Comparison of Protestants to Nazis by McAlesse

pork99

hill16 wrote:

The UVF,UDA,LVF and Orange order have killed people because of thei religion just like the Nazis did. :mad:

They rounded up most of the Catholics in Northern Ireland, put them in cattle trucks and deported the to camps where they shot, gassed, or worked /starved them to death. So it's just the same as what the Germans did to the Jews :rolleyes:

Most of the time Mary thinks before she opens her mouth. Pity she didn't this time.

galactus

pork99 wrote:

They rounded up most of the Catholics in Northern Ireland, put them in cattle trucks and deported the to camps where they shot, gassed, or worked /starved them to death. So it's just the same as what the Germans did to the Jews :rolleyes:

Most of the time Mary thinks before she opens her mouth. Pity she didn't this time.

Why don't you try thinking before you open your mouth? Read what she actually said and her apology:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7473148

The issue is one of conditioning. Can you comprend that?

Stabshauptmann

true wrote:

No, but that was the clear implication. That is why there is so much controversy, and why she made an attempt at an apology.

There was an implication that some Protestants passed on their hatred to their children, that all Protestants do that was not implied and thus the apology, which was more of an elaboration and clarification. She balanced her remarks and appologised for the wide net people felt she threw. I never interpreted her remarks the way you do.

She drew attention to anti-catholic feeling in the North from "the people" there towards "Catholics”, in the context of the Nazi feelings towards Jews.

What she said has been quoted for you MANY times. She said "people" not "the people", or "Protestants" as you originally alleged she said. Misquoting seems to be your favorite tactic, and its laughable how you can complain about context. The context was hatred, and how it doesn’t just start but is passed to the next generation. Anti-Semitism is older than the English language and spread across 4 continents. I’m not saying its right, it most definitely isn’t but I’m putting it into context for you. Obviously something that old, getting stronger with each generation, is exponentially more intense than the hatred in the north, that’s why we must stop (consciously or otherwise) passing our prejudices on to the next generation.

She made no links between the intensity of these types of hatred and the intensity of Nazi hatred .

What an insult to non-Catholics as well as to Jews.

Remember those English lessons I recommended for you?
I’ve no idea what you were trying to say. Jews are non-Catholics. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, highlight the passage and Ill put it in simpler terms.
Are you saying that it is wrong of Catholics to equate their suffering to that of the Jews?? Of course it is, and I made no such equation, I said the exact opposite.

First, I do not have a sectarian nature, unlike our president it seems.

How can you call a woman who was endured so much suffering and who can then sit down at a table and talk with her persecutors as sectarian?
This is serious true; if you answer only one question answer that. How are you able to forget all her past work because of one unfinished sentence?

I would NOT liken the anti-Protestant hatred passed by Catholics to their children as being like the way the Nazis hated the Jews.

Nobody would because its not Nazi-like hatred, but all hatred has the same roots.

As regards Protestant doung their bit to fight Nazism , I said that Protestants done their fair share. You cannot deny that. They abhor Nazis, and are not like them.

Dear god you're worse than a stuck record. You seem unable to rephrase or expand on that sentence so I’m inclined its some sort of knee-jerk, indoctrinated response.
Protestantism was the main religion in Germany at the start of WW2 and still is. I said that in my last post but in a more subtle way, you obviously don’t get subtlety as evident else where in your post. I know you didn’t mean protestants worldwide, because protestants fought on both sides, as did Catholics. Obviously you meant unionists in NI but the fact that you automatically assume all protestants are unionists and visa versa shows that you have a tribal, sectarian out look.

You keep good company. The rest of your statement is as phoney, I am sure.

Yes. You saw how illogical that scenario would be and concluded logically that it could not have happened. Applying that same logic, that a racist would not condemn bigotry, we can be reasonably sure Mary McAleese isn’t a racist. Of course there is far more obvious and concrete evidence: Her meetings with members of the UDA, DUP and orange order. Her numerous calls for unity and forgiveness etc.

She is not, and you are displaying ignorance here.

Look up the divine right of kings and you'll see that ignorance on this point lies not with me. Remember I said monarch, a generic term you in your tribal mind equated that to mean the English queen the same way you equated people to mean all protestants.

I thought you would have said the Pope was Gods rep. on Earth ?

Once again you have shown your sectarianism and tribalism. I'm not a catholic. I’m a new age spiritualist and have called on several occasions for a forum to discuss my beliefs with people of a like or open mind. Now, you who called for the resignation of McAleese for ambiguity which might be insulting, what redress do you offer me?

