|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Apr 16, 2007 23:40:28 GMT
carrots are orange this could present some probelms for that commeration! or perhaps it could be represented as a brave carrot who realised the truth and rebelled. A fine rebel song could be written around this.
Er okay, I'll shut up now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2007 9:34:57 GMT
You're better off shutting up yez pack of feckers  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2007 9:50:36 GMT
WASP,
For you to hit a sore point, you would have to be coherently putting together a logical argument, backing up what you say. So lets see how your argument definitively proves that the ROI is fascist central.
You begin with a quote from a guy at the Jewish rights group (the irony of it all. Clearly they aren't a very good group considering the many documented human rights abuses on their own doorstep. The latest abuse: using cluster bombs in urban areas. It will take several years and a lot of money to make Southern Lebanon safe again. In the meantime, there are kids getting blown up every day from these things left lying around.)
He is correct about Ireland having a blot on it's history, but that blot is shared by every country in Europe. I'd advise you to read into how the state of Israel came into existence. About the concentration camps that the British put Jewish refugees into, and about how the soldiers guarding these camps jeered those held prisoner with Nazi salutes. And this is only a few years after the holocaust. You won't find this little saga in your average British history book.
I'm mentioning this not as proof that the British are naturally fascists, I mention it to show that any blot you care to point out, I can point out one for the British. There won't be any oneupmanship or 'holier than thou' on this subject, I can promise you.
Your next point, was a question, 'Did republicans train at Arab terrorist training camps??' At a glance for some info for an answer, I cannot find anything to support that they did. If you have any sources of info on this subject, I'd be most interested in reading them.
Your next question is a loaded question.
'Did republicans support the terror campaign of Arafat´s PLO to wipe out the Jewish state?'
This is stated in such a way as if to imply that republicans are antisemitic. The support for the PLO was for their main aim of freeing Palestine from Jewish oppression. Any slant on this to try and suggest it was for religious reasons is futile.
And who do you mean by republicans anyway? Your vauge use of the word allows many different groups of people to be tarred with the same brush. I'm a Republican, because I believe in a republican government, and live in a republican country. Do you mean republican terrorists or Irish people in general? You need to be more specific with your terms as I feel that this is causing a lot of problems.
Your next point that proves that republicans are antisemitic, is Arafats uncle's nazi past! This is over stretching to put it mildly. My little retort was to put this into perspective. As already pointed out, some members of the monarchy in the past were nazi sympathisers, so does that make the queen one too? Same logic. I think this over stretching point made a lot of chuckles on here yesterday, and other people have pointed out the error and sheer desperation in using this as a method of proof.
Your next point which proves that republicans are anti semetic is the tragic and brutal murder of Leonard Kaitcer. Surely if the IRA were antisemetic, the total amount of Jews killed by them in NI would be significantly more than this sole example. Since this doesn't follow any pattern and is a lone incident, it doesn't prove a thing. according to CAIN, he was murdered because a ransom wasn't paid. Disgusting stuff in itself, but you are trying to use this poor lads murder in such a twisted way as to prove a point.
Your next point is about a Canadian priest. Enough said. This is even wider of the mark than using someones uncles past as proof! It's like using the actions of those of Ulster-Scots decent in the American civil war in the confederate army to prove that Ulster-Scots are inherently racist.
You're next point about Dev helps muddy the waters further. All the previous points can be said that they are aimed at republican terrorists. But not this one. This one is aimed at the Irish government, which begs me to ask the question again, what do you mean by republican? In it's use throughout your post it is clear that you are using it as a substitute for 'Irish'. Dangerous waters here my friend. Are you being deliberately vague with your definitions?
Anyway, you were told the reasons why he did it, to which your retort was a mere tantrum-like stamp of the feet, 'well he did it anyway'. This kind of retort might work in the playground, but not in intelligent debate. If you cannot further your point of view with something which embellishes it further then you are wasting your time and everyone elses.
Your next 2 paragraphs actually deal with the subject at hand, Sean Russell. You stated 'Events such as Kristallnacht or the invasions of Poland, Norway, the low countries and France hardly went unreported in Ireland', to which I reply that it wasn't even called a war in the press in this country then. It was called 'the emergency'. Such was the censorship of the media in the ROI by the government during this period that many citizens hadn't a clue what was going on in Europe.
If you had of stuck to the subject at hand, Sean Russell, I wouldn't have had a problem. I'm against the statue myself, and don't agree with what this man did in life.
