Why would an Irish person wear a poppy ?

summerskin

Nodin wrote: »

My, we do love to over-speculate and rant, don't we?

My my, we do love to patronise and deflect when we have no answer, don't we?

Nodin

summerskin wrote: »

My my, we do love to patronise and deflect when we have no answer, don't we?

There was a question?

GRMA

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nice to see you belittle an act of blatant terrorism.

http://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/articles/s-shaw.php

Hmmm? I was talking about your friend Lordsutch wanting the wolfe tones baned from a hotel... he went in to use the toilet or something

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, as I have already pointed out.



in other words, it is acceptable to kill innocent people if it is in the name of Ireland.

I mean, after all, what's a few dead Brits :rolleyes:

....

Hardly that simple Fred. The fact is that - for example - 20,000 French people were killed in the liberation of France. In a war the innocent will die regardless of what care is taken to avoid harming them. The question is really whether its justified to take up arms in the first place, given thats the consequence.

Now which sounds more justifiable to you - removing a foreign occupation, or continuing one? removing racism or keeping it in place?

Big Bottom

Fair play to anyone Irish to wear a Poppy.

Anyone who has an issue with Irish people wearing one has issues themselves and need to look at why they feel like that (Irrational!)

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly that simple Fred. The fact is that - for example - 20,000 French people were killed in the liberation of France. In a war the innocent will die regardless of what care is taken to avoid harming them. The question is really whether its justified to take up arms in the first place, given thats the consequence.

Now which sounds more justifiable to you - removing a foreign occupation, or continuing one? removing racism or keeping it in place?

aaah, the good old collateral damage argument. nice one.

The bombing of Coventry, in fact the entire S-Plan was not legitimate though. It was contrary to the wishes of the Irish people and the democratically elected Irish government. So it wasn't really a liberation campaign, was it?

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly that simple Fred. The fact is that - for example - 20,000 French people were killed in the liberation of France. In a war the innocent will die regardless of what care is taken to avoid harming them. The question is really whether its justified to take up arms in the first place, given thats the consequence.

Now which sounds more justifiable to you - removing a foreign occupation, or continuing one? removing racism or keeping it in place?

Oh dear, you still persist with your notion that Ireland was under foreign occupation.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh dear, you still persist with your notion that Ireland was under foreign occupation.

Yes it was. Not to planter Unionists though.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Yes it was. Not to planter Unionists though.

No it wasn't. Ireland wasn't "under" occupation, it was the second largest of the four constitute divisions of the united kingdom and had representation in parliament. Hyperbole doesn't help things.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it wasn't. Ireland wasn't "under" occupation, it was the second largest of the four constitute divisions of the united kingdom and had representation in parliament. Hyperbole doesn't help things.

Under foreign rule administratively and militarily, for a few centuries. If Britain is not a foreign country to you then setup up a local branch of the DUP to campaign for Ireland's independence to be abolished and to rejoin the UK, good luck.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly that simple Fred. The fact is that - for example - 20,000 French people were killed in the liberation of France. In a war the innocent will die regardless of what care is taken to avoid harming them. The question is really whether its justified to take up arms in the first place, given thats the consequence.

Now which sounds more justifiable to you - removing a foreign occupation, or continuing one? removing racism or keeping it in place?

Neither 1916 or 1921 removed anybody. Political effort in the Commons is the only reason that Ireland is independent. Most people did not want 1916 or the 1921 "war of independence".

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Under foreign rule administratively and militarily, for a few centuries. If Britain is not a foreign country to you then setup up a local branch of the DUP to campaign for Ireland's independence to be abolished and to rejoin the UK, good luck.

Ireland was part of the UK and not a minor part either, it was the second most important of the eponymous three kingdoms. On rejoining the UK, you mistake me. As long as I live in a free country where my rights are respected I couldn't give two fudges about the colour of it's flag. I just want to dispel the myth that we were under foreign occupation.

Jimoslimos

Right so, looking like our annual poppy madness thread is coming to a close (aside from a few stragglers intent on stirring a bit of trouble).

Many thanks to all involved and let us return same time next year (or probably earlier) to come together and remember the fallen banned who gave their lives posting privileges in defence of free speech inflammatory trolling.

Aodh Rua

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I just want to dispel the myth that we were under foreign occupation.

