British poppy: should the Irish commemorate people who fought for the British Empire?

ejmaztec

Morlar wrote: »

Every generation thinks its the bees knees in terms of intellect, technological development, sophistication and all the rest of it. I think it's an arrogant & empty assumption to make. For the first world war we had the propaganda about 'Germans making soap out of the dead', stories about 'the crucified candaidan', ww2 we had 'Germans making soap out of jews', Gulf war one we had 'Iraqis ripping kuwaiti infants from incubators', gulf war 2 we had 'WMD poised to strike', libya 2011 we had. . . . 'gaddaffi is butchering his own people'.

Methods change but people in power can still start wars when they really want to. All they have to do is keep pace with technology and be careful in how it's choreographed, stage managed & presented.

Governments, internet service providers, internet search engines & traditional mass media outlets hold all the cards in terms of which sides of the story you get presented with or which information you might be able to find if you know where to dig. No individual has the resources to check every single source & it becomes about the volume more than about the integrity.

My prediction is that for future wars instead of PR firms lobbying with tearful actresses - next time around you will have an element of social media manipulation on a mass scale, much like for example Israel & pro isreal advocacy groups currently already use large numbers of people to manipulate social media and internet forums. I think it would be foolish to think that out of every generation that has ever been this is the one to see the end to wars, or, this is the one to finally has the ability to see through warmongering propaganda.

Anyway - poppies = Nay !

In my opinion it's illogical to think otherwise. The present generation is the bees knees when compared to the generation of 60 years ago, and in 60 years time, that generation will be the bees knees compared to this one (unless something goes drastically wrong). I also find it illogical that someone can't see the huge difference in the amount of information available across the entire planet, from what there was 60 years ago compared to now. All that most of the people had were newspapers, radio broadcasts and out of date newsreels at their local cinema.

No-one would have found out what happened at Abu Graib, let alone have photographs and other reports plastered across the internet. You wouldn't hear a peep about cruise missiles wiping out wedding parties, or destroying schools. You may hear the odd rumour of someone getting killed by friendly fire, but it would probably be mumbled at a few funerals.

It seems to be pretty much accepted that the constant TV news footage of the Vietnam war was what swayed public opinion against the conflict. Anti-communist propaganda couldn't compete with that.

You'd have to be blind not to see that there's even more information around today. Certainly there are attempts to mislead, but at least there are alternative viewpoints available to people.

This is why I believe that a lower proportion of people fall for the crap dished out by the warmongers of this world, than fell for it in the past.

If anyone ever gets complete control of the internet, then we'll be back to square 1 again however.

Wicklowrider

Nationwide on RTE just covered Irish soldiers in foreign conflict. They said that ALL money raised in southern Ireland remained in southern Ireland and was used to aid Irish vets that needed aid.

gurramok

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Nationwide on RTE just covered Irish soldiers in foreign conflict. They said that ALL money raised in southern Ireland remained in southern Ireland and was used to aid Irish vets that needed aid.

So? We established that already, so keep up. It still funds those soldiers who served in NI.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

So? We established that already, so keep up. It still funds those soldiers who served in NI.

How so? Soldiers from Ireland, north or south of the border, weren't obliged to serve in NI and I'm pretty sure they didn't.

LordSutch

No (I'm Irish)

gurramok wrote: »

I just wonder if they have a change of heart after Cameron's reaction to the FIFA banning of poppys as a political symbol today. Or are they really British after all?

Talking of Cameron & his FIFA poppy appeal, I thought it was farcical, (and I say that as a Poppy supporter)! Why should the Enland & Wales footballers be forced to wear the poppy? what a stupid argument, and to what purpose? And as far as I can see, this whole FIFA/Cameron argument has the potential to damage the image of this precious & timeless symbol of our fallen heroes.

Poppy fascism (by Cameron & the Duke of Cambridge) at its very worst I say.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How so? Soldiers from Ireland, north or south of the border, weren't obliged to serve in NI and I'm pretty sure they didn't.