But you are using this whole thread as a method of trying to score some cheap point on the ROI. When you couldn't get any satisfaction from using Sean Russell alone, you proceeded to throw together any old random fact as proof, from someones uncle, to Canadian priests, to the brutal murder of a Jewish UK citizen in sheer desperation to prove your point.
As already stated another method you used in your smear campaign was to use the term republican in a vague way so as to mean both the IRA, the Irish government and the Irish people. Your 'point' on the Canadian priest proves the latter, since he had no involvement with the IRA or the Irish government.
You won't be able to weasel your way out of this one WASP. You are caught with your hand in the honey jar. So I open the floor up to all other posters as to what you think WASPs reasons for this thread were for and to his conduct throughout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Apr 17, 2007 10:14:01 GMT
my own feeling on this is the original composer of that article did indeed want to prove Ireland was sympathetic to fascism by dragging Rusell up but lack understanding of the background in the country at the time and the ambiguities of the situation. There have been semites and anti-semites throughout republican history, Griffiths was dangerously anti-semitic, Connolly was oppossed to anti-semitism as were others and there has been a number of Jewish people involved in both nationalism and unionism in Ireland's history. The situation is much too complex and grey for any attempts to smear either unionism or nationalism as inherently anti-semitic to be convincing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2007 11:05:02 GMT
Earl why did you miss out my points on you misquoting me??? Once again you are nick picking and stating that I used Arafats uncle to prove the ira are anti-Jewish etc. Try reading my post. While republicans are condemning everything British/Unionist/loyalist etc and taking the moral high ground, republicans are commemorating Russel which is double standards to say the least.
You can accuse me of all sorts but it was YOU who labelled the people of N.Ireland as a whole, I did not do this with the Republic. YOU are the one that said "So getting a sermon from an NI resident on the proper etiquette that a country should have is quite hilarious".
Now you ignored those points of my post, you ignored how you completely misquoted me even though you quoted me yourself in your post and now to squirm out of it you are accusing me of all sorts. Where is the republic from? I did say he was the only one to condemn it. I feel once again you have taken my post, twisted it around, added bits to it to try and show it means something else.
Republican support for the PLO is obvious, Adam's and co support such a group that wants to wipe Israel of the map, they want to destroy them. Nazis just didn't inflict pain on the Jewish community you know and for you to even have a problem with them complaining about the statue because of Israeli wrong doings is unbelievable. Were the Jews that were locked in concentration camps and experienced the most horrendous of crimes responsible for Israeli wrong doings. Good to see you point out that they have no right to complain about a nazi collaborator being commemorated, at least you have your priorities right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Apr 17, 2007 11:17:42 GMT
I support the PLO to some degree, but I do not support Israel been wiped off the map and were I Jewish after WW2 I would have seen little choice but to abandon Europe as the various European powers had proved they only cared to use the Jews as scapegoats and were not to be trusted in any word or promise they gave to the Jewish community. Let us not forget it was Britain that promised the same area of land to both the Arabs and Jews and that the more farseeing amongst British politicians saw in part what would come of that although none of them could have forseen the Third Reich at that point.Did you know over 50,000 people died in the camps set up the British for the Jews and other survivors of the Holocaust on Cyprus WASP? A certain ammount of those deaths could be fairly blamed on people having medical conditions that had originated in their treatment in the German death camps but Jewish organisations spent many years protesting the lack of hygiene and squalid conditions refugees were housed in on Cyprus. Interesting how that is all hidden history though.
I am sorry but I do feel the original write of the article that started the thread had limited knowledge of Irish and other history and failed to understand the background in Ireland during and just before WW2 and seems to not understand the deep enmity between the govt. of the time and the IRA and militant republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2007 11:28:29 GMT
I also wrote 'For example I admire seaman James meginnis who won the vc in the 2d world war. Who was sadly largely ignored by the then unionist government because he was a catholic which also disgusts me. IMO those who ignored him couldn't tie the man's shoe laces. '
'I think it's a shame, rather than remember the brave war effort of Irishmen fighting to help protect the world from facists, fighting to liberate other nations are insulted by commemorations to a nazi sympathiser. For me IMO I think it is disgusting that such a man should be remembered over thousands who bravely gave their lives.'
'Most countries have a blot on their record to do with Jews, of course there are, did I say different?? It was if you did read my post the director of the worlds biggest Jewish human rights organisation who said it was a blot on the history of Ireland.'
'Republican or whoever else can celebrate whatever they want'
But this was ignored.
