Will you wear a poppy 2013?

LOSTfan57

bumper234 wrote: »

I see you all quickly bypassed my post about the Irish government officials helping to arm the IRA death squads.

selective reading

and how many in this thread of hilarity have you "selectively read"......as with the murders....if its an irish person lets criticize them for it....but if its a brit lets say nothing and deny it happened :pac:

Podge83

The mods should break this debate into a new thread. The debate and discussions have nothing to do with the original topic.

Now. I haven't read 100 pages but the Poppy (and I don't wear one and never will because that's my choice) is not meant to be a political symbol.

The Poppy is a symbol of remembrance for men and women who were killed at war.

The vast majority of those would have been young people with their whole life ahead of them who answered a call during times when one dictator or other grabbed power in a place totally removed from the life that they were living. They went to war to fight against soldiers who wanted to be there as much/ as little as they did. In the majority of cases the "cause" was not of their making or indeed will!

Making the poppy a political symbol by the likes of EDL, Celtic fans, extremists from all sides etc detracts from the symbol as a memory of these people.

HansHolzel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Percentages are bollocks to be honest. It is just a way of hiding behind stats.

If the British security forces had executed every player they arrested, then their stats would be "better" would they?

You started the head count but you don't like it now.

Karl Stein

bumper234 wrote: »

Where is the evidence of collusion with the BA?

Google these terms.

'Subversion in the UDR'.

'The Glenane Gang'.

moxin

Podge83 wrote: »

Making the poppy a political symbol by the likes of EDL, Celtic fans, extremists from all sides etc detracts from the symbol as a memory of these people.

It's the Unionists and their brethren in the Conservative and Unionist party who turned the poppy into a symbol of Unionism especially in NI.

Podge83

moxin wrote: »

It's the Unionists and their brethren in the Conservative and Unionist party who turned the poppy into a symbol of Unionism especially in NI.

Correct - Add them to the list!

timthumbni

wazky wrote: »

So basically you can see now that your losing the arguement and are now trying to bow out with a shred of dignity?

Hmmm. In your wee head maybe. Go for it if it makes you happy. What is the point of the argument anyway? The poppy like the thread suggests? Nope.

As I said unlike the majority of people probably posting on here, I am born and bred and lived and continue to live in Northern Ireland. I know others may have left years ago, have parents, granny's who left and as a consequence are still bitter but that's not really my problem or concern. (Harsh but we have enough problems of our own without worrying about far flung snipers - pardon the pun)

I love life in Northern Ireland. It's not perfect and we still are having ongoing issues with loyalist protest disruption and republicans trying to blow up people (most days this last week for example) etc.

As I said I will continue to wear my poppy, others will not wear it, others again will make it like a personal anti poppy crusade to try and fulfill themselves that way. Good luck anyways. Lol.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Percentages are bollocks to be honest.

So what you're essentially saying is there's no difference between spraying a pub with gunfire and attacking a British Army base?

Are you saying that the % of London civilians killed by Nazi bombing raids is just 'bollocks tbh'.

It is just a way of hiding behind stats.

Hiding what?

If the British security forces had executed every player they arrested, then their stats would be "better" would they?

They executed plenty. They also had the option of arresting people and interrogating them for intelligence.

bumper234

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So what you're essentially saying is there's no difference between spraying a pub with gunfire and attacking a British Army base?

Are you saying that the % of London civilians killed by Nazi bombing raids is just 'bollocks tbh'.



Hiding what?



They executed plenty. They also had the option of arresting people and interrogating them for intelligence.

IRA man hides in a bush and shoots a soldier dead and that's ok. Soldier sees IRA man hiding in bush and shoots him dead and we got weeks of people screaming about shoot to kill policies and saying the IRA man should have been arrested :rolleyes:

timthumbni

bumper234 wrote: »

IRA man hides in a bush and shoots a soldier dead and that's ok. Soldier sees IRA man hiding in bush and shoots him dead and we got weeks of people screaming about shoot to kill policies and saying the IRA man should have been arrested :rolleyes:

Twas a weird so called war indeed. I've often thought of this myself.

