Easter lily

Rebelheart

Sand wrote: »

The Rising was intended as a great blood sacrifice: something you admit to, it had no chance of success and was only intended to be a great orgy of violence

Which of course makes it so completely different from that nice peaceful little incident in the Somme by British generals and politicians when young men were sacrificed by their thousands for months on end in the same year of 1916 by generals filled with class hatred and, in the case of the Irish Catholics (encouraged by the leader of your much lauded "constitutional nationalism", John Redmond) sent up first (under the command of Protestant officers, lest we forget), racial and sectarian hatred.


1.5 million misguided and benighted souls were lost in that. It didn't just last for a week. It went on and on from July 1916 to November 1916, people kept returning dead, the same British commanders kept sending more men out to die.The same British politicians sanctioned it, continuously. If that repeated action for some "greater" imperial good is not sheer bloodymindedness then I haven't a clue what is.

Somehow, I don't think many Irish people will take a lecture on the "inhumanity" of Pearse's "blood sacrifice" from the poppy brigade, the glorifiers of one of the largest blood sacrifices in world history. But never mind, sure what would the British be without portraying the Irish as "savages" and themselves as "civilised". How ironically indicative of traditional British "group thinking", isn't it. Oh, I forgot: the independent-minded rational British Protestant has no such tribal affliction, of course.

Anyway, back to the tabloids and keep the myths of glorious and civilised Britannia going. The EU is closing in...fast!

O'Coonassa

"The last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe. Heroism has come back to the earth. It is good for the world that such things should be done. The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefield. Such august homage was never before offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country."

Patrick Henry Pearse on the subject of World War I. Never let it be said that he wasn't a solid nut-job.

Rebelheart

Shane-1 wrote: »

Many Irish people died in the world wars, we should commemorate these people

Why? Because they were born in Ireland? By this logic we can make apologies for, and even "commemorate", any Irish person who took part in savagery. I have yet to hear a single rational reason justifying this "commemorate them" line.

World War I was little other than a battle between imperial powers with Britain determined to defend the balance of power in Europe as it had been since 1815. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, noble. These men were simply joining the powerful because they hadn't the courage to oppose them and stand on the side of their own country's freedom. Fighting for "Little Belgium" how are you! At best, they allowed themselves to be duped by the John Redmonds of this world. Others simply went for adventure. Others still for the money. And others because they believed they were on the winning side and wished to advance their careers within British-controlled Ireland. None of these deserve commemoration, not even the poor eejits duped by the leader of constitutional nationalism and their respective village kingpins in rural Ireland.

Joining the British was the new conservatism of Ireland. They were not heroes. It was the easy way out, and indeed when the bodies started returning the precise same section of Irish society went against the war, particularly conscription, a war they initially thought would be over by Christmas 1914. The chronology of Irish attitudes to that war are brushed aside; there was minimal Irish bravery, plenty of opportunism. The accidental heroes?

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why? Because they were born in Ireland? By this logic we can make apologies for, and even "commemorate", any Irish person who took part in savagery.

What was so "savage" about fighting Nazi's?

Sand

There is considerable debate as to whether it was a 'simple blood sacrtifice'. This idea is based on some of the content of Patrick Pearses poetry and writings. Look at other evidence. Original plans for the rising were based on the assumption that many more volunteers would be available (prior to MacNeills countermanding order) The rising was likewise planned to be a nationwide rebellion, again a plan scuppered by the countermanding order. The original plans for Dublin included taking control of several more buildings across the city centre, setting up a ring fortification around the centre of Dublin - this was the established urban warfare tactic of the time.
Also the real powers behind the rebellion were Thomas Clarke, Sean MacDiarmuda and Thomas MacDonagh. These men were not lofty idealists like Pearse, they would not have planned and taken part in a rebellion with no chances of success, they were firm pragmatists.

MacNeill was the pragmatist. He recognised the rising had no chance of success once the arms from Germany were intercepted, with the British already well aware of the IRB plans and contacts with Germany, and issued the orders to cancelling the planned "maneuveres". He had no wish to see his Volunteers wiped out in a pointless rising.

The IRB leadership continued with the rising despite lacking the arms from Germany and the support from Germany, despite lacking the manpower they had supposed, despite the British realising their intentions, they continued anyway?

