British monarch references painted over on street signs.

Fratton Fred

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I can answer that one. Human resources and the forests were cleared to build the ships and launched the Royal Navy

where did you dig that one up from?

KingBrian2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

where did you dig that one up from?

Which part but in response to fighting for Britain. We fought for Britain during the Napoleonic Wars and the Great War.

maryishere

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Which part but in response to fighting for Britain. We fought for Britain during the Napoleonic Wars and the Great War.

You mean...like Britain paid us - our volunteers, there was no conscription - to fight the Germans, who invaded and raped little Catholic Belgium. In other words gave our men jobs. That was the best example you can think of of the nasty Empire "chewing up Irelands resources"? Yeah. Right. Well thought out KingBrian, like.

Fratton Fred

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Which part but in response to fighting for Britain. We fought for Britain during the Napoleonic Wars and the Great War.

I was thinking more about the forests being cleared to build the royal navy. That seems a bit dramatic.

I could understand forest being cleared to grow crops and for timber to build ships in general (it was the age of exploration after all), but that statement seems somewhat "Dramatic".

super_furry

Whitewashing history, good or bad, is never going to end well.

Del.Monte

VinLieger wrote: »

These are like the pathetic morons who go around south county dublin painting or taping over the english on street and road signs.

The people out defacing road signs have nothing to offer anybody and are the same type of scum who continue to deface DART trains and everything that they can reach from the railway in Dublin. Horse whipping is too good for them. :mad:

KingBrian2

maryishere wrote: »

You mean...like Britain paid us - our volunteers, there was no conscription - to fight the Germans, who invaded and raped little Catholic Belgium. In other words gave our men jobs. That was the best example you can think of of the nasty Empire "chewing up Irelands resources"? Yeah. Right. Well thought out KingBrian, like.

Turning Irish people against Irish people more like. The Imperialists sectarian policies are well known i am not going to go into it. The point is the war sold to the Public was a short war to preserve the rights of small countries against larger countries run by the Kaiser. We did what we were assigned to do. Irish countrymen fought in their horrid battles at the Somme and the Dardanelles as we did a century early at Waterloo.

maryishere

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Irish countrymen fought in their horrid battles at the Somme and the Dardanelles as we did a century early at Waterloo.

Indeed, that is true, just as men from all over these islands fought in the armed forces of these islands. Sectarianism in the British army is not tolerated, and the large number of soldiers from north and south in the Irish regiments in the B. army will tell you that.

DanielODonnell

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Next they'll be forcing people with planters surnames to change to an Irish one.

I always found it curious how many of the nationlist northern paramilitaries lads had these names. When didn't they just go home instead?

You should realise that some of the English sounding surnames that Irish people have were not originally English, they just were anglicised over time, Liam Neeson for example would have been MacAonghusa and Johnson was McShane.

Though some would have authentic English surnames but at the most part most Catholics in Northern Ireland do have un anglicised gaelic names. However you could say that every irish surname is anglicised if the O is taken off it.

Junkyard Tom

LordSutch wrote: »

I would suggest an even better analogy might be related to a another organ within the same body!

The British colonial presence was like a parasitic growth that had to be scalpelled off the host.

such was the closeness between these two islands.

You have an odd Fritzlesque way of describing colonial occupation.

maryishere

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

colonial occupation.

You have an odd way of describing the home countries. A third of the British administration in India was Irish, and we helped put infrastructure, railways, legal system etc there. The Indians did not care if the white person was from Liverpool or Dublin or Glasgow.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

You still have not answered the question Francie. You claimed in post no. 140 "the Empire" "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed"
I asked what resources are you talking about there Francie?

The empire existed to serve the motherland. They didn't do for philanthropic reasons, hence the objections of the indigenous peoples whereever they went. Generally those happy to be complicit kept waving the flag though and turned a blind eye to the horrors of subjugation, probably because there was something in it for them.

You only have to look at the long long list of healthy men that died on battlefields 'for the empire' to see the waste of our primary resource, our people.
It will never be known exactly how many men had to sign up because of their landlords or who had no choice as there was no future for them. Conscription by another name.

Junkyard Tom

maryishere wrote: »

You have an odd way of describing the home countries. A third of the British administration in India was Irish, and we helped put infrastructure, railways, legal system etc there. The Indians did not care if the white person was from Liverpool or Dublin or Glasgow.

