The glorious 12th

janfebmar · 24-07-2019 8:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There's 'blindness' here alright, but it revolves around your obsession with Russell even though you know he was a nobody and his collaboration with Nazi Germany was nothing compared to the British ...

Russell a nobody? Then why did Republican build a statue to him in Dublin? And Francie and all the other extremist Republicans defend his collaboration with the Nazis so much?

FrancieBrady · 24-07-2019 9:02pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Russell a nobody? Then why did Republican build a statue to him in Dublin? And Francie and all the other extremist Republicans defend his collaboration with the Nazis so much?

You were doing so well finally recognising the difference between a state honouring somebody and a grouping within the state honouring somebody, then you told yet another lie about me 'defending' him.
You people are just toxic to any reasonable debate.

janfebmar · 24-07-2019 9:07pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

History unfortunately doesn't support the oft expressed theory that the British were the good ones of this period. What they did, or failed to do had far ...

100,000 or so good Irish people who volunteered and helped the British war effort in this period (Ww2) would probably disagree with you there. Britain and her Empire stood against the Nazis in 1939 / 1940, and most people are glad at least somebody stood up against Nazi Germany then. Your warped view of history says more about you and An Phoblocht you than anything else.

janfebmar · 24-07-2019 9:10pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were doing so well finally recognising the difference between a state honouring somebody and a grouping within the state honouring somebody, then you told yet another lie about me 'defending' him.
You people are just toxic to any reasonable debate.

You have deflected again and not answered the question. If he was a nobody why build a statue of him, and honour and defend him?

FrancieBrady · 24-07-2019 9:14pm

janfebmar wrote: »

You have deflected again and not answered the question. If he was a nobody why build a statue of him, and honour and defend him?

I would assume that unlike you Republicans haven't focused on one aspect of his life and honour his lifetime contribution. I see from his biog that he joined the Irish Volunteers in 1913.

Just a wild fecking guess. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady · 24-07-2019 9:16pm

janfebmar wrote: »

100,000 or so good Irish people who volunteered and helped the British war effort in this period (Ww2) would probably disagree with you there. Britain and her Empire stood against the Nazis in 1939 / 1940, and most people are glad at least somebody stood up against Nazi Germany then. Your warped view of history says more about you and An Phoblocht you than anything else.

My view is 'warped' because I take into account all the facts?

janfebmar · 24-07-2019 10:40pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would assume that unlike you Republicans haven't focused on one aspect of his life and honour his lifetime contribution.

Build a statue to honour his lifetime contribution. Sure why do the Germans not built a statue to Hitler, the leader of the regime to which Russell was trying to collaborate . Sure Hitler was not all bad either no more than Russell. Germans should not focus on one part of Hitlets life but instead honour his lifetime contribution. Hitler was great at solving unemployment and lifting morale in Germany in the thirties.

Russell however is best known for his involvement with the Nazis in WW2. One of your comrades claimed he was a nobody. Would you agree he was a nobody? I
f he was a nobody why would the Germans entertain him on one of their valuable submarines during wartime?
If the Nazis had invaded Ireland as Russell and the Republicans wished, what would you have thought of Nazi plans to "deal with" the problem of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped etc, the same as in all the other neutral countries they invaded?

You have plans to resettle the likes of Arlene in the event of a United Ireland. Were such plans used, do you think, during WW2?

FrancieBrady · 24-07-2019 10:45pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Build a statue to honour his lifetime contribution. Sure why do the Germans not built a statue to Hitler, the leader of the regime to which Russell was trying to collaborate . Sure Hitler was not all bad either no more than Russell. Germans should not focus on one part of Hitlets life but instead honour his lifetime contribution. Hitler was great at solving unemployment and lifting morale in Germany in the thirties.

Theycan't put a statue up to Hitler because it is illegal in Germany> And again, it wasn't 'Ireland' who erected the Russell one.

Russell however is best known for his involvement with the Nazis in WW2. One of your comrades claimed he was a nobody. Would you agree he was a nobody? I
f he was a nobody why would the Germans entertain him on one of their valuable submarines during wartime?

In the context of a world war he was a 'nobody', yes. To the organisation he ran and was a senior member of for many years, clearly he wasn't.

