The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You asked regular posters as to whether they would consider a particular poster to have an unusual fixation.

About one single man = Dev.

I first defined what I would see as an unusual fixation, and concluded in the negative in respect of that poster.

That perfectly answered your question.

Fair enough, if you can conclude that. A search of these forums wouldn't back you up on that though, if you mention a British PM critically, the particular poster will revert to Dev, every time.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

About one single man = Dev.





Fair enough, if you can conclude that. A search of these forums wouldn't back you up on that though, if you mention a British PM critically, the particular poster will revert to Dev, every time.

I described an unusual fixation, he doesn't fit the description. End of.

If you want to discuss, dispute the description first. If you think that it is too narrowly defined, suggest a broader definition.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I described an unusual fixation, he doesn't fit the description. End of.

If you want to discuss, dispute the description first. If you think that it is too narrowly defined, suggest a broader definition.

Fair enough I said, you have your opinion, I have mine.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair enough I said, you have your opinion, I have mine.

And I have my opinion, and I think you are wrong again Francie, but you are entitled to your opinion.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

And I have my opinion, and I think you are wrong again Francie, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You have a peculiar ability to turn your face away when it suits you.
First you can ignore racism and white supremacy to confer greatness on a man who was actually massively lucky to be rescued from a massive retreat back to Britain.

Then you advance the theory that legal executions under a DeValera government are some how on a par or worse than multiple instances of summary execution of IRA members and innocent members of the public, under Thatcher.

To get back to the subject of the thread, is it any surprise that you see nothing wrong with the religious and political bigotry of the Orange Order?

janfebmar

First, I see Davycc is thanking your post yet again Francie - how come he only ever thanks your posts and never never posts anything himself?

I condemn racism and always have. Nobody is without their faults though. You may think that Churchill was racist towards the Irish but many Irish who met him would disagree, maybe 100,000 Irish served and volunteered for the war effort of which he was leader and I cannot recall anyone complaining they were treated unfairly. Churchill had an Irishman as his right hand man too.

Then you bring up the subject of the execution of IRA prisoners in Irish prison by Develera, and compare them to the situation of IRA men in Mrs Thatchers prisons, where no IRA men were executed. Your point being? You cannot compare IRA men killed in battle on "active service" as you call it with prisoners killed by firing squad in prison, where they cannot be a threat.

And your final point about the Orange Order, I do not agree with them marching where they are not wanted but other than that, I believe they can do what they want as long as it does not affect others. Ie I believe in freedom of worship and association as long as it is lawful, be it Opus Dei, the Catholic Church, the Orange Order or whoever.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

First, I see Davycc is thanking your post yet again Francie - how come he only ever thanks your posts and never never posts anything himself?

I condemn racism and always have. Nobody is without their faults though. You may think that Churchill was racist towards the Irish but many Irish who met him would disagree, maybe 100,000 Irish served and volunteered for the war effort of which he was leader and I cannot recall anyone complaining they were treated unfairly. Churchill had an Irishman as his right hand man too.

Yep, once again, janfebmar turns the face away, thinking for a minute that is an acceptable argument.

Then you bring up the subject of the execution of IRA prisoners in Irish prison by Develera, and compare them to the situation of IRA men in Mrs Thatchers prisons, where no IRA men were executed. Your point being? You cannot compare IRA men killed in battle on "active service" as you call it with prisoners killed by firing squad in prison, where they cannot be a threat.

I don't think the IRA objected to men dying on 'active service', but once again you turn your face from multiple shoot to kill incidents and the shooting dead of mistaken innocents.
At the VERY LEAST those under DeValera got a trial. A state claiming any legitimacy cannot involve itself in summary justice, ever. And the British state did it multiple times, not just under Thatcher.

And your final point about the Orange Order, I do not agree with them marching where they are not wanted but other than that, I believe they can do what they want as long as it does not affect others. Ie I believe in freedom of worship and association as long as it is lawful, be it Opus Dei, the Catholic Church, the Orange Order or whoever.

And again you turn your face away from the resolutions from the OO that I posted that shows they want cultural and political supremacy at the expense of others.

So no change in your arguments...just more proof of the denial you live in.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yep, once again, janfebmar turns the face away, thinking for a minute that is an acceptable argument.




