|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Mar 12, 2008 23:24:29 GMT
Been more serious and just looking at the first world era and the time before it what makes either the UVF or Irish Volunteers better or worse than each other in the way they acquired weapons ? Can't see it meself - the Kaiser's Germany wasn't too loveable -either- look up a wee place called Shark Island - and then again some of the 'good guys' weren't too terribly nice either - look at Belgiums lovely little holocaust out in the Belgian Congo where millions were killed pnly a few years prior to WW1. Or then again hows about the old Czar starving people to death to shut them up - a policy Stalin went on to copy as I mentioned on another thread. I can't see any morally superior power among the big players in WW1 myself. the difference is that the UVF's weapons did not come from the german state, whatever the kieser did or did not know about the weapens deal his state did not supply the weapons to the UVF, in fact not all the rifles were even german, the deal was a private buiness transaction, the IRA as i have contined to point out went directly to the nazis state, there was no buiness transaction no private procurment but adirect appel to the nazis state fr weapons later fter the war the IRA tried another appeal to the stalinist state, again not a buiness transaction but a direct appeal to the stalinist state for help, both times the IRA were rejected |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 12, 2008 23:29:38 GMT
'both times the IRA were rejected '
Might have been because they both saw the ira as being too extreme.......
|
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Mar 12, 2008 23:35:37 GMT
the south african arms deal revolved around the UDA getting hold of a missile from shorts in return for weapons, the UDA tried to palm the SA government with a fake missile and as a result the deal failed.
Personly never regarded adair as a loyalists and would not be upset if he was to disappear. The Orange order has been quite active in africa though i am sure you have heard of the Ghana Orange lodge, have paraded in belfast a few times along with Orange lodges from other parts of africa including SA, so i guess we can't all be racists. Oh and for the record i believe as a loyalist that anybody from my community who has any dealings with the likes of the BNP or the NF are scum and have no rights to class themselves as a loyalists, i would not piss on them if they were on fire
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Mar 12, 2008 23:58:46 GMT
'both times the IRA were rejected ' Might have been because they both saw the ira as being too extreme....... ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Mar 13, 2008 0:03:42 GMT
"The proof has been posted here about the ira and the nazis or rather some within the ira and the nazis..."
So WASP, if "some within the IRA" do something vile and unprincipled, then they're all to blame, but if a minority of the UDR spend their days off ambushing showbands it's just a few bad apples? Actually, forget it, there are some things we'll never agree on, so there seems little point in bringing it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 13, 2008 1:49:12 GMT
Been more serious and just looking at the first world era and the time before it what makes either the UVF or Irish Volunteers better or worse than each other in the way they acquired weapons ? Can't see it meself - the Kaiser's Germany wasn't too loveable -either- look up a wee place called Shark Island - and then again some of the 'good guys' weren't too terribly nice either - look at Belgiums lovely little holocaust out in the Belgian Congo where millions were killed pnly a few years prior to WW1. Or then again hows about the old Czar starving people to death to shut them up - a policy Stalin went on to copy as I mentioned on another thread. I can't see any morally superior power among the big players in WW1 myself. the difference is that the UVF's weapons did not come from the german state, whatever the kieser did or did not know about the weapens deal his state did not supply the weapons to the UVF, in fact not all the rifles were even german, the deal was a private buiness transaction, the IRA as i have contined to point out went directly to the nazis state, there was no buiness transaction no private procurment but adirect appel to the nazis state fr weapons later fter the war the IRA tried another appeal to the stalinist state, again not a buiness transaction but a direct appeal to the stalinist state for help, both times the IRA were rejected yes, they did. any weapons to come from an imperial state must be authorised from the state. Can you honestly fucking picture imperial britain, a businessman selling weapons to rebels without the knowlege of the government? Intelligence would have been aware of it since they were ready to go to war against Germany and had been preparing for it for many years, germany being a competitor on trade, money, military might and was looking to Africa too. catch yourself on you root. the kaiser and his govt knew fine rightly who they were selling weapons too. weither or not it was the nazis or the kaiser, they are still Germans, with the same imperial mindset, with the same goals, with the same language. Actually, if anything, the nazis were in favour of more liberal busness transactions, considering their economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 13, 2008 1:49:35 GMT
My point that you apply two sets of logic towards similar scenarios involving differing groups of people. Earl how many different countries did the ira bought arms from? Does this mean they agree with the ideology of that country or those they purchase weapons from? No it doesn't but the ira and the nazis are a different kettle of fish altogether. Do I go on about Gadaffi etc?? No I don't so your comparisons are uncomparable so I am not applying two sets of logic. The proof has been posted here about the ira and the nazis or rather some within the ira and the nazis including the ira's own publication the illegal war journal. There is a major difference and you couln'd compare the ira and Gadaffi's regime the way you could with the nazis. TBH I find Gadaffis "regime" absolutely comendable in standing up to imperial America, he only started to back down to them after they killed his son. So, fucking right if he sold the IRA weapons. I don't see the problem, since, its legitimate for the UVF to buy weapons apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Mar 13, 2008 9:30:25 GMT
WASP, You'd have more of a case if you did concentrate on Gadafi rather than this nazi bullsh!t. The PIRA even had an official ambassador, resident in the diplomatic quarter of the capital with all the other ambassadors. He was a school teacher from Monaghan. He was treated as if he were a legitimate ambassador. Wilderness, so 'going directly to the nazis' involved first going to Spain, getting captured as a POW, and being brought under guard several thousand miles to Germany. Does your idea of going direct from Belfast to Dublin involve a tea break in Derry? This subject is getting nowhere. Again. All it's doing is causing members to be at each others throats. I don't know if that was the original intention or not, but clearly, we need to move on to something else. Unless people wish to continue to try and score points. (I've reached a new high score, so I'm about done!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 13, 2008 13:34:11 GMT
"The proof has been posted here about the ira and the nazis or rather some within the ira and the nazis..." So WASP, if "some within the IRA" do something vile and unprincipled, then they're all to blame, but if a minority of the UDR spend their days off ambushing showbands it's just a few bad apples? Actually, forget it, there are some things we'll never agree on, so there seems little point in bringing it up. The ira are all bad and rotten to the core, there are those who have changed their ways and violent opinions which I welcome 1 million %. I will never ever say only some bad apples in the ira as their actions speak volumes about them along with decades of facts on their sectarian hate filled campaign of violence. But that is for another thread. What I am saying is that there were those within the ira and going by their own publications not anyone elses, they sympathised/supported the nazis and would have welcomed them to these shores. That does not mean ever ira member at that time felt the same. It would be unfair of me to claim every ira member of the time supported the nazis, but as far as them doing something vile is concerned and blaming them all, they as an organisation set out thousands of times to do something vile. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 13, 2008 15:10:10 GMT
Thought you were going to ask history Ireland yourself? Going by the threat on American troops I would say history Ireland got the publication right as well. Are you denying the threat BTW on American troops?
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Mar 13, 2008 15:12:47 GMT
Sure one of the links he gave had other articles about the illuminati FFS and one of the other links was a blog by a chap called Jams O'Donnell! Nuff said!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 13, 2008 15:23:43 GMT
What about history Ireland and quoting those who said this and that? Are all his links crap[ or are you just trying to find fault and interest in whatever links you can to dismiss the links, statements, quotes etc from those you can't?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 13, 2008 16:45:16 GMT
There is no link to History Ireland. End of. Can you not read? This is his exact link. www.historyireland.com/And here is the volumes and page numbers if you want to buy the book or whatever. Vol. 13 No. 3, May/June 2005, notes IRA statements in 1940, as the Nazis overran western Europe: "in July 1940 the IRA leadership issued a statement [which] made clear that if "German forces should land in Ireland, they will land ... as friends and liberators of the Irish people". The public was assured that Germany desired neither "territory nor ... economic penetration" in Ireland but only that it should play its part in the "reconstruction" of a "free and progressive Europe". The Third Reich was also praised as the "energising force" of European politics and the "guardian" of national freedom. ... In August [1940] the IRA confidently predicted that with the assistance of "our victorious European allies" Ireland would "achieve absolute independence within the next few months"." In the illegal War News, the IRA's main publication, "Satisfaction was expressed that the "cleansing fire" of the German armies was driving the Jews from Europe. ... War News condemned the arrival in Ireland of "so-called Jewish refugees", along with unspecified numbers of "Albanian, Abyssinian, Mongolian [and] Tartars"." Cumann na mBan saw the Nazis as "fighting Ireland's battle and the battle of all oppressed nations within the empire". |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Mar 13, 2008 16:47:34 GMT
What about history Ireland and quoting those who said this and that? Are all his links crap[ or are you just trying to find fault and interest in whatever links you can to dismiss the links, statements, quotes etc from those you can't? You haven't linked to history Ireland. You have a body of text which states it's from history Ireland, yet if you do a search of the site, it can't be found. Blogs can be almost automatically dismissed unless they are linking to a credible source. Any poorly designed website can be treated as suspicious as today, any 10 year old can create a crappy looking website and throw what they like onto it. Cain is a credible source. The BBC archives is a credible source, encyclopedia Britannica is a credible source. Jam's O' Donnell is NOt a credible source and neither are sites which post up conspiracies on the illuminati! |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Mar 13, 2008 16:50:48 GMT
|
|
)