Why? Because they were pragmatic? They honestly thought taking over a few public buildings and hunkering down to wait for the British Army to arrive was the tactic that would guide them to stunning victory? Please. Taking a fixed position to hold it against a military force far greater than your own is just helping you much more powerful enemy concentrate his much greater force.

The IRB had only three objectives: declare an Irish republic, destroy constitutional nationalism and revive physical force nationalism and on the basis of the first two points claim a spot at the post war conference representing Ireland.

Youll notice military victory was not one of them. Most of the Volunteers were duped out there (the IRB infiltrated the Volunteers and deceived MacNeill - who had very different plans for the Volunteers - as to their intentions and motivations right to the very end) to die in their droves in a hopeless blood sacrifice. The Somme had more pragmatic logic behind it.

Which of course makes it so completely different from that nice peaceful little incident in the Somme by British generals and politicians when young men were sacrificed by their thousands for months on end in the same year of 1916

The technical term is "Whatabout...."

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

What was so "savage" about fighting Nazi's?

Again the fact that WW II happened to be against creatures such as the Nazis is what JJ Lee once described as a "happy coincidence" for the people who started the twentieth century by interning tens of thousands of women and children in concentration camps during the Boer War and who were, ten years after the Nazis, interning over 1 million Kenyans in the euphemistically named "enclosed villages", not to mention the British secret police who rounded up and tortured the supposed leaders of the Mau Mau who were, as David Anderson showed in his study, known as "the Gestapo" because of their methods against the natives. How ironic.

Moreover, when you wear a poppy you are remembering all those who fought in the British military campaigns throughout the centuries. That includes the implementers of scorched earth policies in Ireland, Cromwellian forces, concentration camps runners, and execution squads in Kenya and south Armagh. The Royal British Legion is very clear that all of these people are being commemorated with the poppy. You cannot just pick and choose as you clearly are doing with the focus on the Nazis. And of course if the poppy brigade really wanted to commemorate human sacrifice they would have a shared symbol with the Russians, who gave far more to defeating Nazism than the British (or even the Americans) did. The Poppy is very much a British nationalist symbol, not a symbol of opposition to war or commemoration of suffering. It commemorates "British" suffering, and is explicitly tribal about it.

Let's not dress it up.

jimmmy

FTA69 wrote: »

I support the actions of the IRA fully.

You can support the Taliban, the UVF, the 9/11 hijackers or whatever you want ....most people do not and do not wear an easter lily.

FTA69

You can be sure the majority of people in Ireland agree with the 1916 Rising and the subsequent Tan War, similarly a lot more people will be wearing a lily than they will a f*cking poppy anyway.

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

Again the fact that WW II happened to be against creatures such as the Nazis is what JJ Lee once described as a "happy coincidence" for the people who started the twentieth century by interning tens of thousands of women and children in concentration camps during the Boer War and who were, ten years after the Nazis, interning over 1 million Kenyans in the euphemistically named "enclosed villages", not to mention the British secret police who rounded up and tortured the supposed leaders of the Mau Mau who were, as David Anderson showed in his study, known as "the Gestapo" because of their methods against the natives. How ironic.

Moreover, when you wear a poppy you are remembering all those who fought in the British military campaigns throughout the centuries. That includes the implementers of scorched earth policies in Ireland, Cromwellian forces, concentration camps runners, and execution squads in Kenya and south Armagh. The Royal British Legion is very clear that all of these people are being commemorated with the poppy. You cannot just pick and choose as you clearly are doing with the focus on the Nazis. And of course if the poppy brigade really wanted to commemorate human sacrifice they would have a shared symbol with the Russians, who gave far more to defeating Nazism than the British (or even the Americans) did. The Poppy is very much a British nationalist symbol, not a symbol of opposition to war or commemoration of suffering. It commemorates "British" suffering, and is explicitly tribal about it.

Let's not dress it up.

The poppy as a symbol is universal in many countries that took part in WWI. Maltese, South Africans, Aussies, Yanks, Kiwi's, Canucks, and ze brave French wear poppies. These people are British are they?

Exile 1798

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why? Because they were born in Ireland? By this logic we can make apologies for, and even "commemorate", any Irish person who took part in savagery. I have yet to hear a single rational reason justifying this "commemorate them" line.

