RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The numbers game again. Quelle surprise.

Your pathological defence of the 'realm' is hilarious and pathetic most times. But sometimes it is disrespectful and downright sinister.

When you lose the argument and the facts and figures yet again, you make it personal. Quelle surprise.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

When you lose the argument and the facts and figures yet again, you make it personal. Quelle surprise.

Lose the argument?

You claimed

None complained they were used as "cannon fodder" or were treated unfairly.

Jesus are you gonna try and spin a win out of what has been linked to and proved since you claimed that?

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lose the argument?

You claimed



Jesus are you gonna try and spin a win out of what has been linked to and proved since you claimed that?

Post 3016 about "treated unfairly and cannon fodder " referred to ww2. Look it up.
Fact is, people were not discriminated against in the b a because they were Irish.
As you moved the goalposts to ww1, can you find any evidence of discrimination there? Out of 210,000 people who joined?
And because your cousins friend of an uncle saw a handwritten piece of paper in a house window in Kilburn in the fifties.....lol

Plumbthedepths

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lose the argument?

You claimed



Jesus are you gonna try and spin a win out of what has been linked to and proved since you claimed that?

As pointed out to me this individual is a WUM. The whole point of the thread was the attempted comemoration of the RIC/DMP/ Black and Tans. Not happening Leo and Charlie screwed up,now so all that's happening now is an attempt to rewrite other parts of our history. I wouldn't bother anymore tbh.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

Post 3016 about "treated unfairly and cannon fodder " referred to ww2. Look it up.
Fact is, people were not discriminated against in the b a because they were Irish.
As you moved the goalposts to ww1, can you find any evidence of discrimination there?
And because your cousins friend of an uncle saw a handwritten piece of paper in a house window in Kilburn in the fifties.....lol

You are confusing only yourself tbh.

If you can find where I said anything about a 'cousin', 'a house window in Kilburn' or an 'uncle', that would be good.

But you can't, you now have to depend on lying. People like you and Charlie Flanagan do that sort of thing...why...because you have to, in order to get the fantasy to fit the facts.

FrancieBrady

It is worth noting who supported this campaign on discrimination against Irish men in the British Army.

Ian Paisley Snr was one because the discrimination was Anti-All-Irish-men regardless of creed or political loyalties.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/uk-military-justice-was-anti-irish-secret-report-26211428.html

TO paraphrase the group name 'Shot At Dawn' - Flanagan and the fundl's of this world should be called 'Shot In the Foot' because they keep illuminating this stuff inadvertently and against their own intentions.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is worth noting who supported this campaign on discrimination against Irish men in the British Army.

Ian Paisley Snr was one because the discrimination was Anti-All-Irish-men regardless of creed or political loyalties.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/uk-military-justice-was-anti-irish-secret-report-26211428.html

TO paraphrase the group name 'Shot At Dawn' - Flanagan and the fundl's of this world should be called 'Shot In the Foot' because they keep illuminating this stuff inadvertently and against their own intentions.

That link is wrong, because it says the ratio for men shot for desertion etc in Irish units was less than 1 in 600.
26 × 600 = 15600. Yet elsewhere 210,000 Irish soldiers are mentioned.

In those days repeat deserters were shot. End of story. They probably should not have been, many were probably suffering from shell shock etc. Which is why the UK stopped shooting people for desertion in 1930. It was widespread in some other armies in WW2 though.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

That link is wrong, because it says the ratio for men shot for desertion etc in Irish units was less than 1 in 600.
26 × 600 = 15600. Yet elsewhere 210,000 Irish soldiers are mentioned.

In those days repeat deserters were shot. End of story. They probably should not have been, many were probably suffering from shell shock etc. Which is why the UK stopped shooting people for desertion in 1930. It was widespread in some other armies in WW2 though.

This sentence was directed at such as you...and the British.

The "stout" defence of the First World War military justice by the British Defence Ministry is described as "fundamentally flawed".

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This sentence was directed at such as you...and the British.

Your link is discredited straight away when it is out so much in the number of Irishmen who served. The figure was more like hundreds of thousands. The BBC says 210,000. 26 shot for desertion / cowardice is a few small figure out of 210,000, given the appalling conditions the men endured.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

Your link is discredited straight away when it is out so much in the number of Irishmen who served. The figure was more like hundreds of thousands. The BBC says 210,000. 26 shot for desertion / cowardice is a few small figure out of 210,000, given the appalling conditions the men endured.