You're not doing a good job of it. Entertaining troll nonetheless.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ireland was part of the UK and not a minor part either, it was the second most important of the eponymous three kingdoms. On rejoining the UK, you mistake me. As long as I live in a free country where my rights are respected I couldn't give two fudges about the colour of it's flag. I just want to dispel the myth that we were under foreign occupation.

Ireland was a colony. So you've no problem us joining lets say France or perhaps Germany, Italy, Spain etc to be ruled by them, none of them are foreign countries in your view?

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Ireland was a colony. So you've no problem us joining lets say France or perhaps Germany, Italy, Spain etc to be ruled by them, none of them are foreign countries in your view?

You're comparing apples and oranges. The culture of Spain and Italy is totally alien to us. On the other hand we share many similarities with Britain.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges. The culture of Spain and Italy is totally alien to us. On the other hand we share many similarities with Britain.

Oh, the language? Perhaps we should be ruled by Malta? India?

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Oh, the language? Perhaps we should be ruled by Malta? India?

If Malta and India had a presence here for centuries along with shared culture and values. Unless you start making sense I'm going to ignore you.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If Malta and India had a presence here for centuries along with shared culture or value. Unless you start making sense I'm going to ignore you.

From occupation of course. You're the one not making sense, you seem to like disrespecting this country's ability to self determination at the expense of our neighbour yet you wouldn't entertain a union with any other country but Britain. Speaks volumes alright, you should try that DUP option that was mentioned.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it wasn't. Ireland wasn't "under" occupation, it was the second largest of the four constitute divisions of the united kingdom and had representation in parliament. Hyperbole doesn't help things.

....dear o dear o dear. There really is no hope for you at all.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The culture of Spain and Italy is totally alien to us. On the other hand we share many similarities with Britain.

...and how did that happen...? Hmmm?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

......had a presence.... .

..like an embassy?

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Neither 1916 or 1921 removed anybody. Political effort in the Commons is the only reason that Ireland is independent. Most people did not want 1916 or the 1921 "war of independence".

1916 laid the ground for the 1918 election, which led to the war of independence. You'll find it had quite a bit to do with independence. Not that you can acknowledge that, because you're quite happy to fund those who helped keep similar efforts down across the globe.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

From occupation of course. You're the one not making sense, you seem to like disrespecting this country's ability to self determination at the expense of our neighbour yet you wouldn't entertain a union with any other country but Britain. Speaks volumes alright, you should try that DUP option that was mentioned.

Ok, you're putting words into my mouth so let's get a few things straight.

1. I don't doubt this county's ability to self determination. 4.6 million odd people and 70,000 km^2 is plenty big enough for a country. Smaller then most but not overly so.

2. I don't want Ireland to rejoin with the UK, I'm not a unionist. I couldn't give two figs what colour the flag is as long as I live in a free country.

Hopefully now that's out of the way we stay away from generalisations ad mud slinging i he future? I doubt it but it would be nice to try.

Nodin wrote: »

....dear o dear o dear. There really is no hope for you at all.

That feeling seems to be mutual.

end of the road

Big Bottom wrote: »

Fair play to anyone Irish to wear a Poppy.

yeah, shur british army loving and sweaping things under the carpet are definitely a couple of things the irish poppy wearers are good at.

Big Bottom wrote: »

Anyone who has an issue with Irish people wearing one has issues themselves and need to look at why they feel like that (Irrational!)

really? so someone who has a problem with somebody wearing something that along with remembering those who faught in the world wars remembers and raises money for the likes of the bluddy sunday butchers has issues? those who were involved in the likes of bluddy sunday deserve nothing from nobody.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok, you're putting words (......)mutual.

Why do we "share many similarities with Britain"?

What kind of "presence" did Britain have here?

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Why do we "share many similarities with Britain"?

What kind of "presence" did Britain have here?

Oh Britain's presence in Ireland derives from expansionist policies, I have no doubt about that. It's just no different to the expansion of German, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese or any other country you can think of. All these countries were built with blood. We aren't immune to invasion just because we are an island you know.

I think you're main problem with the UK is that it was never a homogeneous nation. But it's not supposed to be. The UK was originally envisioned as a multi-ethnic multi-cultural union of three separate kingdoms and a principality with England as the first among equals. And while the ideal was not always put into practice, England often looked down it's nose at the other countries, I attribute that to human pettiness and narrow mindedness. The idea itself was still sound.

