The glorious 12th

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

Historically the British empire killed far more people based on racial superiority than the Nazis.

All empires (and there were many many different empires in the world) killed people at some stage or another but you cannot claim the British were worse than the Nazis. You are just trying to get the thread shut down because Francie and yourself lost so many points.

In more recent history, seeing as it was claimed the British killed 22,000 in South Africa 120 years ago, have you found out how the close to 1000 kids ended up in the sewage pit of the mother and child home from about 70 years ago in the little town of Tuam in Co. Galway, and how many other homes were run by the religious in Ireland? Would such atrocities have happened if the British were still here? Why did they not happen in the North- east part of the island?
Why is the murder rate per 100,000 from gunshots / violence much higher this past few decades in the 26 counties compared to the 6 counties, as Republicans call it?

So many questions relevant to Ireland, you do not need to be looking up to see what happened on the far side of the world.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

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

It's okay Rob, he was a racist, if folk admire him that's their choice. I mean they've a statue to Cromwell in England, one man's hero etc.

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

All empires (and there were many many different empires in the world) killed people at some stage or another but you cannot claim the British were worse than the Nazis. You are just trying to get the thread shut down because Francie and yourself lost so many points.

In more recent history, seeing as it was claimed the British killed 22,000 in South Africa 120 years ago, have you found out how the close to 1000 kids ended up in the sewage pit of the mother and child home from about 70 years ago in the little town of Tuam in Co. Galway, and how many other homes were run by the religious in Ireland? Would such atrocities have happened if the British were still here? Why did they not happen in the North- east part of the island?
Why is the murder rate per 100,000 from gunshots / violence much higher this past few decades in the 26 counties compared to the 6 counties, as Republicans call it?

So many questions relevant to Ireland, you do not need to be looking up to see what happened on the far side of the world.

Grand so :rolleyes:
Did the nuns have a shoot to kill policy? I don't recall details of their role in the troubles.

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

All empires (and there were many many different empires in the world) killed people at some stage or another but you cannot claim the British were worse than the Nazis. You are just trying to get the thread shut down because Francie and yourself lost so many points.

In more recent history, seeing as it was claimed the British killed 22,000 in South Africa 120 years ago, have you found out how the close to 1000 kids ended up in the sewage pit of the mother and child home from about 70 years ago in the little town of Tuam in Co. Galway, and how many other homes were run by the religious in Ireland? Would such atrocities have happened if the British were still here? Why did they not happen in the North- east part of the island?
Why is the murder rate per 100,000 from gunshots / violence much higher this past few decades in the 26 counties compared to the 6 counties, as Republicans call it?

So many questions relevant to Ireland, you do not need to be looking up to see what happened on the far side of the world.

Then why do you vote nationalist continually?

janfebmar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's okay Rob, he was a racist, if folk admire him that's their choice.

Churchills right hand man was an Irishman, and people from practically every country in the world served under him and found him fair. 100,000 Irishmen who served under him and who volunteered to do so, had no complaints.

janfebmar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

:
Did the nuns have a shoot to kill policy? I don't recall details of their role in the troubles.

You have shoot to kill on the brain, who did most of the shooting and bombing to kill during the troubles?

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

Churchills right hand man was an Irishman, and people from practically every country in the world served under him and found him fair. 100,000 Irishmen who served under him and who volunteered to do so, had no complaints.

So what Jan?

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then why do you vote nationalist continually?

I never said I vote nationalist continually. Sometimes I have voted independent or not at all. There is not a wide spectrum of candidates south of the border you know. Do you think unionist or conservative candidates stand for election here? You are even more clueless than I thought.

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

You have shoot to kill on the brain, who did most of the shooting and bombing to kill during the troubles?

The nuns from a base in Tuam?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Grand so :rolleyes:
Did the nuns have a shoot to kill policy? I don't recall details of their role in the troubles.

Didn't see Churchill or Hitler on the Bogside during the Troubles either, so why are they allowed on the thread but not the nuns?

Dytalus

I had a big post written going into why some former imperial territories have every right to hate Churchill, but that it's also fair to take note of the good he did. Good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good and all that. I even listed some of the awful things he did, and some of the good he did so people can make up their minds on which side of it they come down on. Then I countered the whole "Britain killed more people thing" because technically yes, but good lord is that an unfair comparison to make. I mean c'mon. Yeah the Empire did awful stuff and left a trail of atrocities behind it but really? Comparing it to the Nazis? A fairer comparison would be any other European empire that also lasted a hundred+ years. Use Belgium! Use France!