World War I was little other than a battle between imperial powers with Britain determined to defend the balance of power in Europe as it had been since 1815. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, noble. These men were simply joining the powerful because they hadn't the courage to oppose them and stand on the side of their own country's freedom. Fighting for "Little Belgium" how are you! At best, they allowed themselves to be duped by the John Redmonds of this world. Others simply went for adventure. Others still for the money. And others because they believed they were on the winning side and wished to advance their careers within British-controlled Ireland. None of these deserve commemoration, not even the poor eejits duped by the leader of constitutional nationalism and their respective village kingpins in rural Ireland.

Joining the British was the new conservatism of Ireland. They were not heroes. It was the easy way out, and indeed when the bodies started returning the precise same section of Irish society went against the war, particularly conscription, a war they initially thought would be over by Christmas 1914. The chronology of Irish attitudes to that war are brushed aside; there was minimal Irish bravery, plenty of opportunism. The accidental heroes?

Very true and well said.

jimmmy

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The poppy as a symbol is universal in many countries that took part in WWI. Maltese, South Africans, Aussies, Yanks, Kiwi's, Canucks, and ze brave French wear poppies. These people are British are they?

Well said. Donations from poppie sales go towards needy / disabled ex-servicemen and / or their families who may have fallen on hard times, as far as I know.

Shane-1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why? Because they were born in Ireland? By this logic we can make apologies for, and even "commemorate", any Irish person who took part in savagery. I have yet to hear a single rational reason justifying this "commemorate them" line.

World War I was little other than a battle between imperial powers with Britain determined to defend the balance of power in Europe as it had been since 1815. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, noble. These men were simply joining the powerful because they hadn't the courage to oppose them and stand on the side of their own country's freedom. Fighting for "Little Belgium" how are you! At best, they allowed themselves to be duped by the John Redmonds of this world. Others simply went for adventure. Others still for the money. And others because they believed they were on the winning side and wished to advance their careers within British-controlled Ireland. None of these deserve commemoration, not even the poor eejits duped by the leader of constitutional nationalism and their respective village kingpins in rural Ireland.

Joining the British was the new conservatism of Ireland. They were not heroes. It was the easy way out, and indeed when the bodies started returning the precise same section of Irish society went against the war, particularly conscription, a war they initially thought would be over by Christmas 1914. The chronology of Irish attitudes to that war are brushed aside; there was minimal Irish bravery, plenty of opportunism. The accidental heroes?

If you read the rest of my posts you would see that I agree with your sentiments exactly, however I take a slightly different view. I cant agree with some of your ideas on our soldiers there. Lets see, we have many men who enlisted in the false idea that it might benefit Irish nationalism, freedom for small nations, Redmonds speechs etc. We have younger people who didnt appreciate what they were letting themselves in for, and most importantly we have a third group of men who left these shores.

These were the men who were forced to fight for economic reasons, the promise of a wage and potentially a pension to support a wife and children in hard times was too much for some people to turn down. Im as nationalist as anyone else on here but I cant condemn a man for wanting to ensure the survival of his family. Its all well and good us taking the moral high ground over these men when we are sitting in our comfortable homes, on our feckin computers! Do you have to worry about the next rent bill, your food for next week, your children getting fed and clothed, well? Im sure the answer is no, even our worst off people dont have the daily struggle many of these men had. How can you judge them men when you havent experienced what they have, that took bravery, would you risk your life and limb for anyone would you? I shouldnt think that you would, they did. And many of them contributed to the fight for freedom in 1919 - 21, in the process contributing more to this country than I should think you ever will. 'The easy way out' what a joke, you crouch down in a trench with bullets skimming over your head and tell me thats the easy way out! I would much rather sit on the fence at home and pass judgement, like your early twentieth century predecessors would have.

The tragedy was that a situation existed that forced these men to take this course. Thats the tragedy of the war that made men such as James Connolly so vehemently opposed to it. It was a colonial war between powers who exploited their respective working classes to fight their corner, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to speak ill of these men. I hate the war, I hate the regime that sent them to the war, but I respect the courage of those men in hard times.

Im sick to the teeth of people coming on this forum and taking the moral high ground over our men of 1916, the war of independence, and even the world wars. Truth is there are very few of the Celtic Tigers Brats on here that would dream of emulating any of what they done.

José Alaninho

Shane-1 wrote: »

Im sick to the teeth of people coming on this forum and taking the moral high ground over our men of 1916, the war of independence, and even the world wars. Truth is there are very few of the Celtic Tigers Brats on here that would dream of emulating any of what they done.

+1 and amen.