LOSTfan57

equally we mention that we dont want to celebrate and commemorate murderers by wearing a poppy celebrating them and we get reams of pages involving the hypocritical beliefs of some that the irish deserve what they got from the hero brits :rolleyes:
i'll check back again for more lols on Monday. Keep it up xoxox

wazky

bumper234 wrote: »

IRA man hides in a bush and shoots a soldier dead and that's ok. Soldier sees IRA man hiding in bush and shoots him dead and we got weeks of people screaming about shoot to kill policies and saying the IRA man should have been arrested :rolleyes:

What about the IRA volunteers that were murdered whilst they were unarmed?, hard to shoot a soldier when you don't have a gun id say.

Gee Bag

bumper234 wrote: »

IRA man hides in a bush and shoots a soldier dead and that's ok. Soldier sees IRA man hiding in bush and shoots him dead and we got weeks of people screaming about shoot to kill policies and saying the IRA man should have been arrested :rolleyes:

IRA man is caught, convicted and geys a life sentence

I don't think any British soldier was ever tried for killing an armed paramilitary which is fair enough.

The problem most moderate people have is that soldiers involved in the killing of civilians rarely faced trial and were often avquited or had convictions overturned on appeal.

bumper234

wazky wrote: »

What about the IRA volunteers that were murdered whilst they were unarmed?, hard to shoot a soldier when you don't have a gun id say.

So they should shout "halt who goes there, friend or foe?" and then if he pulls out a gun, grenade, bomb then he should shoot? The IRA claimed they were at war. If that was the case we could say what about the unarmed police, prison officers who were murdered by car bombs or shot when they answered their door.

wazky

bumper234 wrote: »

So they should shout "halt who goes there, friend or foe?" and then if he pulls out a gun, grenade, bomb then he should shoot? The IRA claimed they were at war. If that was the case we could say what about the unarmed police, prison officers who were murdered by car bombs or shot when they answered their door.

Ok fair enough if there is a war on, funny how IRA members were tried as common criminals and not as military personal though?

Would kinda suggest that the British forces used the term "war" when it suited them.

LOSTfan57

wazky wrote: »

Ok fair enough if there is a war on, funny how IRA members were tried as common criminals and not as military personal though?

Would kinda suggest that the British forces used the term "war" when it suited them.

funnily enough that same logic is actively being used here regarding when to accept or indeed read evidence...must be a brit thing

HansHolzel

wazky wrote: »

Would kinda suggest that the British forces used the term "war" when it suited them.

See Brig. Gen. Frank Kitson's book Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping (1971), Faber and Faber, London (reprinted 1991).

LordSutch

Podge83 wrote: »

The mods should break this debate into a new thread. The debate and discussions have nothing to do with the original topic.

Now. I haven't red 100 pages but the Poppy (and I don't wear one and never will because that's my choice) is not meant to be a political symbol.

The Poppy is a symbol of remembrance for men and women who were killed at war.

The vast majority of those would have been young people with their whole life ahead of them who answered a call during times when one dictator or other grabbed power in a place totally removed from the life that they were living. They went to war to fight against soldiers who wanted to be there as much/ as little as they did. In the majority of cases the "cause" was not of their making or indeed will!

Making the poppy a political symbol by the likes of EDL, Celtic fans, extremists from all sides etc detracts from the symbol as a memory of these people.

Good post that^ Podge.

Sadly I suspect our argument is lost on many.

Karl Stein

bumper234 wrote: »

ISoldier sees IRA man hiding in bush and shoots him dead and we got weeks of people screaming about shoot to kill policies and saying the IRA man should have been arrested :rolleyes:

You're putting words in my mouth I never spoke.

PIRA operatives were fair game and I, personally, find the crying foul over shoot-to-kill a bit rich tbh.

Hilly Bill

Is this thread still about the poppy?

Fratton Fred

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So what you're essentially saying is there's no difference between spraying a pub with gunfire and attacking a British Army base?

Are you saying that the % of London civilians killed by Nazi bombing raids is just 'bollocks tbh'.

No, what I'm saying is you can't blow a pub up and kill four innocent people then trý and offset it by killing eight soldiers the next day.

Every single murder should be taken I'm isolation regardless of who is carrying the gun.

Fratton Fred

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You're putting words in my mouth I never spoke.

PIRA operatives were fair game and I, personally, find the crying foul over shoot-to-kill a bit rich tbh.

In fairness, the IRA didn't.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you can't blow a pub up and kill four innocent people then trý and offset it by killing eight soldiers the next day.

Offset it? I'm pretty confident the PIRA wasn't playing some ghoulish game of let's-offset-the-civilians-killed chess.

