Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Lt Dan · 05-01-2017 11:52PM

maryishere wrote: »

No I did not, I demolished your point made previously that most or all returning servicemen fought against the state on returning home after WW1 etc. You claimed earlier "when the boys came back after fighting for King and Country ie The State.............. they waged war on The State "

You do realise the IRA here was interned during WW2? And during the "troubles" killed some of our Gardai and army?

Perhaps find the statement that actually said "most or all returning service men fought against the State on returning home after WW1 etc"

I want you to concentrate very very very hard, as I want you to find the statement that deals with "most or all".

"when the boys came back after fighting for King and Country ie The State.............. they waged war on The State "

Boys, as in more than one boy. I have cited more than one boy as an example. There was absolutely nothing in that statement , which you failed to cite in full, that remotely suggests that "most or all" the servicemen fought against "The State" (in this context, the British State)

I have already pointed out that many actually went on to serve the Irish State in Civil War. Some even stuck with the British State during the Tan War

I even went to the trouble of pointing out why you missed the point ie so few that did turn against the British State, while small in numbers , actually cause more trouble than a battalion of them would

Now, I know it must be tough, but please actually read and comment on what posters actually say and not what you think they said. I would be ever so happy to clarify anything that you might misunderstand

Hugs and kisses, my dear

Mouseslayer17 · 05-01-2017 11:52PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you join an army controlled by a government that many see as warmongers (they have been involved in a huge proportion of the major wars and conflicts on this planet) then you know what you are signing up for.
Don't train for things you don't want to do, would be my advice. It isn't an excuse to say, 'I'm not getting to do what I trained to do'.

Good advice for wannabe guards

A Little Pony · 05-01-2017 11:52PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

the Catholic church.

What's that got to do with the British state collaborating with the Nazis in the 1930's?

Nothing. You're a WUM, and not a very good one.

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2017 11:54PM

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

You seem to think I am defending Irish people serving in another military and then lecturing me about it.

I am merely offering the actual reason for why some lads are doing it. They are not my reasons, they are their reasons.

Dont for another second lecture me on morals, allegience or commitment. My allegience is to Ireland and its people, including you. End of.

What others choose to do is their choice, it doesnt matter what we think of their decision especially if its an area which you actually have zero stake in.

Thats all I have to say to you on this topic.

Fair enough. I just disagree with your reasoning as to why it is an OK choice to make.
Portraying that as a 'lecture' is a bit shrill to be honest.

Junkyard Tom · 05-01-2017 11:55PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

More whataboutery. Your posts are predictably boring and you should feel bad about it.

Lt Dan · 05-01-2017 11:55PM

maryishere wrote: »

Before you go off on your rant, I was merely reply to the assertion that was made that " Ireland was "a highly militarized country""
Glad you agree now it was not.

"agree now it was not"

Back reading what is not there?

Where did I actually suggest that Ireland was a highly militarized country prior to WW2?

How is it a rant when I simply pointed out the De Valera treated the US exactly the same way as he treated Germany? You clearly ignored his treatment of the US and you were trying to score points when you referred to Germany! Hardly a rant my dear.

Perhaps you need to drop out of this discussion since you are getting ever so hot and bothered.

A Little Pony · 05-01-2017 11:56PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

More whataboutery. Your posts are predictably boring and you should feel bad about it.

What is the point of having a go at the British state for relationship with Nazi Germany BEFORE the war when the Irish State remained neutral DURING the war against the most evil regime of all time. Bizarre.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2017 11:57PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

You let the Catholic church take control, rape, enslave women in laundries, brutalize them. I don't think the Irish state has much of a leg to stand on regarding human rights when you let the Catholic Church run wild on children for decades.

Such is the outrage now by the Irish people to the Catholic Church, the pope would be safer visiting Northern Ireland than the Republic of Ireland!. A thread on this forum had absolutely nothing good to say about what they did to your country based on multiple reasons.

The difference is, when we as a country found out about it, we sorted it. Church is mostly separated from state now.
The British still kill in pursuit of their aims around the world.

maryishere · 06-01-2017 12:00AM

Lt Dan wrote: »

In fact, the Irish men who fought in WW1 became very much a real danger to THE STATE and to the Crown, our Crown!!! You do realise that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The King England was our King.

No, the Irish men who fought in WW1 were generally not a real danger to the state. Sure there were a few bad apples though, as there was everywhere. Most of the many many tens of thousands never became terrorists burning out houses or intimidating people or shooting them in the back.

Cool_CM · 06-01-2017 12:04AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Church is mostly separated from state now.

Eh, have you read the Preamble of Bunreacht na hÉireann?

maryishere · 06-01-2017 12:06AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The difference is, when we as a country found out about it, we sorted it.

By paying compensation mostly from state coffers instead of getting the Church to sell more of their properties.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Church is mostly separated from state now.

What other state plays the angelus each day free on their national tv station, for example?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British still kill in pursuit of their aims around the world.

They must be getting good at it so because no single British soldier, sailor or airman was killed on active duty in 2016.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/01/forces-have-first-year-since-1968-no-one-killed-operations/

Dirty Dingus McGee · 06-01-2017 12:06AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

No it wasn't , it was perfectly sensible.They didn't invade so why should we abandon our neutrality without a 100% justifiable reason.

Ireland declaring war on Germany would have achieved nothing except make ourselves more of a target and cost lives.Very brave of you sitting nice and safe in 2016 to say thousands of young irish peoples lives should have been risked for no good reason.

Mouseslayer17 · 06-01-2017 12:09AM

most evill regime of all time
I lol'd at this

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2017 12:15AM

maryishere wrote: »

By paying compensation mostly from state coffers instead of getting the Church to sell more of their properties.

What other state plays the angelus each day free on their national tv station, for example?

Which bit of mostly separated have you a problem with? If you think the church has any sway in our governance maybe you could show it.

They must be getting good at it so because no single British soldier, sailor or airman was killed on active duty in 2016.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/01/forces-have-first-year-since-1968-no-one-killed-operations/

They are coming to the end of being a power. That doesn't mean we can ignore what they did previously.

06-01-2017 12:16AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The difference is, when we as a country found out about it, we sorted it. Church is mostly separated from state now.
The British still kill in pursuit of their aims around the world.

Cool_CM wrote: »

Eh, have you read the Preamble of Bunreacht na hÉireann?

Yes, I have. Please do point out what Church is mentioned in it. Here it is just to help you along your way:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our
fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and
unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity,
so that the dignity and freedom of the individual
may be assured, true social order attained, the
unity of our country restored, and concord
established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
Constitution.

Well? Oh, what do you know - you made it all up just to get in a dig at the Irish. How pathetic. When the head of the Irish state can only be somebody of a particular religion, as is the case with the British state today in 2017, come back to us with your deeply misplaced high moral ground.

06-01-2017 12:25AM

Falthyron wrote: »

Another failing of the Irish hardcore Republican. 'Irish' is NOT A RACE. There is no Irish race. Next you will tell me the Irish famine was a genocide on the Irish race...

Yet, we have centuries of this and this from the decidedly Irish hating British imperialist political ideology people like you defend ad nauseum in these threads.

It doesn't really matter what idiosyncratic definition of 'race' you want to conjure up. What matters is that the Irish have been singled out by the English/British as a distinct community and, using a wide and deeply resilient variety of stereotypes, have been discriminated against for many centuries based on their distinctiveness or perceived distinctiveness. You can stand alone there and deny this reality and play jejune games revolving around definitions, but it doesn't actually take from the indisputable reality of the Irish being singled out as a distinct people and discriminated against.

06-01-2017 12:33AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

So, let us get this straight: it was shameful for the Irish state to remain neutral against Nazi Germany in September 1939 when the British decided, finally, to declare war on them, but it was presumably not shameful for the Irish to remain neutral against Nazi Germany in August 1939 when Britain was neutral to the suffering of Jews/socialists/Czechs et al?

Wonderful insight into your "my country right or wrong" mentality there.

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2017 01:04AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet, we have centuries of this and this from the decidedly Irish hating British imperialist political ideology people like you defend ad nauseum in these threads.

It doesn't really matter what idiosyncratic definition of 'race' you want to conjure up. What matters is that the Irish have been singled out by the English/British as a distinct community and, using a wide and deeply resilient variety of stereotypes, have been discriminated against for many centuries based on their distinctiveness or perceived distinctiveness. You can stand alone there and deny this reality and play jejune games revolving around definitions, but it doesn't actually take from the indisputable reality of the Irish being singled out as a distinct people and discriminated against.

Well said. And needs to be said again and again. Especially to milenials who haven't stood up for much other than their individual interests as a body politic. I suspect this poster is one such.

storker · 06-01-2017 01:15AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

I would disagree with Irish neutrality during WWII, but at the same time I can understand why that policy was chosen. To call it shameful is really going too far.

muddypaws · 06-01-2017 01:21AM

storker wrote: »

I would disagree with Irish neutrality during WWII, but at the same time I can understand why that policy was chosen. To call it shameful is really going too far.

Yeah, I think its easy to judge it with the knowledge that we now have of what 'Nazi' Germany was doing, but what was known at the time, and with the recent history of that time, the decision makes perfect sense.

Cool_CM · 06-01-2017 01:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I have. Please do point out what Church is mentioned in it. Here it is just to help you along your way:

Well? Oh, what do you know - you made it all up just to get in a dig at the Irish. How pathetic. When the head of the Irish state can only be somebody of a particular religion, as is the case with the British state today in 2017, come back to us with your deeply misplaced high moral ground.

My deeply misplaced high moral ground? :pac: I think that you may have jumped the gun a bit there.

As you may or may not be aware, the separation of Church and State is a concept and hardly a new one at that. It doesn't refer to any particular Church, rather the idea that Religion and the State should be independent from one another. This idea also gave us one of the longest words in the English language.

I personally think that religion should have no bearing on anybody's ability to hold any form of public office be it here, the UK or anywhere else. Seeing as you asked, though, given the fact that we know who was involved in the writing of the original Constitution and the fact that its 'special position' was removed in 1973, I would hazard a guess that the preamble was written with the Catholic Church in mind. And with that as the Preamble of our Constitution, though we have made great steps, we are still pretty far away from the separation of Church and State that FrancieBrady mentioned in his post.

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2017 01:48AM

Cool_CM wrote: »

My deeply misplaced high moral ground? :pac: I think that you may have jumped the gun a bit there.

As you may or may not be aware, the separation of Church and State is a concept and hardly a new one at that. It doesn't refer to any particular Church, rather the idea that Religion and the State should be independent from one another. This idea also gave us one of the longest words in the English language.

I personally think that religion should have no bearing on anybody's ability to hold any form of public office be it here, the UK or anywhere else. Seeing as you asked, though, given the fact that we know who was involved in the writing of the original Constitution and the fact that its 'special position' was removed in 1973, I would hazard a guess that the preamble was written with the Catholic Church in mind. And with that as the Preamble of our Constitution, though we have made great steps, we are still pretty far away from the separation of Church and State that FrancieBrady mentioned in his post.

The onus is now on you to prove that the church is not 'mostly separated from the state', it has almost zero influence and if it gets involved at all in a dictatorial way the motion is almost garunteed to carry. Eg single sex marriage.
Remembering of course that a taig could not aspire, until recently, to be head of 'most favoured nation' of Irish hat doffers.

Cool_CM · 06-01-2017 02:27AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The onus is now on you to prove that the church is not 'mostly separated from the state', it has almost zero influence and if it gets involved at all in a dictatorial way the motion is almost garunteed to carry. Eg single sex marriage.
Remembering of course that a taig could not aspire, until recently, to be head of 'most favoured nation' of Irish hat doffers.

I would imagine that the above extract from our Constitution, along with the fact that we still start our parliamentary proceedings with a prayer* would be enough evidence for anybody to realise that the Church is in no way 'mostly separated from the State'. The fact that it may or may not carry little weight in terms of influencing the decision-making of Irish voters doesn't take away from the fact that Religion still plays a major role in our institutions. Church and State separation doesn't just apply to motions and legislation, although this is the area where (in my opinion) most of those great steps that I mentioned have been made to date.

You'll have to explain the last part of your post to me.

* Here's the full list of Standing Order for Dáil-Éireann, it's on page 25.

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2017 09:26AM

Cool_CM wrote: »

I would imagine that the above extract from our Constitution, along with the fact that we still start our parliamentary proceedings with a prayer* would be enough evidence for anybody to realise that the Church is in no way 'mostly separated from the State'. The fact that it may or may not carry little weight in terms of influencing the decision-making of Irish voters doesn't take away from the fact that Religion still plays a major role in our institutions. Church and State separation doesn't just apply to motions and legislation, although this is the area where (in my opinion) most of those great steps that I mentioned have been made to date.

You'll have to explain the last part of your post to me.