Shane-1

And before you start again, I wouldnt dream of wearing a poppy for any reason. I am wearing the lily right now, I couldnt bring myself to wear a poppy to celebrate british military conquests and victories, which include those in the north, I think the thing would burn into my skin if I tried to put it on

That is why I am saying we should put out our own version, to mark the tragic loss of life of so many of our, albeit often misguided, men. They were taken advantage of, both in economic and political ways, and I think it is high time we claim them back. Why should we allow their British murderers to continue to claim them under their flag? I can assure you the majority of them fought and died as Irishmen, not as west brits or loyal subjects. Why should we be letting the British still commend their bravery 'in fighting for the glory of the United Kingdom' or whatever spin it is they put on it every November? We should claim them back, commemorate them for what they did, took tough decisions in tough times, and unfortunately many paid a tough price for their decisions.

dlofnep

I am wearing one, and have been selling them for the past 2 weeks. The response in Waterford has been very positive and it's good to see people wearing them. Funds we received we have put into restoring monuments.

I personally, along with a few others cleaned out the monument on the side road on the way out to tramore. There was rubbish in it that must have been there 50 years.. We had to scrub it down with parazone, and mop muck up off the ground - only to find that hidden under all that muck was a nice pair of tiles!

Shane-1

I found it hard this year to come by one here in Whest Clare, but finally did anyway. I meant to bring them down from Dublin, I was asked to sell them above there but I was coming home for 2 weeks, I would have otherwise. Its great to see them worn, its a fitting tribute to men and women whom we owe so much to.

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

I hate the war, I hate the regime that sent them to the war, but I respect the courage of those men in hard times.

Everyone hates war. Do you think it would have been better to let the Germans invade France , little Catholic Belgium and wherever else it wanted , on the 2 occassions in done so in the 20th century ?

As you sit at your computer, do you realise what plans the Germans had for the male citizens of these islands, had it been victorious in WW2 ?

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

You can support the Taliban, the UVF, the 9/11 hijackers or whatever you want ....most people do not and do not wear an easter lily.

Ah here, thats not like with like AT ALL. The IRA is long long gone - how often do I have to say that the PIRA (etc) is different. I assume you are as righteous about every violent uprising that is celebrated worldwide :rolleyes: Here are a few to get you started

Sand wrote: »

Claiming that you guys have differing opinions might be overstating it. Already had two seperate guys asking "Whatabout the innocent Dubs killed by the British!?!<>!>!?" and had the old sneering West Brit accusations. All stock responses that indicate group think. Mind you, its understandable - given that free thinkers in Provo circles tended to end up found in ditches or shallow graves, perhaps reading from a fixed playbook is a survival trait.

What has this Got to Do with the PROVOS - are you accusing me of being a PROVO? You need to cop yourself on son. Have I even done any of what you list to you? No is the answer - so why the f**k is it used in a reply to what I say?

You strike me as not the smartest - because you are generalising me - I feel like generalising you - and thats not a good thing. If you wanted people to see your point of view don't go on like this.

Now as for the rest of your

Read up on the aul Stair na hÉireann will ya - You seem to think that 'Rome Rule' would be accepted by protestants. Now I'll advise you to look up some things:
-The Ulster Covenent
-Who first imported guns (*Cough* Ulster)


Finally - the wonderful people at boards have invented many buttons to help you quote my, and others wonderful words - for the second time Please use them

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

Everyone hates war. Do you think it would have been better to let the Germans invade France , little Catholic Belgium and wherever else it wanted , on the 2 occassions in done so in the 20th century ?

As you sit at your computer, do you realise what plans the Germans had for the male citizens of these islands, had it been victorious in WW2 ?

Little Catholic Belgium? they werent quite so little and they trodding all over their colonies in Africa were they? And lets not get away from the fact that WW1 was nothing but a colonial war, there were no high and lofty ideas of freedom etc in that war, look at the British; their fight for the freedom of small nations was interrupted when they had to send some soldiers next door to put down a fight for the freedom of small nations. Hypocracy that knows no bounds.

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

Everyone hates war. Do you think it would have been better to let the Germans invade France , little Catholic Belgium and wherever else it wanted , on the 2 occassions in done so in the 20th century ?

As you sit at your computer, do you realise what plans the Germans had for the male citizens of these islands, had it been victorious in WW2 ?

