Britain's Anti-Semitism

[Blue Angel]

the British did cross the border a fair few times - my father can tell you about many occassions when they were caught way, way within the border. Usually the section or squad leader would claim they'd 'misread the map'. Sometimes this could be true as occassionally it was only 400 or 500 yards over but on one occassion they caught British troops eleven miles over. Since it was usually only 3 or 4 troops or a few it was just politely hushed up as technically foreign troops crossing a sovreign state's boundaries counts as unprovoked agression.

[Wasp]

quote author=earl board=general thread=1192692894 post=1193346657]

wasp said:

Isreal seized land after the six day war and rightly so. Some were strategic places which increased her defence.

So if the ROI had siezed some stratigic positions in NI after the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in the interest of protection, you'd agree that they would have had every right to do so right? [/quote]

Jim I will reanswer this again. First of all the comparison is simply ridiculous and is nowhere near a fair example.

Look at what I said, I said the SIX day war. Now if N.Ireland attakced the republic to wipe it off the face of the map then the republic would have every right to take strategic points in order to protect itself especially in the event of a further attack.

The six day war wasn't about paramilitaries carrying out a few attacks and to compare the Dublin bombings with the six day war is ludicrous.

If the republic's government were not going to deal with the ira after they crossed the border after an attack, provided a safe haven for them, if they refused to extradite etc then the British should have pursued them across the border and either took them out or arrested them if they didn't get away. Is that hard to understand?

[bearhunter]

Fair enough, WASP, but if the Irish Army had turned up over the border in the interests of security would you be happy enough with that? Or would you cry foul at foreign soldiers stepping on the Queen's soil?

[Wasp]

BH if N.I tried to invade the republic then I wouldn't have much room for complaint if they turned up over the border. I would want the threat lifted from N.I so that the republics army could leave without fear of another attempted invasion.

[Blue Angel]

yes wasp -as the british army has no place crossing the border - as i pointed out above they dd -sometimes irish army patrols would catch them, sometimes not. Considering the relative size of both armies they probably walked over many a time and the defence forces just missed them doing so. Let me put if this way if the Defence Forces had sent troops over the border in pursuit of loyalists returning up north would you have been okay with that? What you are suggesting is the army should publically ignore internation law and send troops into other sovreign states with shoot to kill orders. The political fallout would have been immense.

[Wasp]

Fucj the political fall out, the damage done by these terrorists WAS immense and all to often ordinary civillians suffered. Talking of a shoot to kill policy I see you have twisted what I said leaving out the word arrest that I used.

So if the British let loyalists walk freely after carrying out continuous attacks against civillians in the republic, if Britain refused to co-operate and the irish army were giving pursuit to loayalists would you not want your security forces to keep going in the hope of capture or them being taken out depending on circumstances.

What is more important to you, protecting Irish citizens in the republic or a political fall out because your security forces were trying to capture those who just carried out an attack???

[Blue Angel]

no - the only time the irish army has looked even remotely likely to cross over was at during Lynch's time and that was realistically mostly bluff. The British army would have no right to arrest or detain anyone in the republic either. The Irish army were under standing orders NOT to cross the border no matter what the provocation without clear instructions to the contrary from the govt. This was part of general orders that every soldier was expected to know.

From my above example the British troops when caught over the border usually just walked back to the other side without too much trouble. It was a game, they knew they had no business been there but they knew given the borders lenght that the Irish forces could not stop them getting away with it now and then.

My father was among those in the army who wanted Lynch to send the troops over and was of the opinion that the whole irish army should have crossed over en masse. Personally I disagree with him as had it come to war the Irish army of that period (or now even) would not last long in a stand up conventional fight as 15,000 men (or 8,500 nowdays) with only modest resources would have been crushed in a few days.

[Jim]

How is the comparison stupid?

According to you, terrorists in Palestine and Lebannon are attacking Israel. Terrorists from the Republic where attacking Northern Ireland, and terrorists from Northern Ireland attacked the Republic. Now, your saying your fine with the British army crossing the border in the name of security but you wouldnt be with the Republic crossing the border.

Double standards or what?

[Wasp]

jim said:

How is the comparison stupid?

According to you, terrorists in Palestine and Lebannon are attacking Israel. Terrorists from the Republic where attacking Northern Ireland, and terrorists from Northern Ireland attacked the Republic. Now, your saying your fine with the British army crossing the border in the name of security but you wouldnt be with the Republic crossing the border.

Double standards or what?

Think you need to reread my posts AGAIN beofre you take what I said out of context. Can't be arsed explaining it all again, reread them and you will see that I applied equal reaction to0 the republic and N.Ireland. You will also note I said how can you compare a few terrroist attacks with the six day war.

[Jim]

Well the reason I can compare them is because they are similar. Israel doesnt occupy land just from the six day war, it still occupies land, the six day war was a long time ago and it was between Governments, not militias, not paramilitaries, not quasi military organisations.

[Wasp]

Jim Earl asked about a few terrorist attacks when I talked about the six day war so there is no comparison. Here are a few things I said which seem to have been missed.

"hwether Isreal is right or wrong she will defend her land and her people. If they feel doing any of these things will stop attacks then they will do it no matter whether we agree with it or not. Isreal seized land after the six day war and rightly so. Some were strategic places which increased her defence."

Then Earl wrote "So if the ROI had siezed some stratigic positions in NI after the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in the interest of protection, you'd agree that they would have had every right to do so right?"

How can you compare these two for ffs, complete difference.

Anyway here is some more which I wrote.

"Look at what I said, I said the SIX day war. Now if N.Ireland attakced the republic to wipe it off the face of the map then the republic would have every right to take strategic points in order to protect itself especially in the event of a further attack."

"BH if N.I tried to invade the republic then I wouldn't have much room for complaint if they turned up over the border. I would want the threat lifted from N.I so that the republics army could leave without fear of another attempted invasion"

"So if the British let loyalists walk freely after carrying out continuous attacks against civillians in the republic, if Britain refused to co-operate and the irish army were giving pursuit to loayalists would you not want your security forces to keep going in the hope of capture or them being taken out depending on circumstances."

Now Jim where are the double standards???

I understand everyone can misquote somebody, easily done but too many times now people are taking bits of my posts and taking them out of context by turning them into something else is getting a bit much.

Not once did I say due to a few paramilitary attacks Britain has the right to take land from the republic, not once.

Blueangel if I posted what you did I would be asked for links and proof etc and that it is merely hearsay,so it shows the difference when a republican makes a claim and a Unionist makes a claim. The reason I haven't asked for links to what you stated is because there are things that we know or believe to be true that there are no links for, but because they came from a reliable source we totally believe them.

[Jim]

"hwether Isreal is right or wrong she will defend her land and her people. If they feel doing any of these things will stop attacks then they will do it no matter whether we agree with it or not. Isreal seized land after the six day war and rightly so. Some were strategic places which increased her defence."

Then Earl wrote "So if the ROI had siezed some stratigic positions in NI after the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in the interest of protection, you'd agree that they would have had every right to do so right?"

How can you compare these two for ffs, complete difference.

Because, the Irish government was very close to sending troops across the border. Infact, its believed the British government delayed the British troop deployment by 48 hours to see if the Irish government was going to actually go with the plan. Obviously they didnt.

Otherwise fair enough i read some posts wrong, but I still have a few things to say.

I would want the threat lifted from N.I so that the republics army could leave without fear of another attempted invasion"

Different is here, Israel doesnt leave, it still holds onto many occupied territories.

[Wasp]

Jim at least you admit to reading some posts wrong. On Isreal wouldn't it be fair to say that their still is a threat?

[Jim]

There is a threat but Israel is by no means an angel and is often the antagoniser.

[Wasp]

I never said Isreal was an angel. But if the republic was surrounded by hostile countries, one in particulars president said Ireland should be wiped off the map, some of these countries are training and arming terrorists to attack Ireland with the help of some of their soldiers wouldn't you support Ireland to take all necessary steps to protect itself.

One thing I will say for Isreal is that regardless of condemnation she isn't scared to stike back or strike first. And going by the level of threat against her she has every right to do so.