Some did.

mar48

No (I'm Irish)

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A lot of Irish people have ancestors who fought in WWI so there should be no problem in commerating those men and women if they choose to do so.

If you dont like the poppy then ignore it. It isnt being forced on anyone here.

I totally agree, it's up to the individual to do as they choose

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How so? Soldiers from Ireland, north or south of the border, weren't obliged to serve in NI and I'm pretty sure they didn't.

UDR didn't exist so?

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

UDR didn't exist so?

It did, although I doubt they recruited much this side of the border.

stoneill

No (I'm Irish)

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Nationwide on RTE just covered Irish soldiers in foreign conflict. They said that ALL money raised in southern Ireland remained in southern Ireland and was used to aid Irish vets that needed aid.

You mean all money raised in Ireland.
Southern Ireland is just a general area in the south.

As for poppies - if you want to wear one - wear it with pride.
If you don't - then don't. Just please - don't make a symbol of remembrance for lives lost a symbol of sectarianism, bigotry and hatred.

Jimoslimos

Maybe its been touched on before but one point on which I feel that both sides may find some common ground.

Why are the general public "expected" to donate to the poppy appeal to support fallen soldiers and their families? Surely this must be the responsibility of the government that made the decison to send these young men to war? So in a way I find it ironic that British governments will proudly wear poppies (Cameron I'm looking at you!) but fail and will continue to fail past and present troops.

Breezerforce

The real reason for the the poppy being worn: Moina Michael was a U.S. professor and humanitarian who conceived the idea of using poppies as a symbol of remembrance for those who served in World War I.
Born in Good Hope, Georgia, Michael was educated at Lucy Cobb Institute and Georgia State Teachers College, both located in Athens, Georgia, and Columbia University in New York City. She was a professor at the University of Georgia when the U.S. entered World War I. She took a leave of absence from her work and volunteered to assist in the New York-based training headquarters for overseas YWCA workers. Inspired by the Canadian John McCrae battlefront-theme poem In Flanders Fields, she published a poem in response called We Shall Keep the Faith. In tribute to the opening lines of McCrae's poem -- "In Flanders fields the poppies blow / Between the crosses row on row," -- Michael vowed to always wear a red poppy as a symbol of remembrance for those who served in the war. After the war was over, Michael returned to the University of Georgia and taught a class of disabled servicemen. Realizing the need to provide financial and occupational support for these servicemen, she pursued the idea of selling silk poppies as a means of raising funds to assist disabled veterans. In 1921, her efforts resulted in the poppy being adopted as a symbol of remembrance for war veterans by the American Legion Auxiliary.
Known as the "Poppy Lady" for her humanitarian efforts, Michael received numerous awards during her lifetime.

crash davis

The origins of the poppy being worn, yes, and beautiful sentiments, but it's meaning has changed over the years.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How so? Soldiers from Ireland, north or south of the border, weren't obliged to serve in NI and I'm pretty sure they didn't.

This is your third astounding claim in the last 5 or 6 pages of this thread.

To recap you have claimed...

1. Ireland has bombed Britain.

2. Nobody on this forum has suffered (or knows anyone that has suffered) atrocities at the hands of the British.

...and now

3. No Irishmen who joined the British Army served in Northern Ireland.

They're 3 fairly wild and out there claims to be making mo chara!!!

LordSutch

No (I'm Irish)

Great programme here > http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1120885

This thirty minute programme should answer many questions raised in this thread.

bobbysands81

LordSutch wrote: »

Great programme here > http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1120885

This thirty minute programme should answer many questions raised in this thread.

Folks should also watch this small little clip, listen to what the soldiers said, and then decide are these fellas worthy of their hard earned few euro because money made from the sale of Poppies ain't going to lads who fought in WW1 anymore but could sure as hell be going to those who have murdered many an Irishman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onU7jcM1EDE

Dr.Syn

No (I'm British/not Irish)

stoneill wrote: »

Y
As for poppies - if you want to wear one - wear it with pride.
If you don't - then don't. Just please - don't make a symbol of remembrance for lives lost a symbol of sectarianism, bigotry and hatred.