And I havent even made a single mention throughout this thread of the second world war, thats a different story. Though I would be intrigued to know what plans the Germans had for us here in Ireland because as far as I was aware I didnt think they really had any.

There was Operation Green, a planned occupation of Ireland should the British appear likely to try and re-occupy us. Interestingly the German documents of this plan show that they were willing to implement the plan on an invite-only basis, they would have to be invited by neutral Dev, how polite! The plan contains no details of any weird and wonderful plans for the governing of the country however.

There was also Plan Kathleen, the plan to occupy northern Ireland with the aid of the IRA, however, unfortunately this plan also contained no details regarding the nazi's devilish plans for us after.

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

Little Catholic Belgium? they werent quite so little and they trodding all over their colonies in Africa were they?

Belgium was little enough to be successfully invaded by the Germans. Of course Catholic Belgium has a horiffic track record in regard to slavery + cruelty in Africa , up in to as recent as the early 20th century I believe .....long long after countries like Britain outlawed slavery.

Shane-1 wrote: »

And lets not get away from the fact that WW1 was nothing but a colonial war,

There were no colonies in Europe, sorry. Germany was the agressor in mainland Europe. The battles were fought after she invaded France, Belgium etc were they not ?

Shane-1 wrote: »

there were no high and lofty ideas of freedom etc in that war, look at the British; their fight for the freedom of small nations was interrupted when they had to send some soldiers next door to put down a fight for the freedom of small nations.

Over 100,000 Irishmen volunteered to serve ; far fewer were involved in the 1916 rising. Do not forget the men of 1916 were jeered + spat upon asfter they surrendered. If there were riots in Achill, would the army be sent in ? If there were riots in Tasmania , would the Australian govt do as the government authories did in 1916. Or one of the islands of Japan ?
The men in the Somme were fighting for the freedom of these islands more so than any of the rebels of 1916 - thats why they were jeered / spat upon.

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

And I havent even made a single mention throughout this thread of the second world war, thats a different story. Though I would be intrigued to know what plans the Germans had for us here in Ireland because as far as I was aware I didnt think they really had any.

They had actually. It was discovered after the war there was plans to build an autobahn to the far east with slave labour ( slave labour had already been used in occupied countries in their munitions factories etc during the war ) ie useful extermination.

Ah sure Hitler was'nt a bad lad. He was not excommunicated and even Dev paid his respects to the auld German embassy down the road in '45, long enough after the concentration camps had been well + truly exposed.

dlofnep

How did we get from Easter Lillies to Hitler and the autobahn? The mind boggles!

Sand

how often do I have to say that the PIRA (etc) is different

Until it starts making sense - sure, theyre different organisations. But they are otherwise very alike. The Provos are the inheritors of the men of 1916 with their dismissal of consitutional means and the need for public support.

What has this Got to Do with the PROVOS - are you accusing me of being a PROVO? You need to cop yourself on son. Have I even done any of what you list to you? No is the answer - so why the f**k is it used in a reply to what I say?

No, not yet: It was used because you were questioning my dismissal of Provos on this thread as having a hive mind mentality and a few stock responses.

As for Provo, its just a short hand term for all the militant republicans on boards. As I said the Provos are the true inheritors of Pearses dream, though perhaps the mantle is now moving on to the Real IRA. I cant be bothered keeping track of all the Judean Peoples Front type splinter groups, but Provo tends to cover it.

Always hilarious how all the fans of militant republicanism get so desperately offended at being classed along with all the other fans of militant republicanism though. Theyre all unique and special snowflakes.

If you wanted people to see your point of view don't go on like this.

Again I dont really concern myself with acting like some sort of missionary to rescue the poor devils of the internet from their confused and wholly unSandian views.

You seem to think that 'Rome Rule' would be accepted by protestants.

I dont think partition could be prevented. Physical force traditionalists are convinced that if they just killed some people it could have been prevented, or reversed. Theyve been wrong every time.

-The Ulster Covenent
-Who first imported guns (*Cough* Ulster)

Oh my god - I have never heard of either of these. This completely changes everything....oh wait. Its common knowledge.

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

They had actually. It was discovered after the war there was plans to build an autobahn to the far east with slave labour ( slave labour had already been used in occupied countries in their munitions factories etc during the war ) ie useful extermination.

Ah sure Hitler was'nt a bad lad. He was not excommunicated and even Dev paid his respects to the auld German embassy down the road in '45, long enough after the concentration camps had been well + truly exposed.