Every single murder should be taken I'm isolation regardless of who is carrying the gun.

Do you consider an PIRA man shot dead by a BA soldier (and vice versa) murdered?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In fairness, the IRA didn't.

Yeah but a lot of Republican sympathisers would which is kinda rich.

HansHolzel

The problem with shoot-to-kill is that the Brits were having it both ways - if we can't kill them in circumstances where we think we can get away with it, then we criminalize them.

In the end of the day it's either law or war and the problem for the Brits was that they couldn't go all out because the South and Irish America would have gone ballistic.

Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp?

Karl Stein

HansHolzel wrote: »

The problem with shoot-to-kill is that the Brits were having it both ways - if we can't kill them in circumstances where we think we can get away with it, then we criminalize them.

I get what you're saying but that's the nature of conflicts like the Troubles. 'That's not fair' isn't really an argument. You take any advantage you've got to defeat the enemy. Didn't the Provos start using the courts in the end anyway?

In the end of the day it's either law or war

Ah it's not in all fairness. There's a huge middle ground there.

and the problem for the Brits was that they couldn't go all out because the South and Irish America would have gone ballistic.

I disagree about the south, well, the establishment anyway. Southern governments were largely a bunch of pathetic, mealy mouthed, cowards when it came to standing up for those Irish on the other side of the border, the odd instance of gun running to prevent pogroms exempted.


I do agree though that had the north been a 'far away problem' rather than one somewhat hamstrung by the UK's own rules and international attention it would have been a lot more 'South American' or 'African' in nature if you understand what I mean. I'd imagine the British also feared radicalising the considerable Irish diaspora in Britain.

HansHolzel

The middle ground and how to exploit it was well explored in Kitson's book.

WilyCoyote

The British Army versus the IRA. The IRA were idealists. The British Army were/are mercenaries, ie, they were/are paid killers. If you look at the demographics .......... most of the squaddies come from areas of high employment and low education. You get the same out here ...... a lot of the soldiers are from places like the Appalachians. Three meals a day, some wonga saved when you get out and in the meantime you can bully whoever lives in the place where you're deployed. Just sayin'.

Karl Stein

HansHolzel wrote: »

The middle ground and how to exploit it was well explored in Kitson's book.

Never heard of it.

WilyCoyote wrote: »

most of the squaddies come from areas of high employment and low education.

So did the PIRA though. I'm not saying that they were thick, far from it, but poverty and joblessness feed the conveyor belt of people involved in conflicts.

'Andy Mc Nabb' was on the telly tonight saying that most BA soldiers agreed they'd probably have joined the IRA if they'd been young Nationalists in the early 70's.

Iwasfrozen

WilyCoyote wrote: »

The British Army versus the IRA. The IRA were idealists. The British Army were/are mercenaries, ie, they were/are paid killers. If you look at the demographics .......... most of the squaddies come from areas of high employment and low education. You get the same out here ...... a lot of the soldiers are from places like the Appalachians. Three meals a day, some wonga saved when you get out and in the meantime you can bully whoever lives in the place where you're deployed. Just sayin'.

And the provos were better were they? Recruiting and brain washing young boys from a working class background with little education and less opportunities. The IRA gave them a gun and told them they're fighting for Ireland, made them feel important, like they meant something, that they were contributing to a better future in a more equal Ireland. Feeding them these lies so they would go out and kill British Soldiers. Just sayin'.

WilyCoyote

Carlos Roca wrote: »

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

'Andy Mc Nabb' was on the telly tonight saying that most BA soldiers agreed they'd probably have joined the IRA if they'd been young Nationalists in the early 70's.

I doubt it Carlos (are you related to Michelle Rocha, by the way)?
The ragbag of young thugs that join the British Army would not be cognizant of emotional intelligence never mind articulate it. Any academic education that they've gleaned is from the Army (in the form of brainwashing) and emotional education from Viz et al.

Then they are sent abroad as pawns for a shower of hysterics in Whitehall. To compound the issue, they, their families and people of that ilk regard these modern day Black & Tans as heroes.

They are killed, maimed physically or emotionally and then let loose into civilian life.

"When you're injured and dying in Afghanistan's plains
And the woman comes out to cut off your remains
Then you take out your gun and you blow out your brains
And you go to your Gawd like a soldier"