I don't think the IRA objected to men dying on 'active service', but once again you turn your face from multiple shoot to kill incidents and the shooting dead of mistaken innocents.
At the VERY LEAST those under DeValera got a trial. A state claiming any legitimacy cannot involve itself in summary justice, ever. And the British state did it multiple times, not just under Thatcher.



And again you turn your face away from the resolutions from the OO that I posted that shows they want cultural and political supremacy at the expense of others.

So no change in your arguments...just more proof of the denial you live in.

I said I do not agree with the OO parading though an area where they are not now wanted , but how do the OO want cultural and political supremacy? What more do or did they do than the catholic church (with its ne temere) or opus dei you think?

You say the IRA did'nt object to their men dying on active service but then why were you whinging about Loughgall earlier today?

You have not answered why was it ok for Mrs T not to execute IRA men in prison but yet you do not condemn Develera for doing that ? Apart from saying he was notorious as soon as you found out that fact, which I told you and another poster, who did not know it either. Another case of everything British bad, everything Republican good with you?

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have a peculiar ability to turn your face away when it suits you.
First you can ignore racism and white supremacy to confer greatness on a man who was actually massively lucky to be rescued from a massive retreat back to Britain.

Then you advance the theory that legal executions under a DeValera government are some how on a par or worse than multiple instances of summary execution of IRA members and innocent members of the public, under Thatcher.

To get back to the subject of the thread, is it any surprise that you see nothing wrong with the religious and political bigotry of the Orange Order?

You just don`t get it francie and you never will.Every British person knows Britain was pushed back to Dunkirk by the lighting quick German attack,France had been overrun and the remnants of the French army were at Dunkirk with the British or had been captured or surrendered.For some reason the Germans hesitated which allowed the British to escape over the Channel,which is pretty good I`d say!-nobody here fools themselves it was "a glorious victory"!
Churchill was the figurehead who kept Britain fighting on in their darkest hour-if ,in your opinion that is pathetic,fine-I won`t loose any sleep over it as I`m aware of your opinion of Britain.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I said I do not agree with the OO parading though an area where they are not now wanted , but how do the OO want cultural and political supremacy? What more do or did they do than the catholic church (with its ne temere) or opus dei you think? {/QUOTE]

....and we deflect to the RCC when the OO is not a church or a religion.
Just another way from turning you face from the resolution where they say, that in order to protect their identity they oppose ANY legislation on the Irish language.

Their identity strengthened by denial of it to others, in other words.

You say the IRA did'nt object to their men dying on active service but then why were you whinging about Loughgall earlier today?

You have not answered why was it ok for Mrs T not to execute IRA men in prison but yet you do not condemn Develera for doing that ? Apart from saying he was notorious as soon as you found out that fact, which I told you and another poster, who did not know it either. Another case of everything British bad, everything Republican good with you?

They had the intelligence about the attack, they could have intercepted the van at any point but chose summary execution instead, killing an innocent man in the process.

To give someone a trial is infinitely more just and better than summary execution every single day of the week.

An 'educator' as vain as yourself should know this basic fundamental of democracy.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You just don`t get it francie and you never will.Every British person knows Britain was pushed back to Dunkirk by the lighting quick German attack,France had been overrun and the remnants of the French army were at Dunkirk with the British or had been captured or surrendered.For some reason the Germans hesitated which allowed the British to escape over the Channel,which is pretty good I`d say!-nobody here fools themselves it was "a glorious victory"!
Churchill was the figurehead who kept Britain fighting on in their darkest hour-if ,in your opinion that is pathetic,fine-I won`t loose any sleep over it as I`m aware of your opinion of Britain.

Nobody has said anything bad about what Churchill did in Britain's darkest hour Rob...relax.

But the fact is that he was incredibly lucky in succeeding because Hitler didn't have any plan to invade and others came to Britain's rescue with money(Britain was broke) and might.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has said anything bad about what Churchill did in Britain's darkest hour Rob...relax.

But the fact is that he was incredibly lucky in succeeding because Hitler didn't have any plan to invade and others came to Britain's rescue with money(Britain was broke) and might.