Curly Judge

GRMA wrote: »

Of course... the evil wolfe tones playing in a hotel... should be banned

Definatly should be banned, on the grounds of impersonating musicians.

LordSutch

Talking of GRMA/Nodin "Whats all this wolfe tones malarkey you are talking about"?

Curly Judge

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Right so, looking like our annual poppy madness thread is coming to a close (aside from a few stragglers intent on stirring a bit of trouble).

Many thanks to all involved and let us return same time next year (or probably earlier) to come together and remember the fallen banned who gave their lives posting privileges in defence of free speech inflammatory trolling.

Okay. Just to finish up.
Everybody.... All together now......

We'll meet again,
Don't know where,
Don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day.............

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh Britain's presence in Ireland derives from expansionist policies, I have no doubt about that. It's just no different to the expansion of German, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese or any other country you can think of. All these countries were built with blood. We aren't immune to invasion just because we are an island you know. .

Yep invasion and - what do we call what happens after that?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you're main problem with the UK ............

My main problem is with imperialism. Being a linguistic cripple, I'm not active on boards where the French, Belgians, Spaniards, Portugese, Russians and whoever else crap on about how glorious their bit of international mugging was, and they don't come on here, thus, I deal with the fanboys we have.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The UK was originally envisioned as a multi-ethnic multi-cultural union of three separate kingdoms and a principality with England as the first among equals. ............

....which is logically why they enforced laws against the populace in Wales and here. Who did this "envisioning" and when did they do it?

GRMA

LordSutch wrote: »

Talking of GRMA/Nodin "Whats all this wolfe tones malarkey you are talking about"?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056494251

You're wonderful contributions in there.

As an aside there's some excellent songs on there which is how I came across it

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Talking of GRMA/Nodin "Whats all this wolfe tones malarkey you are talking about"?

You wanting "rebel" songs banned.

Curly Judge

To be fair lads we shouldn't try to deprive them of their bit of rebel music.
The only time they managed to beat the Brits was:
In the Pub.
In their songs.
And In their dreams.

The Idyl Race

Curly Judge wrote: »

To be fair lads we shouldn't try to deprive them of their bit of rebel music.
The only time they managed to beat the Brits was:
In the Pub.
In their songs.
And In their dreams.

But what about the craic we had the day we died for Ireland?

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Yep invasion and - what do we call what happens after that?

My main problem is with imperialism. Being a linguistic cripple, I'm not active on boards where the French, Belgians, Spaniards, Portugese, Russians and whoever else crap on about how glorious their bit of international mugging was, and they don't come on here, thus, I deal with the fanboys we have.

....which is logically why they enforced laws against the populace in Wales and here. Who did this "envisioning" and when did they do it?

Integration and the formation of a new national identity, at least that's what would have happened only we are geographically separated from Britain so the concept of an Irish national identity as opposed to a British one endured.

History is full of international mugging, it's still happening today! These things happen because humans are petty and narrow minded and that's not going to change any time soon.

poeticseraphim

*Looks in *

Oh the 'little islanders' giving out about Britain..behaving complete Tories. They have a lot in common with those the hate ....strangely the 'imperialists' you would get along ...same views...


You are the Irish version of what you say you hate about Britain.

Not wearing a poppy makes you a west Tory. Or worse a west UKIP.
YOU THINK ABOUT THAT!

I think you gave many journos a story. So well done.

Ah little islanders ..can we deport them? They would have a lot in common with UKIP...they could start their own little island ..until they find something else that offends them.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Integration and the formation of a new national identity, at least that's what would have happened only we are geographically separated from Britain so the concept of an Irish national identity as opposed to a British one endured..

...its amazing that you admit the virtual extermination of irish culture and the occupation of the country, but won't call it what it is.

Nodin

poeticseraphim wrote: »

*Looks(........) them.

Funny, I was certain that I'd generally concentrated on Africa during the thread. You might highlight a post or two of mine that shows this 'little islander' thing in action.....or are you going to do your usual when asked a question and dissappear into the ether?

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

...its amazing that you admit the virtual extermination of irish culture and the occupation of the country, but won't call it what it is.

I understand the mechanisms, i just don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. That's why I'm slow to use loaded language like "occupation". Don't get me wrong though, just because I don't think it's a bad thing doesn't mean I think it's a good thing. It's just part of the natural evolution of civilisation and human interaction. None of Britains actions were out of the ordinary for it's time.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I understand the mechanisms, i just don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. That's why I'm slow to use loaded language like "occupation". Don't get me wrong though, just because I don't think it's a bad thing doesn't mean I think it's a good thing. It's just part of the natural evolution of civilisation and human interaction. None of Britains actions were out of the ordinary for it's time.

Theres nothing loaded about "occupation", its descriptive.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Theres nothing loaded about "occupation", its descriptive.

I disagree, when someone talks about occupation it's inherently bad.

Chuck Stone

Curly Judge wrote: »

To be fair lads we shouldn't try to deprive them of their bit of rebel music.

Who's 'them'?

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree, when someone talks about occupation it's inherently bad.

....well a lot of the time it is. You seem to be very confused on this subject. You want to have your cake and eat it.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who's 'them'?

Why 'dem dirty brits of course! ...oh, no wait...

Curly Judge

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I understand the mechanisms, i just don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. That's why I'm slow to use loaded language like "occupation". Don't get me wrong though, just because I don't think it's a bad thing doesn't mean I think it's a good thing. It's just part of the natural evolution of civilisation and human interaction. None of Britains actions were out of the ordinary for it's time.

Good points!
I would like to ask the Gaelic purists on here if they think that the British colonialists are/ were morally inferior to Irish patriots.
The reason that Britain subjugated a large part of the world is because they were able to, and it was the done thing at the time.
Just as Irish slave traders raided the coast of western Briton back when they had the opportunity to do so. It was the ancient equivalent of Michael O'Leary trying to take over Aer Lingus.
And it all happened so long ago!
But our modern day wistful romantics continue to worship at the graves of Pearse and Tone and burn with resentment that a country, bigger than ours, more powerful than ours, better organised than ours and brave to the extent of foolhardiness took the liberty of invading us.
In an ideal world it shouldn't have happened and we should have been left to our sport of stealing each others wives and driving each others cattle for another couple of hundred years. Unfortunately the world is seldom fair.
I fail to see the point of working oneself into a lather of resentment about it.
That kind of psychosis is corrosive to the soul and highly unlikely to bother the average Brit one jot.

Chuck Stone

Curly Judge wrote: »

I fail to see the point of working oneself into a lather of resentment about it.

Vivid caricatures.

Fratton Fred

Curly Judge wrote: »

Good points!
I would like to ask the Gaelic purists on here if they think that the British colonialists are/ were morally inferior to Irish patriots.
The reason that Britain subjugated a large part of the world is because they were able to, and it was the done thing at the time.
Just as Irish slave traders raided the coast of western Briton back when they had the opportunity to do so. It was the ancient equivalent of Michael O'Leary trying to take over Aer Lingus.
And it all happened so long ago!
But our modern day wistful romantics continue to worship at the graves of Pearse and Tone and burn with resentment that a country, bigger than ours, more powerful than ours, better organised than ours and brave to the extent of foolhardiness took the liberty of invading us.
In an ideal world it shouldn't have happened and we should have been left to our sport of stealing each others wives and driving each others cattle for another couple of hundred years. Unfortunately the world is seldom fair.
I fail to see the point of working oneself into a lather of resentment about it.
That kind of psychosis is corrosive to the soul and highly unlikely to bother the average Brit one jot.

No different to Brian Boru's conquest of Leinster to be honest

Nodin

Curly Judge wrote: »

But our modern day wistful romantics continue to worship at the graves of Pearse and Tone and burn with resentment that a country, bigger than ours, more powerful than ours, better organised than ours and brave to the extent of foolhardiness took the liberty of invading us.
In an ideal world it shouldn't have happened and we should have been left to our sport of stealing each others wives and driving each others cattle for another couple of hundred years. Unfortunately the world is seldom fair.
....

You don't see any sort of conflict between the bit in bold and the bit thats bold and underlined at all, I suppose?

LordSutch

At 378, the Yes vote is much higher than I would have expected, which is nice.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

At 378, the Yes vote is much higher than I would have expected.

...the WUM factor.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

...the WUM factor.

What's that then?