Will you wear a poppy 2013?

mikeym

I know of a gent that wore one last year he used to be a commissioned officer in the royal navy and lives in Ireland.

I have nothing against people wearing it.

But the abuse James Mclean got for not wearing it while playing for Sunderland last year was disgraceful. Football and Politics shouldn't mix.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Black Africans?

28,000 Boers died and around 11,000 British soldiers died in a cholera epidemic that swept through the camps.

Not the empire's finest hour, by any stretch of the imagination. It would be somewhat disingenuous to try and compare that to the 6,000,000 people executed in gas ovens in Dachau etc.

Some 28,000 Boer civilians, largely women and children, died in British concentration camps. There were 45 concentration camps set up for Boers. However, there were over 60 set up for black africans, which held over 100,000 of them and had even worse conditions than the Boer camps. The amount of people who died in these camps is unknown because British commanders didnt even consider black deaths worth recording, often dumping bodies in mass unmarked graves. However, given the numbers and conditions in Boer concentration camps, you can estimate that it was either around the same or higher than those who died in the Boer camps.

So no, the Brits didnt quite match the numbers or efficiency of the Nazis but dont for one second think there arent legitimate comparisons to make. No doubt the nazis were at the very least aware of the effectiveness of the British concentration camps against the Boers when setting up their own. They learned from the best.

old hippy

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Such unbridled hatred. I'm no supporter of any particular military but... wow. Do you cheer everytime a young British soldier gets blown up in Afghanistan?

old hippy

SoulandForm wrote: »

There are some people here who would give Willie Frazer a run for money...:cool:

Is he against gay marriage as well?

bumper234

old hippy wrote: »

Such unbridled hatred. I'm no supporter of any particular military but... wow. Do you cheer everytime a young British soldier gets blown up in Afghanistan?

He seems the type to hold a party if a British athlete stubs a toe.

old hippy

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nope, there is nothing brave about fighting for an evil empire in defending a country like Belgium which was at the time raping the Congo.

And that's it. "Evil empires". That's about the extent of your arsenal.

I'm talking about the sacrifice of an entire generation a hundred years ago and you and your cohorts are on some kind of Star Wars fantasy bargain bucket binge :rolleyes:

Crooked Jack

old hippy wrote: »

And that's it. "Evil empires". That's about the extent of your arsenal.

If the shoe fits

old hippy wrote: »

I'm talking about the sacrifice of an entire generation a hundred years ago

This thread is about the poppy and the myth that the poppy is solely about WW1 and WW2 (far from the nobel causes they are portrayed as, but that's a different discussion) needs to be challenged.

old hippy wrote: »

and you and your cohorts are on some kind of Star Wars fantasy bargain bucket binge :rolleyes:

I dont even know what this means

Zebra3

bumper234 wrote: »

But genocide by any country is wrong right? Or are you just a Brit hater like most of the armchair republicans on here?

Where did I say genocide was right? Why do you accuse me of being a Brit hater?

You seem to have run out of arguements to make as you now have to resort to making accusations that you can't back up.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would suggest the whole rounding up people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality and disability and then attempting to eradicate them in mechanized efficient death camps pretty much trumps anything ever done before or after.

Whereas when Britain went into what's now the US and Australia, it was just a straight forward attempt to wipe out everyone they came across.

old hippy wrote: »

And that's it. "Evil empires". That's about the extent of your arsenal.

I'm talking about the sacrifice of an entire generation a hundred years ago and you and your cohorts are on some kind of Star Wars fantasy bargain bucket binge :rolleyes:

Star Wars? Wtf are you on about? :rolleyes:

If you choose to go along with the squaddie hard-on that grips the British media and a lot of its public, good luck to you.

Those scumbags chose to take war to other countries.

Heroes they are not.

moxin

bumper234 wrote: »

He seems the type to hold a party if a British athlete stubs a toe.

Prince Harry broke his toe yesterday, how many peasants should die for it?

moxin

Captain Farrell wrote: »

Of course there is. But to hear many of the posters on here over the years, the irish system only teaches the cold hard truth and nothing else.

Utter nonsense, of course.

Which part is nonsense, false or whatever you call it. Elaborate.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

moxin wrote: »

Prince Harry broke his toe yesterday, how many peasants should die for it?

Nice to see you keeping up to date with YOUR hero's, most of the rest of us wouldn't be aware of such trivia.
Did you get to shake hands with his grandmother when she visited?

old hippy

Zebra3 wrote: »

Star Wars? Wtf are you on about? :rolleyes:

If you choose to go along with the squaddie hard-on that grips the British media and a lot of its public, good luck to you.

Those scumbags chose to take war to other countries.

Heroes they are not.

Star Wars - Evil Empire? You get me?

I haven't gone with a squaddie hard on but I did get an Irish lad, once. Such discipline

Most of those boys took the job in the army because they had no other skills, many came from poor backgrounds where a job is a job. The rank and file did not chose to be stationed anywhere, they go where the job is. I don't support the military actions but I see no reason to toss one off when someone is maimed or killed, either.

We need more love, not war.

Crooked Jack

old hippy wrote: »

Star Wars - Evil Empire? You get me?

I haven't gone with a squaddie hard on but I did get an Irish lad, once. Such discipline

Most of those boys took the job in the army because they had no other skills, many came from poor backgrounds where a job is a job. The rank and file did not chose to be stationed anywhere, they go where the job is. I don't support the military actions but I see no reason to toss one off when someone is maimed or killed, either.

We need more love, not war.

But nobody has said this. In lieu of any actual argument to make you have now resorted to attacking arguments people never actually made.
The facts are indisputable. The poppy honours the British army as a whole, not individuals who were in the trenches, all of them and all their actions. The money raised goes to people who were in that army. Rather understandably, a lot of Irish people are deeply uncomfortable with this.

Captain Farrell

moxin wrote: »

Which part is nonsense, false or whatever you call it. Elaborate.

Read this, by an irish historian from Drogheda, debunking the "slaughter" in Drogheda by Cromwell http://www.historytoday.com/tom-reilly/cromwell-irish-question

Timecheck: September 2012. A primary school teacher somewhere in Ireland faces a class of 11-year-olds. The teacher reaches for the textbook Earthlink 5th Class, published by Folens in 2004. On page 87 the following words are printed: ‘Cromwell captured Drogheda. About 3,000 men, women and children were killed.’ No ambiguity there. The teacher then picks up a second history book, Timeline, published by the Educational Company of Ireland in 2008, also on the school curriculum, and crosschecks.

A paragraph reads:

He [Cromwell] first laid siege to Drogheda. He was determined to make an example of the town. When he captured it he slaughtered the entire population.

Compare this with a British school workbook, Presenting the Past: Britain 1500-1750 published by HarperCollins in 2002, where the veracity of the civilian atrocity stories is debated at some length and alternative interpretations presented

And so the journey began. I became familiar with all of the usual sources and those not so usual. As I read more about Cromwell, it became difficult (although not impossible) to reconcile how a man with such lofty moral ethics could engage in the senseless slaughter of Ireland’s innocents, even amid the frenetic environment of 17th-century warfare. I wiped the slate clean and evaluated the evidence of those people who were actually in Drogheda and Wexford at the time the massacres took place. It was shocking to realise that not one person in either town left written details of the deaths of even one unarmed civilian. Obviously small numbers of male civilians could have died as the result of collateral damage. To argue otherwise is folly. But there was no policy to kill the innocent either before, during or after the sieges of Drogheda and Wexford.

History has a habit of not going away in Ireland, as the Irish know to their cost. It has defined and divided us. Surely it is the obligation of those early modern experts who preside over the Irish educational system to set the records straight and introduce a sense of balance. These words of Cromwell himself somehow seem very relevant: ‘In the bowels of Christ I beseech you, think it possible that you might be mistaken.’

seamus

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Or the million who died in the famine, strange how the biggest empire the world had ever seen could not manage to feed a part of the UK

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

It would be folly to suggest that the dire response of the British government during the famine was a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Irish or halve the population.

It was not malice or evil that caused it, but good old fashioned red tape and bureaucracy. By the time the scale of the problem became apparent, they were already well past the point where they could intervene in any meaningful way.

I'm not making excuses for it, but neither the UK citizens or government of today bear any responsibility, historical or otherwise for the famine.

bumper234

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But nobody has said this. In lieu of any actual argument to make you have now resorted to attacking arguments people never actually made.
The facts are indisputable. The poppy honours the British army as a whole, not individuals who were in the trenches, all of them and all their actions. The money raised goes to people who were in that army. Rather understandably, a lot of Irish people are deeply uncomfortable with this.

So does British tax money ...... a lot of Irish people contribute voluntarily to this by choosing to work in the UK. Not so uncomfortable when they are earning 30k a year:rolleyes:

old hippy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But nobody has said this. In lieu of any actual argument to make you have now resorted to attacking arguments people never actually made.
The facts are indisputable. The poppy honours the British army as a whole, not individuals who were in the trenches, all of them and all their actions. The money raised goes to people who were in that army. Rather understandably, a lot of Irish people are deeply uncomfortable with this.

Which I get, Jack. But the hyperbole about Evil Empires and the talk of getting what they deserve is a trifle unsettling. I don't buy the poppy as I don't agree with all aspects of it but I also feel deeply unsettled at the sheer vitriol from some of the posters here.

Not every member of our neighbours armed forces (past and present) is a monster, that's what I'm trying to put across.

Captain Farrell

moxin wrote: »

Which part is nonsense, false or whatever you call it. Elaborate.