Space and patience dictate that you do not mention everything that is not directly relevant to the point being made.

It is very relevant. I showed you the vices of the 3 principal allies and you ignored one and showed your ignorance of the other two.
If I make a valid point you can’t argue and you don’t offer a rebuttal then I take it (as most ppl would) that you concede the point. It is courtesy to say so but none the less you have conceded points. That you pounce upon my courtesy when I concede points as a sign of stupidity or weakness you show you immature and hostile nature.

There is no possible way that could have been derived from what I said, you are inventing arguments and attaching my name to it in order to discredit me.
The set X is a subset of N. The set X does not equal the entire set N. The element C for example, is an element of N but not an element of X. Its is not logical or correct to then assume the set X = N-C.
If that’s all too complicated for you, then you need help in math as well as history and English.

More gobbledygook.

It’s called math and its fundamental stuff. Anyone who so much as sat the junior cert should be familiar with it. You cannot dismiss it because it is too complicated for you.

So you admit not ALL protestants are brought up to hate Catholics

I have repeatedly tried to tell you that I don’t believe all protestants are brought up to hate Catholics and that Mary McAleese doesn’t believe this either.

and at least some Catholics are brought up to hate Protestants and / or the British ?

That’s EXACTLY what I said, yes. When you asked what would happen if the queen condemned hatred of all tings British in the RoI I told you she'd have a point. So would McAleese if you paid any attention to even a small portion of what she says.

Dev no more knew about Nazi death camps than America or Britain knew when they refused Jewish refugees. Not knowing about a very well kept secret was not "Something fairly unique in the world."

Rubbish.

Are you saying he knew something the allies didn’t when they refused Jewish refugees?
You condemned him for making Ireland neutral, a policy drawn up by definition before the war.

It was months since Auchwitz was liberated when Dev went to sign the book of condolences for the death of leader of Nazism. More than a few Germans at this point in history detested Hitler, for what he had done. But not Dev.

I wont repeat this a third time, if you want to act like an intelligent person and have a debate I will but if all you want to do is repeat yourself over and over Ill leave you to it. You say Dev didn’t detest Hitler because he signed the book of condolence. Because Ireland was neutral Dev had some what of an obligation to sign it. As for Auschwitz, what date did Dev sign the book. I did a quick Google but got no results.

How many Jewish refugees were let in here after the war? 200 children , but only on condition that they stayed for 2 years only, and providing the Jews here looked after them.

What one side did is ok so long as the other side did it too? I was hoping you’d say that. Its ok for Britain not to welcome Jews since Ireland was very welcoming either according to you. Like wise it’s ok for the IRA to accept aid from an oppressive régime since Britain whom they fought did the same by seeking aid from Stalin.

Stabshauptmann

You think it is just opinion when I said "There is a difference between two independent countries co-operating to fight Nazism ( i.e. UK giving supplies to Russia ) , and a terrorist / terrorist group plotting with the Nazi regime. "

Yes, it’s your opinion. The facts are that in both cases two militaries sought help from the enemy of their enemy who turned out to be cruel oppressors.

The terrorist group in question , the IRA, had very little support during the war ( Dev even executed some IRA ). The morality of the IRA collaboratity with the Nazi regime, against the wishes of the Irish people, leaves a lot to be desired. Did not Russell, the IRA man , die on a U-boat? He did.

A) Many IRA men fought against the fascists in Spain.
Dev executed them via military tribunals.
C) There is a distinction between state and government. Russell sought help from the German military.
D) Fighting the British during WW2 is little different from fighting them during WW1 or the Napoleonic wars. You argue the difference is that Britain this time was fighting a just war, nobody knew that.

Typical.

Informed and logical, yes quite typical of me

I said we live in a democracy because of the actions of the UK, US and Russia ( along with help from people from some other countries, in case you get exact, like Australia ) in defeating Nazism. If the US, UK and Russia had not stood up to Fascism we would not live in a democracy. What do you do : go off on a irrelevant Provo tangent.

The PIRA was formed in 1969. I never mentioned them.
I mentioned the 1916 rising, the Anglo Irish war and democracy by the people.
There is little reason to believe Ireland would be the next target. What is likely is that were it not for the IRA the blue shirts would have gained a stronger foothold in Ireland. had the IRA not fought in Spain and showed a large opposition to the blue shirts they might have well fought for Hitler as well.