Hear Hear. Enough said

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

This is your third astounding claim in the last 5 or 6 pages of this thread.

To recap you have claimed...

1. Ireland has bombed Britain.

2. Nobody on this forum has suffered (or knows anyone that has suffered) atrocities at the hands of the British.

...and now

3. No Irishmen who joined the British Army served in Northern Ireland.

They're 3 fairly wild and out there claims to be making mo chara!!!

No, I said the Irish bombed Britain, and we all know that Irish people have (as would your name sake if he hadn't been caught, so don't get all ****ing moral about it).

So far we have one person who knows someone who suffered at the hands of the British.

I said Irish soldiers weren't obliged to serve in Northern ireland, which they weren't.

You've changed what I said, but you have a seriously ****ed up view on reality anyway.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So far we have one person who knows someone who suffered at the hands of the British.

What is the point of this distinction you are trying to introduce to the subject ? Are you trying to say that unless you personally know someone present at say, for example, Bloody Sunday that it doesnt matter ? Are you that uncomfortable facing the reality of the british army record on this island that you try to negate discussion of it on this basis ?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

What is the point of this distinction you are trying to introduce to the subject ? Are you trying to say that unless you personally know someone present at say, for example, Bloody Sunday that it doesnt matter ? Are you that uncomfortable facing the reality of the british army record on this island that you try to negate discussion of it on this basis ?

No, it actually goes back to a post about 2000 posts ago, the trouble is, in these meandering threads context often completely disappears.

To sum up, it is the same exception I take to a Man united supporter pronouncing that "We" are the greatest when in reality they have never been near old trafford, so this "We", "Us" etc is almost an assumed identity.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To sum up, it is the same exception I take to a Man united supporter pronouncing that "We" are the greatest when in reality they have never been near old trafford, so this "We", "Us" etc is almost an assumed identity.

I don't see the point of that to be honest. I don't view national identity & history in those kinds of terms.

Would you feel the same way about comparing the british national identity, culture, ethos and history with that of a fan's allegiance to a sports team ? How about a soap opera or someone with a favourite contestant in x-factor ? Are they the same thing too ?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

I don't see the point of that to be honest. I don't view national identity & history in those kinds of terms.

Would you feel the same way about comparing the british national identity, culture, ethos and history with that of a fan's allegiance to a sports team ? How about a soap opera or someone with a favourite contestant in x-factor ? Are they the same thing too ?

What's national identity got to do with it?

Am I supposed to hate the Irish because some Irishmen bombed by country, or Islam because of a few suicide bombers?

old hippy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's national identity got to do with it?

Am I supposed to hate the Irish because some Irishmen bombed by country, or Islam because of a few suicide bombers?

Of course not! Unless you're a fully paid up member of the BNP :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

old hippy wrote: »

Of course not! Unless you're a fully paid up member of the BNP :rolleyes:

That would be a big no then!

old hippy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That would be a big no then!

They're the real enemy. Them and the EDL and other NF wannabes.

Not people who chose or chose not to wear a paper flower.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I supposed to hate the Irish because some Irishmen bombed by country, or Islam because of a few suicide bombers?

Why couldn't you make that distinction earlier?

I note you're still turning a blind eye to all that your country has done to Ireland, you much prefer to blame the reaction rather than the cause.

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why couldn't you make that distinction earlier?

I note you're still turning a blind eye to all that your country has done to Ireland, you much prefer to blame the reaction rather than the cause.

I'm not turning a blind eye at all, if I was I would be querying why not everyone in Ireland wears a poppy and I have quite clearly stated it should be personal choice.

I see you are still turning a blind eye to naming yourself after a member of an organisation that murdered children.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I said the Irish bombed Britain, and we all know that Irish people have (as would your name sake if he hadn't been caught, so don't get all ****ing moral about it).

So far we have one person who knows someone who suffered at the hands of the British.

I said Irish soldiers weren't obliged to serve in Northern ireland, which they weren't.

