Historians routinely agree that the Irish were not slaves in the sense of chattel slavery (i.e. to distinguish it from indentured slavery). I cannot find ANY source in the article that you reference that would lend historical credibility to the claim. The most likely is "The King James I Proclamation of 1625," but
James issued many proclamations, so there wouldn't be just a single untitled document like that.
Historian Liam Hogan has a 5-part series about internet memes arguing for Irish slavery. Here is a paper by him about the myth of Irish slavery, and here is a piece from a historian at slate contextualizing it within other myths about slavery.
In short, there is no evidence to support the numbers presented in the Global Research article and a wide range of historians (of Irish and U.S. history) agree that it is a myth, so I would firmly argue that it is not true.
On the image above: The word it uses to describe the woman being flogged is "apprentice," which is a word that was never confused with "slave" in the period. In addition, the image is from the cover of the Newgate Calendar, a London publication about Mother Brownrigg, a notorious criminal in the early nineteenth century, which is unrelated to slavery.