Bluangel Britain has no halo concerning its history, nor has any other country for that matter. That was not my point, the point of the thread is that republicans today honour a man who collaborated with the nazis. The republic felt it was a disgrace and I am sure he is not the only one. It is the hypocrisy of the whole thing concerning republicans. When I say republicans I mean Adam's and co who have a one set of rules for them and a different rule for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2007 11:41:39 GMT
Earl why did you miss out my points on you misquoting me??? Once again you are nick picking and stating that I used Arafats uncle to prove the ira are anti-Jewish etc. Try reading my post. While republicans are condemning everything British/Unionist/loyalist etc and taking the moral high ground, republicans are commemorating Russel which is double standards to say the least. You can accuse me of all sorts but it was YOU who labelled the people of N.Ireland as a whole, I did not do this with the Republic. YOU are the one that said "So getting a sermon from an NI resident on the proper etiquette that a country should have is quite hilarious". Now you ignored those points of my post, you ignored how you completely misquoted me even though you quoted me yourself in your post and now to squirm out of it you are accusing me of all sorts. Where is the republic from? I did say he was the only one to condemn it. I feel once again you have taken my post, twisted it around, added bits to it to try and show it means something else. Republican support for the PLO is obvious, Adam's and co support such a group that wants to wipe Israel of the map, they want to destroy them. Nazis just didn't inflict pain on the Jewish community you know and for you to even have a problem with them complaining about the statue because of Israeli wrong doings is unbelievable. Were the Jews that were locked in concentration camps and experienced the most horrendous of crimes responsible for Israeli wrong doings. Good to see you point out that they have no right to complain about a nazi collaborator being commemorated, at least you have your priorities right. Dear dear, WASP. Your death throes on this particular subject are quite loud and ungainly. You didn't like it when you got wacked in the face with a brush tarring everyone in NI, so now you know exactly how it feels. I take it that my point was taken. You accuse me of misquoting you, yet in the same breath, you do something far, far worse. You put words in my mouth. Now listen to me carefully. I want you to quote from my post EXACTLY where I said I had a problem with anyone at all, nevermind anyone Jewish, complaining about the statue. Can you do that, because if you can't, you are merely confirming what a lot of people here think. That you are a hypocrite. You've complained about me misquoting you, so prove it as suggested that you are not being hypocritical by doing the same. Here is the only quote directly relating to the statue from my previous post: There are no other references to the statue in my post. So go on. Prove it that you aren't a hypocrite. I'll give you one last chance to dig yourself out of your own hole. You just need to clear up these questions. 1. What and who exactly are you talking about when you use the term 'republican'. 2. If you use the term 'republican' to mean the IRA, then why did you mention DeValera? 3. If you use the term 'republican' to mean the IRA or the Irish government, then why did you mention the Canadian priest? 4.Is this thread about fascism in the provos or amongst the Irish population in general? I'm afraid you'll have to prove this by answering the 4 questions above. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2007 12:03:15 GMT
'I think it's a shame, rather than remember the brave war effort of Irishmen fighting to help protect the world from facists, fighting to liberate other nations are insulted by commemorations to a nazi sympathiser. For me IMO I think it is disgusting that such a man should be remembered over thousands who bravely gave their lives.' We have several official days in this country where Irelands war dead from all conflicts are commemorated. The way you are going on here, you'd think that there was a national day for Sean Russell and that everyone else is completely forgotten about. AS you've been already told, the Sean Russell commemoration is a bunch of Fairview locals and shinners. No-one else. I doubt even that the vast majority of Irish people even know about the man, nevermind the statue. Put things into perspective for Gods sake and stop acting hysterical. So can you explain why you mentioned DeValera and especially why you mentioned the Canadian Priest. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2007 12:39:36 GMT
Earl once again you try and twist things around so that my post means something different. You are getting all mixed up. You see when I said about commemorating the man in the present day I was meaning republicans such as Adam's and co.
Going further back we have the fact on what Dev done, is that a problem for me to mention both, or don't you understand the facts that I posted which went back to the time of the nazis.
EARL WROTE 'Now listen to me carefully. I want you to quote from my post EXACTLY where I said I had a problem with anyone at all'
Ok sir. You wrote 'You begin with a quote from a guy at the Jewish rights group (the irony of it all. Clearly they aren't a very good group considering the many documented human rights abuses on their own doorstep. The latest abuse: using cluster bombs in urban areas. It will take several years and a lot of money to make Southern Lebanon safe again.'
Now obviously you have a problem with this guy, hence my reply to what you said.
