Protestors disrupting World War 1 commemoration at Glasnevin

Happyman42

Strazdas wrote: »

The event yesterday was certainly not a celebration of war, merely a commemoration of those who died in the wars.

The whole question of whether wars are ever justified or not is an entirely different matter (but the tone of the speeches yesterday was that war was invariably a horrible thing).

And why was Michael D not saying that the current conflicts the British are engaged in are wrong as well? As a man he believes that, after all, look at his record.
He has one eye closed (and everybody involved has) during these commemorations. These men are being used...make no mistake about it.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D Fred arrives does Fred...with a bit of righteousness himself but not much in the way of an argument.

Stop it will you?
Wwi was the most pivotal moment in twentieth century world history. It shaped the world in which we live today, and it should not have happened.

No one is glorifying it. It was senseless, but it cost the lives of millions of people across the world.

Shut up for a minute and recognise that fact.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stop it will you?
Wwi was the most pivotal moment in twentieth century world history. It shaped the world in which we live today, and it should not have happened.

No one is glorifying it. It was senseless, but it cost the lives of millions of people across the world.

Shut up for a minute and recognise that fact.

Where have I said any different?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

And why was Michael D not saying that the current conflicts the British are engaged in are wrong as well? As a man he believes that, after all, look at his record.
He has one eye closed (and everybody involved has) during these commemorations. These men are being used...make no mistake about it.

Because Britain is only involved in one conflict currently and as head of the Irish armed forces he would be a ****ing hypocrite to say that, considering the Irish army is involved as well.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do you ever stop for a minute and read the self righteous bollocks you write.

Why don't you counter his individual points instead of trying to discredit their author?

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

Why don't you counter his individual points instead of trying to discredit their author?

What individual points ? they are not even a variation on a theme , just a variation on a single note - if it is British it must be bad .

Lets try and have some bit of nuance when reading history for fcuk sake .

Karl Stein

marienbad wrote: »

What individual points?

1.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a uniqueness about colonists and expansionists and those who see themselves as the world's policemen though.

2.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am pretty sure the last time I looked that this is a democracy, I don't have to agree with what my government does.

3.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shame the majority in Britain don't realise that, the world would be a much better place if they did have the power to change.

4.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But they seem to never be able to break the stranglehold of the establishment because of their electoral system...wonder why that is?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

What individual points ? they are not even a variation on a theme , just a variation on a single note - if it is British it must be bad .

Lets try and have some bit of nuance when reading history for fcuk sake .

Let's not be critical lest we upset the British and look like terrorists, you mean.
That fear ^, which is endemic in certain citizens and official Ireland (stems from a deep seated inferiority) is particularly noticeable when it comes to what to do about the men and women who died in this war.
The 'problem' I have with it all is that the British are still willing to send men and women to the same futile deaths in pursuit of imperialist gain.
They 'celebrate' what was a slaughtering match when they should be humble and apologetic and making sure that they at least have learned a lesson from it.
I have attended two Famine commemorations which were solemn and reflective and fitting tributes to those who died needlessly.

I attended a 3 day symposium on the subject of 'how we should commemorate and remember in this decade of centenaries' at which Michael D gave the opening address and in that he said the following

As to the act of remembering,‘ the use of the term itself, I would like to draw on the distinction established by the philosopher Avishai Margalit, in his recent book The Ethics of Memory, a distinction between common memory and shared memory. In Margalit‘s definition, common memory is an aggregate notion that combines the memories
of all those people who remember a certain episode which each of them experienced individually.
Shared memory, on the other hand is not a simple aggregate of individual memories. It is an indirect memory a
memory of memory which requires communication and seeks to integrate into one version the different perspectives of those who might have directly remembered a given episode. In other words, it is a memory that goes beyond the experience of anyone alive, and thus we might ask: is it inescapably ideological; as ideological as any enforced or induced amnesia?

