The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

And that is relevant, how? I mean there are two-bit county councillors who think they are JFK.

It kinda blows your precluding of comparing the Nazi method of empire building to the British method out of the water, when the leader of the Nazi's makes the comparison himself.

Your pathetic attempts to censor the conversation because it is going to areas you don't like or that discomfort you, aren't going to work.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Hold on a second there.
Pop at Extremist Republicans yes, but not a pop at the Irish. I am Irish myself. You do not have to be Republican to be Irish Francie. You are confusing the two again. You said before you do not consider non-Republicans fully Irish and you favour a resettlement scheme in the event of a United Ireland.
I would say it is you who is in the minority when it comes to support for the pIRA Francie : most people did not support them.

Dev was an extreme republican? The nuns in Tuam were extreme republicans?

And I never said non-republicans were not fully Irish. Was I not making the case that all born on this island are 'Irish' on another thread? Another outright and blatant lie from the keyboard of Jan.

I favour helping people who say they 'cannot live in a UI'. Of that I have no shame. You are they one who would force them to stay as you have no proposal to help them.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

janfebmar wrote: »

Hold on a second there.
Pop at Extremist Republicans yes, but not a pop at the Irish. I am Irish myself. You do not have to be Republican to be Irish Francie. You are confusing the two again. You said before you do not consider non-Republicans fully Irish and you favour a resettlement scheme in the event of a United Ireland.
I would say it is you who is in the minority when it comes to support for the pIRA Francie : most people did not support them.

Dev was an extreme republican? The nuns in Tuam were extreme republicans?

And I never said non-republicans were not fully Irish. Was I not making the case that all born on this island are 'Irish' on another thread? Another outright and blatant lie from the keyboard of Jan.

I favour helping people who say they 'cannot live in a UI'. Of that I have no shame. You are they one who would force them to stay as you have no proposal to help them.

I wasn't aware of what happened in Tuam until now and the hypocrisy of some posters here pontificating about the British whilst their own country turned a blind eye is mind boggling-unless you're whiter than white yourself you certainly don't command the moral ground imo.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It kinda blows your precluding of comparing the Nazi method of empire building to the British method out of the water, when the leader of the Nazi's makes the comparison himself.

Your pathetic attempts to censor the conversation because it is going to areas you don't like or that discomfort you, aren't going to work.

No, it doesn't. Doesn't Trump compare himself to George Washington? Hitler was a fantasist, and the statement should be seen in that light. It is actually funny to bring it up as support for your claim. A mate of mine told me he could hit a free-kick like Ronaldo, should I take his word for it?

Not attempting to censor the conversation, just ridiculing aspects of it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Doesn't Trump compare himself to George Washington? Hitler was a fantasist, and the statement should be seen in that light. It is actually funny to bring it up as support for your claim. A mate of mine told me he could hit a free-kick like Ronaldo, should I take his word for it?

Not attempting to censor the conversation, just ridiculing aspects of it.

Ok. Hitler 'fantasised' about having an Empire like the British one and used exactly the same methods to try and get one...Invasion, subjugation, pilfering of resources for the mother/fatherland, concentration camps and starvation etc etc

Is that better?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wasn't aware of what happened in Tuam until now and the hypocrisy of some posters here pontificating about the British whilst their own country turned a blind eye is mind boggling-unless you're whiter than white yourself you certainly don't command the moral ground imo.

I fully accept the facts of our history Rob.
Accepting them, does not mean you get to hide or run away from the facts of your history, when they come up in the conversation.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Doesn't Trump compare himself to George Washington? Hitler was a fantasist, and the statement should be seen in that light. It is actually funny to bring it up as support for your claim. A mate of mine told me he could hit a free-kick like Ronaldo, should I take his word for it?

Not attempting to censor the conversation, just ridiculing aspects of it.