Then the cloudflare thing swallowed it up and now, frankly, I can't be bothered because it's ridiculous this even became a topic.

This all came out of bonfires... good lord.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Didn't see Churchill or Hitler on the Bogside during the Troubles either, so why are they allowed on the thread but not the nuns?

I know there's meager picking for you on here, but you could sit the odd one out surely?
Churchill was raised, (in relation to Jan's magical mystery tour of not wanting to acknowledge the British concentration camp I think), pointed out he was a racist. The nuns were raised, made light of it, (it being such a stretch in the realm of whataboutery). So what troubles you comrade?

blanch152

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.

What a meaningless statistical comparison.

Come to think of it, the Irish killed far more people based on racial superiority than the Nazis, if you count all the way back to when we were killing those nasty Milesians (or were they us?).

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I know there's meager picking for you on here, but you could sit the odd one out surely?

What does this mean?

James Brown

Dytalus wrote: »

I had a big post written going into why some former imperial territories have every right to hate Churchill, but that it's also fair to take note of the good he did. Good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good and all that. I even listed some of the awful things he did, and some of the good he did so people can make up their minds on which side of it they come down on. Then I countered the whole "Britain killed more people thing" because technically yes, but good lord is that an unfair comparison to make. I mean c'mon. Yeah the Empire did awful stuff and left a trail of atrocities behind it but really? Comparing it to the Nazis? A fairer comparison would be any other European empire that also lasted a hundred+ years. Use Belgium! Use France!

Then the cloudflare thing swallowed it up and now, frankly, I can't be bothered because it's ridiculous this even became a topic.

This all came out of bonfires... good lord.

It's folk twisting the laws of physics and whataboutery to avoid discussion IMO.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What does this mean?

You're not adding anything just picking to try score points IMO.

tipptom

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.

Truth becoming to inconvenient for you and your girlfriend?

British warmongers murdered more people than the Nazis ever did and the denial and deflection of British concentration camps is chilling but then again David Irving has a large following among the loyalist community.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

What a meaningless statistical comparison.

Come to think of it, the Irish killed far more people based on racial superiority than the Nazis, if you count all the way back to when we were killing those nasty Milesians (or were they us?).

Actually it's not B but you appear to have the blinkers on. The very valid points were made in relation to your point that we should feel shame for not fighting in WW2. I'll ignore the fact that we were not strictly neutral during this period.

So B the comparison is not meaningless. It highlights a one of the major rebuttals to your ascertain that we should have done something. We were already fighting an empire that operated from a position of perceived superiority, responsible for the deaths of millions. Looking alone at the Indian subcontinent we can see that the British reinforced the castes system, allowed 3 million to die in the Bengal famine and partitioned the country, resulting in 2 million dead and 12 million displaced. In fact during British rule in India 35 million people died due to famines. Did they see the native Indians as equals? Did they f2ck. This was reflected in their own version of the caste system.

So B in terms of social responsibly towards fighting a group of people who ruled and killed based on perceived superiority I think we did our part.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

I had a big post written going into why some former imperial territories have every right to hate Churchill, but that it's also fair to take note of the good he did. Good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good and all that. I even listed some of the awful things he did, and some of the good he did so people can make up their minds on which side of it they come down on. Then I countered the whole "Britain killed more people thing" because technically yes, but good lord is that an unfair comparison to make. I mean c'mon. Yeah the Empire did awful stuff and left a trail of atrocities behind it but really? Comparing it to the Nazis? A fairer comparison would be any other European empire that also lasted a hundred+ years. Use Belgium! Use France!

Then the cloudflare thing swallowed it up and now, frankly, I can't be bothered because it's ridiculous this even became a topic.

This all came out of bonfires... good lord.

There are fair comparisons to be made regardless of what the Nazis became.

Both used the same methods as previously outlined.
And significantly, both had equal disregard for the lives of those they subjugated. Be those lives Jewish, Indian Irish Polish etc.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

We were already fighting an empire

No were were not. And 100,000 brave Irishmen and women volunteered to fight with the British. The only Irish people fighting the British at the time was a tiny tiny percentage of odd ball Republicans, so small that when Dev shot 6 of them he had captured there was no outcry at all.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Didn't see Churchill or Hitler on the Bogside during the Troubles either, so why are they allowed on the thread but not the nuns?

Ah you'll find Hitler in plenty or loyalist areas if you look close enough.

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

No were were not. And 100,000 brave Irishmen and women volunteered to fight with the British. The only Irish people fighting the British at the time was a tiny tiny percentage of odd ball Republicans, so small that when Dev shot 6 of them he had captured there was no outcry at all.

You see J this point may or no be relevant but again, you've shot yourself in the foot by posting incoherent random opinions from anything ranging from nuns, the education system and your confusion for unionism and republican as reflected in your own voting. It's hard to take you seriously J.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

What does this mean?

I think the point being made Blanch is that you ignored pages of sectarianism directed at Catholics and the Irish language and instead chose to attack the people defending it. You're remarkably stating that the Irish didn't stand up to bigotry while defending it on this thread.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

. Be those lives Jewish, Indian Irish Polish etc.

You will find that hundreds of thousands of Jewish, Indian, Irish, Polish etc volunteered and fought with the British during the war. Who were the racists? More like the Nazis. Who did Republicans collaborate, or try to collaborate with again (except they were probably not good enough for that even)?

Dytalus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah you'll find Hitler in plenty or loyalist areas if you look close enough.

.....I. Cannot. Even.

I thought unionist areas flew Israel's flag to show support? And a number of the DUP support Israel as well. How do the guys flying this flag reconcile the clash?

janfebmar wrote: »

You will find that hundreds of thousands of Jewish, Indian, Irish, Polish etc volunteered and fought with the British during the war. Who were the racists? More like the Nazis. Who did Republicans collaborate, or try to collaborate with again (except they were probably not good enough for that even)?

You've heard of "lesser of two evils" and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", right? If Nazi Germany cropped up again, and I had a choice between joining a military of an old oppressor to squash a current fascist superpower it's not a particularly difficult choice. I'd go back to decrying the oppression once the matter at hand was dealt with though. (I probably actually wouldn't. I have enough physical health issues to know I'd never get accepted into the military ;-; )

I don't think this makes the point you think it is making.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No were were not. And 100,000 brave Irishmen and women volunteered to fight with the British. The only Irish people fighting the British at the time was a tiny tiny percentage of odd ball Republicans, so small that when Dev shot 6 of them he had captured there was no outcry at all.

We were engaged in fighting the empire between 1932 and 1938. It was called The Economic War or the Anglo-Irish Trade War.

There doesn't have to be bullets flying to be engaged in a fight with the British Empire.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

and your confusion for unionism and republican as reflected in your own voting. It's hard to take you seriously J.

I am not at all confused between unionist and nationalist old chap. As said before though, south of the border there are generally only nationalists to vote for, so sometimes I would vote for the least green one, and often vote based on other matters eg the economy or if I know the candidate or not. There is more to politics than the national question you know.

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

I am not at all confused between unionist and nationalist old chap. As said before though, south of the border there are generally only nationalists to vote for, so sometimes I would vote for the least green one, and often vote based on other matters eg the economy or if I know the candidate or not. There is more to politics than the national question you know.

There is indeed j but your inability to keep a straight fact between threads makes the rest of your posts hard to believe.

RobMc59

Careful Janfebmar,your continued heresy will incur the wrath of Ireland's own Thomas de torcquemada,well known for unmasking dastardly unionists and those who don't agree with him-i'll give you one guess!

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually it's not B but you appear to have the blinkers on. The very valid points were made in relation to your point that we should feel shame for not fighting in WW2. I'll ignore the fact that we were not strictly neutral during this period.

So B the comparison is not meaningless. It highlights a one of the major rebuttals to your ascertain that we should have done something. We were already fighting an empire that operated from a position of perceived superiority, responsible for the deaths of millions. Looking alone at the Indian subcontinent we can see that the British reinforced the castes system, allowed 3 million to die in the Bengal famine and partitioned the country, resulting in 2 million dead and 12 million displaced. In fact during British rule in India 35 million people died due to famines. Did they see the native Indians as equals? Did they f2ck. This was reflected in their own version of the caste system.

So B in terms of social responsibly towards fighting a group of people who ruled and killed based on perceived superiority I think we did our part.

At what point in World War 2 was Ireland already fighting "an empire that operated from a position of perceived superiority"?

Revisionsism at its worst.