I fail to see what was 'ethical' about the Glasnevin event in the context of the above when we had Irish citizens locked outside the gate, and a huge part of the nation 'locked' out of the debate and commemorations by dint of their political beliefs. Michael D knows as a private citizen what the problem is, in his 'official' capacity he is not allowed to address it, which is a great shame an a waste of what he could offer to the office of President.
We NEED to have that debate in a public and official way. Instead we get what is a sham event that represents only the 'shared memories' of some.

Santa Cruz

Let evereyone hold hands and sing Kum By Ya

Irelandcool

this forum right here shows an interesting split in irish opinion. One group believes we are now no longer enemies with the british government and army and should work towards a brighter future. Also to move on with our lives

The otherside still sees the british forces and the government and the royal family are the enemy, and wanting to strenghten their imperial interests.

Even though the royal family has to go through parliament first in order to send any troops and it was the government who deployed the troops to Iraq and afghanistan, also keep in mind a significant number of british troops are actually Irish should Irish people who join the british forces be considered a traitor. Also people seem to talk as if the british forces encompass just the army which is kind of wrong. Also I think there was an Irish SAS officer who died in the falkland's as well and an irish rugby player who fought with the SAS in world war 2. No offense but the queen/king while being commander in chief can't get away with the same things years ago.

Besides both the USA and UK were once enemies how come Ireland and UK unite in friendship because you know the whole magic of friendship sort of thing.

pO1Neil

FierceMild wrote: »

Free State. Poppy Fascism. Secret Police.

I've never seen so many Dissident Republican buzzwords in a sentence before.

The Free State police are much savage than their PSNI friends across the border. The PSNI have petrol bombs, rocks steel bars & anything Na Fianna Eierann can get there hands on & they manage to restrain themselves.

A slight bit of disturbance by Republicans protesting in Dublin is met with brutality by the Free State secret police.

pO1Neil

Irelandcool wrote: »

this forum right here shows an interesting split in irish opinion. One group believes we are now no longer enemies with the british government and army and should work towards a brighter future. Also to move on with our lives

The otherside still sees the british forces and the government and the royal family are the enemy, and wanting to strenghten their imperial interests.

Even though the royal family has to go through parliament first in order to send any troops and it was the government who deployed the troops to Iraq and afghanistan, also keep in mind a significant number of british troops are actually Irish should Irish people who join the british forces be considered a traitor. Also people seem to talk as if the british forces encompass just the army which is kind of wrong. Also I think there was an Irish SAS officer who died in the falkland's as well and an irish rugby player who fought with the SAS in world war 2. No offense but the queen/king while being commander in chief can't get away with the same things years ago.

Besides both the USA and UK were once enemies how come Ireland and UK unite in friendship because you know the whole magic of friendship sort of thing.

I'm a Republican & no longer see the British as the enemy anymore. There was a time when I consider them the enemy during the Provo war but I 100% back the peace strategy. And the gains can be seen already, SF is now the majority party in 4 or the 6 counties & growing all the time about 15 yeas ago we weren't the majority in one county.

I have no time at all for these "dissidents", their the one thing holding Republicans back in the North.

cruais

Jesus. wrote: »

What, the pipe band was mixed between IDF and RIR? I'd be very surprised by that considering they were all wearing the same uniform!

Are you takin' the Mick?

No I am not takin the mick. You asked me could I help with your query, to which I personally didn't know the answer to.

And so, I googled the subject in the news and according to BBC news online it was a mixture of both.

Don't shoot the messenger. (Pardon the pun!)

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let's not be critical lest we upset the British and look like terrorists, you mean.
That fear ^, which is endemic in certain citizens and official Ireland (stems from a deep seated inferiority) is particularly noticeable when it comes to what to do about the men and women who died in this war.
The 'problem' I have with it all is that the British are still willing to send men and women to the same futile deaths in pursuit of imperialist gain.
They 'celebrate' what was a slaughtering match when they should be humble and apologetic and making sure that they at least have learned a lesson from it.
I have attended two Famine commemorations which were solemn and reflective and fitting tributes to those who died needlessly. .

More self righteous patronising stuff I see.

It isn't not wanting to upset the Brits your fellow country men and woman are worried about, they just think the paranoid pointless **** you go on about is just pointless paranoid ****.

Jesus.

Strazdas wrote: »

I think the band and pipers were from the Irish Army, but some of the flag bearers were from the British Army.

You're right, that was a beautiful tune they played (didn't recognise it).

Correction : that was the No.1 Army Band and the Band of the Corps of Royal Engineers (so the OP was correct in fact)

What OP was correct mate?

It was obvious from the moment you looked at it that the brass section were British Army. What I asked was if the pipe band was Irish army or British army and someone told me it was mixed!

So the pipe band was Irish army?

indioblack

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you'll find that the British generals who sent millions to a needless and pointless death was more 'contemptible' of the people than a few guys shouting and roaring at a PR excercise.

It seems to me that the generals get all the blame, while politicians and others are forgotten. Patriotism of an unpleasant variety, jingoism - imperialist attitudes were some of the springs of action in Europe at this time. Elements of the general populations in European countries had no problem with the war - until the casualties began to mount.
When the war began the generals of all the combatant nations had pretty much the same demands from their respective governments - defeat the enemy.
Armies of millions facing armies of millions on the relatively small killing ground of the western front.
A general refusing to use his forces against his opponent would simply be replaced.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More self righteous patronising stuff I see.

It isn't not wanting to upset the Brits your fellow country men and woman are worried about, they just think the paranoid pointless **** you go on about is just pointless paranoid ****.

You keep up with the attempts to silence and censor Fred. Well done.

One of the chief 'celebrants' yesterday is obviously wracked by the same 'paranoia' in private, but in public life can ignore it. He's not alone it seems. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

indioblack wrote: »

It seems to me that the generals get all the blame, while politicians and others are forgotten. Patriotism of an unpleasant variety, jingoism - imperialist attitudes were some of the springs of action in Europe at this time. Elements of the general populations in European countries had no problem with the war - until the casualties began to mount.
When the war began the generals of all the combatant nations had pretty much the same demands from their respective governments - defeat the enemy.
Armies of millions facing armies of millions on the relatively small killing ground of the western front.
A general refusing to use his forces against his opponent would simply be replaced.

No doubt about that.
The British (politicians and generals) disregard of human life in insisting on sending men over the top at the Somme when they knew and were told of it's pointlessness is a shameful thing.
Their sense of superiority (how could the Hun outwit us and be better dug in and prepared?) led them into a huge human disaster.

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

1.

2.

3.

4.

These aren't points , just more empty truisms and slogans with nothing to offer.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let's not be critical lest we upset the British and look like terrorists, you mean.
That fear ^, which is endemic in certain citizens and official Ireland (stems from a deep seated inferiority) is particularly noticeable when it comes to what to do about the men and women who died in this war.
The 'problem' I have with it all is that the British are still willing to send men and women to the same futile deaths in pursuit of imperialist gain.
They 'celebrate' what was a slaughtering match when they should be humble and apologetic and making sure that they at least have learned a lesson from it.
I have attended two Famine commemorations which were solemn and reflective and fitting tributes to those who died needlessly.

I attended a 3 day symposium on the subject of 'how we should commemorate and remember in this decade of centenaries' at which Michael D gave the opening address and in that he said the following


I fail to see what was 'ethical' about the Glasnevin event in the context of the above when we had Irish citizens locked outside the gate, and a huge part of the nation 'locked' out of the debate and commemorations by dint of their political beliefs. Michael D knows as a private citizen what the problem is, in his 'official' capacity he is not allowed to address it, which is a great shame an a waste of what he could offer to the office of President.
We NEED to have that debate in a public and official way. Instead we get what is a sham event that represents only the 'shared memories' of some.

How about something to back up your thesis now and then .

For example ''That fear ^, which is endemic in certain citizens and official Ireland (stems from a deep seated inferiority)''

What is all that about ? Have you any evidence for this mass delusion ? Any citations sources ? Anything ? Or is it just your own feverish analysis of the state of this country ?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

You keep up with the attempts to silence and censor Fred. Well done.

One of the chief 'celebrants' yesterday is obviously wracked by the same 'paranoia' in private, but in public life can ignore it. He's not alone it seems. :rolleyes:

No need to silence or censor, because you are simply coming out with empty rhetoric.

Do you have any evidence of the Presidents personal feelings, because the quote you posted could apply to dozens of scenarios. The famine service you attended, for example.

indioblack

Happyman42 wrote: »

No doubt about that.
The British (politicians and generals) disregard of human life in insisting on sending men over the top at the Somme when they knew and were told of it's pointlessness is a shameful thing.
Their sense of superiority (how could the Hun outwit us and be better dug in and prepared?) led them into a huge human disaster.

The summer offensive on the Somme was supposed to be part of a general offensive by the allied powers against the central powers. The demand for a large attack in 1916 came from the French and initially France would provide more divisions than the British - and presumably would determine the strategy of the offensive. It would have been better if they had - their hard won experience might have resulted in more gains for fewer casualties. Verdun obliged the French to move divisions away from the coming Somme offensive, which gave the British effective control of the tactics. The French observed the British casualties and small gains and considered that the British would learn some hard lessons on the Somme.
It's worth noting that two of the largest assaults of the war - with some of the heaviest casualties - came from the Germans. The initial thrust into Belgium and France in 1914 -which failed and created the western front. And Ludendorff's series of huge assaults from March 1918 onward - these also failed and led to the ending of the war.
Generals making mistakes and causing huge casualties for their own armies was not confined to the British.

end of the road

Irelandcool wrote: »

Also I think there was an Irish SAS officer who died in the falkland's

yes, a war which happened so a failed loony who had no chance of being re-elected would get re-elected, before selling off everything to the lowist bidder, everything must go

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

yes, a war which happened so a failed loony who had no chance of being re-elected would get re-elected, before selling off everything to the lowist bidder, everything must go

You missed the small matter of a military Junta invading the islands in the first place.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You missed the small matter of a military Junta invading the islands in the first place.

which the military junta were right to do, leaving it to them would have saved the british tax payers billions and removed a loony extremist from the highist office in the british state, possibly meaning people not having to pay over inflated prices to a few greedy private companies

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

which the military junta were right to do, leaving it to them would have saved the british tax payers billions and removed a loony extremist from the highist office in the british state, possibly meaning people not having to pay over inflated prices to a few greedy private companies

But leaving the people of the Falklands living under a brutal military dictatorship.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But leaving the people of the Falklands living under a brutal military dictatorship.

if it meant thatcher not being re-elected, so be it, the people living on those islands are and will never be british, descendants of british people maybe but thats it.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

end of the road wrote: »

if it meant thatcher not being re-elected, so be it, the people living on those islands are and will never be british, descendants of british people maybe but thats it.

As much as I hated Thatcher and disagreed with the Falklands war what gives you the right to condemn these people to a military junta ruling them. They don't want to be part of Argentina surely they have right to determine who governs them as other peoples do

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is a matter of interpretation I suppose.

What beggars belief about all of this is that there are still people on this island that think the GFA cured all our ills. It simply hasn't and there are sizable numbers who still believe we have a way to go, on both sides.
It will only continue to fester as the two governments play happy families reunited.
Ignore it if you wish but don't act suprised everytime this rears it's head...it will continue to happen.

Only a small minority on both sides would change the current status quo (imperfect as it is) and go back to how it was. Most of the problems on the extremes on both sides would be solved by socio economic, long term solutions, extra jobs, opportunities and money. We'll always have bigots and slaves to history on both sides, but that's mostly symtoms of their upbringing than anything else.

tomwaterford

K-9 wrote: »

Only a small minority on both sides would change the current status quo (imperfect as it is) and go back to how it was. Most of the problems on the extremes on both sides would be solved by socio economic, long term solutions, extra jobs, opportunities and money. We'll always have bigots and slaves to history on both sides, but that's mostly symtoms of their upbringing than anything else.

this is a big issue...where would the best future be served espially for the extremes....In a united Ireland or continueing plodding along under britin where it doesn't want to invest too much money for fear of event of united Ireland coming to pass....there by effectively letting the place run down??

K-9

Jaysus, The North is heavily subsidised and reliant on the British Exchequer, something like 2/3'rds of jobs are public service or Government funded to some extent. If that money dried up and N.I. Was forced to become more self reliant it would raise questions, but the answers aren' coming from a United Ireland IMO.

end of the road

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

As much as I hated Thatcher and disagreed with the Falklands war what gives you the right to condemn these people to a military junta ruling them. They don't want to be part of Argentina surely they have right to determine who governs them as other peoples do

eventually when britains military is cut again and they have had enough of racing half way around the world into conflicts the people there won't get a choice

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

eventually when britains military is cut again and they have had enough of racing half way around the world into conflicts the people there won't get a choice

I doubt the Argentinean military will see any investment in the near future.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I doubt the Argentinean military will see any investment in the near future.

the argentines had a good military back in 82 but got scared, otherwise they would have defeated the thrown together bits of ships and planes the british had had they kept fighting

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

the argentines had a good military back in 82 but got scared, otherwise they would have defeated the thrown together bits of ships and planes the british had had they kept fighting

Maybe, but their military is pretty much the same now as it was in 82.

Mosby61

Karl Stein wrote: »

The PIRA lost a lot of support in the wake of that atrocity and rightly so.

Loyalists murderers, on the other hand, are celebrated for their massacres of innocent people - 'here lies a soldier' is written on the UVF headstone of a Shankill Butcher.

PIRA supporters put up a disgraceful plaque just recently to commemorate the Shankill bomber who murdered so many people. You either didn't know or tried to pull the wool over less educated eyes on this.

And a parade is being organised now to remember PIRA death squads too. So it isn't black and white at all.

wazky

Mosby61 wrote: »

And a parade is being organised now to remember PIRA death squads too. So it isn't black and white at all.

Which death squads are these now?

Mosby61

wazky wrote: »

Which death squads are these now?

PIRA squads which murdered innocent people with bombs.

wazky

Mosby61 wrote: »

PIRA squads which murdered innocent people with bombs.

Oh right those ones.

Karl Stein

Mosby61 wrote: »

PIRA supporters put up a disgraceful plaque just recently to commemorate the Shankill bomber who murdered so many people. You either didn't know or tried to pull the wool over less educated eyes on this.

Again, the PIRA lost a lot of support in the wake of such atrocities*. Loyalists on the other hand were celebrated in their communities for shooting innocent Catholics in bars, bookies or at work.

In the wake of that bomb:

The UDA shot a Catholic delivery driver in Belfast after luring him to a bogus call just a few hours after the bombing. He died on 25 October.

On 26 October, the UDA shot dead another two Catholic civilians and wounded five in an indiscriminate attack at a Council Depot on Kennedy Way, Belfast.

On 30 October, UDA members entered a pub in Greysteel frequented by Catholics and again opened-fire indiscriminately. Eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded.

Adair also vowed to launch simultaneous attacks on Catholics attending mass in Belfast. A UDA member said that a carload of gunmen were sent to attack Holy Family Catholic Church on the Limestone Road, but called off the attack due to the high security.

The UVF shot dead a Catholic man in Newtownabbey and two Catholic brothers in Bleary.

See the difference there? The guys in the fish shop were trying to kill paramilitaries of Johnny Adair's ilk while the people they were trying to kill went out and murdered innocent unarmed people for being Catholics. Brave men eh?

There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated.

This culture did not emerge simply as a response to IRA violence. It was there already. It was feckless, violent, drunken, lost, lumpen proletarians for whom a perverted tribal identity conjoined with a Godlessly Calvinist sense of superiority, even as they stewed in their ghettoes of suffocating illiteracy and economic failure.

Kevin Myers.

*That bomb was meant for loyalist killers who were thought to be meeting upstairs. The plan was to evacuate the people in the shop and detonate the bomb. Seán Kelly, the surviving IRA member, was badly wounded in the blast ... in an interview shortly after his release, he said he had never intended to kill innocent people and regrets what happened.

Shakespeare's Sister

There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated.

This culture did not emerge simply as a response to IRA violence. It was there already. It was feckless, violent, drunken, lost, lumpen proletarians for whom a perverted tribal identity conjoined with a Godlessly Calvinist sense of superiority, even as they stewed in their ghettoes of suffocating illiteracy and economic failure.

Kevin Myers.

And Kevin Myers ain't no provo apologist.

Berserker

LordSutch wrote: »

Maybe they're sore the germans didn't win?

Seriously though, there are enough 'prime candidate' posters on here who may very well be out threre protesting (presumably because so many Irish men fought with the allies). If the poppy threads on boards.ie are anything to go by there is an annual outporing of pure hatred at any and all WWI commemorations in Ireland, so I guess these dim wit hecklers may represent their sentiments? questionmark.

I love the faux outrage over it. Republicans like to put on this veil of respectability. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. The countless threads slaughtering the OO, unionists in NI, the British Royals, the BA, coupled with threads deifying convicts like Bobby Sands and those who murdered in the name of Irish republicanism, show that their is more than a little support for this kind of behavior. I can only begin to imagine the level of vulgarity that will be on display in 2016.

Shakespeare's Sister

The expression "Faux outrage" is really in now - I'm amazed at the amount of mind-readers out there.
Where are "The countless threads slaughtering the OO, unionists in NI, the British Royals, the BA"?
If a person can't see how elements within the British army deserve criticism, and how a LOT of elements within the Orange Order deserve criticism... speaks volumes.

Berserker

Magaggie wrote: »

The expression "Faux outrage" is really in now - I'm amazed at the amount of mind-readers out there.
Where are "The countless threads slaughtering the OO, unionists in NI, the British Royals, the BA"?

Search the site. You'll find plenty of examples in this forum and the Politics fora. The threads on Prince George of Cambridge, a new born baby, are particularly tasteless.

Nodin

Berserker wrote: »

I love the faux outrage over it. Republicans like to put on this veil of respectability. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. The countless threads slaughtering the OO, unionists in NI, the British Royals, the BA, coupled with threads deifying convicts like Bobby Sands and those who murdered in the name of Irish republicanism, show that their is more than a little support for this kind of behavior. I can only begin to imagine the level of vulgarity that will be on display in 2016.

Jaysus, you're just the ray of sunshine this thread needs.

Berserker

Nodin wrote: »

Jaysus, you're just the ray of sunshine this thread needs.

Why? This incident shows Republicans for what they are, as opposed to the angelic, victim persona that is usually portrayed.

Shakespeare's Sister

Berserker wrote: »

Why? This incident shows Republicans for what they are, as opposed to the angelic, victim persona that is usually portrayed.

Saying this incident = how all republicans are... again, speaks volumes.

These "enlightened" Irish folk who act as if the conflict in Northern Ireland was formed in a vacuum and it was all down the republicans... what would we do without them and their superiority?

Karl Stein

Isn't it fantastic how these threads attract so many brand new users to boards?

Nodin

Berserker wrote: »

Why? This incident shows Republicans for what they are, as opposed to the angelic, victim persona that is usually portrayed.

Fairly sure there's more Republicans than the 20 or so who showed up at the cemetery. Even more sure they generally don't support RSF.

Karl Stein

Berserker wrote: »

This incident shows Republicans for what they are, as opposed to the angelic, victim persona that is usually portrayed.

They're about as representative of your average Irish Republican/Nationalist as the EDL is of the average Englishman.

Your axe will soon be reduced to its handle if you keep grinding it.