Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

maryishere · 13-01-2017 10:37PM

maryishere wrote: »

The 300,000 members of the British Army saved thousands of Irish people, as they kept the PIRA / INLA / UVF etc from getting totally out of hand, before they were defeated / had their arms and explosives put beyond use.

If it was not for the British Army, all of us in these islands would probably be speaking German and our jews, gays, disabled, gyspies etc would not be among us, they would have been transported to extermination camps. The rest of our men folk would have got jobs building a motorway to the far east, although looking at the track record of slave labourers ( from occupied countries) in Germany in WW2 I am not sure they would have enjoyed that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP are still blocking equality legislation because of their religious beliefs, that is discrimination on religious grounds happening right now.

The equality legislation in N.I. now is the same as in Germany in 2017.

LordSutch · 13-01-2017 10:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The question is how did Irish recruits justify their membership of an army sent to put down Irish people.
You cannot be in denial about the long list of killings of civilians they carried out and the thousands and thousands they hurt and needlessly intimidated and oppressed.

But the Provo's wearn't any old Irish people, were they...

Quite obviously you view the Troubles is through the prism of physical force Irish Republicanism, and if that's your view then so be it. Just as long as you recognise that during the troubles the vast MAJORITY of Irish people (Nationalist/Unionist/North & South) did not support murdering people. The SDLP was the voice of Irish Nationalism up North.

The Provosional IRA (the enemy) were but a Republican minority within a Nationalist minority, as were the UFF UVF a Loyalist minority within a Unionist Majority of the good people of Northern Ireland.

The Troubles occoured within the United Kingdom, hence the British Army were deployed when the police lost control of escalliting & dangerous events. Yes the Army were a blunt tool, and in many respects they were out of their depth in a 'civilian unrest setting'. One minute They were on British streets amongst British people, and the next minute they were coming under fire on those same streets! They couldn't call for air support, tanks, heavy artillary because they wearn't at war with an opposing army, yet on the other hand, they were being shot at & home made mortars were being lobbed into the local barracks on a regular bassis. Bombs were being detonated and many innocent people murdered in cold blood by the PIRA.

The Army were between a rock & a hard place, and they did the best they could in a British semi civilian setting, with one hand permanently tied behind their backs.

If the Army had been given a free hand against the IRA (tanks, air support, ground attack harriers, field artillery, etc) without any civilians in the way, then the provo's would have been wiped out within about one week.

Sounds like you won't be joing the Army any time soon then :rolleyes:

maryishere · 13-01-2017 10:47PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Notional figures are notional. Let's deal with the killings they DID carry out, in multiples.

Despite the British army losing 1000 members as a result of the troubles in N. Ireland, and widespead intimidation, only 1 in 10 of the people killed in the troubles was killed by the security forces. And over 99% of property damage was done by Republicans.

To keep things in perspective, in all but a few of the worst years of the troubles, more people were killed in car accidents than were killed in violence. So the security forces did a relatively good job in keeping a lid on the violence - it was not Syria.

Sometimes the Irish security forces shot dead terrorists too...for example, Dessie O'Hare was shot eight times during the arrest, and the driver of O'Hares car, Martin Bryan, was killed.

13-01-2017 10:58PM

maryishere wrote: »

lol in what way was it sectarian until the IRA ended it? In the 80's and 90's there was plenty of anti-discrimination legislation and the real sectarianism I saw came from the para-militaries, which the security forces sought to detain, convict and jail, which they did to both sides.

Will you ever stop with the whitewashing and distortion of history? Guns imported by the BA agent Brian Nelson were responsible for 150 murders. (which BA/RUC intelligence turned a blind eye to).

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 10:59PM

It's as if there was never a complaint or allegation from a nationalist about what the BA were doing with you guys. That the conflict was a result of some Irish predisposition to violence while the history of how the Empire was maintained shows the opposite.
I'm away, invent the past among yourselves. You have no interest in the topic, you are just here to defend your heroes.

maryishere · 13-01-2017 11:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Guns imported by the BA agent Brian Nelson were responsible for 150 murders. (which BA/RUC intelligence turned a blind eye to).

There were infomers on both loyalist and republican sides.
If the British government was fully aware of Nelson's involvement in Ulster Resistance's January 1988 importation of weapons from South Africa including 200 AK47 rifles; 90 Browning pistols; 500 fragmentation grenades and 12 RPG 7 rocket launchers....then why were the security forces were able to intercept most of the weapons before they Loyalists were able to use them?

13-01-2017 11:18PM

Er, 150 murders mary. Keep missing the important stuff........

maryishere · 13-01-2017 11:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Er, 150 murders mary.

And well over a thousand killed by the PIRA / INLA.

The security forces never claimed they prevented all para-military murders. What they did do was assist in the arrest, trial and jailing of many hundreds of loyalists and many hundreds of republicans. Checkpoints sometimes intercepted the movement of arms / explosives.

13-01-2017 11:26PM

maryishere wrote: »

And well over a thousand killed by the PIRA / INLA.

The security forces never claimed they prevented all para-military murders. What they did do was assist in the arrest, trial and jailing of many hundreds of loyalists and many hundreds of republicans. Checkpoints sometimes intercepted the movement of arms / explosives.

What about what about what about... eh mary. Your numerous posts display a bottomless well of sympathy for the British and their actions no matter what they got up to.

maryishere · 13-01-2017 11:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Your numerous posts display a bottomless well of sympathy for the British and their actions no matter what they got up to.

I condemn ( and always have done) any collusion or bad apples in the security forces. I have always condemned both the loyalist paramilitaries as well as the republican paramilitaries. More than a few posters on this thread though think that the PIRA / INLA were great and all of "de Brits" were evil. Best to look at both sides to a story.

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 12:52AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

The Britsh Army were the same as the PIRA/INLA in that they were all trying (on a daily basis) to murder & kill as many as possible. not

The British Army & the RUC were only out to kill Nationalists/Catholics.
not

The simple fact of warnings given to bombs etc by the IRA makes your argument at best an ill informed rant when you say they went out to kill as many as possible

That is nonsense. Bloody Friday alone debunks that, even an IRA member at the time has said it was absolute madness to plant that many bombs and NOT expect civilians to die. They didn't give a damn how many people died.

maryishere · 14-01-2017 11:13AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Will you ever stop with the whitewashing and distortion of history?

No intentional whitewashing or distortion old chap, its just that there are many sides to the story, not just one as you were taught.

Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001
Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent)
Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent)
British Forces: 363 (10 percent)
Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent)
Total: 3528
Source: cain

Incidentally, something like 395 Republican paramilitaries lost their lives in the conflict too, included in the above figures. There was no need for the armed struggle as one life lost was too much, and it achieved nothing except pain for all involved.

From wiki, More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict, of whom 52% were civilians, 32% were members of the British security forces, and 16% were members of paramilitary groups

Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces.

Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
1080 (~52%) were members/former members of the British security forces
723 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
57 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
11 (~0.5%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
878 (~85.4%) were civilians
94 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1%) were members of the British security forces

Over 99% of the many billions of damage to property was done by Republicans (thousands of bombs etc ), to say nothing about how the "armed struggle" greatly hampered tourism, inward investment in N. Ireland etc.

WinnyThePoo · 14-01-2017 12:44PM

Have too friends who joined and now are out on good career paths.

Fair play to anyone looking to better than themselves.

Snickers Man · 16-01-2017 04:11PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

As for Sweden,they continued to sell raw material needed for the war to...Germany.they also allowed German troops use their rail system to get to the USSR.Churchill was not impressed

but they took in alot of jewish refugees too so were under no illusion as to what was going on in Europe.They also aided Nazi Finland against their common enemy,USSR. Either way,their ability to stay relatively "neutral" is even more impressive.Trade was severely hampered by both British and Nazi blockades and their ships were attacked by both.

So both examples of Sweden and Switzerland are pretty poor

Why did Germany invade Norway in 1940, violating a neutral country's independence and ability to trade and occupying it for the duration of the war?

Because it knew Britain and France were just about to do the same thing. (ie invade a neutral country, violate its independence and ability to trade and fully intending to occupy it for as long as necessary. )

And the reason of course was to disrupt the shipments of iron ore from neutral Sweden to Germany. The British and French failed in this of course but their intention was very clear.

Indeed the Norwegian folk memory of the war is of their heroic resistance to Nazi occupation, although they are rightly less proud of their barbaric treatment of both their own women who formed liaisons with German soldiers and the children that ensued from such relationships. Many had to leave the country. Among them Annifrid Lyngstadt offspring of a Norwegian girl and a German soldier. Norway's loss was Abba's gain

But it was a Norwegian right-wing nationalist faction led by Quisling who justified Germany's intervention in Norway. Whatever about the word Quisling entering the English language as a synonym for traitor the fact is that there WAS some support in Norway for the Germans at first. But then, history is always written by the victors.

Anyway, the point is it was Sweden's "neutrality" and insistence on operating as a neutral country that directly caused Norway's subjugation between 1940 and 1945.

Professor Moriarty · 16-01-2017 05:25PM

maryishere wrote: »

No intentional whitewashing or distortion old chap, its just that there are many sides to the story, not just one as you were taught.

Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001
Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent)
Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent)
British Forces: 363 (10 percent)
Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent)
Total: 3528
Source: cain

Incidentally, something like 395 Republican paramilitaries lost their lives in the conflict too, included in the above figures. There was no need for the armed struggle as one life lost was too much, and it achieved nothing except pain for all involved.

From wiki, More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict, of whom 52% were civilians, 32% were members of the British security forces, and 16% were members of paramilitary groups

Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces.

Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
1080 (~52%) were members/former members of the British security forces
723 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
57 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
11 (~0.5%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
878 (~85.4%) were civilians
94 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1%) were members of the British security forces

Over 99% of the many billions of damage to property was done by Republicans (thousands of bombs etc ), to say nothing about how the "armed struggle" greatly hampered tourism, inward investment in N. Ireland etc.

And most of this tragic loss of life could have been avoided if people had been given parity of esteem when they first asked for it.

Fratton Fred · 16-01-2017 05:39PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Why did Germany invade Norway in 1940, violating a neutral country's independence and ability to trade and occupying it for the duration of the war?

Because it knew Britain and France were just about to do the same thing. (ie invade a neutral country, violate its independence and ability to trade and fully intending to occupy it for as long as necessary. )

And the reason of course was to disrupt the shipments of iron ore from neutral Sweden to Germany. The British and French failed in this of course but their intention was very clear.

Indeed the Norwegian folk memory of the war is of their heroic resistance to Nazi occupation, although they are rightly less proud of their barbaric treatment of both their own women who formed liaisons with German soldiers and the children that ensued from such relationships. Many had to leave the country. Among them Annifrid Lyngstadt offspring of a Norwegian girl and a German soldier. Norway's loss was Abba's gain

But it was a Norwegian right-wing nationalist faction led by Quisling who justified Germany's intervention in Norway. Whatever about the word Quisling entering the English language as a synonym for traitor the fact is that there WAS some support in Norway for the Germans at first. But then, history is always written by the victors.

Anyway, the point is it was Sweden's "neutrality" and insistence on operating as a neutral country that directly caused Norway's subjugation between 1940 and 1945.

and the German's desire to exclusively secure vast amounts of heavy water

steddyeddy · 16-01-2017 05:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and the German's desire to exclusively secure vast amounts of heavy water

As in deuterium?

FrancieBrady · 16-01-2017 05:44PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And most of this tragic loss of life could have been avoided if people had been given parity of esteem when they first asked for it.

I asked the question earlier.
What was stopping 'Great' Britain and Unionism from agreeing what they eventually agreed to in the GFA in 1998 in 1969? When there was no IRA strength or will.

As we got no answer, I will give it a go. Great Britain and Unionism was what was stopping it.

Infer responsibility for what happened from the above if you wish.

ohnonotgmail · 16-01-2017 05:48PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

As in deuterium?

yes

steddyeddy · 16-01-2017 06:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked the question earlier.
What was stopping 'Great' Britain and Unionism from agreeing what they eventually agreed to in the GFA in 1998 in 1969? When there was no IRA strength or will.

As we got no answer, I will give it a go. Great Britain and Unionism was what was stopping it.

Infer responsibility for what happened from the above if you wish.

Remnants of colonial thinking and a tendency to favour unionist views.

Snickers Man · 16-01-2017 06:48PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and the German's desire to exclusively secure vast amounts of heavy water

Which the French had already removed before the invasion.

Snickers Man · 16-01-2017 06:58PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Hitler had attacked Russia with the full might of his military, Russia would have been over whelmed.

Keeping a western and north Africa front open, delayed and restricted the Nazi war machine.

Now Fred, we've been through this.

The "Western Front" in 1941 was a garrison army. France had surrendered. Invasion of Britain was not a serious prospect. Yes, there was a defensive air force to counter the perfunctory British bombing raids of the time but the idea that there were vast armies in France that could have been used to attack Russia is just nonsense.

And as for North Africa. That wasn't a German fight. It was an Italian one. Yes, Hitler sent one of his best generals (Rommel) and an army corps to help but that was a spit in the bucket compared to what he threw against the Soviet Union. The Axis forces in North Africa were always predominantly Italian.

Jawgap · 16-01-2017 07:24PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

As in deuterium?

Deuterium oxide to be precise.....they needed it as a moderator.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Hitler had attacked Russia with the full might of his military, Russia would have been over whelmed.

Keeping a western and north Africa front open, delayed and restricted the Nazi war machine.

No, it wouldn't. Bear in mind that even if the Germans made it to Moscow and captured it, they were still only half way to the Urals (another 1000km on) - the USSR was essentially unconquerable in any kind of traditional way.

