Why would an Irish person wear a poppy ?

Nodin

Japer wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of Irish people did not volunteer for the KGB. Hundreds of ...........behind.

Dear o dear. The comparison with the KGB wasn't based on Irish people being in it but its use to crush dissent across the soviet sphere....And again, you keep going on about WWII - the funds have nothing to do with WWII.

Greentopia

old hippy wrote: »

LOL @ an old, old, story.

2012 and we're still labelling ourselves?

Let ye and ye wear your silly poppies and lillies and be done with it. There's far more important things to be worrying about.

Fully agree. I wonder about people who get so exercised about this issue. I don't know anyone who gives a toss about such anachronistic sectarianism and tribalism. It belongs to another age.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nope, I'll ne wearing one on Nov 11th but I will also respect people wearing the easter Lilly come March.

I recognise that both symbols have a wider symbolic meaning that goes beyond the narrow perceptions shown on this thread.

So you're happy to commemorate an "organisation who's strategy was to target civilians and carried out more than their fair share of murder."?

K-9

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So you're happy to commemorate an "organisation who's strategy was to target civilians and carried out more than their fair share of murder."?

Well you easily throw around terms as child killers at the British Army, the Irish Republican Army killed pensioners, children and kids shopping in shopping centres like in Warrington. IRA child murderers.

The fecking lot of ye's were a vile bunch, all played a part in a cesspit of Northern society.

All ye care about is your own lot, maybe read a few books from the other view, rather than read more stuff you really, really, like.

bobbysands81

K-9 wrote: »

Well you easily throw around terms as child killers at the British Army, the Irish Republican Army killed pensioners, children and kids shopping in shopping centres like in Warrington. IRA child murderers.

The fecking lot of ye's were a vile bunch, all played a part in a cesspit of Northern society.

All ye care about is your own lot, maybe read a few books from the other view, rather than read more stuff you really, really, like.

They are child killers, the Empire have killed untold amounts all around the world... but don't dare fight back.

Commemorate them if you like, I fully agree you should, but open your eyes and educate yourself on what you're commemorating.

K-9

bobbysands81 wrote: »

They are child killers, the Empire have killed untold amounts all around the world... but don't dare fight back.

Commemorate them if you like, I fully agree you should, but open your eyes and educate yourself on what you're commemorating.

You say that as if it is some type of revelation or something, which is fine. Thing is it isn't a revelation and coming from a Republican who supported the "armed struggle" that murdered children routinely.

I've no doubt you knew that anyway.

gurramok

K-9 wrote: »

You say that as if it is some type of revelation or something, which is fine. Thing is it isn't a revelation and coming from a Republican who supported the "armed struggle" that murdered children routinely.

Is there a hierarchical of child victims? Its ok to fund and remember with praise child killers from the BA but its stomach churning to do the same for republicans?

There should be no doubt that child killers from whichever background should be condemned. However poppy funds do go to soldiers who murdered children in NI (in Irish context), you see the problem now with the red poppy? If the red poppy only represented BA soldiers in WWI, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Is there a hierarchical of child victims? Its ok to fund and remember with praise child killers from the BA but its stomach churning to do the same for republicans?

There should be no doubt that child killers from whichever background should be condemned. However poppy funds do go to soldiers who murdered children in NI (in Irish context), you see the problem now with the red poppy? If the red poppy only represented BA soldiers in WWI, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

If someone calls themselves Bobby Sands then they are obviously a supporter of the PIRA.

That means they have no moral highground to claim.

Someone who wears an Easter Lilly is in no position to criticise someone for wearing a poppy.

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If someone calls themselves Bobby Sands then they are obviously a supporter of the PIRA.

That means they have no moral highground to claim.

Someone who wears an Easter Lilly is in no position to criticise someone for wearing a poppy.

Attack the post not the poster (or indeed the poster's name).

Fratton Fred

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Attack the post not the poster (or indeed the poster's name).

They obviously forgot to announce your appointment as a moderator:rolleyes:

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They obviously forgot to announce your appointment as a moderator:rolleyes:

Moderator? None of that low level malarkey for me, I'm going in right at the top.