Where did you get this autobahn story from? A reference would be handy, cause I've yet to hear anything about this!

And how were the men in the Somme fighting for Irish freedom? I dont believe the Germans had anything to do with us not being a free country? And the Irish fighting in that war were eventually on the winning side, and I didnt see them get anything for it? Nor was anything promised I guess, Redmond may have prattled on about our help securing home rule without partition but that was misguided. So I cant see how you can conclude that the men at the Somme were fighting more for our freedom than those men in Dublin.

The men of '16 were initially jeered and booed etc following the rising, but some historians have argued that perhaps some of this was down to ignorance to what was actually after happening. Theres evidence that in fact many citizens were in the belief that the rising was a German operation, or at least German supported. Some newspapers of the time reported it as such. When in fact they learned that it was an Irish insurrection they are said to have changed their opinions towards it. I myself am'nt sure what I make of that arguament but I said I would put it down here anyway, just to broaden the perspectives of the arguament a bit.

And yes, I did use the wrong terminology with the word colonial, speed typing! I guess my mind was wandering onto Irelands involvement and us being a colony and me cogitating on Belgium and their glorious colonial exploits etc. Deepest regrets for that.

Shane-1

Sand wrote: »

Until it starts making sense - sure, theyre different organisations. But they are otherwise very alike. The Provos are the inheritors of the men of 1916 with their dismissal of consitutional means and the need for public support.

Whole can of worms attempting to be opened here me boy, please refer to my previous post vis a vis lack of historical knowledge. If you were to tell, lets say, a RSF/ Continuity IRA man that the Provisional IRA were the inheritors and holders of the nationalist tradition in Ireland, well you may find an interesting reply awaits. You need to get an appreciation of the complexity of the situation that you seem to be professing to know so well. If you want your arguaments to be taken seriously of course!

No, not yet: It was used because you were questioning my dismissal of Provos on this thread as having a hive mind mentality and a few stock responses.

As for Provo, its just a short hand term for all the militant republicans on boards. As I said the Provos are the true inheritors of Pearses dream, though perhaps the mantle is now moving on to the Real IRA. I cant be bothered keeping track of all the Judean Peoples Front type splinter groups, but Provo tends to cover it.

Well if you cant be bothered, and are as thus admitting that your knowledge of this situation is less than satisfactory, then why do you continue to try and debate something that you clearly do not have an interest/ knowledge of?

Always hilarious how all the fans of militant republicanism get so desperately offended at being classed along with all the other fans of militant republicanism though. Theyre all unique and special snowflakes.

Wouldnt it be true that a 'fan' of the Provisional IRA would no longer be a 'fan' of militant republicanism, what with them laying down their arms and ceasing said militant republican activity? Is'nt it equally hilarious how people with the least knowledge of what they are talking about find themselves getting the most involved in threads on here?

Again I dont really concern myself with acting like some sort of missionary to rescue the poor devils of the internet from their confused and wholly unSandian views.

Thanks be to God or we would be flying over to Westminster with the apology note already.

I dont think partition could be prevented. Physical force traditionalists are convinced that if they just killed some people it could have been prevented, or reversed. Theyve been wrong every time.

Same way I guess that physical force elements on the loyalist side felt that killing some people would ensure it?

Oh my god - I have never heard of either of these. This completely changes everything....oh wait. Its common knowledge.

You know if you left out the bit about it being common knowledge I honestly would think you were serious there. You dont seem like the best read on this subject are you?

Nodin

dlofnep wrote: »

How did we get from Easter Lillies to Hitler and the autobahn? The mind boggles!

Some of posters blanket insult republicans, some pine for the days when the country was under British rule and some just go for Argumentum ad Hitlerum.

dlofnep

Ah right, fair enough.

The Easter Lily should be worn proudly IMO. If you don't want to give funds to certain Organisations, just actually use a real Lily. It's not about parties. It's about remember those who gave up more than a space on their shirt for this country - they gave their lifes. Some people in today's society are extremely selfish.

jimmmy

dlofnep wrote: »

. If you don't want to give funds to certain Organisations, just actually use a real Lily.

Better not to use a Lily at all, lest it be mistaken for a terrorist symbol.

Shane-1

A lot of Fianna Fail wear the lily too, more grassroots than ministers how and ever. ( and I suppose you could class them as terrorists too)

They were being given away in our local church down here, no political party associations too, which was nice.