If the Nazis had invaded Ireland as Russell and the Republicans wished, what would you have thought of Nazis plans to "deal with" the problem of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped etc, the same as in all the other neutral countries they invaded?

Like I am to our previous invaders...I would have been against it.

blanch152 · 24-07-2019 11:53pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were doing so well finally recognising the difference between a state honouring somebody and a grouping within the state honouring somebody, then you told yet another lie about me 'defending' him.
You people are just toxic to any reasonable debate.

Saying that he was only misguided is defending him, when it is clear from the historical record that his knowledge of what was going on, and his dedication to the German cause was much more than that.

You may not be engaged in a full defence of the man, but you are partially defending him. Do you agree with me that his statue should be taken down and destroyed? If you don't, you are defending him.

FrancieBrady · 24-07-2019 11:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Saying that he was only misguided is defending him, when it is clear from the historical record that his knowledge of what was going on, and his dedication to the German cause was much more than that.

You may not be engaged in a full defence of the man, but you are partially defending him. Do you agree with me that his statue should be taken down and destroyed? If you don't, you are defending him.

I am on record stating I would take all contentious statues down. Would you agree?

blanch152 · 24-07-2019 11:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am on record stating I would take all contentious statues down. Would you agree?

Hmmmm, if I said I didn't like the new statues of Luke Kelly, would you take them down?

Your proposal sounds like one of your usual tit-for-tit, eye-for-an-eye ideas whereby if we take down one statue that lot don't like, we take down one we don't like. Of course, in the meantime, you would probably want us to put up statues to heroes of Irish unity like Gerry Adams and Bobby Sands. Not going there with you, Francie.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 12:02am

blanch152 wrote: »

Hmmmm, if I said I didn't like the new statues of Luke Kelly, would you take them down?

Your proposal sounds like one of your usual tit-for-tit, eye-for-an-eye ideas whereby if we take down one statue that lot don't like, we take down one we don't like. Of course, in the meantime, you would probably want us to put up statues to heroes of Irish unity like Gerry Adams and Bobby Sands. Not going there with you, Francie.

Is Luke Kelly justifiably contentious? would be my answer.

I am consistent on flags, statues and political baiting and taunting from any side, it is wrong and should not happen. Are you, is the question?

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 12:08am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is Luke Kelly justifiably contentious? would be my answer.

I am consistent on flags, statues and political baiting and taunting from any side, it is wrong and should not happen. Are you, is the question?

Sean Russell is justifiably contentious.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jewish-group-says-beheaded-nazi-statue-should-be-left-as-symbol-of-irish-shame-26003822.html

So can you agree that it should be removed? Or will you do the usual and point to some other statue that should equally be removed in another disingenuous attempt at whataboutery?

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 12:10am

blanch152 wrote: »

Sean Russell is justifiably contentious.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jewish-group-says-beheaded-nazi-statue-should-be-left-as-symbol-of-irish-shame-26003822.html

So can you agree that it should be removed? Or will you do the usual and point to some other statue that should equally be removed in another disingenuous attempt at whataboutery?

Why just Russell...there are many contentious statues. I would get rid of them all.
What would you propose...just take down the ones you find contentious?
Are you sure you understand democracy there?

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 12:14am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why just Russell...there are many contentious statues. I would get rid of them all.
What would you propose...just take down the ones you find contentious?
Are you sure you understand democracy there?

Bingo, full house of whataboutery.

Hey, the Russell one is contentious with the Jewish community, not just the unionsts and "partitionists". Why don't we start with a universally unpopular one like that?

Unless of course, you believe the man should be celebrated?

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 12:24am

blanch152 wrote: »

Bingo, full house of whataboutery.

Hey, the Russell one is contentious with the Jewish community, not just the unionsts and "partitionists". Why don't we start with a universally unpopular one like that?

Unless of course, you believe the man should be celebrated?

Here you go constructing yet another lie.

I believe all contentious statues should be taken down, full stop, no if's or buts, or 'let's begin with this one', dodging.

So far, all we can deduce is that you believe only the ones you find contentious should be taken down?

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 12:30am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here you go constructing yet another lie.

I believe all contentious statues should be taken down, full stop, no if's or buts, or 'let's begin with this one', dodging.

So far, all we can deduce is that you believe only the ones you find contentious should be taken down?