I never heard the line "Protestants under the floor boards". There are no Protestants under the floor boards as far as I am aware.

While I don’t support the DUP I do feel it necessary to listen to them, they represent the majority of unionists in NI. Peace can’t survive without meaningful dialogue. I don’t think anyone really believes there was a mass genocide of Protestants in Ireland between 1920-1930 and that it’s a state secret.

You gave two reasons for the decline, and you NOW admit that the two reasons you gave cannot explain the decline.

No, I gave the main two reasons and admit there were other reasons but still maintain they were not primary motivators. I didn’t know there was an absolute decline and am still looking for sources.

You ignore the house burnings, the intimidation, the killings, the incidents like Fethard on Sea etc. Oh, the only discrimination / sectarianism / sabotage in Ireland at the time occurred in N. Ireland.

Are you blind as well as tribal, sectarian, immature, irrational, needing lessons in English, math and history?
I said "intimidation of large estate owners did happen ". How did I then ignore intimidation and house burnings?

meglome

It's really all a storm in a teacup... blown out of all proportion by the media. Sure she should have qualified her remarks but that was all.

One thing I will say though is that I got a UTV Internet connection at home a few years back and started reading the forums on the regular basis. The amount of anti-catholic and especially anti-southern sentiment was amazing/shocking. Basically anything from the south was second class or second rate by a big chuck of the people who posted on them. It didn't matter what it happened to be about. For all some of those who posted knew we in the "Free State" were still riding around on donkeys and going to the outside toilet. It's still like that today. What I found amazing was that I really think a lot of them believed it, that the south is a second rate banana republic. Now I've been to the North, I enjoyed the visits and I liked the people but if there is a second rate nation on this island it isn't down south. Anyways not to get off topic but the fact is there is a section of the community in the North who are obviously teaching their children hate just as Mary McAleese said.

seamus

meglome wrote:

It's really all a storm in a teacup... blown out of all proportion by the media. Sure she should have qualified her remarks but that was all.

That's what I was going to say. Slight gaffe that she failed to qualify the entire statement, but her intent was obvious. It clearly wasn't an attack on Protestants directly, more an example of how the kind of hatred that brought the Nazis about is still alive and well all over the world.
It proves perfectly that none of the groups in the North are ready to move on when they pounce on this and use minor pedantry as an excuse to push their own agenda, and claim that they're oppressed by the other side. No group in the North has grown up. Lets just cut it off and let it float away.

monument

true wrote:

It is a loaded question : "Do you have a reason for down playing mistreatment of Catholics by the state" because I do or did not downplay the mistreatment of Catholics by the state. I told you some facts about Catholics in N. Ireland : why do you not challenge these facts if you want to challenge me, instead of asking me why do I do something which I do not.

Because nobody here was making out that every single catholic in the north was mistreated, but you continue to downplay any mistreated by using examples of a few people you know, so my question still stands.

true wrote:

It was implied in many of your statements eg

No, it was not implied; if you have any confusion with what I write in the future please ask for clarification, do not presume such things.

This also applies to most of the rest of your post – although in some places you’re continuing to rely on my older posts even when I’ve clarified my position.

I’ll clarify it once more just for you – I have not said that anyone was like the Nazis (in the way the Nazis carried out their actions) but the basic mindset of hatred and an idea that one’s kind is better then other people, is basically the same.

true wrote:

No. If you want to see state mistreatment of its people, and those of neighbouring countries, have a look at Nazi Germany.

The greater (or greatest) wrong or crime does not excuse any lesser wrongs or crimes.

That’s pretty much as far as I’m going to debate with you if you’re going to justify one wrong by citing a greater (or even the greatest) wrong.

true

Necromancer wrote:

Are you blind as well as tribal, sectarian, immature, irrational, needing lessons in English, math and history?

OOOOhhh I have been called many things before but none of the above. I can assure you, unlike certain people ( note I say "unlike certain people", not "unlike people" which would completely alter the meaning of the sentence ) in Ireland I well educated , non-sectarian and rational. My "math" may be rusty, but at least I got an honour in it in the leaving.

Regarding history, there are a few things I corrected you on already. May I take the liberty of correcting you on a few more, as you fail to grasp a few of the basics:



You say "C) There is a distinction between state and government. Russell sought help from the German military"
The point was he / the IRA collaborated with the Nazi, and invited them to invade Ireland. Russell died on a u-boat. During WW2, did the distinction between German state and German government mean that much of relevance?