Or try this http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/uk/ireland/irelandintro.html from the British Library, showing both sides of the story, something never seen in Ireland.

Ireland: Propaganda and Plantations.
Throughout the 16th century, English monarchs struggled to control Ireland by imposing English language, English customs and the Protestant faith. Part of this policy consisted of 'planting' English farmers, merchants and craftsman in Ireland by giving them land and incentives to settle there.

Sources from this period tend to show extremes of view, on the one hand portraying the Irish as uncivilized and rebellious savages who needed to be subdued and on the other claiming that the incomers were savage and brutal conquerors who stole the land.

Here you can explore a variety of sources - produced by both sides. Many of the sources contain images or words which were intended to be used to persuade people as such could be described as propaganda.

Crooked Jack

old hippy wrote: »

Which I get, Jack. But the hyperbole about Evil Empires and the talk of getting what they deserve is a trifle unsettling. I don't buy the poppy as I don't agree with all aspects of it but I also feel deeply unsettled at the sheer vitriol from some of the posters here.

Not every member of our neighbours armed forces (past and present) is a monster, that's what I'm trying to put across.

But you are attempting to portray everyone who opposes the actions of that army as a raving lunatic or "armchair" republican, whatever that means

Crooked Jack

bumper234 wrote: »

So does British tax money ...... a lot of Irish people contribute voluntarily to this by choosing to work in the UK. Not so uncomfortable when they are earning 30k a year:rolleyes:

The fact that you are even trying to make that comparison shows just how flimsy your argument is.

Zebra3

old hippy wrote: »

Star Wars - Evil Empire? You get me?

I haven't gone with a squaddie hard on but I did get an Irish lad, once. Such discipline

Most of those boys took the job in the army because they had no other skills, many came from poor backgrounds where a job is a job. The rank and file did not chose to be stationed anywhere, they go where the job is. I don't support the military actions but I see no reason to toss one off when someone is maimed or killed, either.

We need more love, not war.

You've got a crush on heavily armed humans in an evil organisation that go out to slaughter innocent, unarmed humans.

Your comments on here prove that.

Crooked Jack

seamus wrote: »

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

A little bit of research on the likes of Charles Trevelyan will show you that malice was as much a motivator as anything

Crooked Jack

Zebra3 wrote: »

You've got a crush on heavily armed humans in an evil organisation that go out to slaughter innocent, unarmed humans.

Your comments on here prove that.

Not much of a hippy, are they?

Captain Farrell

here's an idea of what we are taught in English schools about irish history.

Apart from a brief period in the early 11th century under Brian Boru,Ireland was never a single,unified country before the English invasion under Henry II - approved by the Pope,who granted Henry the overlordship of Ireland in 1155. I also learned that the initial English invasion of 1166 was at the request of Dermot McMurrough, King of Leinster,who sought English aid to regain his kingdom from which he had been driven earlier in the year.

Later, I learned that the military operations of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland 1649-1650 were conducted entirely within the known and accepted rules of 17th century warfare.

I also learned that during the Potato famine of the 1840s, British Prime Minister Robert Peel forced through the Repeal of the Corn Laws - against considerable Parliamentary opposition - to enable cheap wheat imports from USA that provided bread for the population of Ireland.

Finally I learned that the captured rebels of the 1916 Easter Uprising were booed by the civilian population when they were led away by British troops after surrendering, some prisoners admitting that it was these British troops that prevented them from being subjected to mob justice

bumper234

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The fact that you are even trying to make that comparison shows just how flimsy your argument is.

What's so flimsy?

I contribute £2 to the poppy appeal and people on here go mad because the £2 goes to the Royal British Legion. (a not for profit organisation)

Someone goes to work in the UK and pays thousands in tax from which a % goes directly to fund the MOD helping to pay for wars (past and present) and the pensions of the soldiers they claim to have a problem with

Captain Farrell

Zebra3 wrote: »

You've got a crush on heavily armed humans in an evil organisation that go out to slaughter innocent, unarmed humans.

Your comments on here prove that.

But he never even mentioned the IRA?

Captain Farrell

Crooked Jack wrote: »

A little bit of research on the likes of Charles Trevelyan will show you that malice was as much a motivator as anything

From hundreds of years ago. A trawl through Ireland's recent blood-stained past would suggest that McGuinness and his like are still like that.

Smiles35

Captain Farrell wrote: »

But he never even mentioned the IRA?

It's the lads with the biggest army that gets the wandering eye..

Zebra3

Captain Farrell wrote: »

But he never even mentioned the IRA?

Failed attempt to sidetrack the top of the thread which is about supporting the murderers and torturers of the British Army.

Feel free to try again.

Captain Farrell

Zebra3 wrote: »

Failed attempt to sidetrack the top of the thread which is about supporting the murderers and torturers of the British Army.

Feel free to try again.

I fully support the British Army, so no need to try again.