* Here's the full list of Standing Order for Dáil-Éireann, it's on page 25.

You are confusing a christian ethos with control of any sort by the RC.
The last part of my post refers to the fact that the stipulation that no taig could succeed to the throne of Britain was only removed recently (90's I think.)
You would never call Britain a church state would you?
We still have remnants of church influence and that is all it is, just like Britain - remnants.

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2017 10:29AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So, let us get this straight: it was shameful for the Irish state to remain neutral against Nazi Germany in September 1939 when the British decided, finally, to declare war on them, but it was presumably not shameful for the Irish to remain neutral against Nazi Germany in August 1939 when Britain was neutral to the suffering of Jews/socialists/Czechs et al?

Wonderful insight into your "my country right or wrong" mentality there.

How's Sean these days, have you been up to Fairview to give his statue a quick polish and wash off any swastikas lately?

so lets get this straight then, it was shameful for Britain not to declare, but ok for Ireland not to?

Do you really want to have a willy waving contest over WWII

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2017 10:50AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How's Sean these days, have you been up to Fairview to give his statue a quick polish and wash off any swastikas lately?

so lets get this straight then, it was shameful for Britain not to declare, but ok for Ireland not to?

Do you really want to have a willy waving contest over WWII

The nuances are little more complex than the morally superior British hero's of Mary's fertile, indoctrinated imagination, is the point.

Lt Dan · 06-01-2017 11:15AM

maryishere wrote: »

Not the point. Most who joined did actually return. I demolished your point made previously that claimed most or all returning servicemen fought against the state on returning home after WW1 etc.

maryishere wrote: »

So now its only "quite a few". Next you will be saying it was 8 or 10, you do not know.

"now its only"...Only what? Reading what is not there I see.

Major difference between fighting and providing shelter. What was referred to earlier was actually fighting. Considering this has to be explained to you , says it all. If you are incapable of keeping track, perhaps spend time in another section of the site; Dishonest discussion and your really pro attempts to distort won't be tolerated.

You demolished absolutely nothing. You have proved that you either refuse to read or are incapable of reading what is in front of you. Even your most ardent supporters on this site could struggle to come to your aid on this point.

Since you are oh so confident that you dismantled the argument, I will demand, for the second time to actually provide the full statement where I said "most or all" servicemen joined the IRA on return. . No Such statement was made. "many" does not mean "most" or "all"

No such statement was made by me, so, you invented an argument that was not made. Get your reading glasses on, and good luck actually finding the statement that supports your pathetic allegation . When you inevitably fail to provide the statement that supported your imaginary argument, come back here and plead for forgiveness for your dishonesty

With regard to not knowing the figures, I have already cited a book to you which provides profiles of people who were either involved in the IRA or provided logistical support to the IRA and goes through their history; I pointed out (and actually named one officer in particular) who served in the British Army during WW1) There are many other books and projects that did similar profiles. Alas, as I already said, educating you on this would be an awful waste of time since you and the concept of reading do not match.

You loose. Thanks for Playing.

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2017 11:20AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The nuances are little more complex than the morally superior British hero's of Mary's fertile, indoctrinated imagination, is the point.

nuances always are.

When you start agreeing with Fuaranach though, everything is black and white. Everything British is bad, everything Irish is perfect except the stuff that isn't, which is all the fault of British anyway.

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2017 11:26AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

nuances always are.

When you start agreeing with Fuaranach though, everything is black and white. Everything British is bad, everything Irish is perfect except the stuff that isn't, which is all the fault of British anyway.

And you wouldn't be defender of De Realm in chief on here?

It was either a fair point or it wasn't. Imo it needed to be pointed out.

Yourself isit · 06-01-2017 11:33AM

Cool_CM wrote: »

I would imagine that the above extract from our Constitution, along with the fact that we still start our parliamentary proceedings with a prayer* would be enough evidence for anybody to realise that the Church is in no way 'mostly separated from the State'. The fact that it may or may not carry little weight in terms of influencing the decision-making of Irish voters doesn't take away from the fact that Religion still plays a major role in our institutions. Church and State separation doesn't just apply to motions and legislation, although this is the area where (in my opinion) most of those great steps that I mentioned have been made to date.

You'll have to explain the last part of your post to me.

* Here's the full list of Standing Order for Dáil-Éireann, it's on page 25.

The US Congress has chaplains. And starts with a prayer.

This is the most recent.

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments