Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Ken. · 20-01-2017 07:10PM

Mod-The discussion here is not about peoples posting records. Get back on topic.

maryishere · 20-01-2017 07:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't understand why UN policy isn't working in the middle east and has demonstratively only made things much much worse and unleashed a sleeping beast in ISIS?

Muslim extremists / ISIS want one thing and one thing only. A bit like the PIRA who would not stop bombing and killing in the seventies and eighties because they wanted a "uniterd Ireland" and they said they would not stop until they got one. All it took in Ireland was a very small minority of people to cause mayhem to society (remember how just one Republican on the loose, Dessie O'Hare, tied up the forces of this state in the nationwide search for him). Similarily, all it takes is a small percentage of people in the middle east to cause a lot of damage and problems.

Now, not for the first time, any chance you could answer the questions asked earlier?

BalcombeSt4 · 21-01-2017 01:29PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so murdering a man, in cold blood on his doorstep is acceptable, because he's a bit of a ****.

Like I said, hypocrite.

No, not becaue he's a bit of a dick because he placed himself right into the middle of the conflict with his bounties. If someone put a 50 grand bounty on my head I'd look for the person who did it as well.

BalcombeSt4 · 21-01-2017 02:10PM

maryishere wrote: »

Nobody is lecturing anyone, except perhaps you.
Now, please answer at least one of the questions you have been asked: Do you think DeValera was right to hang some convicted IRA, as he did ? You are aware some IRA died in Irish prisons under DeValera?

This was during the WW2 wasn't it?

I think the Dublin government clamped down hard on the IRA after the Coventry bombing.

BalcombeSt4 · 21-01-2017 02:12PM

maryishere wrote: »

Muslim extremists / ISIS want one thing and one thing only. A bit like the PIRA who would not stop bombing and killing in the seventies and eighties because they wanted a "uniterd Ireland" and they said they would not stop until they got one. All it took in Ireland was a very small minority of people to cause mayhem to society (remember how just one Republican on the loose, Dessie O'Hare, tied up the forces of this state in the nationwide search for him). Similarily, all it takes is a small percentage of people in the middle east to cause a lot of damage and problems.

Now, not for the first time, any chance you could answer the questions asked earlier?

Or a bit like the UDA & UVF & the British armyRUC/FRU/Special Branch, who bombed, shot & colluded until they secured the union. So violence worked for them and they killed alot more civilians than the PIRA.

The Loyalists death squads were bombing Dublin even before the Provisional IRA came into existance.

BalcombeSt4 · 21-01-2017 03:09PM

maryishere wrote: »

Muslim extremists / ISIS want one thing and one thing only. A bit like the PIRA who would not stop bombing and killing in the seventies and eighties because they wanted a "uniterd Ireland" and they said they would not stop until they got one. All it took in Ireland was a very small minority of people to cause mayhem to society (remember how just one Republican on the loose, Dessie O'Hare, tied up the forces of this state in the nationwide search for him). Similarily, all it takes is a small percentage of people in the middle east to cause a lot of damage and problems.

Now, not for the first time, any chance you could answer the questions asked earlier?

The UDA had 40,000 members at it's peak, the Ulster Workers Strike brought down the statelet by almost half the population of said statelet, 10,000 IRA Volunteers were arrested during the conflict & there was likely thousands more who were never capurted and then there's the communties who sustained these 10's of 1000's. Thats hardly a "very small" minority.

maryishere · 21-01-2017 09:04PM

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

The UDA had 40,000 members at it's peak,

It was the UVF and UFF and Shankhill butchers etc who launched paramilitary / terrorist attacks. Its easy for you to get confused though, just as some people got confused between Sinn Fein and the PIRA.

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Or a bit like the UDA & UVF & the British armyRUC/FRU/Special Branch, who bombed, shot & colluded until they secured the union.

"until they secured the union."? lol. The union was always secure.

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

The Loyalists death squads were bombing Dublin even before the Provisional IRA came into existance.