You've changed what I said, but you have a seriously ****ed up view on reality anyway.

1. You said 'the Irish', not 'some Irish people'.

You were talking in very general terms, not sepcific about 'some' or 'a group' of Irish people but 'the Irish'.

2. I'm glad you've admitted you're wrong in that you said nobody knows anyone who has suffered at the hands of the British.

3. Read what you said again and try to understand it, you said Irish people weren't obliged to serve in the 06, and they didn't. The "they" refers to "Irish people" thus you are saying that "Irish people" didn't serve in the 06.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not turning a blind eye at all, if I was I would be querying why not everyone in Ireland wears a poppy and I have quite clearly stated it should be personal choice.

I see you are still turning a blind eye to naming yourself after a member of an organisation that murdered children.

The IRA wouldn't even have existed if your country hadn't killed Irish children in the first place.

Leftist

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The IRA wouldn't even have existed if your country hadn't killed Irish children in the first place.

Round of applause.

Read that comment back and look in the mirror while you do it.

Force a tear out and hold a copy of the declaration of independence.

Because you sir, are a true patriot.

:vomit:

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

1. You said 'the Irish', not 'some Irish people'.

You were talking in very general terms, not sepcific about 'some' or 'a group' of Irish people but 'the Irish'.

2. I'm glad you've admitted you're wrong in that you said nobody knows anyone who has suffered at the hands of the British.

3. Read what you said again and try to understand it, you said Irish people weren't obliged to serve in the 06, and they didn't. The "they" refers to "Irish people" thus you are saying that "Irish people" didn't serve in the 06.

You know exactly what I meant.

Jesus you really enjoying splitting hairs.

bobbysands81

Leftist wrote: »

Round of applause.

Read that comment back and look in the mirror while you do it.

Force a tear out and hold a copy of the declaration of independence.

Because you sir, are a true patriot.

:vomit:

That comment was in response to FrattonFred posting about the killing of children but...

Explain to me why the IRA would have existed if Britain hadn't meddled in this country.

The floor is yours...

Leftist

bobbysands81 wrote: »

That comment was in response to FrattonFred posting about the killing of children but...

Explain to me why the IRA would have existed if Britain hadn't meddled in this country.

The floor is yours...

Of course they wouldn't have, the nazis wouldn't have existed had it not been for the first world war. Israel for the second world war. Hamas for israel, it's all chicken and egg. Who cares.

Your point that the ira would not have killed children, had the british killed them first, basically legitimises IRA terrorism and the murder of civilians. Which british action forced the ira to hold civilian's family captive, while they forced him to drive a bomb into an army check point? which british action forced the ira to put explosive devices in public places?

Morlar

Leftist wrote: »

Round of applause.

Read that comment back and look in the mirror while you do it.

Force a tear out and hold a copy of the declaration of independence.

Because you sir, are a true patriot.

:vomit:

Can you point out the part of that statement which is factually incorrect ?

Leftist

Morlar wrote: »

Can you point out the part of that statement which is factually incorrect ?

it's cringeworthy.

Morlar

Leftist wrote: »

it's cringeworthy.

So you accept it is factually correct ?

Personally I find your posts cringeworthy and far from factual.

Leftist

Morlar wrote: »

So you accept it is factually correct ?

Personally I find your posts cringeworthy and far from factual.

cba what you think in all factuality.

If you're so offended by my sneer at nationalism, then see my post about the manner in which it was brought up (about 3 up).

You won't have anything rightful to address it with, you'll find something minor within and try to degrade the point that way. it's all you have.

bobbysands81

Leftist wrote: »

it's cringeworthy.

I agree it was cringeworthy as it was highlighting what FrattonFred had initially said. Odd that you take so much offence to my statement on it but led Fred's go drifting by... I wonder why eh?

And I note that you don't issue with the substantive issue I was trying to make on cause and effect.

Fighting back against a continued bully is never wrong in my eyes.

Morlar

Leftist wrote: »

cba what you think in all factuality.

If you're so offended by my sneer at nationalism, then see my post about the manner in which it was brought up (about 3 up).