Sorry, I didn't quote you and I really don't care what you have to say.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The empire existed to serve the motherland. They didn't do for philanthropic reasons, hence the objections of the indigenous peoples whereever they went. Generally those happy to be complicit kept waving the flag though and turned a blind eye to the horrors of subjugation, probably because there was something in it for them.

You only have to look at the long long list of healthy men that died on battlefields 'for the empire' to see the waste of our primary resource, our people.
It will never be known exactly how many men had to sign up because of their landlords or who had no choice as there was no future for them. Conscription by another name.

(You said the Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed".)
Ah, so the only "resources" you can think of that the nasty evil British "exploited" from Ireland was our people. In exchange for the railways and the canals and the harbours and lighthouses and legal system and fine public buildings, the only resources the evil British chewed out of Ireland was giving jobs to people who wanted them? Same as it gave jobs to the ordinary people in Wales and England. And many people from this island went to jobs in the Empire and Ireland sometimes benefited from trade with the Empire.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

(You said the Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed".)
Ah, so the only "resources" you can think of that the nasty evil British "exploited" from Ireland was our people. In exchange for the railways and the canals and the harbours and lighthouses and legal system and fine public buildings, the only resources the evil British chewed out of Ireland was giving jobs to people who wanted them? Same as it gave jobs to the ordinary people in Wales and England. And many people from this island went to jobs in the Empire and Ireland sometimes benefited from trade with the Empire.

Of course Mary, the benign cuddly empire, the remnants of which is building aircraft carriers to spread some more cuddliness and benignness in the parts of the world where there just happens to be vast resources the powers of the world want.

Everyone believes you. Carry on.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course Mary, the benign cuddly empire, the remnants of which is building aircraft carriers to spread some more cuddliness and benignness in the parts of the world where there just happens to be vast resources the powers of the world want.

Everyone believes you. Carry on.

It did not take aircraft carriers from us either, or the materials to build them.
So your statement the nasty Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed" holds no water. Carry on back to the crossroads, and keep on dancing.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

It did not take aircraft carriers from us either, or the materials to build them.
So your statement the nasty Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed" holds no water. Carry on back to the crossroads, and keep on dancing.

You CANNOT build an empire on the scale of the British one without plundering the lands that you take.
From Elizabeth 1 through James 1 and all the way to the end, the goal was to bring Ireland to heel and align it with England's (Churchill's Motherland) economic needs. Thankfully we had plenty who resisted that and still do.

Your attempts to revise that fact, repeated through all the motherland's colonies, says everything.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You CANNOT build an empire on the scale of the British one without plundering the lands that you take.

Oh, so you are talking about other countries now, seeing as you stated the Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed" but you cannot think of the resources in Ireland that were plundered? Maybe you meant the dastardly EU who plundered our fish resources, because of a devious British conspiracy?

I wonder do you think the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Singaporeans etc thought their lands were plundered by the British? Are the Chinese plundering countries in Africa now as we speak? Did the Italians plunder their African colonies such as Ethiopia, the Belgians plunder the Congo etc to a greater or lesser extent than the British did in their colonies.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Oh, so you are talking about other countries now, seeing as you stated the Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed" but you cannot think of the resources in Ireland that were plundered? Maybe you meant the dastardly EU who plundered our fish resources, because of a devious British conspiracy?

I wonder do you think the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Singaporeans etc thought their lands were plundered by the British? Are the Chinese plundering countries in Africa now as we speak? Did the Italians plunder their African colonies such as Ethiopia, the Belgians plunder the Congo etc to a greater or lesser extent than the British did in their colonies.

I have no idea what the relevance of that is.
Is it some form of admission and an excuse?

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what the relevance of that is.

You cannot answer the questions, that says it all.
I am glad you were caught out.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

You cannot answer the questions, that says it all.
I am glad you were caught out.

What relevance has the EU or what China is doing got to the debate if it isn't an excuse for what the Empire did?


That is how you 'catch' someone out Mary. hook line and sinker.:D

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What relevance has the EU or what China is doing got to the debate if it isn't an excuse for what the Empire did?

You claimed the Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed" but you cannot remember the resources. I asked you if you thought other victims of the evil British Empire like the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Singaporeans etc thought their lands were plundered by the British?