D) Fighting the British during WW2 is little different from fighting them during WW1 or the Napoleonic wars. You argue the difference is that Britain this time was fighting a just war, nobody knew that.

Was WW1 not a just war ? Was Germany not the attacking force? Both armys fought under the general rules of the Geneva convention in most regards, took prisoners etc. Re. the Napoleonic wars, you do not think resisting and fighting France was a just war? Regarding your comment that "this time Britain was fighting a just war, nobody knew that" , I really had to laugh out loud ! The 120,000 men from Ireland who volunteered and fought with Britain knew that. The people who watched Hitler invading countries like Poland , Holland etc knew that....especially the people in those countries that were neutral until Hitler invaded them ! The people who saw some Jewish property being destroyed in thirties Germany, who saw Jewish refugees leaving Germany in their thousands before the war...they knew that.
Ireland only let in about sixty refugees then, as far as I know, and 200 children on a temporary ( 2 year ) basis after the war, as long as the Jewish community here looked after them for the 2 years.



You say "Protestantism was the main religion in Germany at the start of WW2 and still is. I said that in my last post but in a more subtle way, you obviously don’t get subtlety as evident else where in your post."

Actually , I never asked or cared what you thought the main religion in Germany was. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestanism have nearly an equal share of adherants. Actually Hitler wwas a Catholic, as was Mussolini, and as were the vast majority of axis soldiers from countries, Austia and Italy. It does not really make any difference, but seeing as Mrs McAleese compare Northern Protestants with the Nazis, it is as well to clarify the point and say at least Northern Protestants played their part ,as part of a state which fought the Nazis.



You say : Obviously you meant unionists in NI but the fact that you automatically assume all protestants are unionists and visa versa shows that you have a tribal, sectarian out look.

I never assumed ALL protestants are unionists in N. Ireland : I know some who are not. Likewise I know quite a few Catholics who support the union with Britain. Again, I do not have a tribal, sectarian outlook : far from it in fact.



You say What one side did is ok so long as the other side did it too? I was hoping you’d say that. Its ok for Britain not to welcome Jews since Ireland was very welcoming either according to you.

You wrote the above in reply to a statement about the small number of Jewish refugees let in here ( to Ireland ). What are you talking about, what one side side is ok so long,,,,? Britain did welcome Jews and refugees to a far greater extent than Ireland.



You say Like wise it’s ok for the IRA to accept aid from an oppressive régime since Britain whom they fought did the same by seeking aid from Stalin.

You think it was OK for the IRA to accept aid / invite Germany to invade Ireland / collaborate with Nazi Germany since Britain ( whom the IRA "fought" during this period you say) "seeked aid from Stalin".

Em , was it not the orther way round? I know someone who was on the arctic route during the war delivery supplies to Russia from Britain. What aid did Stalin give Britain , apart from being allies in WW2 ? I thought Stalin was the leader of a country which was vicously invaded by the Nazis? How would it justify a small terrorist group from Ireland collaborating with the Nazi regime?



You said The line "Protestants under the floor boards" is a line that has been used by the DUP for as long as I can remember.

I am still puzzled by this. When asked, your explanation for this line is as follows :
While I don’t support the DUP I do feel it necessary to listen to them, they represent the majority of unionists in NI. Peace can’t survive without meaningful dialogue. I don’t think anyone really believes there was a mass genocide of Protestants in Ireland between 1920-1930 and that it’s a state secret.

I believe it is necessary to listen to them as well, but I have never heard your phrase "Protestants under the floor boards". I find it absurd that anyone would believe there was mass genocide of Protestants in Ireland and that they are hidden under the floorboards. Some were killed yes, but not in secret and they are not buried under any floorboards. A day or two ago you claimed "Yes, I remember I was at a KKK meeting in America’s deep south " and you had a quote from it. Now you have a suspicous phrase that you say is quoted regularly by the DUP ?




You said earlier Britain "civilised" the world. The old British aristocracy was based on the system of innate superiority. Why the monarch is god’s representative on earth didn’t you know.
This is why I replied politely I thought you would have said the Pope was Gods rep. on Earth ?
To which you replied to me ( in bold, iunderlined letters, if you dont mind) Once again you have shown your sectarianism and tribalism. I'm not a catholic. I’m a new age spiritualist and have called on several occasions for a forum to discuss my beliefs with people of a like or open mind. Now, you who called for the resignation of McAleese for ambiguity which might be insulting, what redress do you offer me?

To which I reply to you, I can assure you , yet again, I am not tribal or sectarian. I wish you would stop making these personal insults. They are getting tiresome. Then again when a President brands a whole community as being sectarian, what hope do the masses have ?
Please read my words carefully. There was no sectarian attack or venom in them . I just replied to you comment about the monarch is Gods rep on eath dont you know. There are monarchies in various countries around the world, Catholic and Protestant. I assume you are talking about the Queen of Britain as you were talking about Britain in the phrase before this. If you knew a bit at all, you would know that the Queen never claimed to be Gods rep. on Earth. So why do you make irrelevant digs at the British monarch / the Queen ? Who is sectarian now? It does not bother me.
The reason I said to you in reply, thats all, I thought you would have said the Pope was Gods rep. on Earth ? , was because probably well over 90% of people in this state would believe that if anyone was Gods rep on Earth, the Pope is. I have no problem with that either. It does not bother me. I wrote " I thought ", I did not write " I know " or "the fact is ". Nor did I write anything vaguely insulting or belittling about the Pope, nor would I. All this despite the fact you made personal attacks on me, my alledged sectarianism, tribalism, english, math(s), history etc etc.

Perhaps if anyone owes anyone an apology you owe me one.

true

monument wrote:

true said "No. If you want to see state mistreatment of its people, and those of neighbouring countries, have a look at Nazi Germany".

monument replied : "The greater (or greatest) wrong or crime does not excuse any lesser wrongs or crimes. That’s pretty much as far as I’m going to debate with you if you’re going to justify one wrong by citing a greater (or even the greatest) wrong. "

I agree that the greater ( or greatest ) wrong or crime does not excuse any lesser wrongs or crimes. I never said it did excuse lesser crimes or wrongs.
Likewise, I never justified one wrong by citing a greater ( or even the greatest ) wrong.

As I said earlier, If I was giving the world an example of hatred, on the day of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auchwitz , I would not draw paralels between Natiz attitudes to Jews and THE PEOPLE of Northern teaching their children to hate Catholics. If you ever went to a camp in Germany, and saw the ovens, the gas chambers, the instruments of torture, the statistics, the photos, then you would understand. Not all people in Northern Ireland taught / teach their children to hate Catholics, as as far as I know it seldom resulted in them being rounded up in cattle trucks and sent to concentration or extermination camps. Perhaps Mrs. McAleese only got her tour of Auchwitz after she opened her mouth.

true

meglome wrote:

One thing I will say though is that I got a UTV Internet connection at home a few years back and started reading the forums on the regular basis. The amount of anti-catholic and especially anti-southern sentiment was amazing/shocking. Basically anything from the south was second class or second rate by a big chuck of the people who posted on them. It didn't matter what it happened to be about. For all some of those who posted knew we in the "Free State" were still riding around on donkeys and going to the outside toilet. It's still like that today. What I found amazing was that I really think a lot of them believed it, that the south is a second rate banana republic. Now I've been to the North, I enjoyed the visits and I liked the people but if there is a second rate nation on this island it isn't down south. Anyways not to get off topic but the fact is there is a section of the community in the North who are obviously teaching their children hate just as Mary McAleese said.

I agreewith most of what you say. However, there are also a lot of forums which I have seen ( not on UTV internet ) , and I am not talking about this website, which are very very republican, and justify real and provo IRA atrocities etc., way past the point of ant Northern Protestant and anti-Btit sentiment. Like you, what I found amazing was that a lot of them believe all the talk about the army of occupation etc. Some are Noraid supporters from the states, some continuity IRA supporters, some Real IRA supporters, some provo. IRA supporters, from North and South. If some children are being taught to hate, it is not just the Protestant children. There are good and bad on both sides.

landser

true wrote:

You say Like wise it’s ok for the IRA to accept aid from an oppressive régime since Britain whom they fought did the same by seeking aid from Stalin.

You think it was OK for the IRA to accept aid / invite Germany to invade Ireland / collaborate with Nazi Germany since Britain ( whom the IRA "fought" during this period you say) "seeked aid from Stalin".