Nope, without an agreed definition of contentious, we will find spurious republican arguments sprouting up all the time, just as we see on these threads.

So let's make it easy, start with the most contentious one - Russell - and work from there. If you agree that it should be taken down, we can then move on to the next one - your nomination. If you don't agree that it should be taken down, and engage in more waffle about all statues, then we can see you for what you are.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 12:35am

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, without an agreed definition of contentious, we will find spurious republican arguments sprouting up all the time, just as we see on these threads.

So let's make it easy, start with the most contentious one - Russell - and work from there. If you agree that it should be taken down, we can then move on to the next one - your nomination. If you don't agree that it should be taken down, and engage in more waffle about all statues, then we can see you for what you are.

Ah so you get to decide?

That'll go well.

Personally in the interests of democracy and fairness, I would agree what 'contentious criteria' a statue would have to meet first and then take all of them down that meet that criteria.

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 10:09am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah so you get to decide?

That'll go well.

Personally in the interests of democracy and fairness, I would agree what 'contentious criteria' a statue would have to meet first and then take all of them down that meet that criteria.

Why don't we take a limited approach and remove the statues that are offensive to groups other than Republicans and Unionists?

Sean Russell's statue offends the Jewish community.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 10:25am

blanch152 wrote: »

Why don't we take a limited approach and remove the statues that are offensive to groups other than Republicans and Unionists?

Sean Russell's statue offends the Jewish community.

TBH I think your difficulty with this issue illuminates why the anti-UI/partitionist position has not found a political home or voice. It is fundamentally an undemocratic hypocritical position that no serious politician would touch.

You also don't understand what 'normalising society' means. You can only do that if regulations on flags and parades and memorials etc are applied to all evenly. And you cannot do that by saying...this one offends me, let's get rid of this republican one first.

_blaaz · 25-07-2019 10:44am

blanch152 wrote: »

Why don't we take a limited approach and remove the statues that are offensive to groups other than Republicans and Unionists?

Sean Russell's statue offends the Jewish community.

Luke kellys statue offends the musical community who have good taste

Hilarious little strawman your building here

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 10:47am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

TBH I think your difficulty with this issue illuminates why the anti-UI/partitionist position has not found a political home or voice. It is fundamentally an undemocratic hypocritical position that no serious politician would touch.

You also don't understand what 'normalising society' means. You can only do that if regulations on flags and parades and memorials etc are applied to all evenly. And you cannot do that by saying...this one offends me, let's get rid of this republican one first.

_blaaz wrote: »

Luke kellys statue offends the musical community who have good taste

Hilarious little strawman your building here

Comparing the musical taste offence caused by a Luke Kelly statue to the offence caused to the Jewish community by the Sean Russell statue says it all about the Republican attitude to building community relations and the disdain that they hold other cultures.

Sean Russell's statue is offensive to everyone except die-hard republicans. Even Francie would admit that the man was wrong - misguided was the word he used.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 11:18am

blanch152 wrote: »

Comparing the musical taste offence caused by a Luke Kelly statue to the offence caused to the Jewish community by the Sean Russell statue says it all about the Republican attitude to building community relations and the disdain that they hold other cultures.

Sean Russell's statue is offensive to everyone except die-hard republicans. Even Francie would admit that the man was wrong - misguided was the word he used.

I do think he was wrong. But is the statue celebrating that?.

TBH, statues are static, passive things. You have to engage and decide to be offended or outraged by them.

You say the Jewish Community are offended or outraged about the Russell one and it should be taken down for that reason alone.
You would therefore be in favour of taking down the statue of Oliver St John Gogarty and Jim Larkin who were anti-Semites, particularly Gogarty.

If you take down Carson, would you then be in favour of taking down Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein?
Move across the water, should Churchill statuery come down because one is offended by his racism and actions in Africa and elsewhere?

It is a complex issue and isn't going to be sorted out by, 'take that republican one that offends me down and then we will talk about the rest'.

Finding a way that ALL can honour their dead respectfully would be a safer course to chart imo. And to do that, requires making balanced and fair compromises.
The bigger imperative is to stop people using symbols and the dead to taunt and enflame at physical flashpoints and annual ones, like the 12th and the anniversary of Internment.

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 12:03pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do think he was wrong. But is the statue celebrating that?.