Say hi to your new Supreme Overlord Ayatollah Admin

Conall Cernach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Someone who wears an Easter Lilly is in no position to criticise someone for wearing a poppy.

The two are not equal. The Lily is for those that fought for Irish Freedom (i.e. the good guys). The Poppy is for those that fought for imperialism. You may as well say that the Croix de Lorraine and the Swastika are equivalent.

Jimoslimos

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The two are not equal. The Lily is for those that fought for Irish Freedom (i.e. the good guys). The Poppy is for those that fought for imperialism. You may as well say that the Croix de Lorraine and the Swastika are equivalent.

I don't actually agree with that sentiment. It's rather simplistic (and usually wrong) to break down a conflict into good and bad sides.

Did the Soviets suddenly become a shining beacon of all that is good when they turned on the Nazis. Like hell they did. Rarely does any side's reputation come out any better after war - that includes the British Army, Irish republicans, etc.

Fratton Fred

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The two are not equal. The Lily is for those that fought for Irish Freedom (i.e. the good guys). The Poppy is for those that fought for imperialism. You may as well say that the Croix de Lorraine and the Swastika are equivalent.

Who exactly are the good guys and who is fighting for imperialism.

Are the British Soldiers killed liberating Kuwait from Iraq, or preventing a school for girls in Afghanistan being bombed fighting for imperialism?

How exactly did placing bombs in two cast iron bins in Warrington high street further the cause of "Irish Freedom" and why should the people who did that be commemorated? What about the mastermind behind the murder of four people in Coventry aged between 15 and 82? should he be commemorated with the easter Lilly?

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

Is there a hierarchical of child victims? Its ok to fund and remember with praise child killers from the BA but its stomach churning to do the same for republicans?

Yep, I think army child killers are much nicer than IRA ones, that's exactly it.

You realise how dumb that sounds?

There should be no doubt that child killers from whichever background should be condemned. However poppy funds do go to soldiers who murdered children in NI (in Irish context), you see the problem now with the red poppy? If the red poppy only represented BA soldiers in WWI, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

Yep I see the problem which is why somebody who sympathises with one bunch of child murderers condemning the other bunch for murdering children is laughable.

bobbysands81

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, I think army child killers are much nicer than IRA ones, that's exactly it.

You realise how dumb that sounds?



Yep I see the problem which is why somebody who sympathises with one bunch of child murderers condemning the other bunch for murdering children is laughable.

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

Japer

gurramok wrote: »

Is there a hierarchical of child victims? Its ok to fund and remember with praise child killers from the BA but its stomach churning to do the same for republicans?

To put things in context, millions of people from many different countries - Scotland, Ireland, England, all the commonwealth countries etc - have served in the army, air force, navy etc during WW! and later conflicts. How many of these millions of people were "child killers"? Extremely few, and probably a lower percentage than the general population, and a lower percentage than other legitimate armed forces around the world. Maybe you think G7 countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

old_aussie

I don't think the Irish have earned the right to wear a poppy

Japer

old_aussie wrote: »

I don't think the Irish have earned the right to wear a poppy

Hundreds of thousands of Irish people fought with the allies - mostly - British armed forces - in WW1 and WW2 and other conflicts. Do not tar everyone in Ireland with the same brush.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

..............

Someone who wears an Easter Lilly is in no position to criticise someone for wearing a poppy.

Why? Does the lilly commemorate all who served in the Irish Imperial Forces?

bobbysands81

Japer wrote: »

To put things in context, millions of people from many different countries - Scotland, Ireland, England, all the commonwealth countries etc - have served in the army, air force, navy etc during WW! and later conflicts. How many of these millions of people were "child killers"? Extremely few, and probably a lower percentage than the general population, and a lower percentage than other legitimate armed forces around the world. Maybe you think G7 countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

Every country has a right to protect itself, it's when they start invading other countries that they cross the line. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

Why anyone would want to join an Army just to see 'action' is beyond me. Murder should never b a career.

gurramok

Japer wrote: »

To put things in context, millions of people from many different countries - Scotland, Ireland, England, all the commonwealth countries etc - have served in the army, air force, navy etc during WW! and later conflicts. How many of these millions of people were "child killers"? Extremely few, and probably a lower percentage than the general population, and a lower percentage than other legitimate armed forces around the world. Maybe you think G7 countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

If its 0.1% or 50% of the army engaging in child killing, there is no moral superiority especially when there was not a single prosecution for murder of said soldiers.

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

You hit me, I kill your children and it's all your fault for hitting me in the first place?

Doesn't sound quite right to me.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who exactly are the good guys and who is fighting for imperialism.

...............

The ones in Iraq were fighting to an extend the US hegemony. I like the way you cherry pick conflicts out of the last hundred years.

LordSutch

Somebody was talking about empires.

Roman Empire
Dutch Empire
British Empire
French Empire
Russian Empire
Spanish Empire
Ottoman Empire

Lots of Empires over the centuries, and one could even argue that the US currently has an Empire.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Why? Does the lilly commemorate all who served in the Irish Imperial Forces?

:rolleyes:

Japer

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why anyone would want to join an Army just to see 'action' is beyond me.

I think most who join would hope not to see "action" / get killed / injured.
I would not expect you to understand why people would join armed forces ( army/navy etc ) to fight against Nazism / Communism / invasion of Kuwait or whatever.
Maybe some join not to be on the dole / a drain on their country, and wish to earn money?

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Murder should never b a career.

Do you think countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

I agree murder should never be a career. What career did your idols have who "volunteered" to bomb Warrington, Le Mons, Enniskillen, Bloody Friday, Kingsmills etc ...and did they not kill more civilians than 99.9% of the millions of people who served in the British army + navy?

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

The ones in Iraq were fighting to an extend the US hegemony. I like the way you cherry pick conflicts out of the last hundred years.

why not, you have been doing it consistently over this thread.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Somebody was talking about empires.

Roman Empire
Dutch Empire
British Empire
French Empire
Russian Empire
Spanish Empire
Ottoman Empire

Lots of Empires over the centuries, and one could even argue that the US currently has an Empire.

Yep. Name one - other than the British - that has people defending it on a regular basis. Or a semi-regular basis. Or ever.

gallag

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

Takes balls to plant bombs in civilian shopping centers???? Wtf is wrong with you man?

Serious question, why did the IRA not just target military targets?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why not, you have been doing it consistently over this thread.

Britain had an Empire. Thousands upon thousands of troops were involved in its maintenance. The majority of Britians military involvement has been colonial and I'm merely pointing out the fact.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You hit me, I kill your children and it's all your fault for hitting me in the first place?

Doesn't sound quite right to me.

You think that's a fair analogy?

Read some Irish history and come back to me.

Nodin

gallag wrote: »

Takes balls to plant bombs in civilian shopping centers???? Wtf is wrong with you man?

Serious question, why did the IRA not just target military targets?

Are they in receipt of poppy funds now?

bobbysands81

gallag wrote: »

Takes balls to plant bombs in civilian shopping centers???? Wtf is wrong with you man?

Serious question, why did the IRA not just target military targets?

Can you point me to where I said this was ok?

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Name one - other than the British - that has people defending it on a regular basis. Or a semi-regular basis. Or ever.

No idea, could be many people could be none? would take for ever to find out I reckon.

Japer

Nodin wrote: »

Britain had an Empire. Thousands upon thousands of troops were involved in its maintenance. .

and millions of people - including a few hundred thousand Irish people - fought in Brith uniforms and were pround to do so. They defended these islands against other empires

K-9

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

Yeah that's great, didn't really address my point but wasn't expecting it tbh.

GRMA

Japer wrote: »

and millions of people - including a few hundred thousand Irish people - fought in Brith uniforms and were pround to do so. They defended these islands against other empires

What did we have to fear from other empires? Like France? They wanted to help us.

Japer

GRMA wrote: »

What did we have to fear from other empires?

All the European countries had Empires : Belgium, Germany, France, Spain. Portugal etc. We were part of the UK, and Irish people made up a third of the admonistration of India, for example. In the 20th century, we had much to fear from the like of Germany and Russia, and hundreds of thousands of Irish people fought against those empires....if they did not / nobody did, its almost certain your life would be a lot worse.;)

GRMA

Japer wrote: »

All the European countries had Empires : Belgium, Germany, France, Spain. Portugal etc. We were part of the UK, and Irish people made up a third of the admonistration of India, for example. In the 20th century, we had much to fear from the like of Germany and Russia, and hundreds of thousands of Irish people fought against those empires....if they did not / nobody did, its almost certain your life would be a lot worse.;)

Ah yeah, things were fine and dandy in the ritish empire and sure things got even better after the act of union. You should read a history book.

Japer

GRMA wrote: »

Ah yeah, things were fine and dandy in the ritish empire and sure things got even better after the act of union. You should read a history book.

you should read one about what happened in the rest of the world. Look at the huge numbers killed by Belgium in Africa as resent as a hundred years ago. Look at the Russian gulags. Closer to home and more recent, look at the millions of various Europeans killed in German Concentration camps.

gurramok

Japer wrote: »

you should read one about what happened in the rest of the world. Look at the huge numbers killed by Belgium in Africa as resent as a hundred years ago. Look at the Russian gulags. Closer to home and more recent, look at the millions of various Europeans killed in German Concentration camps.

Even closer to home, we had mass starvation under British rule, aka the Famine.

youreadthat

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Name one - other than the British - that has people defending it on a regular basis. Or a semi-regular basis. Or ever.

Every single one.

GRMA

Japer wrote: »

you should read one about what happened in the rest of the world. Look at the huge numbers killed by Belgium in Africa as resent as a hundred years ago. Look at the Russian gulags. Closer to home and more recent, look at the millions of various Europeans killed in German Concentration camps.

If we want to look as massacres in Africa we dont need to go back as far as a hundred years for the British.

The British empire was at the very least, just as barbaric, cruel and oppressive, if not more so, than all the empires you mention, bar none.

This is readily apparent looking just at Irish history.

Judgement Day

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Can you point me to where I said this was ok?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81544990&postcount=519

Fratton Fred

GRMA wrote: »

What did we have to fear from other empires? Like France? They wanted to help us.

Really? like they "Helped" Spain, Portugal and Northern Italy?

If the French invasion in 1798 had worked, the Irish would have been begging the British to come back to help get rid of them

GRMA wrote: »

If we want to look as massacres in Africa we dont need to go back as far as a hundred years for the British.

The British empire was at the very least, just as barbaric, cruel and oppressive, if not more so, than all the empires you mention, bar none.

This is readily apparent looking just at Irish history.

Really, in what way?

Do you think the indigenous population of South America would consider the British treatment of the Irish less barbaric then the treatment they faced under the Spanish?

How do you think the Algerians view the Irish war of Independence? Do you think they feel like they were "Lucky"?

Ask Armenians what they thought about life under the Ottomans, probably glad it wasn't the British, I'm sure.

partyguinness

Bloody hell...is this thread still going.

Lelantos

partyguinness wrote: »

Bloody hell...is this thread still going.

"Poppies for sale! get your poppies here! Discount for RA members!"

Spread

Fred - old bean! You come across as a typical British right on sort of chap. The way you try and try again to legitimise the barbarism of colonial rule would give the impression that you have not sank back in your armchair with a cup of Rosie and thought the process through. No country likes to be overrun/invaded. No amount of talk about roads/bridges being built, educating the ignorant or exchanging cultural values (one way of course) makes sense. The fact is that empire building was all about rape, loot and pillage. Not your fault that you don't get it as this historical axiom is anathema to most British minds who's history lessons were, er, taught by teachers that had been educated in that system.
But like most colonial ruling nations ......... the chicks come home to roost and, in the face of seismic change, are left pining for the old days when Britannia ruled the waves and Johnny Foreigner knew his place.
Get with the programme Fred and take the pressure off your spleen. Try eating Mr Kipling instead of reading Rudyard .......... leaves a far nicer taste in the mouth

partyguinness

"Why would an Irish person wear a poppy?"Because they want to support the Poppy Appeal organised by the Royal British Legion and/or/because [insert appropriate reason as desired].There you go.