I'm disappointed in ye Francie, I thought you could think of something like fish ( the EU tuk all our fish ) that the nasty Brits helped take? As said before, in exchange for the railways and the canals and the harbours and lighthouses and legal system and fine public buildings, you think the only resources the evil British chewed out of Ireland was giving jobs to people who wanted them? Same as it gave jobs to the ordinary people in Wales and England?

somefeen

maryishere wrote: »

Oh, so you are talking about other countries now, seeing as you stated the Empire "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed" but you cannot think of the resources in Ireland that were plundered? Maybe you meant the dastardly EU who plundered our fish resources, because of a devious British conspiracy?

I wonder do you think the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Singaporeans etc thought their lands were plundered by the British? Are the Chinese plundering countries in Africa now as we speak? Did the Italians plunder their African colonies such as Ethiopia, the Belgians plunder the Congo etc to a greater or lesser extent than the British did in their colonies.

You mean the maouri, the aborigines, the first nations people of Canada etc

Well it wasn't the Greeks, I'll tell you that.

maryishere

somefeen wrote: »

You mean the maouri, the aborigines, the first nations people of Canada etc

Did they see any difference between the white man from Liverpool, Dublin or Glasgow, who went to build railways, harbours, legal systems etc there? No, we were all British then. Great job those countries speak English too, it gives our emigrants a huge start.

whisky_galore

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The empire existed to serve the motherland. They didn't do for philanthropic reasons

Oh but they did, the rationale the French and Portuguese etc gave their overseas adventures was that it was part of a "civilising mission" or in the case of the British and the US it was "the white man's burden"

Peregrinus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Oh but they did, the rationale the French and Portuguese etc gave their overseas adventures was that it was part of a "civilising mission" or in the case of the British and the US it was "the white man's burden"

That was their rationale.

Their reasons, however, were more self-serving.

Del.Monte

Has any of the above got anything whatsoever to do with road signs being vandalised?

maryishere

Del.Monte wrote: »

Has any of the above got anything whatsoever to do with road signs being vandalised?

Its the nasty people who put up the road signs and post boxes (and railways and canals and harbours and lighthouses and legal system and fine public buildings etc ) who, according to Francie, "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed", but yet he cannot specify the resources, apart from the fish that were taken from Ireland when we joined the EU..that was de Brits fault too, but it was 80 / 90 years after independence.

Agent Smith

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Mr O'Cadhla hasn't even come close to 1% of a quota any time he's stood for election. Must be a fan of losing deposit money.

http://electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?ID=8218

EmoCourt wrote: »

"Activists"

No, Unemployed wastrels.

Not a very... Active Activist! :pac:

Jawgap

Del.Monte wrote: »

Has any of the above got anything whatsoever to do with road signs being vandalised?

Apparently the Brits have been nicking our road sign resources for years to put up in those fake, plastic Paddy pubs that they actually believe are a true representation of a proper Irish pub

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Apparently the Brits have been nicking our road sign resources for years to put up in those fake, plastic Paddy pubs that they actually believe are a true representation of a proper Irish pub

You will find that true republicans are against obliterating signs of our past. I have likened the people doing this to those who bang drums outside churches. They are trolls and you and Mary and your likes are being trolled.
Very easily it would seem.
Personally I favour the truth about our history, which is a history of simple subjugation with the aid of some of the indigenous people, (the only way 'subjugation' is possible for any length of time actually) and it's eventual overthrow (with the aid of the greater amount of people)
Street names, building names are proud reminders of that history.

Del.Monte

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will find that true republicans are against obliterating signs of our past. I have likened the people doing this to those who bang drums outside churches. They are trolls and you and Mary and your likes are being trolled.
Very easily it would seem.
Personally I favour the truth about our history, which is a history of simple subjugation with the aid of some of the indigenous people, (the only way 'subjugation' is possible for any length of time actually) and it's eventual overthrow (with the aid of the greater amount of people)
Street names, building names are proud reminders of that history.

Would that be like the Nelson Pillar, the Walker monument in Derry, the Victoria monument in Dun Laoghaire to name but a few pieces of handiwork of 'true' republicans.

FrancieBrady

Del.Monte wrote: »

Would that be like the Nelson Pillar, the Walker monument in Derry, the Victoria monument in Dun Laoghaire to name but a few pieces of handiwork of 'true' republicans.

Yes it would.
Reactionary and silly demonstrations like the above are akin to the worst strains of reactionary empire adulation.
It is understandable after a period of subjugation and overweening triumphalism from 'one side'.
It's a physical form of trolling.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it would.
Reactionary and silly demonstrations like the above are akin to the worst strains of reactionary empire adulation.
It is understandable after a period of subjugation and overweening triumphalism from 'one side'.
It's a physical form of trolling.