Britain was on the back foot and had some luck-Churchill capitalised on that which probably saved Britain from defeat-you`d do well to remember the fact Britain had to pay the US and cede territory to supply arms and help when you`re posting about the US backing Ireland.:pac:

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain was on the back foot and had some luck-Churchill capitalised on that which probably saved Britain from defeat-you`d do well to remember the fact Britain had to pay the US and cede territory to supply arms and help when you`re posting about the US backing Ireland.:pac:

My disgust is based on a modern Britain electing somebody with an avowed and recorded racist, white suprematist outlook because he essentially got lucky, I suppose. It wasn't a benign cuddly, man of his time racist and suprematist trait either, it resulted in may many thousands of deaths. But when your current PM is bandying about terms like 'picaninnies and watermelon smiles' I suppose we should expect nothing much more.
Will probably take a generation or two yet before Churchill gets his proper place in history.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But the fact is that he was incredibly lucky in succeeding because Hitler didn't have any plan to invade .

Yet again you have a very poor grasp of facts Francie, and an arrogance despite your poor grasp of history. You have been caught out yet again. The Nazis had a plan to invade Britain, it was called " Unternehmen Seelowe" (Operation Sea Lion). I read a book about about it once by a fellow called McKinstry, really interesting read.

Fionn1952

As you well know, in your constant series of half truths, Jan, Operation Sealion, while planned, was considered a last resort by Hitler, as it wasnt considered to have much chance of success.

Given the context of the conversation, there was no plan to invade Britain, with any realistic prospect of actually being attempted, let alone succeeding, at the time of Dunkirk. I believe, at the time, Hitler still hoped to sue for peace with Britain.

The background on Operation Sealion DOES make for a very interesting read though, I'll give you that.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Yet again you have a very poor grasp of facts Francie, and an arrogance despite your poor grasp of history. You have been caught out yet again. The Nazis had a plan to invade Britain, it was called " Unternehmen Seelowe" (Operation Sea Lion). I read a book about about it once by a fellow called McKinstry, really interesting read.

I'm sure there are many plans made by governments/rulers that are never undertaken. Germany simply hadn't the equipment present to do it.
The 'plan' that was favoured and implemented was Operation Barbarossa.
Had he invaded Britain, that one would have gathered dust.

You can have your opinion about something you heard on the telly, all you want. I have my opinion and Hitler never had any real intention of invading Britain, hemming them in was job done.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had the intelligence about the attack, they could have intercepted the van at any point .

It was actually a digger with a large bomb in its bucket which the team drove in to the police station and exploded which started the Loughgall attack / battle. If you were a security force member, would you have stood in the middle of the road an waved down an experienced and heavily armed team of 8 Gunmen who wanted to kill you, not knowing exactly how many there were or what direction they were coming from, and who had killed dozens of security force personnel and others already ? I think not.

The security forces waited until they (their base and people inside it, who were injured by the massive blast) were attacked first before returning fire. Nobody disputes that.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It was actually a digger with a large bomb in its bucket which the team drove in to the police station and exploded which started the attack / battle. If you were a security force member, would you have stood in the middle of the road an waved down an experienced and heavily armed team of 8 Gunmen who wanted to kill you, not knowing exactly how many there were or what direction they were coming from, and who had killed dozens of security force personnel and others already ? I think not.

There was an SAS team waiting for them who had monitored their activity jan.

Anecdotally and you can believe me or not, I had reason to be at the removal of their remains and all of them had a bullet wound under the cheek that exited through the back of the head...a finishing shot I think it is called in the soldiering trade. They were not interested in either stopping the attack or fair trials.

'

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My disgust is based on a modern Britain electing somebody with an avowed and recorded racist, white suprematist outlook because he essentially got lucky, I suppose. It wasn't a benign cuddly, man of his time racist and suprematist trait either, it resulted in may many thousands of deaths. But when your current PM is bandying about terms like 'picaninnies and watermelon smiles' I suppose we should expect nothing much more.
Will probably take a generation or two yet before Churchill gets his proper place in history.

OK francie,that`s us Brits told then...

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have my opinion and Hitler never had any real intention of invading Britain,

You claimed Hitler had no plan to invade Britain, I proved you wrong, the Nazis had a plan called Operation Sea Lion and I recommend you read a book on it, like I did. You have now adjusted your claim to "no real intention to invade" . You have not the graciousness to accept you were wrong yet again.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You claimed Hitler had no plan to invade Britain, I proved you wrong, the Nazis had a plan called Operation Sea Lion and I recommend you read a book on it, like I did. You have now adjusted your claim to "no real intention to invade" . You have not the graciousness to accept you were wrong yet again.

I'm sure the 'Nazis' planned many things but Hitler's interest was Russia and Operation Barbarossa...luckily for Churchill as I said.

downcow

janfebmar wrote: »

And your final point about the Orange Order, I do not agree with them marching where they are not wanted but other than that, I believe they can do what they want as long as it does not affect others. Ie I believe in freedom of worship and association as long as it is lawful, be it Opus Dei, the Catholic Church, the Orange Order or whoever.

Can someone give me a simple criteria to apply to ascertain when a parade is not wanted?

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm sure the 'Nazis' planned many things but Hitler's interest was Russia and Operation Barbarossa...luckily for Churchill as I said.

I know that was`nt the case and Jan has proved you wrong on this so best to leave it there.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Can someone give me a simple criteria to apply to ascertain when a parade is not wanted?

If somebody objects and the Parades Commission upholds their objection on the criteria in their terms. Here is their legally binding determination on one parade.

http://www.paradescommission.org/fs/files/det-district-no-2-20-july-13.pdf

The Rape of Lucretia

downcow wrote: »

Can someone give me a simple criteria to apply to ascertain when a parade is not wanted?

When a parade is by a conquering invader to remind the conquered of their place it is probably not wanted by the vanquished.
Which is also exactly where the interest in the parade lies for the conqueror.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I know that was`nt the case and Jan has proved you wrong on this so best to leave it there.

Sure she has.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure she has.

Sure I did, Francie. You said the Nazis had not a plan to invade Britain, I said they had, I gave you the name of it in both German and English and I gave you the author of one of the books analysing "Operation Sea Lion", the name of the detailed plan.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Sure I did, Francie. You said the Nazis had not a plan to invade Britain, I said they had, I gave you the name of it in both German and English and I gave you the author of one of the books analysing "Operation Sea Lion", the name of the detailed plan.

You did and you got told, military makes plans all the time. You also got told by another poster that it was never a serious plan and had many riders to it being implemented even if it was.

We can only surmise at this distance...your opinion and mine differ on whether Hitler was serious about it. I think he was always more serious and interested in Russia and O. Barborossa.

It is all tangential to the real point and fact, it never happened Hitler mde a tactical mistake and Britain and Churchill got lucky by virtue of that.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You did and you got told, military makes plans all the time.

Not the point. You said Hitler had no plan to invade Britain. I proved you wrong and gave you the name of the plan. Achieving air and naval superiority was the first part of the plan. The Germans came close to, but failed to achieve air superiority during the battle of Britain. Both the German navy and army undertook a major programme of preparations for an invasion, training troops, modifying vessels and transport methods, developing specialised weapons etc. A large number of barges and transport ships were gathered on the channel coast of ready for an invasion, but as the raf was not defeated in the first phase of the plan, the rest of the plan was postponed. For you Francie to claim there was never a plan, like you did, is just showing your ignorance. You now changed the goalposts to say oh, it was not a serious plan. Tell that to the battle of Britain pilots ( inc some Irishmen) who helped defeat the Germans in the air over the UK.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Not the point. You said Hitler had no plan to invade Britain. I proved you wrong and gave you the name of the plan. Achieving air and naval superiority was the first part of the plan. The Germans came close to, but failed to achieve air superiority during the battle of Britain. Both the German navy and army undertook a major programme of preparations for an invasion, training troops, modifying vessels and transport methods, developing specialised weapons etc. A large number of barges and transport ships were gathered on the channel coast of ready for an invasion, but as the raf was not defeated in the first phase of the plan, the rest of the plan was postponed. For you Francie to claim there was never a plan, like you did, is just showing your ignorance. You now changed the goalposts to say oh, it was not a serious plan. Tell that to the battle of Britain pilots ( inc some Irishmen) who helped defeat the Germans in the air over the UK.

God, do you ever stop the pedantic-ness?

To save readers I will ignore the above and make the main point again.

The invasion never happened and luckily for Britain - broke and on it's knees (nobody is denying the incredible heroism of the ordinary soldier) - benefited massively from luck and Hitler turning his attention to his real interest - Russia.

You can find something pedantic on there to focus on and to use to deflect from the main point,if you wish...it won't change the actual facts of history.