Wrong again.
By Dublin bombings I assume you mean the bombings of 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings
According to wiki, the Provisional IRA emerged in December 1969, following a split in the republican movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army
So you are out by 5 years...that is without even considering the other offensive Republican murder campaigns like the IRA campaign of 1956 - 1962.

maryishere · 21-01-2017 09:16PM

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

10,000 IRA Volunteers were arrested during the conflict & there was likely thousands more who were never capurted and then there's the communties who sustained these 10's of 1000's. Thats hardly a "very small" minority.

It was a small enough minority at any one time. An RUC report of 1986 estimated that the IRA had 300 or so members in Active Service Units and up to 750 active members in total in Northern Ireland. In 2005, the then Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell told the Dáil that the organisation had "between 1,000 and 1,500" active members.

maryishere · 21-01-2017 09:37PM

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I think the Dublin government clamped down hard on the IRA after the Coventry bombing.

You only "think" the Dublin government "clamped down hard on the IRA" in the forties? The Dublin government hung some.
What would you have said if the British govt clamped down as "hard on the IRA" as DeValera government did? Why was Mrs Thatcher for example softer on the PIRA than DeValera was? DeValera actions seemed to work at the time anyway.

FrancieBrady · 21-01-2017 10:56PM

If the thread shows anything it shows that no army anywhere behaves properly all the time, nor is any army right in everyone's eyes. There is always another side, a defeated side or an oppressed side.
One thing is sure, there are only a few countries on this planet who do what Dev alluded to, 'ignore sovereignty in favour of their own 'necessity'.

The question is, should we be doing more to dissuade young men and women from joining these offensive and aggressive 'armies' in the same way as we would discourage them from joining ISIS.

Should we see it as a function of neutrality?

maryishere · 21-01-2017 11:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The question is, should we be doing more to dissuade young men and women from joining these offensive and aggressive 'armies' in the same way as we would discourage them from joining ISIS.

What army do you mean? The "offensive and aggressive 'armies' " comparable to ISIS in these islands is the IRA in its different forms: dissident IRA, real IRA, PIRA etc. Yes, I agree with you, but it is already being done: all states and right thinking people do dissuade young men and women from joining these offensive and aggressive 'armies' in the same way as we would discourage them from joining ISIS.

Your Idol DeValera actually hung some IRA : that was a fairly good way to dissuade young men and women from joining the IRA at the time, don't you think?

getzls · 22-01-2017 02:02AM

Churchills recorded comments e.g. that it was more important to save Greeks and liberated people than indians or They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." The famine was their own fault, for "breeding like rabbits.[/quote]

Lot to be said about that.
Churchill was no fan of Islam and he has been shown to be correct about his views.
Islam breeds to out populate the non Islamic World.

22-01-2017 02:53AM

maryishere wrote: »

Wrong again.
By Dublin bombings I assume you mean the bombings of 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings
According to wiki, the Provisional IRA emerged in December 1969, following a split in the republican movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army
So you are out by 5 years...that is without even considering the other offensive Republican murder campaigns like the IRA campaign of 1956 - 1962.

Your wrong actually. The first loyalist bomb attack in Dublin was in August 1969 at RTE in Donnybrook, which was before the emergence of the PIRA.

http://www.rte.ie/archives/2014/0805/635201-bomb-blast-at-rte/

https://comeheretome.com/2014/02/26/incidents-in-dublin-during-the-troubles-1969-1994/

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 07:48AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the thread shows anything it shows that no army anywhere behaves properly all the time, nor is any army right in everyone's eyes. There is always another side, a defeated side or an oppressed side.
One thing is sure, there are only a few countries on this planet who do what Dev alluded to, 'ignore sovereignty in favour of their own 'necessity'.

The question is, should we be doing more to dissuade young men and women from joining these offensive and aggressive 'armies' in the same way as we would discourage them from joining ISIS.

Should we see it as a function of neutrality?

Yes, we should maintain only a very small standing army, be non-internationalist in our outlook, offer concessions to ISIS, let Putin keep what they've acquired etc.

Historically, that's been shown to be a very effective strategy for a country to follow :rolleyes:

Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem

(Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle.)

btw, great that you see parallels between people signing up for the Defence Forces of the country and ISIL.....;)

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 11:09AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, we should maintain only a very small standing army, be non-internationalist in our outlook, offer concessions to ISIS, let Putin keep what they've acquired etc.