Understandable that terrorists would set off a bomb in middle of the busiest street in the capital? you consider that 'trolling'?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Understandable that terrorists would set off a bomb in middle of the busiest street in the capital? you consider that 'trolling'?

What are you deflecting to here exactly?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you deflecting to here exactly?

Just trying to understand how you can dismiss an act of terrorism so lightly

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Just trying to understand how you can dismiss an act of terrorism so lightly

What?

A Little Pony

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you deflecting to here exactly?

Just trying to understand how you can dismiss an act of terrorism so lightly

You must be new around here if it surprises you.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

you dismissed the bombing of nelsons pillar as 'physical trolling'

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dismissed the bombing of nelsons pillar as 'physical trolling'

It was. It was a bomb designed to remove the pillar and to 'outrage' the expected few. The same idea behind the painting out of names.

I didn't 'dismiss it' I said I 'understand' why it happens and I gave you my opinion of it.

Understanding something is NOT dismissing it.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dismissed the bombing of nelsons pillar as 'physical trolling'

It was. It was a bomb designed to remove the pillar and to 'outrage' the expected few. The same idea behind the painting out of names.

I didn't 'dismiss it' I said I 'understand' why it happens and I gave you my opinion of it.

Understanding something is NOT dismissing it.

You have outdone yourself with this one Francie. Apparently planting a bomb to blow something up is just trolling. Sure why doesn't everyone just plant bombs to things they don't like or agree with. Would save time using verbal argument.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was. It was a bomb designed to remove the pillar and to 'outrage' the expected few. The same idea behind the painting out of names.

I didn't 'dismiss it' I said I 'understand' why it happens and I gave you my opinion of it.

Understanding something is NOT dismissing it.

to describe setting off a bomb in the middle of the busiest street in the capital as 'physical trolling' is dismissing it. To put it in the same category as painting out names is dismissing it. and on top of that they weren't competent enough to do it properly.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have outdone yourself with this one Francie. Apparently planting a bomb to blow something up is just trolling. Sure why doesn't everyone just plant bombs to things they don't like or agree with. Would save time using verbal argument.

Did I say it was right? Must have missed that.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have outdone yourself with this one Francie. Apparently planting a bomb to blow something up is just trolling. Sure why doesn't everyone just plant bombs to things they don't like or agree with. Would save time using verbal argument.

Did I say it was right? Must have missed that.

Read between the lines, pretty much, yeah.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to describe setting off a bomb in the middle of the busiest street in the capital as 'physical trolling' is dismissing it. To put it in the same category as painting out names is dismissing it. and on top of that they weren't competent enough to do it properly.

Dismissing it as what?

*Your faux outrage maybe what the bomber intended to provoke. Just saying.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Read between the lines, pretty much, yeah.

Deosn't say much for your reading skills when I have clearly stated what I think of the people engaged in this. But anyway. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Dismissing it as what?

*Your faux outrage maybe what the bomber intended to provoke. Just saying.

dismissing it as physical trolling. Was that not clear?

any outrage is directed at your dismissal of the act. You seem to think it was acceptable. the act itself was pure incompetence, typical of the people who perpetrated it.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

dismissing it as physical trolling. Was that not clear?

any outrage is directed at your dismissal of the act. You seem to think it was acceptable. the act itself was pure incompetence, typical of the people who perpetrated it.

I didn't 'dismiss it'. Where did I do that?

You might not like that I called it 'physical trolling' but that is your problem. If I called the Dublin-Monaghan bombings 'British Trolling of the Republic', would that be 'dismissing it'?

The bomb at the top of Nelson's Pillar was designed to destroy the pillar and so cause outrage. That is physical trolling.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't 'dismiss it'. Where did I do that?

You might not like that I called it 'physical trolling' but that is your problem. If I called the Dublin-Monaghan bombings 'British Trolling of the Republic', would that be 'dismissing it'?

The bomb at the top of Nelson's Pillar was designed to destroy the pillar and so cause outrage. That is physical trolling.

it is clear that you find the act acceptable so i will leave it here. I'm sure only those in certain circles find it acceptable.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is clear that you find the act acceptable so i will leave it here. I'm sure only those in certain circles find it acceptable.

:D Hilarious. I have clearly said what I 'find' about these acts. Ridiculous jump to a conclusion made, yet again.