Em , was it not the orther way round? I know someone who was on the arctic route during the war delivery supplies to Russia from Britain. What aid did Stalin give Britain , apart from being allies in WW2 ? I thought Stalin was the leader of a country which was vicously invaded by the Nazis? How would it justify a small terrorist group from Ireland collaborating with the Nazi regime?
QUOTE]

actually, stalin was an ally of the Nazis until june 1941. true, i've read your comments here and elsewhere and i'm afraid your lack of historical knowledge is frightening. i'm sure you know a load about the North, but you know sweet FA about anything else. the points you make seem to be based on anecdotal evidence your own assumptions and from your own trip to Dachau, which makes for a criminally poor historical analysis. you quote figures without back up, and are generally argumentative and unreceptive to others comments. at this stage i hope you're trolling, cos if not then you really haven't a clue.

if i'm banned for this, is was worth it

A Dub in Glasgo

I am finding the following makes better use of my resources and time. It is the first time I have ever put anybody on ignore and he is the only one.

This message is hidden because true is on your ignore list.

As for the original topic, some people really go out of their way to try and be offended. McAleese could have worded it better but, fundamentally, what she said was true.

As meglone says 'Storm in a teacup'.

pablo321

elvenscout742 wrote:

SNIP they weren't as infamously slaughtered as Jews of Gypsies). He sought to exterminate the Jewish RACE, not religion..

The "Jewish Race" would historically be mostly Semite, this would also includes Jews and also Muslim/Christian Arabs mostly from around Palestine and a few other areas in the ME as far as I know.

It also bugs me when people say anti-Semitic, this should mean being against Seimites, which would include both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Anyway Hitler hatred was for the Jews relgion and not the Semite race, as he did not show the same hostility against the Muslims in Palestine. Although they obviously would not be Ayrans.

Pablo

cdebru

the only problem is she left out the word some
she did not say that protestants were nazis or that the treatment of catholics in the North had been as bad as what the jews had suffered at the hands of the nazis

we all know she meant some people not every unionist/protestant

the joke is the orange order and the dup being offended by her comments
maybe the uvf uda lvf shankill butchers should look for an apology as well

while some catholics are sectarian as well the difference is that unionist set up a state based on discrimination and actively prevented catholics representation
loyalist paramilitaries conducted a campaign of violence against catholics which by and large did not happen against protestants with some notable exceptions( the random killing of innocent protestants was not a feature
of the IRA/INLA campaigns in the way loyalist paramilitaries conducted their campaign)

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

while some catholics are sectarian as well the difference is that unionist set up a state based on discrimination and actively prevented catholics representation

In fairness that situation has changed now in that its difficult to actively discriminate in the North( unless its in the psni where there is of course an active policy of recruiting more catholics than protestants into the force when you take account of their proportion of the population -afaik the anti descrimination laws had to be changed for that), though maybe not the mindset.

Wasnt there a village in co Wexford (Blackwater I think) where all protestant business were boycotted by the local catholics due to some local lad marrying a protestant and the kids being brought up as protestants.
The local parish priest was instrumental in the boycott.
That was in the 1950's it wouldnt happen in 2005 in the south as most people couldnt give a hoot what religion you have or none.

Its different up north though, people have kept the prejudice in the mindset going because they want the next generation to vote the way the last one did.
Luckilly theres been many many legislative steps to ensure that it only stays in the mindset(expressed in violence at times) but not in the work place etc.

But down here we have long since moved on in the vast majority of cases.

BolBill

Maybe Mary should stick to getting her hair done every other day and blowing 7 million in Tax payers money every year.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

In fairness that situation has changed now in that its difficult to actively discriminate in the North( unless its in the psni where there is of course an active policy of recruiting more catholics than protestants into the force when you take account of their proportion of the population -afaik the anti descrimination laws had to be changed for that), though maybe not the mindset.

Wasnt there a village in co Wexford (Blackwater I think) where all protestant business were boycotted by the local catholics due to some local lad marrying a protestant and the kids being brought up as protestants.
The local parish priest was instrumental in the boycott.
That was in the 1950's it wouldnt happen in 2005 in the south as most people couldnt give a hoot what religion you have or none.

Its different up north though, people have kept the prejudice in the mindset going because they want the next generation to vote the way the last one did.
Luckilly theres been many many legislative steps to ensure that it only stays in the mindset(expressed in violence at times) but not in the work place etc.

But down here we have long since moved on in the vast majority of cases.

fethard on sea in wexford
while the 26 county state was undoubtedly a priest ridden state whose politicians cowed to the wishes of the catholic church
it was not set up to be sectarian its aim was not to deprive protestants of their rights
the same is not true of the 6 county state

while i agree that the situation has changed in the north the mindset among some unionists has not changed

goin'_to_the_PS

there always trying to find something wrong with everything. School children being abused while waking to school is nearly as bad as what nazis did

cdebru

goin'_to_the_PS wrote:

there always trying to find something wrong with everything. School children being abused while waking to school is nearly as bad as what nazis did

while those people who did that are complete scumbags it is a big stretch to compare it to the holocaust

Hairy Homer

true wrote:

It surely must go down as the insult of the century. She has insulted not only Protestants ( who did at least their fair bit in ridding Europe of Nazism ) , Jews, and those of all creeds who fought Nazism.

What the F*** do you mean by that? I suggest you pay a visit to the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial in Jerusalem and take a stroll down the Avenue of the Righteous Gentiles. It's a path lined by trees, each of which has the name of a non Jew who risked their lives, and often lost them, trying to help the Jewish people in the holocaust. Oskar Schindler is perhaps the most famous name there.

Count the number of roman catholic priests (usually with Polish names) whose names are on trees.

You will need more than a full set of fingers.

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

while those people who did that are complete scumbags it is a big stretch to compare it to the holocaust

I'm reading her comments in the original post, and I don't see where she did compare it to the holocaust.

She compared the hatred that was taught in Northern Ireland to the hatred being taught 50-odd years ago, not the other actions of either the generation who was doing the teaching, or the generation who was taught.

She also compared it to the current teaching of hatred of different colour, but I don't see people jumping up and saying that she was also comparing either :

The holocaust to current-day racism
or
Current-day Racism to a past situation in the North.

So I'm inclined to agree with the "storm in a teacup" side on this one.

jc

bonkey

true wrote:

She did say "Protestants", NOT "some Protestants".

Yes she did.

Watch this :

"People died in both World Wars"

Now...am I saying that everyone in the world was killed in each of the world wars?

The omission of a quantifier does not automatically imply that it refers to all.

it is all a bit much.

For those eager to be offended, no doubt it is.

As a taxpayer in the Irish republic, I demand her resignation.

You have that right. You have no reason to expect anything to be done about it, but if it makes you feel better....demand away.

jc

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

I'm reading her comments in the original post, and I don't see where she did compare it to the holocaust.

She compared the hatred that was taught in Northern Ireland to the hatred being taught 50-odd years ago, not the other actions of either the generation who was doing the teaching, or the generation who was taught.

She also compared it to the current teaching of hatred of different colour, but I don't see people jumping up and saying that she was also comparing either :

The holocaust to current-day racism
or
Current-day Racism to a past situation in the North.

So I'm inclined to agree with the "storm in a teacup" side on this one.

jc

i was not suggesting she did quite the opposite
i was replying to the previous comment about the schoolchildren being abused

other than that i agree with you storm in a teacup

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Yes she did.

Watch this :

"People died in both World Wars"

Now...am I saying that everyone in the world was killed in each of the world wars?

The omission of a quantifier does not automatically imply that it refers to all.




jc

actually she did not say protestants she said people in northern Ireland

we know she meant protestants but she did not say it
we know she meant some but she did not say it


she did not have to use either word as what she meant was obvious

true

landser wrote:

actually, stalin was an ally of the Nazis until june 1941. true, i've read your comments here and elsewhere and i'm afraid your lack of historical knowledge is frightening. i'm sure you know a load about the North, but you know sweet FA about anything else. the points you make seem to be based on anecdotal evidence your own assumptions and from your own trip to Dachau, which makes for a criminally poor historical analysis. you quote figures without back up, and are generally argumentative and unreceptive to others comments. at this stage i hope you're trolling, cos if not then you really haven't a clue.

if i'm banned for this, is was worth it

Landser : I never said stalin was or was not an ally of the Nazi until june 1941.
Someone else thought Britain got aid from Stalin in WW2 , and I pointed out the aid went in ships the other way . This is a well known fact of WW2. Yet you, in you ignorance, launch in to a personal and insulting attack against me.
I hope you are banned, because you are clearly the one who has not a clue.

true

Originally Posted by true
"It surely must go down as the insult of the century. She has insulted not only Protestants ( who did at least their fair bit in ridding Europe of Nazism ) , Jews, and those of all creeds who fought Nazism"

Hairy Homer wrote:

What the F*** do you mean by that? I suggest you pay a visit to the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial in Jerusalem and take a stroll down the Avenue of the Righteous Gentiles. It's a path lined by trees, each of which has the name of a non Jew who risked their lives, and often lost them, trying to help the Jewish people in the holocaust. Oskar Schindler is perhaps the most famous name there.

Count the number of roman catholic priests (usually with Polish names) whose names are on trees.

You will need more than a full set of fingers.

I never said Roman Catholics didnot fight the Nazis. Of course they did. About 70,000 went from the 26 counties to join the British army, and fight the Nazis. Nobody cared what religion you were. It was not a religous war against Germany / Italy , even though Hitler and Mussolini were both Catholics.
Yes, many Catholic ( and Protestant ) priests did play an honourable part in saving some Jews. So did agnostics and atheists I am sure. What difference does it make? Not all Germans were Nazi, not all Catholics are IRA sympathisers and not all Protestants are UVF sympathisers.

landser

true wrote:

Landser : I never said stalin was or was not an ally of the Nazi until june 1941.
Someone else thought Britain got aid from Stalin in WW2 , and I pointed out the aid went in ships the other way . This is a well known fact of WW2. Yet you, in you ignorance, launch in to a personal and insulting attack against me.
I hope you are banned, because you are clearly the one who has not a clue.

you stated that the nazi's were a viscious regime, which is true. the birts helped the soviets (who did most of the fighting post '41) to defeat the nazis. however, the soviets were equally as viscious, but this point seems lost on you. the point is that it was no more morally right for the allies to fight with the soviets against the nazi's than it would have been for the allies to fight with the nazi's against the soviets.

i questioned your knowledge of history as you do not have one. i would love to get into a debate with you about such matters, but you seem utterly incapable of reasoned argument, and instead, post in a series of soundbytes quoting unsubtantiated stats, and getting argumentative.

i firmly believe that you signed up to boards just to troll. i have never put any other user on an ignore list until now. there'sno talking to you.

cheerio

BolBill

Tut tut Children, calm down now.....

true

landser wrote:

you stated that the nazi's were a viscious regime, which is true. the birts helped the soviets (who did most of the fighting post '41) to defeat the nazis. however, the soviets were equally as viscious, but this point seems lost on you. the point is that it was no more morally right for the allies to fight with the soviets against the nazi's than it would have been for the allies to fight with the nazi's against the soviets.

Ah, so at last you recognise the "birts" helped the soviets with convoys of aid, rather than the other way round. I never said the soviets were not "viscous" against the Nazi : they certainly took their revenge for the invasion by the Nazis and there was no love lost between the two sides. The german invaders in Russia commited numerous war crimes long before the Soviets displayed their vicousness in Germany. Landser, you try to make the point that quote "it was no more morally right for the allies to fight with the soviets against the Nazis than it would have been for the allies to fight with the nazi's against the soviets. "

Britain, US and Russia did not form a deliberate alliance with Nazi Germany in Sept. 1939. Britain alone faced Nazi Germany , who was invading her neighbouring countries in Europe. When Germany invaded Russia, Britain and Russia found themselves with a common enemy. Was as much known then as now about human rights in Russia ? If you think it would have been equally morally right for the allies to fight with Nazi Germany against Russia, then you are wrong, because then the Allies would have been aiding the vicious agressive regime of Nazism, which invaded all around it in the first place.

landser wrote:

i questioned your knowledge of history as you do not have one. i would love to get into a debate with you about such matters, but you seem utterly incapable of reasoned argument, and instead, post in a series of soundbytes quoting unsubtantiated stats, and getting argumentative.

i firmly believe that you signed up to boards just to troll. i have never put any other user on an ignore list until now. there'sno talking to you.

cheerio

lol. I never made such a personal attack on you , landser. Perhaps you could give historical facts, or else dispute those with which you disagree. I think you would be better off going to school in the morning. Please could you attend your english class as well as your history class ? You are obviously a bit confused, landser. Like you, I have never put any other user on an ignore list until now.

Goodbye.

sceptre

Kids, you lot. No-one cares who any of you have on ignore. Or at least I know I don't. Occasionally it's worth mentioning if the other person might care but this isn't AH. Tell each other by PM, it might get through if the other person didn't put you on ignore first.

(edit: while the above may seem a little grumpy, all I'm saying is that it's pointless making a meal of it. I ignore people all the time without putting them on ignore)