TBH, statues are static, passive things. You have to engage and decide to be offended or outraged by them.

You say the Jewish Community are offended or outraged about the Russell one and it should be taken down for that reason alone.
You would therefore be in favour of taking down the statue of Oliver St John Gogarty and Jim Larkin who were anti-Semites, particularly Gogarty.

If you take down Carson, would you then be in favour of taking down Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein?
Move across the water, should Churchill statuery come down because one is offended by his racism and actions in Africa and elsewhere?

It is a complex issue and isn't going to be sorted out by, 'take that republican one that offends me down and then we will talk about the rest'.

Finding a way that ALL can honour their dead respectfully would be a safer course to chart imo. And to do that, requires making balanced and fair compromises.
The bigger imperative is to stop people using symbols and the dead to taunt and enflame at physical flashpoints and annual ones, like the 12th and the anniversary of Internment.

Ultimate whataboutery as you remain unable to deal with any single issue in isolation from others.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 12:10pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Ultimate whataboutery as you remain unable to deal with any single issue in isolation from others.

The issue is 'contentious statues', not your knee jerk reaction to all things republican blanch.

If you cannot see your blatant hypocritical stance here then that is your problem.

Republican objections are

blanch152 wrote:

spurious

while yours are valid. QED.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 2:20pm

I said earlier I would post a link to how republican murals changed after the GFA.

This is it. I attended an illustrated lecture given by this guy a while back.

https://www.forwallswithtongues.org.uk/artists/northern-ireland-an-essay-by-professor-bill-rolston/

Republican muralists played a key role in calming nerves and persuading people to go along with these momentous changes, politically educating the grassroots about the compromises needed in a peace process. One technique was to remind people that the goals were still the same: equality in the North, and ultimately a united country. There was no sudden change of iconography: no butterflies, rainbows, sunrises, children holding hands or other superficial symbols of peace. Instead, some murals acted as a call to the state to deliver on the promises of the Agreement.

In addition, old symbols could take on new roles. For example, the continued painting of the image of Bobby Sands was not to indicate stasis or even worse, a pining for the reassurances of binary conflict. Rather, it was a form of reassurance and persuasion (see figure 5). The message in effect was this: you stuck by Bobby Sands during the hunger strike; you supported the liberation struggle of which he was part; now we have moved into a new phase where we are prioritising different means to the same end of liberation; peace is not a sell-out but a new opportunity; join us.
Republican muralists took a decision no longer to paint hooded men or guns. There were two exceptions: first, historical murals, for example, depicting fighters in the Easter Rising in 1916; and second, memorial murals, often site-specific, portraying dead comrades from the recent conflict. In both cases the guns depicted were not contemporary, were not for current use. Republicans could make this major step because of the range of other themes on which they could paint–Irish history and mythology, local current affairs and commemorations, as well as international struggles

Loyalist muralists were in a more difficult position. Their ability to match the range of republican themes was severely limited. Their grasp of history was less firm, and they had limited scope to draw on mythology. Furthermore, loyalist muralists could not easily depict international comparisons. The only contemporary parallel referenced in loyalist murals is to Israel. For some there is a genuine sense of connection, but for others simply a retort to the republicans’ identification with Palestine.

Given the fixation on military imagery, taking the guns out of loyalist murals is highly problematic. The fear is that it would leave almost nothing else to be painted. The message to loyalist commanders to take the guns out of the murals was in essence a demand to return mural painting to the wider unionist community where the hopes and fears of the whole community could be expressed rather than simply the propaganda needs of the armed minority.

blanch152 · 25-07-2019 2:57pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said earlier I would post a link to how republican murals changed after the GFA.

This is it. I attended an illustrated lecture given by this guy a while back.

https://www.forwallswithtongues.org.uk/artists/northern-ireland-an-essay-by-professor-bill-rolston/

Murals are one of the key sectarian tools in Northern Ireland.

They are used by both sides to define their territories and to keep "the others" out. That is not to the benefit of society and only encourages segregation and tribalism.

Every single one of them should be whitewashed.

Fionn1952 · 25-07-2019 3:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do think he was wrong. But is the statue celebrating that?.

TBH, statues are static, passive things. You have to engage and decide to be offended or outraged by them.

You say the Jewish Community are offended or outraged about the Russell one and it should be taken down for that reason alone.
You would therefore be in favour of taking down the statue of Oliver St John Gogarty and Jim Larkin who were anti-Semites, particularly Gogarty.

If you take down Carson, would you then be in favour of taking down Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein?
Move across the water, should Churchill statuery come down because one is offended by his racism and actions in Africa and elsewhere?

It is a complex issue and isn't going to be sorted out by, 'take that republican one that offends me down and then we will talk about the rest'.

Finding a way that ALL can honour their dead respectfully would be a safer course to chart imo. And to do that, requires making balanced and fair compromises.
The bigger imperative is to stop people using symbols and the dead to taunt and enflame at physical flashpoints and annual ones, like the 12th and the anniversary of Internment.

Ultimate whataboutery as you remain unable to deal with any single issue in isolation from others.

Posted this already but got an error message, so if I end up double posted, apologies!

Anyway, onto the point - Blanch, you're posting about Republican statues in a thread about the 12th of July.....you've barely discussed anything except what's wrong with Republicanism, on a thread about the 12th of July. A bit hypocritical to start throwing down accusations of whataboutery, no?

_blaaz · 25-07-2019 3:55pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Comparing the musical taste offence caused by a Luke Kelly statue to the offence caused to the Jewish community by the Sean Russell statue says it all about the Republican attitude to building community relations and the disdain that they hold other cultures.

Sean Russell's statue is offensive to everyone except die-hard republicans. Even Francie would admit that the man was wrong - misguided was the word he used.

Where has the jewish community spoken out aginest sean russel statue??

Biggest dissidents i know are half jewish

_blaaz · 25-07-2019 3:57pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Murals are one of the key sectarian tools in Northern Ireland.

They are used by both sides to define their territories and to keep "the others" out. That is not to the benefit of society and only encourages segregation and tribalism.

Every single one of them should be whitewashed.

You cant whitewash history though?

I think murals are great (even many loyalist ones are dark humour,that i do like)

Even the waterford walls festival are a shout out to the future of murals......nothing quite as depressing as the corporate PC culture rammed down everyones throat and attempts to erode dark humour are wrong imo

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 4:27pm

_blaaz wrote: »

You cant whitewash history though?

I think murals are great (even many loyalist ones are dark humour,that i do like)

Even the waterford walls festival are a shout out to the future of murals......nothing quite as depressing as the corporate PC culture rammed down everyones throat and attempts to erode dark humour are wrong imo

The reason there are 'territories' is a direct result of partition and the polarisation for two communities and bolstered by gerrymandering that came later as the suprematist statlet got into full swing.
You are not going to normalise that anomaly overnight or by getting out buckets of whitewash.

What you have to do is normalise relations between the 2 communities. That study shows plainly that there are those who recognise that change must happen and started the process almost as soon as the GFA was signed.

If you are going to have 'territories' and murals for the foreseeable future then this is surely the way to approach it:

Republican muralists played a key role in calming nerves and persuading people to go along with these momentous changes, politically educating the grassroots about the compromises needed in a peace process.

Junkyard Tom · 25-07-2019 5:50pm

I think those who describe Russell as a 'collaborator' are giving us a little insight as to confused loyalties. Russell wasn't British. Ireland wasn't at war with Germany. You can describe Russell in many ways, an opportunist, misguided, wrong side of history, whatever, but what he most certainly wasn't was a collaborator.

janfebmar · 25-07-2019 7:01pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think those who describe Russell as a 'collaborator' are giving us a little insight as to confused loyalties. Russell wasn't British. Ireland wasn't at war with Germany. You can describe Russell in many ways, an opportunist, misguided, wrong side of history, whatever, but what he most certainly wasn't was a collaborator.

Of course he was a collaborator. Look up the definition of collaboration. Russell was a leader in the IRA. The world was at war, and Germany invaded many neutral countries during the war. It murdered 6 million Jewish civilians during the war, plus others. Russell was at sea in a German submarine when he died, Germany was not running Disney type excursions out in to the Atlantic at that time. Of course Russell was collaborating or attempting to collaborate. Yet another shameful chapter in Republican history.

_blaaz · 25-07-2019 7:34pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course he was a collaborator. Look up the definition of collaboration

Indeed....

.a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector

How can acting aginest britain when ireland independant be regarded as traitorist?

You cant be traitor to a country your not from :pac:.....imagine pushing a point and talking down to everyone and not knowing what you saying

Stop moaning ffs · 25-07-2019 7:54pm

Heyis

Where is this statue of Sean Russell exactly?
And if we want to talk about statues there’s one of Cromwell outside Parliament and it’s a good 30 feet tall.

The ‘but but but’ and constant misrepresentation of other people’s posts by certain elements here tells its own tale.

Bizarre altogether.

davycc · 25-07-2019 8:12pm

The one of Russell is in st Anne's park on Dublin northside.

Pass it by on the way to work.

It's very well hidden and tiny enough footprint wise. .
I did a tour of the London parliament with some northern brethren and they couldn't stay away from the Fecking Cromwell statute. Each to their own!

Stop moaning ffs · 25-07-2019 8:20pm

I might be wrong but st Anne’s Park was a private residence at one stage.
So the statue could well have been erected by the owner of the estate.
And not by the baddy Irish government trying to annoy de prods

St Anne’s is mad out of the way and as Daveycc just said the statue is buried in a park nobody goes to in any numbers. It’s a beautiful park.

The statue you’re all rowing about isn’t in town.
I find it odd in the relentless back n forth about it nobody asked where it is.
Soooooooooo all the absolute nonsense about statues is kind of not what we’re talking about really right?

Next up. Jan complaining about the popes cross being offensive to Protestants

Annd9 · 25-07-2019 8:38pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course he was a collaborator. Look up the definition of collaboration. Russell was a leader in the IRA. The world was at war, and Germany invaded many neutral countries during the war. It murdered 6 million Jewish civilians during the war, plus others. Russell was at sea in a German submarine when he died, Germany was not running Disney type excursions out in to the Atlantic at that time. Of course Russell was collaborating or attempting to collaborate. Yet another shameful chapter in Republican history.

Isn't it funny that decades later it would be loyalists with links to far right groups and flying swastika flags instead of republicans .

davycc · 25-07-2019 8:54pm

davycc wrote: »

The one of Russell is in st Anne's park on Dublin northside.

Pass it by on the way to work.

It's very well hidden and tiny enough footprint wise. .
I did a tour of the London parliament with some northern brethren and they couldn't stay away from the Fecking Cromwell statute. Each to their own!

Edit Fairview park , not st Anne's apologies.....

Stop moaning ffs · 25-07-2019 9:11pm

davycc wrote: »

Edit Fairview park , not st Anne's apologies.....

I’ve been in fairview Park many times and never seen a statue. That’s mad.
Point remains though. Weird it’s location has never been brought up til now.
Fairview is also as you said hardly footfall heavy.

Weird to be complaining about Nazis and statues in a debate about the 12th.

I guess if your ‘culture’ is nothing more than painting kerbs and bonfires you’d probably feel threatened by another language on your road sign. Need to get a grasp of their own language first though maybe.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 10:05pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think those who describe Russell as a 'collaborator' are giving us a little insight as to confused loyalties. Russell wasn't British. Ireland wasn't at war with Germany. You can describe Russell in many ways, an opportunist, misguided, wrong side of history, whatever, but what he most certainly wasn't was a collaborator.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’ve been in fairview Park many times and never seen a statue. That’s mad.
Point remains though. Weird it’s location has never been brought up til now.
Fairview is also as you said hardly footfall heavy.

Weird to be complaining about Nazis and statues in a debate about the 12th.

I guess if your ‘culture’ is nothing more than painting kerbs and bonfires you’d probably feel threatened by another language on your road sign. Need to get a grasp of their own language first though maybe.

blanch152 is the poster who got annoyed about the past being discussed earlier, but of all the imagery, taunting symbol use, bonfires, hanging of recently deceased and living effigies of people he and janfebmar want an obscure statue to a man who lived 70 years ago taken down as a matter of urgency.

Could you write a better example of deflectionary nonsense if you tried?

janfebmar · 25-07-2019 10:17pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think those who describe Russell as a 'collaborator' are giving us a little insight as to confused loyalties. Russell wasn't British. Ireland wasn't at war with Germany. You can describe Russell in many ways, an opportunist, misguided, wrong side of history, whatever, but what he most certainly wasn't was a collaborator.