You do know in you 'expertness' on this subject that not all Irish men went to 'Irish Units'?

Keep the bluff up here to avoid what has been clearly proved here.

Anti-Irish discrimination in the British Army that at it's worst resulted in 26 deaths that were apologised for. Who knows what other discrimination went on.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You do know in you 'expertness' on this subject that not all Irish men went to 'Irish Units'?

Keep the bluff up here to avoid what has been clearly proved here.

Anti-Irish discrimination in the British Army that at it's worst resulted in 26 deaths that were apologised for. Who knows what other discrimination went on.

The British shot a total of 306 men for desertion and cowardice in WW1. You do know that only 26 of them were Irish?

You remind me of the lad with a lisp who went to a BBC interview to apply to be a newsreader, and then cribbed about "discrimination" when he did not get the job.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

The British shot a total of 306 men for desertion and cowardice in WW1. You do know that only 26 of them were Irish?

You remind me of the lad with a lisp who went to a BBC interview to apply to be a newsreader, and then cribbed about "discrimination" when he did not get the job.

You said that none had a complaint. NONE.

Let's pick a few facts out of the article. Rmemebering that this is a BRITISH government report not an Irish one.

British military courts were anti-Irish and dispensed death sentences simply to set an example to the troops, according to a damning Government report on the firing squad executions of 26 Irishmen.

It says an examination of the cases is "starkly revealing" of treatment that it describes as "shocking", "inconsistent", "capricious" and "unpredictable".

report concludes the system had a racist bias against Irish soldiers which is described as "difficult to explain".

there was a disparity of justice between officers and enlisted men and Irishmen and other nationalities

controversial conclusion of ethnic and racist bias against Irish soldiers results from a comparison of recruitment figures and subsequent death sentences. It revealed a disparity in the treatment of Irish soldiers in comparison with those from other countries in the British army.

Not even the British government could deny...but you can. Bizarre and grotesque.

fundi

Of the 26 Irishmen who were executed, do you think any were guilty of desertion etc? Or was it only the 284 or so non-Irish people in the army who were executed who were the deserters?

Bear in mind the other 209974 Irishmen who joined the ba in WW1 were not executed for desertion or cowardice.

Also I was talking about the Irishmen who joined in WW2 being treated fairly. You moved the goalposts to ww1.

The UK abolished execution for desertion in 1930 I believe. WW2 was not until 1939.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

Of the 26 Irishmen who were executed, do you think any were guilty of desertion etc? Or was it only the 284 or so non-Irish people in the army who were executed who were the deserters?

Bear in mind the other 209974 Irishmen who joined the ba in WW1 were not executed for desertion or cowardice.

Also I was talking about the Irishmen who joined in WW2 being treated fairly. You moved the goalposts to ww1.

The UK abolished execution for desertion in 1930 I believe. WW2 was not until 1939.

Bizarre.

The RIC/DMP suffering must be honoured and commemorated...but mention suffering suffered by those who made the ultimate sacrifice for duplicitous Britain and it is negated and dismissed with futile, badly researched efforts to undermine.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The RIC/DMP suffering must be honoured and commemorated...but mention suffering suffered by those who made the ultimate sacrifice for duplicitous Britain and it is negated and dismissed with futile, badly researched efforts to undermine.

Rubbish. You are making stuff up yet again. Nobody is undermining those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their government except you.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

Rubbish. You are making stuff up yet again. Nobody is undermining those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their government except you.

You dismissed discrimination and ill treatment out of hand, again and again. 'There is no account' etc etc When there are numerous accounts, so many in fact that the British were forced to pardon and apologise after 90 years.

Have a bit of respect.


Nobody here denies that RMC/DMP members suffered and everybody thinks they should be recognised including the Expert Committee.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You dismissed discrimination and ill treatment out of hand, again and again. 'There is no account' etc etc When there are numerous accounts, so many in fact that the British were forced to pardon and apologise after 90 years.

.

Rubbish. It is well documented the 26 (out of 210,000) Irishmen were executed not because they were Irish but because of repeat desertion etc. By modern standards (after 1930 ) they should not have been executed, and execution of deserters was abolished then. It is acknowledged some of the 26 could have been suffering from shell shock etc.
The other 284 men executed in WW1 for desertion etc were English and other nationalities.

To get back to the original point, have you found any of the 100,000 irishmen who served in the forces in WW2 to have not been treated fairly.

James Brown

Fundi. Your idea that the Empire was just a well meaning bunch of lads ensuring we all spoke the same language because that's handy for immigration is funny and all, but Charlie Tan-agan and Leo Varadkar K.B.E. might have been shot themselves back in the day for treason in wanting the Irish state to commemorate the murderous rabble and their assistants with a state ceremony.

Odhinn

fundi wrote: »

Rubbish. It is(.................) fairly.

You might get back to me on the following

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112250138&postcount=2870

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

Rubbish. It is well documented the 26 (out of 210,000) Irishmen were executed not because they were Irish but because of repeat desertion etc. By modern standards (after 1930 ) they should not have been executed, and execution of deserters was abolished then. It is acknowledged some of the 26 could have been suffering from shell shock etc.
The other 284 men executed in WW1 for desertion etc were English and other nationalities.

To get back to the original point, have you found any of the 100,000 irishmen who served in the forces in WW2 to have not been treated fairly.

'Original point'? You only have a single point - Britain does no wrong.

Fionn1952

I'm usually fairly oblivious to re-reg or account renamed posters, but holy Mary, there's only one person Down these parts with such obvious repetitive, 'the British can do no wrong' arguments that I've ever spotted on the forums.

I've had my arguments and discussions with a few on here regarding the politics and history of this island, but I've never come across such deep head-in-the-sand, no compromise type of repeating the same tired points in different words as one particular poster.

weldoninhio

Zebra3 wrote: »

I can't say if these signs existed in England in the 80s, wouldn't be too hard to believe given how openly racist British society was at the time, but I can tell you there were signs like that at British bars in Spanish resorts in the 1990s.

There was one up on the door of Cream Nightclub in the English centre in Playa Del Ingles in 2000.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Original point'? You only have a single point - Britain does no wrong.

It done plenty of wrong, I never said it did not. So did all the other Empires, and probably countries, that ever existed. However not everyone has the unique hatred for it that you have, or condoned the IRA , both old IRA and the pIRA , like you do.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

It done plenty of wrong, I never said it did not. So did all the other Empires, and probably countries, that ever existed. However not everyone has the unique hatred for it that you have, or condoned the IRA , both old IRA and the pIRA , like you do.

Keep the lies going. Like Charlie Flanagan all you do is reveal yourself and your agenda.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Keep the lies going. Like Charlie Flanagan all you do is reveal yourself and your agenda.

When you lose the argument and the facts and figures are not to your liking, you revert to personal attacks. Quelle surprise.

Odhinn

fundi wrote: »

When you lose the argument and the facts and figures are not to your liking, you revert to personal attacks. Quelle surprise.

Could please answer the questions put to you?


The British ran colonies on racist & sectarian lines

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112250138&postcount=2870
Or are you going to deny it?

fundi

Odhinn wrote: »

Could please answer the questions put to you?


The British ran colonies on racist & sectarian lines

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112250138&postcount=2870
Or are you going to deny it?

Of course they did. So did all the other European countries at the time too.

Odhinn

fundi wrote: »

Of course they did. So did all the other European countries at the time too.

"others did it too" is no excuse and is a dodge,seeing as you seem to be adopting a softline on the british activities in their various colonies.

Junkyard Tom

fundi wrote: »

So did all the other European countries at the time too.

That's the 'appeal to common practice' fallacy. Stop doing that - it makes it look like you're trying to shield Britain from responsibility for its murderous colonial past.

You wouldn't be doing that deliberately now fundi would you? Because that's the kind of thing fundimentalists do.

Odhinn

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm usually fairly oblivious to re-reg or account renamed posters, but holy Mary, there's only one person Down these parts with such obvious repetitive, 'the British can do no wrong' arguments that I've ever spotted on the forums.

I've had my arguments and discussions with a few on here regarding the politics and history of this island, but I've never come across such deep head-in-the-sand, no compromise type of repeating the same tired points in different words as one particular poster.

Much the same as my conclusion. It seems to have been dealt with now anyhoo.