EARL WROTE 'You didn't like it when you got wacked in the face with a brush tarring everyone in NI, so now you know exactly how it feels'
Thing is Earl I didn't tar everyone in the republic with the same brush or is this your attempt to try and justify what you said about people from N.Ireland by claiming to only get back at me. Typical take the blame off yourself and pass it over to me. OBVIOUSLY YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT I SAID. "......THE BRAVE WAR EFFORT OF IRISHMEN FIGHTING TO HELP PROTECT THE WORLD FROM FACISTS....."
AND
"....SHOULD BE REMEMBERED OVER THOUSANDS WHO BRAVELY GAVE THEIR LIVES"
Now the above two points were solely about Irishmen from the south, so how am I tarring everyone in Ireland with the same brush? You passing the blame onto me for your comment about the people of N.Ireland doesn't wash because my above points prove that I didn't do the same with people in the Republic.
Now on your comment on people in N.Ireland, I am well used to having Unionists/loyalists/British etc condemned and demonized, so your comment had no added effect. The thing is you cannot take anything being said about the Republic, or any of its people. Your reaction is one that misquotes and tries to turn what was said into meaning something else.
The collective points I stated on Russel don't make good reading for anyone who likes to critisize people in N.Ireland when they have things like that stated in the media etc about some who live in their country. The comment on the priest came from a Jewish website along with other points to do with Dev etc. So where we listen constantly about how we are the big bad Unionists, all the things Unionism has done wrong, the British has done wrong, how sectarian part of our culture is, how wrong we are on history and republicans have the right version etc etc, it is laughable that you react the way you did concerning articles from newspapers and websites. Then demand I answer all these points to prove myself.
You are not my headmaster and I have to prove nothing to anyone. I will answer as I see fit and I expect everyone to do the same. I do note however you once again ignored how you misquoted me even though you quoted my exact words in your post.
Now I have explained the points of the thread, you take from it what you want to take from it
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2007 14:02:46 GMT
Well, No-one could accuse me of not giving you a chance to explain yourself.
You could not quote me to back up your slur:
So where in the sentences:
do I explicitly state that I had a problem with them complaining about the statue? It highlights that I have a problem with Israels human rights record, but nowhere in any way does it state that I have a problem with them complaining. Later in my post I even said that I myself had a problem with the statue.
So you quoted from a Jewish site, where you got the info on the Canadian priest. Did you think it through as to how relevant all of it is or did you just stick it in? No wonder you come across as a schizophrenic in some of these threads. You never thought how all this would be interpreted. Mentioning the priest, who had no connection with SF or the Irish government was in effect trying to hint at antisemitism amoung the Irish people. Can you not see that?
And I wouldn't consider a few Jewish websites as an unbiased source of info on the ROI. It'd be like going to Calton looking for such an unbiased view! Some extremists absolutely HATE the ROI and the Scandinavian countries because unlike the UK and U.S., we don't look the other way when they flout human rights and ignore U.N. resolutions. You should read some of the rants on some of their sites! If you point out any of their own shortcomings, such as children being killed by f-16 rocket attacks, you get branded antisemitic! I didn't realise that f-16's were a part of the Jewish faith!
You have answered my questions whether you realised it or not.
Initially, you used the word 'republican' to mean IRA, but when you felt things weren't going your way and that your knowledge of the subject was wholly inadequate, you started looking around for more info on the subject. Finding an Israeli site with just the type of info that suits your needs you started to post up these random facts to prove your case,and without changing your own original terminology.
Basically, by using the term republican in the same context as the IRA, Dev and the Priest, you unwittingly used a broad brushstroke to represent many groups. That's why I thought you were attacking my country, and that's why I returned fire. Can you see this now?
Originally, this thread was supposed to be about SF commemorating Sean Russell, but when you start talking about Dev, you are no longer talking about SF and their commemorations and when you start reaching with Canadian priests with Irish parents, who have absolutely nothing to do with Gerry Adams and co, alarm bells start ringing as to what the actual purpose of this thread is.
I'm afraid I can't put this any clearer than above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2007 16:34:50 GMT
I see where you are coming from to do with republicans. The republicans I was referring to was the ones that commemorate Russel. So apologies if it came across that I was meaning even ordinary republicans like you.
Now on Dev etc, that was relevant to the thread. How many threads do you know that don't spread out?? Perhaps if you are talking about Unionists in the early 1900's you will remind yourself not to mention any Unionist in the 1960's or 2007, this way you will practice what you preach.
EARL WROTE 'do I explicitly state that I had a problem with them complaining about the statue? It highlights that I have a problem with Israels human rights record, but nowhere in any way does it state that I have a problem with them complaining.'
Now you are being hypocritical, what has Israels human rights record got to do with this statue or them complaining. Please practice what you preach because in your own words you said to me "Originally, this thread was supposed to be about SF commemorating Sean Russell, but when you start talking about Dev, you are no longer talking about SF and their commemorations and when you start reaching with Canadian priests with Irish parents, who have absolutely nothing to do with Gerry Adams and co, alarm bells start ringing as to what the actual purpose of this thread is."
So if this is how you viewed my posts and had a problem with me going outside sinn fein celebrations, why did you mention Israels human rights record concerning Shimon Samuels comments, who works at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris. He made comments on the statue and yet you answer firstly about Israels human rights record. So your reply obviously shows you have a problem with this mans comments when you bring in the nation of Israel and there track record on human rights.
Now if you didn't have a problem with him commenting you would have had no need to start your answer on Israels track record. See once again it is ok for you to go outside the thread topic, Shimon Samuels comments were in the opening thread yet you responded to his comments starting with Israels track record. Then you get at me for mentioning Dev who was an Irish leader who did give his smpathies on Hitlers death. Can you not see the double standards you are setting. It is very much a case of do what I say but not what I do.
You still have failed to comment on you completely misquoting me. Maybe it is harder to explain why you put words into someones post when they were not there in the first place, then follow up with a dig at Unionists.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 18, 2007 8:09:43 GMT
WASP,
If I had a problem with the man's comments, I would have highlighted them. I've already mentioned twice that I share his concern over the statue. How many more times do I have to say it? Why are you not reading my posts? Does what I say not conform with the picture in your head or something?
It was a throw-away comment on Israeli human rights, and I was pointing out the irony of a Jewish human rights group, considering they obviously don't watch their own back yard.
It's easy to explain why I misquoted you. You're all over the place in many posts. You jump from peoples uncles to Canadian priests at the drop of a hat with no continuity between them other than some Irish connection. I thought you were still on about the IRA in the 40's and what J.J. O’Kelly had said. Easy mistake to make when someone is trawling all over the shop for any old dirt related to the word 'Irish' rather than focusing on the subject.
I fully believe that you have problems telling the IRA, the Irish government and people apart. You've constantly mixed all these up in the months I've known you. Sometimes you talk about the IRA as if they are the voices of the Irish people, or like they are in charge.
Can you explain why you mentioned Dev in relation to this topic, and why you mentioned the priest?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 18, 2007 18:09:47 GMT
About what decade did Russell colaborate? What decade did Dev pass on his sympathies? So Dev's stance is in line with the posts that expanded on this thread. I already explained the comments about the priest were linked with dev etc on another website. I also said these points make uncomfortable reading for those who make claim after claim on the people of N.Ireland. Which shows IMO their hypocritical stance.
I do not confuse the ira with the people of Ireland. Didn't I say about the thousands of Irish people who fought side by side with the British etc on other threads as well.
To do with the man's comments, is he responsible for the actions of the Israeli government? Basicall what you are saying is if an Irishman complained about a statue or whatever in another country, people would have every right to point out the irony of an Irish human rights group considering what republican terrorists have done. They could also say by your logic that this Irish group doesn't watch it's own backyard. That would also be unfair, and would be branding the Irish human rights group as hypocrites. Can you see my point. Perhaps if you had of finished your response on what Israel does instead of starting with it I may have accepted that you had no problem with this man.
I also welcome your opinions on the statue.
On misquoting me, you can blame me for being all over the place if you wish, but the fact is that you quoted what I actually said then went on to say I said something different below it.
You mentioned the red hand salute from Scottish Rnagers players, I could easily say why did you mention them in relation to this topic. On that let's say there was a red hand salute that was done for generations etc, if anyone went to Israel and done this salute, even though for arguements sake it is entirely to do with N.Ireland etc, I would still condemn it because it would be similar to a nazi salute and it would be highly insensitive and highly offensive to the people of Israel.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 23, 2007 8:29:10 GMT
You've just proven my point about you mixing things up again. You've asked if this man is responsible for the Israeli governments actions, and then insinuated that the Irish government is responsible for the IRA's actions, or that the IRA are on par with a democratically elected government like the Israeli government.
When will you ever learn WASP. The IRA are not a stick which to beat the Irish government and people with. It's like blaming the actions of combat 18 on the British government and people.
|
|