But you admit in terms of his views, Churchill wasn't much better. His own secretary for India compared him to Hitler because of his views on Indians.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ok. Hitler 'fantasised' about having an Empire like the British one and used exactly the same methods to try and get one...Invasion, subjugation, pilfering of resources for the mother/fatherland, concentration camps and starvation etc etc

No, Hitler did not use "exactly the same methods". The methods the British used were more like what the other European countries ( Spain Italy France Belgium The Netherlands Denmark Portugal Germany etc) did around the world at the time.

What the Nazis did was different altogether ( invading neighbouring adjoining countries, mass extermination of certain chosen groups, measured in millions etc etc)

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wasn't aware of what happened in Tuam until now and the hypocrisy of some posters here pontificating about the British whilst their own country turned a blind eye is mind boggling-unless you're whiter than white yourself you certainly don't command the moral ground imo.

I fully accept the facts of our history Rob.
Accepting them, does not mean you get to hide or run away from the facts of your history, when they come up in the conversation.

You seem to think the sweeping statement-"i fully accept the facts of our history"as a blanket response which you say about any subject you are uncomfortable with francie,be it paramilitaries or this subject somehow absolves its horrors.
I can't do anything about Britain's past,which I agree,some of which is shameful but as I said earlier,the words of
Matthew 7:1-3 spring to mind..

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you admit in terms of his views, Churchill wasn't much better. His own secretary for India compared him to Hitler because of his views on Indians.

He said the Indians were fine fighting soldiers. Huge numbers of them fought against the Japanese. Like the South Africans , they fought with the British.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You seem to think the sweeping statement-"i fully accept the facts of our history"as a blanket response which you say about any subject you are uncomfortable with francie,be it paramilitaries or this subject somehow absolves its horrors.
I can't do anything about Britain's past,which I agree,some of which is shameful but as I said earlier,the words of
Matthew 7:1-3 spring to mind..

Why have you a problem with discussing Britain's past?

citytillidie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why have you a problem with discussing Britain's past?

Truth hurts some people

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No, Hitler did not use "exactly the same methods". The methods the British used were more like what the other European countries ( Spain Italy France Belgium The Netherlands Denmark Portugal Germany etc) did around the world at the time.

What the Nazis did was different altogether ( invading neighbouring adjoining countries, mass extermination of certain chosen groups, measured in millions etc etc)

Yes, that is the difference and about the only one. The speed at which he exterminated people.
It is impossible to count how many the British Empire exterminated in the course of it's history.

RobMc59

citytillidie wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why have you a problem with discussing Britain's past?

Truth hurts some people

I haven't a problem discussing Britain's history,some of which is shameful but I can't do anything about it except make the above admission-show me a bona fide world leader in history (from ALL countries)who hasn't blood on their hands.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

The history books say different to your view,Churchill is honoured by the US with a statue in the White House and a US battle ship named after him.Britain,along with their allies defeated the nazis and nothing can change that fuaranach.

Honoured by Trump, doesn't say much for Churchill a known racist.

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think prisons in 1980's Ireland where prisoners were allowed live, unless they wanted to commit suicide, were concentration camps.

Prisons in DeV's 1940's Ireland where captured prisoners were executed were not concentration camps, because they were run by sort of Republicans.

And Nazi extermination camps were comparable to 1980's prisons in these islands.

Not very consistent, are you Francie?

Bad day for Francie. Again.

Getting pretty desperate. Do you realise the transparency of your agenda here? Infer someone said something, then later speak on it like they actually did, rinse and repeat. Nobody is buying it Jan.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I haven't a problem discussing Britain's history,some of which is shameful but I can't do anything about it except make the above admission-show me a bona fide world leader in history (from ALL countries)who hasn't blood on their hands.

Why would I have to do that?

We are discussing your history. As you say, it happened.

There are posters here trying to deny it and sugarcoat it. They believe they can change the history, but as you and I know, they can't. They are the ones you should be challenging.

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

I haven't a problem discussing Britain's history,some of which is shameful but I can't do anything about it except make the above admission-show me a bona fide world leader in history (from ALL countries)who hasn't blood on their hands.

Show me even a small country in history who hasn't blood on their hands. Even this state not too long ago.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wasn't aware of what happened in Tuam until now and the hypocrisy of some posters here pontificating about the British whilst their own country turned a blind eye is mind boggling-unless you're whiter than white yourself you certainly don't command the moral ground imo.

This is the spin though. Some post on what the british are responsible for and instead of discussing it counter with something the Irish did, but nobody is claiming the moral high ground and insinuating anyone is laying claim is trying to win an argument nobody is making.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Getting pretty desperate. Do you realise the transparency of your agenda here? Infer someone said something, then later speak on it like they actually did, rinse and repeat. Nobody is buying it Jan.

It is extraordinary how she can lie at the drop of a hat and be supported by a couple of other posters.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would I have to do that?

We are discussing your history.

We are discussing Ireland. But all you do as usual is "blame de Brits"

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

We are discussing Ireland. But all you do as usual is "blame de Brits"

It's hard to discuss Irish history without mentioning 'de brits' Jan. As for blame, have they been accused of anything falsely?

Sofiztikated

janfebmar wrote: »

We are discussing Ireland. But all you do as usual is "blame de Brits"

We started off discussing the 12th, but no matter.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's hard to discuss Irish history without mentioning 'de brits' Jan. As for blame, have they been accused of anything falsely?

At least Rob (even though he is challenging the wrong people) is not living in denial.
What we just seen over the last number of pages is the classic mindset of the partitionist - born of an inherent inferiority complex.

'Close down any criticism of the British. Lie about what was said if necessary'.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I haven't a problem discussing Britain's history,some of which is shameful but I can't do anything about it except make the above admission-show me a bona fide world leader in history (from ALL countries)who hasn't blood on their hands.

Why would I have to do that?

We are discussing your history. As you say, it happened.

There are posters here trying to deny it and sugarcoat it. They believe they can change the history, but as you and I know, they can't. They are the ones you should be challenging.

Oh,I see,let's have a discussion but only about what you want to discuss?
As you yourself said"up the yard with ye"!

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Oh,I see,let's have a discussion but only about what you want to discuss?
As you yourself said"up the yard with ye"!

What?

RobMc59

Matt Barrett wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

The history books say different to your view,Churchill is honoured by the US with a statue in the White House and a US battle ship named after him.Britain,along with their allies defeated the nazis and nothing can change that fuaranach.

Honoured by Trump, doesn't say much for Churchill a known racist.

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think prisons in 1980's Ireland where prisoners were allowed live, unless they wanted to commit suicide, were concentration camps.

Prisons in DeV's 1940's Ireland where captured prisoners were executed were not concentration camps, because they were run by sort of Republicans.

And Nazi extermination camps were comparable to 1980's prisons in these islands.

Not very consistent, are you Francie?

Bad day for Francie. Again.

Getting pretty desperate. Do you realise the transparency of your agenda here? Infer someone said something, then later speak on it like they actually did, rinse and repeat. Nobody is buying it Jan.

Matt I'm getting sick of pointing out with links that the world view of Churchill generally isn't the same as Ireland's.But just for you...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honours_of_Winston_Churchill

blanch152

Sofiztikated wrote: »

We started off discussing the 12th, but no matter.

Yes, we did. This thread has probably run its course.

With people telling us that the British were worse than the Nazis, it has lost all sense of reality as well as its connection to the OPs.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, we did. This thread has probably run its course.

With people telling us that the British were worse than the Nazis, it has lost all sense of reality as well as its connection to the OPs.

Historically the British empire killed far more people based on racial superiority than the Nazis. I don't think their methods were worse but they were certainly barbaric and uncivilised.

FrancieBrady

Trying to get the thread closed = another familiar tactic by you know who.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Historically the British empire killed far more people based on racial superiority than the Nazis. I don't think their methods were worse but they were certainly barbaric and uncivilised.

None of them cold hard facts now steddyeddy...you know how it upsets!