Historically, that's been shown to be a very effective strategy for a country to follow :rolleyes:

Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem

(Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle.)

btw, great that you see parallels between people signing up for the Defence Forces of the country and ISIL.....;)

Not really interested in playing Good Empire v Bad Empire.

Lets name a few countries that you seem embarrassed/neglected to mention, the US and Britain, who throughout their history have preached 'peace' and who spend most of their time up on the high moral ground lecturing about morals and sovereignty etc but who have ignored the existence of both, not only the odd time, but every time it suits them.

But suffice to say I think it is wrong that armies are allowed to bolster their numbers with the hiring of foreign mercenaries (which Irish soldiers in the British army are, when you strip away all the niceties)

btw I didn't compare ISIS to The Defence Forces, I compared our attitudes to joining ISIS and to joining foreign armies who also employ mercenaries. Slightly different if you draw back the veil of faux outrage.

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 11:13AM

getzls wrote: »

"breeding like rabbits.

They looked on us the same way once.
Is it a coincidence that we had a population controlling famine too?

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 11:44AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not really interested in playing Good Empire v Bad Empire.

Lets name a few countries that you seem embarrassed/neglected to mention, the US and Britain, who throughout their history have preached 'peace' and who spend most of their time up on the high moral ground lecturing about morals and sovereignty etc but who have ignored the existence of both, not only the odd time, but every time it suits them.

But suffice to say I think it is wrong that armies are allowed to bolster their numbers with the hiring of foreign mercenaries (which Irish soldiers in the British army are, when you strip away all the niceties)

btw I didn't compare ISIS to The Defence Forces, I compared our attitudes to joining ISIS and to joining foreign armies who also employ mercenaries. Slightly different if you draw back the veil of faux outrage.

I'm not embarrassed at all to discuss different armies, even with such as yourself.

Btw, given your ideas of mercenaries, I presume the Pope will be attracting your ire too, give the role of the PSG

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 12:33PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not embarrassed at all to discuss different armies, even with such as yourself.

Btw, given your ideas of mercenaries, I presume the Pope will be attracting your ire too, give the role of the PSG

I just think it is of note that you picked two armies that you think of as 'bad' to make your point. 'Let Putin keep what they've acquired' was funny.

I have no idea what the the connection is between my ire, the Pope and Paris Saint Germain is.

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 02:20PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I just think it is of note that you picked two armies that you think of as 'bad' to make your point. 'Let Putin keep what they've acquired' was funny.

I have no idea what the the connection is between my ire, the Pope and Paris Saint Germain is.

Well Putin is the one annexing territory so it seemed like a good example.

And, sorry, I forgot the keep it super simple rule - PSG = Papal Swiss Guard......or as you might describe them mercenaries in the service of a reiligious leader, maybe the Swiss need to do more to dissuade their young men from going abroad to serve in the military of a theocracy (that's a "system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god").

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 03:08PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well Putin is the one annexing territory so it seemed like a good example.

And, sorry, I forgot the keep it super simple rule - PSG = Papal Swiss Guard......or as you might describe them mercenaries in the service of a reiligious leader, maybe the Swiss need to do more to dissuade their young men from going abroad to serve in the military of a theocracy (that's a "system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god").

If the Pontifical Swiss Guard are being used as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their own 'necessities', then yes, absolutely, a nation that calls itself neutral should be doing more.

Employing simple logic would allow you to deduce that from what I said previously.

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 03:47PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Pontifical Swiss Guard are being used as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their own 'necessities', then yes, absolutely, a nation that calls itself neutral should be doing more.

Employing simple logic would allow you to deduce that from what I said previously.

You really don't know much about the history of the Papal States?

Borgias? Pope Julius? Grand bunch of lads

WinnyThePoo · 22-01-2017 03:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not embarrassed at all to discuss different armies, even with such as yourself.

Btw, given your ideas of mercenaries, I presume the Pope will be attracting your ire too, give the role of the PSG

You have to laugh at francie calling Southern Irish men mercenaries.

Trying to push his own sectarian hate and his reality that follows and expects people from the south to follow suit.

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 04:00PM

Jawgap wrote: »

You really don't know much about the history of the Papal States?

