a joke would you pal.

mountainyman

It was NOT a war.
Arthur F if more people are dying in road accidents than in a so called war what do you call that?
In fact given that Reggie Maudling defined the British Governments aim as being "acceptable levels of violence" it must be accepted that the British won the 'war' around 1974.

By refusing to accept that phrases such as 'toytown war' are valid you privilege the experience in northern ireland ang give its irredentist politicians a validity that they do not deserve.


O'Leprosy your position is flawed you are forgetting the civillian populations.
More Vietnamese died in the war than Americans died in Traffic accidents in the same period I assure you of that.
675,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion.


MM

O'Leprosy

mountainyman wrote:

O'Leprosy your position is flawed you are forgetting the civillian populations.
More Vietnamese died in the war than Americans died in Traffic accidents in the same period I assure you of that.
675,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion.
MM

My position flawed ? Your the one who refers to the death of 3,000 people as a ' joke '.

Granted you have a point about the terrible deaths of so many civilians in Vietnam and Iraq.

Zambia

mountainyman wrote:

It was NOT a war.
Arthur F if more people are dying in road accidents than in a so called war what do you call that?

Even it if was not a war it was never a Joke ...

In response to the second quote I call that a worse reflection on road safety than a vindication of your position.