The North African campaign was a strategic backwater, but tactically very important - it was never going to deliver victory, but it (and the Norway campaign) reflected the "British" way of war......probe for weaknesses while the RN blockaded....''twas always thus since before Nelson

maryishere · 16-01-2017 10:12PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Why did Germany invade Norway in 1940, violating a neutral country's independence and ability to trade and occupying it for the duration of the war?

Because it knew Britain and France were just about to do the same thing. (ie invade a neutral country, violate its independence and ability to trade and fully intending to occupy it for as long as necessary. )

And the reason of course was to disrupt the shipments of iron ore from neutral Sweden to Germany. The British and French failed in this of course but their intention was very clear.

Indeed the Norwegian folk memory of the war is of their heroic resistance to Nazi occupation, .

You make it sound as if Nazi Germany was held in the same esteem as the UK , by Norway. The truth is different.
As pointed out already, World War II started in September 1939 when Poland was invaded by German soldiers. German soldiers invaded Norway on 9th April 1940. There were a few short battles in several places in the country, but within a few days the Germans had gained control over Norway. The King and the government fled to London in the UK and continued their campaign of resistance from there.

Norway had a large fleet of merchant ships before the war. During the war years, 1940-1945, many of these ships transported goods to countries that were at war with Germany. The Norwegian government in London organised this traffic. Around half of these ships were torpedoed or bombed. Almost 4,000 Norwegian sailors were killed during the war.

A total of around 10,000 Norwegian men and women died because of the war. Around 700 of these were Jews sent to concentration camps in Germany and Poland. Ever since 1945, the Norwegian governments presents the UK with a massive tall Christmas tree each year, which is displayed in Leicester Sq, London, as a symbol of its gratitude for its help during the war.

Fratton Fred · 16-01-2017 10:15PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Which the French had already removed before the invasion.

Norway was a producer and sold it to Germany and France. Germany wanted to secure exclusive supply for their own nuclear program.

maryishere · 16-01-2017 10:18PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

And as for North Africa. That wasn't a German fight.

Germany lost 18,594 dead in North Africa, 3,400 missing, and 130,000 captured.
So Germany lost over 150,000 soldiers altogether there. Sure the Italians lost more, but you cannot say it was'nt a German fight, as Rommel was the Axis General and Germany accounted for approx 40% of Axis deaths.

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was an Italian one. Yes, Hitler sent one of his best generals (Rommel) and an army corps to help but that was a spit in the bucket compared to what he threw against the Soviet Union. The Axis forces in North Africa were always predominantly Italian.

Italy had 22,341 dead or missing, and 250,000–350,000 captured.

The British Commonwealth had an estimated 220,000 dead,wounded, missing and captured, including 35,478 confirmed dead.

FrancieBrady · 16-01-2017 10:18PM

maryishere wrote: »

You make it sound as if Nazi Germany was held in the same esteem as the UK , by Norway. The truth is different.
World War II started in September 1939 when Poland was invaded by German soldiers. German soldiers invaded Norway on 9th April 1940. There were a few short battles in several places in the country, but within a few days the Germans had gained control over Norway. The King and the government fled to London in the UK and continued their campaign of resistance from there.

Norway had a large fleet of merchant ships before the war. During the war years, 1940-1945, many of these ships transported goods to countries that were at war with Germany. The Norwegian government in London organised this traffic. Around half of these ships were torpedoed or bombed. Almost 4,000 Norwegian sailors were killed during the war.

A total of around 10,000 Norwegian men and women died because of the war. Around 700 of these were Jews sent to concentration camps in Germany and Poland. Ever since 1945, the Norwegian governments presents the UK with a massive tall Christmas tree each year, which is displayed in Leicester Sq, London, as a symbol of its gratitude for its help during the war.

Why do you pass off stuff you copy and paste as your own writing? It is pathetic, and not the first time you have been caught doing it.
http://introengelsk.cappelendamm.no/c35009/artikkel/vis.html?tid=35431

maryishere · 16-01-2017 10:25PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why do you

Because your mate made it sound as if Nazi Germany was held in the same esteem as the UK , by Norway. The truth is different. He needs a history lesson, not unlike you.

FrancieBrady · 16-01-2017 10:27PM

maryishere wrote: »

Because your mate made it sound as if Nazi Germany was held in the same esteem as the UK , by Norway. The truth is different. He needs a history lesson, not unlike you.

You stole someone else's knowledge and writing and passed it off as your own.
Pathetic.
Anything to defend de realm I suppose.

Fratton Fred · 16-01-2017 10:28PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Now Fred, we've been througuh this.

And you still make the same wrong assumptions :-)

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments