Irish Army and LVF - the connection

by Freddy Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:52

I see from one of those links that our own Blueshirt leader, John Bruton, also supports the military tours company and therefore glorifies violence . But then that should come as no surprise to anyone.
By their friends shall ye know them.
P.S. How about some tours of the places used by the Garda Heavy Gang back in the seventies? Eh, John?

by Arthur Tue Sep 07, 2004 13:03

it may seem uncomfortable for some, but Irishmen did serve in Britain's Armies. So why not commemorate them? If not the only commemorations will go to the Republicans. They like to hijack history. Plus this is hardly commemorating the LVF or the black and tans! Would you like a commemoration to Hitler instead as the I Ran Aways supported him?

by Incredulous Tue Sep 07, 2004 13:15

Of course we should commemorate Irish soldiers who fought in the British armies.

The tens of thousands of Irish who fought and died in the fist and second world wars deserve respect and commemoration. It's terrible to see irish military history hijacked by the extremist republican terrorists who have brought so much shame.

Try a visit to the war memorial gardens in Inchicore, well worth visit.

Ps; The national museum are currently compiling a major exhibition on Irish military history due to open next year. Thankfully it will focus on the work of proper soldiers, no IRA references. I think sectarianism must have been a huge problem for Irish troops with the British army. It's over now. Get over it.

by Fergal Tue Sep 07, 2004 13:24

This article is disingenuous, bordering on ficticious. Military heritage tours is a limited comany and receives no funding from the UK National Lottery. The lottery does fund a scheme whereby british military veterans can revisit places where they served, and this scheme has been known to utilise Military Heritage Tours as it's agent, in trips to the Somme and Normandy.

As for the greengairs thistle band, well they seem like a nasty bunch, but where's the evidence that they fund Military Heitage Tours? I think it's more likely that, as in the above case, they might be occasional customers.

So the shocking link between the Irish Army and the LVF is as follows: The minister for defence attended a commemoration organised by a former soldier, whose company may (or may not) have done travel agent work for a band who glorify loyalist violence. Pretty damning stuff alright. Stop the Presses!!

by the captain Tue Sep 07, 2004 13:31

We ought to celebrate the deaths of British soldiers include natives who died, especially in this country. Take Ewart Biggs. Why is that noble spy not suitably honoured? Perhaps by a re-enactment?

by Noel Tue Sep 07, 2004 14:42

Sergeant-Major Cornelius Coughlan was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry. He stormed a heavily defended building to rescue a seriously injured comrade.

As opposed to the bravery (above and beyond the call of duty) which the courageous IRA exhibited when they stormed the heavily child-filled flat of their enemy Jean McConville and gallantly captured, tortured and murdered her.

Tiocfaidh ar la me arse.

by Forelock tugger Tue Sep 07, 2004 14:47

Yes, why not go the whole hog and bring back the landlords, slums, tithes, queen etc. Why not celebrate the brave Irishmen who wore red or khaki to keep China British. It is a terrible stain on our neo-colony that the glorious legacy of the Empire is hidden and that minor events like suppression of native rebellions and a brief natural famine should be commemorated instead.

by General Blimp Tue Sep 07, 2004 15:05

Yes, we should definitely commemorate how our brave British soldiers put down those horrible upstart fenians in Londonderry in the seventies.

by Fergal Tue Sep 07, 2004 16:50

I think the reason that the recent upsurge in commemoration/ rememberance of the Irishmen who served in the British Army has caused such controversy is because it directly challenges the National Mythology which so many people still cling to.

The National Mythology says we were all oppressed and all hated the british and all supported the 1916 rising, fenians, young irelanders, and united irishmen. People don't like to be reminded that the majority of ordinary people just got on with life, just as they did when the irish state took over just where the british left off. The reality for many was that the Army represented a good career move for a working class young fella, three square meals a day, clean clothes, and some cash in the pocket. The other reality is that most people were happy enough to be part of the British Empire, as long as they were left alone to get on with life, and when their duly elected leaders told them they would cement home rule within the empire by going to defend small nations like Belgium - they agreed! What a surprise!

When i go to events to commemorate Irishmen who died in WW1, it isn't to glorify imperialism or celebrate slaughter, it is to remember the thousands of young men who were butchered on the battlefields of Europe, Asia and Africa by the aristocracy of Europe, each poor devil thinking he was doing the right thing by his family, friends, and country.

In the same week that 400 people were killed in Dublin during the Easter Rising, 2000 Irish men were gassed to death at Hulluch. The National Mythology only wants us to remember one of these tragedies, history demands that we remember both.

by curious Tue Sep 07, 2004 17:07

I take it that you also attend ceremonies to commemorate republicans killed during the Rising?

by Yossarian Tue Sep 07, 2004 19:17

Perhaps the editors should edit the original article with a note in a prominent location stating that this story is based entirely on a story published in the latest Phoenix. Fair's fair.

by Union Jack Tue Sep 07, 2004 23:33

So nice to have our oldest colony returning to the fold again. You've all been very naughty boys and girls but we forgive you. Now lets have no more of this republic nonsense and God save the Queen.

by Caobin sna Cisteán Wed Sep 08, 2004 00:08

When you are inventingly referring to “the National Mythology” I presume you are refering to, and trivialising, the Irish folkmemory of our history as a repressed colony of the english crown:

Sure, “the majority of ordinary people just got on with life”, if they dared try change anything they were butchered instead of being allowed scratch a half living in probably the most degraded corner of the british empire. Is there any wonder despair drove boys and men to become cannon fodder in that criminal war, coaxed along the way by the “loyal opposition” idiocy of the Nationists under Redmond?

-Check your facts in future before slipping in ultra-revisionist shite like “most people were happy enough to be part of the British Empire”. Sinn Fein won almost 80% of the vote on the entire Island in 1918. Happy then were they?

by Union Jack Wed Sep 08, 2004 01:09

Actually it was rather more like 47%

by Arthur Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:47

yes about 47% of the vote and lets not forget that was with a good deal of electoral fraud, a practice continued by IRA/Sinn Fein today.

by Fergal Wed Sep 08, 2004 13:01

I certainly do curious, I would be a hypocrite otherwise.

As for your colleagues description of Ireland as the most degraded part of the british empire - is there really any need for such a ludicrously self pitying whinge? Indymedia subscribers are not a collection of half pissed irish americans crying into their green beer on 'Paddys Day' for the 'oul sod'.

For the record, John Redmond was the democratically elected leader of Nationalist Ireland at the outbreak of WW1, 10 times more members of the Irish Volunteers joined the 10th and 16th Irish Divisions than remained with the IRB rump, and the Easter Rising had very little support among the ordinary people of Ireland until the British started executing its leaders. Sinn Feins support in 1918 has as much to do with the threat of conscription than a widespread desire to set up an Irish Republic. But the National Mythology ignores all of this.

Finally, if we were all so miserable and oppressed then why in the final 50 years of the 19th century was there only one significant fenian rising? Why were the biggest mass campaigns centered around reforming the land laws, not overthrowing the oppressive Brits? Why were the newly emerging mass movements centered around sport and language?

Isn't it the truth that ordinary people then as now wanted to get on with their lives as best as possible and gave the zealots and revolutionaries as wide a berth as possible?

by Seph Wed Sep 08, 2004 13:08

Here, here Fergal.

Sinn Fein/IRA, an insidious cancer which induces false history, a delusional view of the present and a twisted view of the future. A scar on our nation.

by Negus Wed Sep 08, 2004 15:49

Serving in foreign armies was a popular career move for young men through the 19-20th centuries..You all seem to forget that Irish soldiers fought in most armies, British , American and French and did pretty well for themselves..don't hear much comment from the PIRA supporters about the Irish battalions keeping order in the French Empire or their actions in the US army against Indians (sorry- Native Americans). The US conquered Mexico illegally using almost entirely Irish troops.

Suggest you read a little real history before spouting the 'Ould Ireland' line. Bit more reality and little bit less of automatic 'Brit Bashing.'

Might disturb you to find that a number of the current troops in NI are Irish Nationals..some of the 22,000 that still serve in the British Army.

by Eamon a Chnoic Wed Sep 08, 2004 16:13

“Paddys Day, “Green beer”, “three square meals a day” –your perception is truly original. Self pitying whinge?” Wishful thinking there “Fergal”, 26 county Ireland is not part of britain and southern neo-loyalists like yourself, if you are Irish at all, are and always will be, a tiny, cranky minority. Granted you have pockets of support in Irish Independent, D4, PDs etc. but get used to the fact that the vast majority of Irish people want nothing to do with your nostalgia for Empire, cloaked though it is by disgusting abuse of the memories of the victims of the slaughter in WWI.

Sinn Fein got 53. 5% of the total vote in 1918, 73 out of 105 seats, the Nationalists, soon to be subsumed by Sinn Fein got 22.2% making a total separatist bloc vote of 76.3%. Allegations of electoral fraud if true, would knock off a few percentage points but even the most rabid revisionist cannot argue fraud determined the final outcome and retain a shred of credibity. This hypocrisy is stunning considering the fact that the Brits have always had a great record in electoral disenfranchisement themselves. But no doubt revisionists will always dismiss the entire vote to suit their reactionary agenda.

Re your allegation that the final 50 years of brit rule resulted in only one rebellion; the “mass campaigns centered around reforming the land laws” was and is referred to as the Land War. I suppose you could also argue that people living in North Korea, Pinochets Chile, Apartheid South Africa were happy because they weren’t actively “overthrowing the oppressive ….(regimes)”).

Re; Irish soldiers serving for other countries, France and America were Republics and the Irish who fought with those armies were dying for a crack at the Brits, e.g the Canadian invasion of 1867. “The US conquered Mexico illegally using almost entirely Irish troops. Suggest you read a little real history before spouting the 'Ould Ireland' line. Bit more reality and little bit less of automatic 'Brit Bashing.'”
-I have unlike you seem to have done. Ever hear of the San Patricios who were sent to attack Mexico and ended up joining the Mexicans?

Just admit you are hankering after a return to empire and save all your “national mythology” fantasies for the few sad throwbacks who want to believe infantile fiction.

PS I am fully aware that there are Irishmen still taking the Queens shilling, let them if sell their soul if they want that’s their choice doesn’t bother me.

by what the Wed Sep 08, 2004 16:30

don't hear much comment from the PIRA supporters about the Irish battalions keeping order in the French Empire or their actions in the US army against Indians (sorry- Native Americans). The US conquered Mexico illegally using almost entirely Irish troops.

your right to highlight the role of irsh people in all forgien armies as a provo supporter concidering the social economic and political conditions that existed at home that irish people would inflict the same on another culture disgusts me the FF gov minister compared the bold cournilious to all irish people who died in wars to me this misses the point entirely the irish /brit soldiers that died in india and else where died to inforce a stus que that benifed a class interest in england at the expence of the natives he was there in unhonourable cercumstances in the first place
someone made the point that people have the right to rem there dead thats a fair point
but we have the right to remember what happened as well imperialism didn't stop with the treaty it's alive and well in chineese occupied tibet, iraq palistine and dare i say it the north east of ireland if it's wrong in any of theese places then it was wrong in 19th century india and ireland and visa versa

by Patriot Wed Sep 08, 2004 16:32

Not being anti-British doesn't mean you want to rejoin the empire. I for one am confident enough in my Irishness that I feel no need to define it in opposition to Britain. The likes of yourself, Eamon who go on about "the Brits" all the time clearly have some kind of inferiority complex. Me, I don't think about Britain from one of the day to the next. Why on earth would I?

by negus Wed Sep 08, 2004 17:06

'I have unlike you seem to have done. Ever hear of the San Patricios who were sent to attack Mexico and ended up joining the Mexicans?'

Yes I have...really honourable guys who took alliegance to the US and then deserted..not surprisingly they got executed when Uncle Sam caught up with them...

You are making the point that Irish soldiers are rampant cowards who will change sides or run away? Hope not, not a popular point of view and gross libel to many brave men past and present..'

Infantile fiction...similar fantasy to Dev's economic war with Britain which probably did more damage to the nations's health / infrastructure than any other cause?

If you want to live in a green fairyland with a skewed view of history then fine, just don't force it on the rest of the world. 'Welcome to your 'National Myth.'

Please tell me why the guys in the British Army are selling their souls..whats different about them than the Irish guys in the French Army guarding the rockets in French Guiana (a colony run for the benefit of France) or the Swiss guys guarding the Pope..traitors all.

I think you have a problem with the Brits being Brits...I also seem remember a refendum thingy..not so long ago where the Republic dropped its claim to the north by popular vote. So please remind me where the legal right to interfere in the internal workings of another state comes from?

by Red Hugh Wed Sep 08, 2004 18:49

Check your facts again before trying to demean the memory of the men of the San Patricios who showed more guts and integrity in their little fingers than the rest of the US invaders who remained faithful to the land grab and rape of Mexico. If you had ever read this history as opposed to skimming it to suit your own agenda you would have known that the Irish who switched sides made the only honourable choice in the circumstances.

Many had been recruited straight from the coffin ships and the savagery and injustice inflicted on the native population reminded them of what they had just escaped from. Combined with the brutality inflicted upon serving soldiers by their own officers and the ignorant anti-Catholic discrimination, it is to their eternal credit that they took the courageous decision to stand up to oppression. These are the “rampant cowards” you are demeaning and men like these will always worth a hundred of your loyal khaki wearing automatons.

I assume you are being deliberately obtuse by asking what is the difference between serving the English crown and the French or Swiss guard. Correct me if I’m wrong but the French or Vatican never occupied Ireland and recruited the natives to subjugate themselves and others.

So what exactly is your definition of a “brit”? Ireland is an island, Scotland and Wales have the misfortune to be still chained to Westminster, but Britain as a concept was only invented in 1707 so where’s Wales included on your Union Jack then?

“So please remind me where the legal right to interfere in the internal workings of another state comes from?”
- Excellent question, perhaps a “brit” like yourself could answer that on behalf of the millions enslaved by your empire?

by negus Wed Sep 08, 2004 19:10

Couragous..indeed...going to the new world, taking its benefits and then deserting. Nobody made them join up in the first place.

Here we go with the 'poor martyred Ireland dirge again.'

Next you will tell me that Napoleon's Imperial intentions towards Ireland were liberation and establishment of heaven on earth?

And I'm not a Brit, maybe a realist through 15 years in the Defence Forces. I suspect you are not either realist or know anything about armies.

I do know there are other options for soldiers to take if they don't like it. Desertion gets you very dead, usually by your ex-comrades.

As said to a previous post...'Welcome to fairyland and your national myth.'

by Fergal Wed Sep 08, 2004 19:21

"Vatican never occupied Ireland and recruited the natives to subjugate themselves and others"

OK, they didn't exactly "occupy" Ireland in the military sense, but still....

by negus Wed Sep 08, 2004 22:35

Ok point taken. The Vatican was a poor choice.

All empires recruit locals to do the work..this goes back beyond 800BC when the Greeks hired out Hoplite infantry for pay...nothing new there. I'm not apologising for British Imperialism as a good thing, despite the previous posters' views. That empire was created for the benefit of the merchants of Manchester as were all the others..however strange to say if it was so evil how come Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc still have QE2 (not the ship) as head of state...Don't think british troops force them anymore...according to one poster these were settled by people 'keen to have a crack at the brits.'

Maybe we should burn Caesar in effigy for his ruthless pacification of the Celts in Gaul?

Uncle Joe Stalin organised the deaths of 25 Million? Lets hear about a really evil empire and the guys who survived 25 years in the Siberian camps.

by Activist Thu Sep 09, 2004 00:05

Eamon a Chnoic said

"Sinn Fein got 53. 5% of the total vote in 1918, 73 out of 105 seats, the Nationalists, soon to be subsumed by Sinn Fein got 22.2% making a total separatist bloc vote of 76.3%."

While the above figures are correct it must be remembered that the Labour Party did not stand in the 1918 Election. The Labour leaders completely caved in to the Nationalist rethoric of the Republican movement. The following election gives an indication of the possibilities that existed for Labour in 1918. Labour stood 19 candidates in the General Election of 1922, getting 18 elected with 5 topping the poll. There is every reason to believe that if they had stood more candidates then the Labour representation would have been substantially higher. It could also be argued that if Labour had stood in 1918 they would have received a significant vote possibly involving a three way split with Sinn Fein and the Nationalists.

It is also interesting to note that you have combined the Sinn Fein and Nationalists in a seperatist bloc, similar to the pan-nationalist bloc being promoted by SF involving the SDLP and FF.

by moonwolf Thu Sep 09, 2004 00:53

Seems the title of the story is misleading, unless there is some actual evidence that there is a direct link between todays modern P.D.F and the loyalists? Further to that the story is plagarism of a published article.

With regard to "the vatican never occupied Ireland"

1.It directly supported William of Orange.

2.Pope Adrian issued a papal bull to King Henry the second supporting his right to invade Ireland "to restore order in that region of anarchy"

by Graeme M Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:50

Who the hell do you think you are to say that republicans hijack history, if it wasnt for them then you would be living under England, they done more for Ireland than Britain ever done, I doubt you are Irish and if you are not mind your own buisness.I respect the people who fought Nazi Germany People in Ireland who fought for Britain most of them were forced to because of financial rewards, We shouldn't be honouring the brits army , we should be remembering the consequence the brittish rule in ireland and the poor people who were forced to fight .
to say that its not the black in tans that were honoured is a contradicion in terms, thats like saying Its not the black watch it is the paratroopers people hate, brits army is brits army

by soapbox Thu Sep 09, 2004 17:00

Here they are again..the old slaggers crawling out of their holes to defend Ireland.

Mustn't allow free speech..thats why they rig elections..must be great to view life through the base of a Guinness pint glass.

by Fr. Murphy Thu Sep 09, 2004 17:31

Your arrogant rhetoric is bordering on racism and no doubt stems from the bottom of a sherry glass.

by Beef Eater Thu Sep 09, 2004 17:38

Beefeaters? Sherry Glasses? Racism? What on earth are you talking about? I don't even know which side of the debate yr on. Is this some vegitarian thing?

by Soapbox Thu Sep 09, 2004 18:02

You got something against sherry or is methalyted spirit better?

If you are a priest (which I doubt) then I would steer clear of the arrogance and racism angle.

Lots of stones to throw at an organisation rich in its historical tolerence of other faiths, its fondness for burning dissenters and with the largest private bank on the planet..not to mention an apparent general fondness for the arse ends of small boys..

by Fr. Murphy Thu Sep 09, 2004 18:50

Funny how you mention how my "organisation" burned dissenters when I recall being burned in a barrel by redcoated friends of yours in Tullow in 1798. Though having said that there were beatings,flogging and a hanging thrown in before that.

by Fergal Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:09

"I recall being burned in a barrel by redcoated friends of yours in Tullow in 1798"

Wow, that means that you're both inflammable and over 200 years old. You must be a pretty tough geezer.

by jonjo Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:15

Its off the point but the Irish Catholic Church condemned the 1798 rebellion and were rewarded for their loyalty. A few local exceptions like Murphy dont count for much. Except when the Catholic Church see which way the wind is blowing in 1898 and want to rewrite history.

by Bored Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:24

Do we really need these stupid arguments about what happened in Irish history? The article that started this thread is horseshit, and it appears to just be another excuse to provide an outlet for gobshites to talk about how much we were opressed by the British Empire. Why can't you people go to some group therapy meetings and get it out of your system? Maybe there's an Irish History newgroup you can all join. This site is supposed to be about the present and future, not two centuries ago.

by Interested Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:30

Getting ratty there orangeboy aren't you with your call for censorship.

Jonjo, agree re. Catholic church but they were bought off before rebellion by establishment of Maynooth (1795), same year as our intolerant friend "bored's" Orange Order was founded.

by Bored Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:37

That's right interested, I'm bored so by logical extension I'm an orangeman. Such sophisticated political analysis. Why don't you just call me a West Brit while your at it?

by ishmael whale Fri Sep 10, 2004 13:32

http://www.dkit.ie/download/Fortnight%20Article%20on%201918%20Election.pdf

While hating to add to the pedantry, this figure of 53% seems to be an adjusted figure based on the assumption of the result if all constituencies had been contested and if the turnout across constituencies were the same. The actual figure, based on actual votes cast, is 47% as stated by some earlier contributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election%2C_1918#Vote_totals

“Sinn Féin 476087 votes (46.9% of cast votes)
Irish Unionists 257314 (25.3%)
Nationalists 220837 (21.7%)
Labour Unionists 30304 (3.0%)3
Labour 12164 (1.2%)
Independent Unionists 9531 (0.9%)
Independent Nationalists 8183 (0.8%)
Independent Labour 659 (0.1%)
Independents 436 (0.0%) “

by Notinmine Fri Sep 10, 2004 15:45

Look at your own examples of sophisticated political analysis "bored", (sorry for not amusing you -get your mammy to get you a new rattle) .

"article that started this thread is horseshit,"
"just be another excuse to provide an outlet for gobshites to talk about how much we were opressed by the British Empire."

by Bored West Brit Fri Sep 10, 2004 16:19

Thanks old chap. Now I'm off to kill some filthy taigs. It'll give you boys something to write a few ballads about and gripe about on the discussion boards of the future.

by Soapbox Fri Sep 10, 2004 18:13

Got to let the boys wave the flag and play the national game of slagging off the brits.

F* all else to do on the dole in Clondalkin.

by Arthur Fri Sep 10, 2004 19:02

"We shouldn't be honouring the brits army , we should be remembering the consequence the brittish rule in ireland and the poor people who were forced to fight ". There you go saying not this version of history, but lets teach another, ie hijacking. Republicans would love to stifle debate and have it centered around British oppression oh and ignoring IRA atrocities against their own community and civilians in general. Jean McConville, Warington etc never happened right?

by Nordie Fri Sep 10, 2004 20:05

Right enough though but they never would have happened if it wasn't for the Brits occuping a part of Ireland. They just wouldn't have. It's not as if its two parties who are as guitly as each other, or that the natives are as guilty as the occupiers. I know all you neo-loyalists hate to hear this but only the maddest among you can deny the simple fact that its the Brit occupation that has led to all of Irelands political violence for about the last 800 years or so. Can't be denied by anyone who is sane. No excuse for such murders as Kingsmills, Jean McConville and so on but it is why these ghastly things came about in the first place. Simple facts, really.

by gerald the welshman Fri Sep 10, 2004 21:10

"the Brit occupation that has led to all of Irelands political violence for about the last 800 years or so. "

Ahem ... I assume you are dating your "800 years" from around 1170 .......

Now pardon me for asking but wasn't Strongbow a Norman ?

One could argue that the real military subjugation and colonisation of Ireland only began around 1600 during the reign of Elisabeth Tudor when "England" was beginning to emerge as a world-class imperial power .....

Until that time "British" writ didn't really run much outside the Pale .....

And whatever about the rest of the country the subjugation and colonisation of Ulster most definitely only took place AFTER the Flight of the Earls (O Neill and O Donnell) in 1607 ..... until that time Ulster had been one of the last bulwarks of the old Gaelic order ......

Surely all this exposes the futility of such over-simplified cliches like "800 years of Brit occupation" .....

Get yourself a decent history book ...... if you want to move beyond empty sloganeering .....

by Nordie Fri Sep 10, 2004 21:21

Och, alright, alright, yiv got me. I've read the history books too, so we're both the quare boys now and not just you. I was just mouthing, but sure thats the craic.

You've totally refuted my point all the same. Englands cleared now of any involvement in Ireland's troubles past and present and the 800 years its spent occuping one part or another or even the whole bloodly lot dosen't count for a thing. She's got off on a technicality. Lets just forget the whole thing.

by gerald the welshman Fri Sep 10, 2004 23:08

And perhaps it's worth noting that the subjugation and plantation of Ulster only took place after the union of the English and Scottish crowns under King James (I of England, VI of Scotland) .....

So if you hadn't dropped all charges against the "English" I'm afraid that you'd have to also indict the Scots as willing accessories .... assuming you really are interested in JUSTICE and not just rounding up the usual suspects ......

But perhaps that's what you meant by "Brits" in your original piece of sloganeering ....

Now if you had limited yourself to accusing a particular clique of Anglo-Norman (+ Scottish) ruling class oligarchs of causing a lot of problems in Ireland over the centuries, I mightn't have go so upset ....

But you see the truth of the matter is that they have also caused a lot of problems over on mainland Britain for the plain people of "England" (and Scotland) ......

Never heard of the Highland Clearances ?
http://members.aol.com/Skyewrites/menu9.html

Or the Peterloo Massacre ?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819peterloo.html

by Nordie Sat Sep 11, 2004 00:43

And perhaps its also worth noting that England had been here long before the Act of Union and perhaps its aslo worth noting that the Act of Union was a follow on from hundreds of years of English rule in Ireland (notice I didn't say hundreds of years of English rule in ALL of Ireland this time, so am I forgiven?) and perhaps its also worth noting that any crimes the English elite committed in Britain itself have no bearing on a discussion about the trouble England, or Britain, yah, the Brits, but all steeming from England all the same, has caused to Ireland and the implications of it today and perhaps its also worth noting that the Scots were only involved in crimes in Ireland because of Englands original involvment and not off their own tod and so I say its again probably worth noting that Englands the main protaginest here and, and, just one more thing to note is that we simple paddy folk, when refering to the Brits are 99.99% of the time talking about the English so yil just have to forgive our simple ways and if you please good sir and make some allowances for us and not get all hung up on our silly bog-man talk 'cause then you might be in danger of missing the point which is - England - blame her (if you're looking for the root of the problem, that is). Retrail! Retrail, your honour! Hang the bitch.

by gerald the welshman Sat Sep 11, 2004 01:11

And we'll round it all off with a sup of de craythur and a wee song ...

"God`s curse on you, England, you cruel hearted monster,
Your deeds would shame all the devils in Hell,
There were no flowers blooming but the Shamrock is growing
On the grave of James Connolly, the Irish rebel."

by Nordie Sat Sep 11, 2004 01:18

I would prefer to sing the Johnny Adair song I penned last week. I think Johnny Adair sums up England's legacy in Ireland, he is the perfect example of Loyalism:



Who'd Be An Adair?


Once upon a time
Not so long ago

Johnny used to work for the cops
Started his own Reich
Sent down for a stretch...it's tough, so tough
Now Gina works her corner all day
Working through her men, she brings home their pay
Pig love, pig love

She says we gotta run on and never can stop
'cause they facked us aff the Shankill
Our whole dirty lot
Me & you Johnny we've hit a tight spot
Oh love - they're gonna have us shot

Chorus:
We haven't got a prayer
Who'd be an Adair?
A steroid monkey and a dirty oul mare
Who'd be an Adair?

Johnny's got his six years in block
Loyalty his only crime he used
To love to talk so tough, he's tough
Gina dreams of Johnny gone away
Wakes in night screaming
Johnny it's OK, they'll let you go, someday

We gotta run on and never can stop
'cause they facked us aff the Shankill
Our whole dirty lot
Me & you Johnny we've hit a tight spot
Oh love - they're gonna have us shot

Chorus

You'll rot in the shit when it's all that you've got

Chorus

by gerald the welshman Sat Sep 11, 2004 01:20

What about the Popery of Rome .... or have you forgotten the Bull Laudabiliter ....
http://members.foothills.net/ricefile/bull_of_pope_adrian_iv.htm

-- I am the servant of two masters, Stephen said, an English and an Italian.

-- Italian? Haines said.

A crazy queen, old and jealous. Kneel down before me.

-- And a third, Stephen said, there is who wants me for odd jobs.

-- Italian? Haines said again. What do you mean?

-- The imperial British state, Stephen answered, his colour rising, and the holy Roman catholic and apostolic church.

http://www.readprint.com/chapter-6362/James-Joyce

by Nordie Sat Sep 11, 2004 01:31

Ok, we'll hang the pope too. He's over next year you know, will be passing right past my very house. Maybe I'll join the hun to protest against him, but it'll be as a mad chuckie head, oh where will the madness ever end I ask you? Where??!!

by moonwolf Sat Sep 11, 2004 04:20

So the brits(et al) have been occupying Ireland(or parts therof) for over 800 years on the say so of the only english pope, Adrian!!!!!!!!!! is that not hilarious? when you add to that the vatican support for william of orange (protestant) against the roman catholic James, it just gets even more weird!
Then the founders of republicanism being mostly pressies!!!!!! and the first president of the republic of ireland being a prod.................................aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.


anybody know anything about outer mongolian history?

by gerald the welshman Sat Sep 11, 2004 15:34

Ireland was conquered for papal profit ....

http://www.midnet.ie/connolly/irishdem/anonnisanalljulaug1998.html

by negus Sun Sep 12, 2004 01:44

Whatever you do Nordie..don't give up the day job...

by sniper Sun Sep 12, 2004 15:08

Aye indeed .... leave poor Johnny Adair alone .... he's more a vicitim of ruling class politics than anything else .......

If he'd grown up on the "mainland" shure he'd probably have turned out to be an eminently respectable football hooligan .....

by jeff Mon Sep 13, 2004 14:12

This latest posting is great. It is great because such anti British posturing and moaning makes me feel less and less guilty regarding my current re-evaluation of leftism.

This is the most stupid article I have seen yet, and this makes me happy. According to this article, you are a blueshirt if you think that preserving the British aspect of our history is a positive development.

I know a fella from Tipp, and he gives out about the Protestants in his area who go shooting and wear gloves with crowns printed on the wrist . They are, he feels, deliberatly refusing to acknowledge their Gaelic heritage. He is a nice fella, so I only laugh at him. Articles like the above should be treated with the same condescension; treat such sentiments as you might treat a dog tied to a bit of string.

by Severance Mon Sep 13, 2004 19:33

"This is the most stupid article I have seen yet, and this makes me happy. "-
I can understand how you have an affinity with stupidity Jeff as you're still peddling your Queen loving revisionist fictional Irish history.

"you are a blueshirt if you think that preserving the British aspect of (Y)our history is a positive development."

- A positive development??!! Are you for fuc*ing real? Tell you what, try start spouting that shite in public if you believe it so strongly and see how much sympathy you'd get. I think the reaction you'd get would be like the one you threatened David C with on in his "1000 Dead troops" posting.

PS Don't know what you've got against dogs tied up with string old boy, I suppose you only like corgis.

by jeff Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:47

You wrote;

"I can understand how you have an affinity with stupidity Jeff as you're still peddling your Queen loving revisionist fictional Irish history."

The history I may peddle might be one with the word 'compromise' as it's leading context. Anyway, there is nothing there written by myself that reveals me as a nobility loving Tory. I just thought that the original poster was chasing shadows by trying to invent some sinister conspiracy involving Fianna Eireann, the LVF, and some historical society.

And I was right. You have just confirmed my suspicions by your retort. I just love this next comment.

"- A positive development??!! Are you for fuc*ing real? Tell you what, try start spouting that shite in public if you believe it so strongly and see how much sympathy you'd get. I think the reaction you'd get would be like the one you threatened David C with on in his "1000 Dead troops" posting. "

For one thing, it might actually depend what public I was facing. Not everyone on this island is an anorak wearing communist who stands in the rain with big nerdy spectacles, selling Socialist Wanker. Regarding David C, I have not yet read his post, so there is possibly another jeff who has offended your qliphotic sensibilities.

Finally, sympathy. You'll get none from me, you clown!
(Of course, this is cyber space, I'm sure you are not really a clown, but I remain firm in my belief that this oiriginal posting is clownish)

Har!Har! All the best

jeff :0)

by jeff Tue Sep 14, 2004 14:02

"PS Don't know what you've got against dogs tied up with string old boy, I suppose you only like corgis."

Dogs tied up on a bit of string are harmless, just like you and the dude who posted this article. If I had something gainst the poster, I would urge folk to treat such sentiments like you would a dog with rabies.

I actually like cats. Y'know, they are self sufficent and can hunt their own food. They'll take a handout if there is one there, but, unlike dogs, they are not tied to the idea of a planned economy.

by Aongus Fri Sep 17, 2004 17:44

That "dog on string" line would be more impressive if it wasn't obviously lifted from the Slate's mayday special of two years ago. Get your own jokes jeff...

by Captain Donal Buckley - Military Heritage Tours Ltd Tue Nov 02, 2004 21:37

What an extraordinary reaction! If anybody would care to actually visit the website and see what this non-sponsored 100% Irish history company is all about, it might prove interesting.
As to the "reporter" who lifted the drivel that was printed? I do not think any comment is necessary.

by thistle - Greengairs Thistle Flute Band Wed Jun 28, 2006 16:12

While we fully respect and commemorate the sacrifice made by all IRISHMEN for Britains cause in the world wars, we have nothing whatsoever to do with this organisation ,to clear up a couple of mistruths (again) the band were excluded from one particular brand of loyalism almost twenty years ago, we refused to drop a uniform that was a replica of the one wore at the somme by the 36th ulster division, we still parade to this day though to commemorate these and other loyalists who have stood up to the pan nationalist terror machine, brave men like Brian Robinson, Noel Kinner, Raymond Elder,Bill Campbell.

Also to link us in the same sentence as the LVF shows your distinct lack of knowledge of the loyalist movement.It's a bit like putting martin (steaknive number2) maguinness and micky mckevvit as close pals.