You won't have anything rightful to address it with, you'll find something minor within and try to degrade the point that way. it's all you have.

Don't flatter yourself.

Leftist

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I agree it was cringeworthy as it was highlighting what FrattonFred had initially said. Odd that you take so much offence to my statement on it but led Fred's go drifting by... I wonder why eh?

And I note that you don't issue with the substantive issue I was trying to make on cause and effect.

Fighting back against a continued bully is never wrong in my eyes.

With you kind of on first paragraph. I am not embarrased by another country's patriotism as much as I am about my own country's patriotism. Not even by a fraction. My philosophy is they can do what they want, don't have to live with them. I care more about general opinion in Ireland than elsewhere.


Your last sentence is worrying. Killing civies is never fighting back against a bully.

Leftist

Morlar wrote: »

Don't flatter yourself.

Don't need to. You're the one stuck your oar in. Rumbled. Now do me the justice of jogging on and sing a song for ireland.

bobbysands81

Leftist wrote: »

cba what you think in all factuality.

If you're so offended by my sneer at nationalism, then see my post about the manner in which it was brought up (about 3 up).

You won't have anything rightful to address it with, you'll find something minor within and try to degrade the point that way. it's all you have.

But it was Fratton Fred that brought it up, I was only responding to him!

Leftist

bobbysands81 wrote: »

But it was Fratton Fred that brought it up, I was only responding to him!

Apology accepted.

Morlar

Leftist wrote: »

Don't need to. You're the one stuck your oar in. Rumbled. [/I]

Wrong again as it was you who stuck your oar in.

Leftist wrote: »

You won't have anything rightful to address it with, you'll find something minor within and try to degrade the point that way. it's all you have.

meet :

Leftist wrote: »

Now do me the justice of jogging on and sing a song for ireland.

bobbysands81

Leftist wrote: »

Killing civies is never fighting back against a bully.

Agreed. It's wrong, it's unjustifiable and it's murder in my eyes.

old hippy

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Agreed. It's wrong, it's unjustifiable and it's murder in my eyes.

Good to hear

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I agree it was cringeworthy as it was highlighting what FrattonFred had initially said. Odd that you take so much offence to my statement on it but led Fred's go drifting by... I wonder why eh?

And I note that you don't issue with the substantive issue I was trying to make on cause and effect.

Fighting back against a continued bully is never wrong in my eyes.

Never wrong? Even when that so called fighting back involves cold blooded murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians?

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Never wrong? Even when that so called fighting back involves cold blooded murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians?

How would you approach a situation where the forces of law and order (RUC /UDR /British army) were engaged in the very things you condemn ? "cold blooded murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians?"

Both directly (with effective legal impunity) & indirectly via collusion with loyalist sectarian death squads ? Why is it that people like you only ever condemn one side of that conflict ? Ignoring the root causes & the context is pointless in terms of seeking a better understanding and progressing from entrenched positions.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

How would you approach a situation where the forces of law and order (RUC /UDR /British army) were engaged in the very things you condemn ? "cold blooded murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians?"

Both directly (with effective legal impunity) & indirectly via collusion with loyalist sectarian death squads ? Why is it that people like you only ever condemn one side of that conflict ? Ignoring the root causes & the context is pointless in terms of seeking a better understanding and progressing from entrenched positions.

People like me?

I've regularly condemned a lot of the actions of the British army, and the subsequent cover ups as well.

For example, bloody sunday brought a degree of shame on the country, but the real national shame came with the farce of an enquiry.

All I have tried to do is show a poster called Bobbysands up as a hypocrite. Yoi can't try and assume a morally superior position whilst idolising a terrorist.

Cú Giobach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Never wrong? Even when that so called fighting back involves cold blooded murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians?

I think most countries/armies will deliberately target civilians if it is seen as militarily necessary or even for revenge, isn't that why your country has nukes pointed at a few cities, why the bombing of German cities happened and why the Americans destroyed villages along with their inhabitants in Vietnam.