A collaborator, according to the dictionary, is "A person who works jointly on an activity or project.; an associate" . So you are wrong yet again Junkyard Tom, you are getting things wrong nearly as often as Francie at this stage. Russell was collaborating or attempting to collaborate when he died on the German submarine at sea during WW2.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 10:20pm

So the 100,000 who joined the BA to fight for them could be called collaborators too?
'A person who works jointly on an activity or project.; an associate'

_blaaz · 25-07-2019 10:23pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the 100,000 who joined the BA to fight for them could be called collaborators too?
'A person who works jointly on an activity or project.; an associate'

Id imagine the term collaborator would probably fit better with the british army and armagh uvf based around glennane in their campaign of murder of innocent people

Going by jans definition of it

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 10:27pm

_blaaz wrote: »

Id imagine the term collaborator would probably fit better with the british army and armagh uvf based around glennane in their campaign of murder of innocent people

Going by jans definition of it

True.

Junkyard Tom · 25-07-2019 10:36pm

_blaaz wrote: »

Going by jans definition of it

Let's not go down to crazy town. We all know exactly what he usual hardcore of posters mean when they describe Sean Russell as a collaborator - they're saying it from a position of confused loyalty/nationality.

Highlighted below in blue for any unbiased readers of the thread who are unfamiliar with the cognitive contortions MaryJane, and others, engage in.

25-07-2019 11:34pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’ve been in fairview Park many times and never seen a statue. That’s mad.
Point remains though. Weird it’s location has never been brought up til now.
Fairview is also as you said hardly footfall heavy.

Weird to be complaining about Nazis and statues in a debate about the 12th.

I guess if your ‘culture’ is nothing more than painting kerbs and bonfires you’d probably feel threatened by another language on your road sign. Need to get a grasp of their own language first though maybe.

I never knew that statue existed until I read this thread, though why, precisely, it's relevant to this thread, and why Blanch is so concerned about whether Jews may be offended by it undoubtedly remains a mystery to anyone who doesn't understand that these threads are all about whataboutery when the facts don't suit the narrative....

janfebmar · 26-07-2019 3:00am

Deleted User wrote: »

I never knew that statue existed until I read this thread, though why, precisely, it's relevant to this thread, and why Blanch is so concerned about whether Jews may be offended by it ..

Jews are quite rightly offended that Ireland has the only statue to a Nazi collaborator in Europe. When Russells statue was beheaded about 14 years ago (not the only time it was vandalised), a JEWISH human rights organisation called for the vandalised statue of IRA leader Sean Russell to be left unrestored in a Dublin park as a symbol of Ireland's "shame" for staying neutral in World War Two.

Quote:
"the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris has called for it to be left unrestored as an enduring symbol of Ireland's "shame."

Shimon Samuels, director for international affairs at thecentre, the world's largest Jewish human rights organisation, said: "It's a blot on the history of Ireland, but blots have to see the public light."

He described the statue's desecration as "an opportunity for Ireland to confront its past."

He said: "We're not iconoclasts but I think the destruction of something like this has a meaning, and we would ask for it to be left there as a lesson of what Irish neutrality was all about.""

As said elsewhere, no darker period than WW2 has ever befallen the civilisations of Europe, and those who freely aided the Nazi cause are today very properly reviled throughout the world. Except by Irish Republicans.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-07-2019 7:21am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never knew that statue existed until I read this thread, though why, precisely, it's relevant to this thread, and why Blanch is so concerned about whether Jews may be offended by it undoubtedly remains a mystery to anyone who doesn't understand that these threads are all about whataboutery when the facts don't suit the narrative....

Totally agree.
Somehow if you’re irish you’re automatically a shinner...checks Jane previous post, AND a Nazi collaborator.
Desperate altogether.

janfebmar · 26-07-2019 8:37am

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Totally agree.
Somehow if you’re irish you’re automatically a shinner...checks Jane previous post, AND a Nazi collaborator.
Desperate altogether.

Lol. Your argument is totally defeated when you have to resort to deflection like that. Of course if you are Irish you are probably not a Shinner....I know enough FG, FF and labour voters who are Irish and who would be insulted if you called them Shinners.

The glorious 12th

Comments