Borgias? Pope Julius? Grand bunch of lads

If they are being used that way then, yes, the Swiss should campaign to dissuade their youth from joining.
Can my opinion be any 'simpler' to interpret?
Why try and slant what I said.

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 04:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they are being used that way then, yes, the Swiss should campaign to dissuade their youth from joining.
Can my opinion be any 'simpler' to interpret?
Why try and slant what I said.

So if a lad decided he wanted to join the PSG, you reckon he should be dissuaded from doing so because of that unit's history???

That we, as a society, should put as much effort into dissuading young people for signing up to serve in militaries with a history of being used to invade other countries, as we do to dissuading people from joining ISIL?

You see the thing is, a young lad heading off to enlist or join up with the BA, the FFL, the USMC etc is doing nothing illegal. In fact, he's probably going to do something positive with his life......whereas someone heading off to ISIL isn't.

Next time there is a natural disaster and the various militaries are sending personnel and equipment to help with disaster relief maybe you'd be good enough to post up the video of the ISIL contingent helping rescue people

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 04:16PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You have to laugh at francie calling Southern Irish men mercenaries.

Trying to push his own sectarian hate and his reality that follows and expects people from the south to follow suit.

Do you have any understanding of the meaning of the word 'sectarian'?

A mercenary is:

noun
1.
a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
"he had planned to seize power with the aid of a group of mercenaries"
synonyms: soldier of fortune, professional soldier, hired soldier, hireling; More

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 04:19PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So if a lad decided he wanted to join the PSG, you reckon he should be dissuaded from doing so because of that unit's history???

That we, as a society, should put as much effort into dissuading young people for signing up to serve in militaries with a history of being used to invade other countries, as we do to dissuading people from joining ISIL?

You see the thing is, a young lad heading off to enlist or join up with the BA, the FFL, the USMC etc is doing nothing illegal. In fact, he's probably going to do something positive with his life......whereas someone heading off to ISIL isn't.

Next time there is a natural disaster and the various militaries are sending personnel and equipment to help with disaster relief maybe you'd be good enough to post up the video of the ISIL contingent helping rescue people

Yes I do think they should 'if that army is being used in as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their own 'necessities'.
Not really sure what the difficulty is that you seem to be having with the above.

Is the PSG being used in that way? Maybe somebody more expert than me can show us.

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 04:21PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you have any understanding of the meaning of the word 'sectarian'?

A mercenary is:

noun
1.
a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
"he had planned to seize power with the aid of a group of mercenaries"
synonyms: soldier of fortune, professional soldier, hired soldier, hireling; More

Dear, dear.....you really like to bandy words about without really knowing the meaning of them.

A mercenary is clearly defined in the Hague Conventions.....

Additional Protocol I defines a mercenary as a person who:
a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

.....and all six criteria must be met. Now maybe you feel international law is wrong and your right, but that's not how the rest of the world sees it.

By no definition is a Irish person signing up to the BA (or any other foreign military) a mercenary, unless they tick all those criteria above.

It would behove you to do better research on such topics before posting

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 04:22PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Dear, dear.....you really like to bandy words about without really knowing the meaning of them.

A mercenary is clearly defined in the Hague Conventions.....

.....and all six criteria must be met. Now maybe you feel international law is wrong and your right, but that's not how the rest of the world sees it.

By no definition is a Irish person signing up to the BA (or any other foreign military) a mercenary, unless they tick all those criteria above.

It would behove you to do better research on such topics before posting

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

I just checked there, Nope, I didn't.

Jawgap · 22-01-2017 04:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

I just checked there, Nope, I didn't.

Well the Hague Conventions relate to the laws of war (such as they are) so the definition there is, despite what you might think, really the only game in town when it comes to deciding if a citizen of one state serving in the military of another is - potentially - a legitimate combatant or a mercenary.

Relying on pejorative definitions is just lazy.

FrancieBrady · 22-01-2017 04:30PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the Hague Conventions relate to the laws of war (such as they are) so the definition there is, despite what you might think, really the only game in town when it comes to deciding if a citizen of one state serving in the military of another is - potentially - a legitimate combatant or a mercenary.

Relying on pejorative definitions is just lazy.

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments