Poppy

AudreyHepburn

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It is the Brits fault. They’re the foreign invader. No invasion, no war.

You don’t punch someone repeatedly in the face and then complain about violence when they hit you back.

The Troubles weren’t war though - they weren’t two armies meeting on a field of battle.

They were criminal and terrorist acts which were committed on BOTH sides.

sbsquarepants

Yamanoto wrote: »

You really were half asleep.

It was Eamonn McCann espousing the above position & was quite at odds with the other contributor, FG Senator Neill Richmond.

Thanks Yamanoto - I do admit I was pretty much on auto pilot at the time!

prinzeugen wrote: »

As did the French when they were not surrendering to someone. If fact the French were and still are more imperialistic than Britain.

And the French were more barbaric than Britain ever was. France was still importing slaves into the Americas long after every other country had stopped the slave trade.

Ex British colonies are mainly civilised and developed or developing.

Ex French colonies are usually the most undeveloped and are riddled with poverty, civil wars etc.

But hey, don't let history get in the way of an anti-British rant!

I didn't mention France once Do you think it's impossible to dislike two colonial powers or something? I've chosen Britain so therefore I must support France? That's idiotic.

Also are you seriously suggesting that Britain helped these countries by colonising them, stealing their resources, killing their people and so on?

Do you reckon that the genocidal starvation of a million plus Irish people somehow stands to our benefit now? We should be grateful? (I mean where would they all live for a start, rent would be 10grand a week, think of the HAP payments, and don't even get me started on the traffic on the M50)

I think your logic is about as fúcked up as it possibly could be. Maybe put down the Megan and Harry commemorative brochure and pick up a history book - might open your eyes somewhat!

sbsquarepants

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The Troubles weren’t war though - they weren’t two armies meeting on a field of battle.

They were criminal and terrorist acts which were committed on BOTH sides.

Armies don't meet on a field of battle anymore - that's just romantic bollox. How could any army stand against a vastly superior force in such a fashion?

It would be like sending me in to fight Mike Tyson, walk in the ring and stand toe to toe, I wouldn't have a hope - sneak up behind the bastard and bang him on the head with something though and maybe I might just come out on top!

You've got to play the cards you're dealt. There are precious few armies in the world who could even hope to defeat the British by conventional means. Centuries of global plunder have left them far too strong for that.

Ragnar Lothbrok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it incredible how people so willingly ignore the thousands of Irish men who fought in First and Second World Wars.

My Great Grandfather fought in the Battle of Ypres in 1914 - he was a Bombardier in the Royal Field Artillery and lost his left leg as a result of shrapnel wounds. In a way he was one of the lucky ones. He came home. To say we are proud of him would be an understatement.

Here’s the thing though - he didn’t do it because he was a traitor or a West Brit or any other insult folks care to level at him. He did it because it was a job and he needed the money.

In 2014 we went as a family, including my Grandfather (his son) to Ypres to follow in his footsteps and it was eye opening.

The thousands upon thousands of white headstones really brought home what a terrible waste of young life war really is. All those young men lying under those headstones deserve to be remembered.

And that’s why I wear the Poppy in the form of earrings I bought in Ypres. To honor my Great Grandfather’s courage and remember his many friends and fellow soldiers who never came home.

I appreciate the fact that you are proud of your great Grandfather and that you want to honour his memory. Why do you need to fund an organisation that provides help to British soldiers of the modern day though?

Surely a more fitting memorial to your great Grandfather (and all the other Irish people who died fighting for Britain) would be to create a purely Irish organisation that would arrange commemorations and look after memorials and statues, etc?

The poppy, like it or not, is sold to provide care and financial assistance to former members of the British army, many of whom committed outrageous acts of violence and murder not only on the streets of Belfast and Derry, but throughout the world.

Why any Irish person would willingly contribute to such an organisation is, frankly, beyond me.

weldoninhio

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The Troubles weren’t war though - they weren’t two armies meeting on a field of battle.

They were criminal and terrorist acts which were committed on BOTH sides.

When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.

Ragnar Lothbrok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The Troubles weren’t war though - they weren’t two armies meeting on a field of battle.

They were criminal and terrorist acts which were committed on BOTH sides.

So by your logic, the Vietnam War wasn't a war either? (Not to mention probably every war throughout the world that has taken place since the slaughter of the trenches in the First World War.)

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.

Korea?
The Falklands?
Iran/Iraq?
Yom Kippur war?

engiweirdo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One of the poorer quality wind up exercises I’ve read on boards in a while.

It's a correct an somewhat important distinction though. Legally and factually speaking, regardless of the victims actual wishes and desires they were/are British subjects. Therefore what Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy represented rather than the acts of a soldier at war like is often painted, was the official army of an EU/UN state callously murdering it's own citizens as some kind of warped public order measure. They should have been fcuked out the EU years ago and not had the option of Brexit.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Aegir wrote: »

Korea?
The Falklands?
Iran/Iraq?
Yom Kippur war?

Because some wars were fought in the field does not mean that other forms of conflict cannot be classed as wars.

weldoninhio

engiweirdo wrote: »

It's a correct an somewhat important distinction though. Legally and factually speaking, regardless of the victims actual wishes and desires they were/are British subjects. Therefore what Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy represented rather than the acts of a soldier at war like is often painted, was the official army of an EU/UN state callously murdering it's own citizens as some kind of warped public order measure. They should have been fcuked out the EU years ago and not had the option of Brexit.

Were the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings British citizens?

engiweirdo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it incredible how people so willingly ignore the thousands of Irish men who fought in First and Second World Wars.

My Great Grandfather fought in the Battle of Ypres in 1914 - he was a Bombardier in the Royal Field Artillery and lost his left leg as a result of shrapnel wounds. In a way he was one of the lucky ones. He came home. To say we are proud of him would be an understatement.

Here’s the thing though - he didn’t do it because he was a traitor or a West Brit or any other insult folks care to level at him. He did it because it was a job and he needed the money.

In 2014 we went as a family, including my Grandfather (his son) to Ypres to follow in his footsteps and it was eye opening.

The thousands upon thousands of white headstones really brought home what a terrible waste of young life war really is. All those young men lying under those headstones deserve to be remembered.

And that’s why I wear the Poppy in the form of earrings I bought in Ypres. To honor my Great Grandfather’s courage and remember his many friends and fellow soldiers who never came home.

That's a very touching and personal way to remember a relative. Kudos. It is also a lot different to purchasing the British Legion poppy on an annual basis which is what most would take issue with rather than the symbol/sentiment itself.

lawred2

engiweirdo wrote: »

It's a correct an somewhat important distinction though. Legally and factually speaking, regardless of the victims actual wishes and desires they were/are British subjects. Therefore what Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy represented rather than the acts of a soldier at war like is often painted, was the official army of an EU/UN state callously murdering it's own citizens as some kind of warped public order measure. They should have been fcuked out the EU years ago and not had the option of Brexit.

A few PMs should have been in the Hague for crimes against humanity really

Ragnar Lothbrok

engiweirdo wrote: »

It's a correct an somewhat important distinction though. Legally and factually speaking, regardless of the victims actual wishes and desires they were/are British subjects. Therefore what Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy represented rather than the acts of a soldier at war like is often painted, was the official army of an EU/UN state callously murdering it's own citizens as some kind of warped public order measure. They should have been fcuked out the EU years ago and not had the option of Brexit.

Being an unwilling subject of the British state doesn't make you any less Irish.

lawred2

weldoninhio wrote: »

Were the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings British citizens?

Ah jaysis are you really trying to pick a hole in the entirely valid point that was made...

For what ends?

British citizens were murdered by British troops in the North. That is a fact.

lawred2

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Being an unwilling subject of the British state doesn't make you any less Irish.

Another... do you think reducing the Irishness of those murdered in the North was the purpose of that person's post?

engiweirdo

weldoninhio wrote: »

Were the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings British citizens?

You would have to prove direct British government involvement to lay that at their feet and good luck with that tbh. Especially as it would appear both governments have "lost" relevant information. Besides is attacking your own citizens inside your own state not enough of a crime ?

Ragnar Lothbrok

lawred2 wrote: »

Another... do you think reducing the Irishness of those murdered in the North was the purpose of that person's post?

To a certain degree I understand the point that the poster was making. However, I would take issue with the assertion that people in the north are not Irish just because they live under British jurisdiction.

Zebra3

If somebody’s relatives joined a foreign army, that’s their business.

Don’t expect the rest of us to give a toss about their killing for foreign imperialists.

engiweirdo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

To a certain degree I understand the point that the poster was making. However, I would take issue with the assertion that people in the north are not Irish just because they live under British jurisdiction.

At the time the incidents occurred and more importantly as far as the soldiers involved were concerned: under British law, those people were very much British subjects. They still chose the courses of action they did.

Ragnar Lothbrok

engiweirdo wrote: »

At the time the incidents occurred and more importantly as far as the soldiers involved were concerned: under British law, those people were very much British subjects. They still chose the courses of action they did.

I would very much doubt that the British soldiers involved in these incidents saw the civilians as anything but Irish, regardless of their legal status.

engiweirdo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I would very much doubt that the British soldiers involved in these incidents saw the civilians as anything but Irish, regardless of their legal status.

That doesn't matter though. The soldiers saw "paddies". The civilians likely considered themselves Irish. Legally it was British soldiers attacking, murdering and maiming British subjects (no such thing as a British citizen, they are defacto subjects of the monarchy). You, me, the soldiers or subjects involved do not have to agree with that and may wholly disapprove of the nonenclature. But it is still the case and it makes their actions all the more reprehensible.

Ragnar Lothbrok

engiweirdo wrote: »

That doesn't matter though. The soldiers saw "paddies". The civilians likely considered themselves Irish. Legally it was British soldiers attacking, murdering and maiming British subjects (no such thing as a British citizen, they are defacto subjects of the monarchy). You, me, the soldiers or subjects involved do not have to agree with that and may wholly disapprove of the nonenclature. But it is still the case and it makes their actions all the more reprehensible.

I understand what you are saying about the legal status of the civilians. I don't understand why it is "more reprehensible" for British soldiers to murder British subjects than it is for British soldiers to murder non-British subjects.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I understand what you are saying about the legal status of the civilians. I don't understand why it is "more reprehensible" for British soldiers to murder British subjects than it is for British soldiers to murder non-British subjects.

it isn't relevant either. British citizens are British citizens, not subjects

engiweirdo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I understand what you are saying about the legal status of the civilians. I don't understand why it is "more reprehensible" for British soldiers to murder British subjects than it is for British soldiers to murder non-British subjects.

Well I guess put the shoe on the other foot. Would it not concern you gravely if for example during water charge protests or similar large scale demonstrations the Irish Defence forces saw fit to fire live rounds into the crowd as means of control. Now you could say if that crime happened in day Lebanon it would be equally abhorrent yet as Irish citizens we charge our military with the defence of its people, this is not exactly the case with foreign operations. Similar rules would apply. The British Army should absolutely be held to a higher standard on their actions within their national territory as compared to say Afghanistan.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Because some wars were fought in the field does not mean that other forms of conflict cannot be classed as wars.

I was responding to the post below, which is quite clearly wrong.

weldoninhio wrote: »

When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.

AudreyHepburn

weldoninhio wrote: »

When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.

I meant it more in the sense of meeting as equals. That’s not what the Troubles were imo.

AudreyHepburn

engiweirdo wrote: »

That's a very touching and personal way to remember a relative. Kudos. It is also a lot different to purchasing the British Legion poppy on an annual basis which is what most would take issue with rather than the symbol/sentiment itself.

Thank you.

The idea that people would to forget or worse make traitors out of the thousands of brave Irish men who went to war makes me sick tbh.

I think my Great Grandfather was very brave to fight for the people he would have considered enemies and to have risked his life to make sure he could make ends meet.

murpho999

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it incredible how people so willingly ignore the thousands of Irish men who fought in First and Second World Wars.

My Great Grandfather fought in the Battle of Ypres in 1914 - he was a Bombardier in the Royal Field Artillery and lost his left leg as a result of shrapnel wounds. In a way he was one of the lucky ones. He came home. To say we are proud of him would be an understatement.

Here’s the thing though - he didn’t do it because he was a traitor or a West Brit or any other insult folks care to level at him. He did it because it was a job and he needed the money.

In 2014 we went as a family, including my Grandfather (his son) to Ypres to follow in his footsteps and it was eye opening.

The thousands upon thousands of white headstones really brought home what a terrible waste of young life war really is. All those young men lying under those headstones deserve to be remembered.

And that’s why I wear the Poppy in the form of earrings I bought in Ypres. To honor my Great Grandfather’s courage and remember his many friends and fellow soldiers who never came home.

Nobody has to forget what the Irish did in the wars.

But you don't need to use a British symbol to honour their memory.
Why not just use an Irish one.

Other countries also use their own. Why should we be any different?

sbsquarepants

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think my Great Grandfather was very brave to fight for the people he would have considered enemies and to have risked his life to make sure he could make ends meet.

See this is what I just don't get about this sentimentalisation of war.

When it comes right down to it - your great grandfather needed money. To get it, he agreed to kill strangers purely because they were enemies of the people occupying his own country at the time and those people were willing to pay him and others like him to do so.

Heroic. As. Fúck

AudreyHepburn

sbsquarepants wrote: »

See this is what I just don't get about this sentimentalisation of war.

When it comes right down to it - your great grandfather needed money. To get it, he agreed to kill strangers purely because they were enemies of the people occupying his own country at the time and those people were willing to pay him to do so.

Heroic. As. Fúck

There are many different ways he could have chosen to make money. But he chose to go to war, knowing he might not come back and that he would be at the behest of his country ‘s old enemy.

To me that’s bravery.

zapitastas

Zebra3 wrote: »

If somebody’s relatives joined a foreign army, that’s their business.

Don’t expect the rest of us to give a toss about their killing for foreign imperialists.

Is a little more complex given that Redmond was pushing Irish volunteers to join the war on the side of the British as a means to obtain home rule. I would have sympathy with those men who were misled. For others who did it as mercenaries that is another story

sbsquarepants

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are many different ways he could have chosen to make money. But he chose to go to war, knowing he might not come back and that he would be at the behest of his country ‘s old enemy.

To me that’s bravery.

You yourself said he done it to make ends meet, not out of any sense of duty?

To me that's killing strangers for money.

He may well have been brave, but he also was willing to kill people for money.

RustyNut

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

sbsquarepants wrote: »

See this is what I just don't get about this sentimentalisation of war.

When it comes right down to it - your great grandfather needed money. To get it, he agreed to kill strangers purely because they were enemies of the people occupying his own country at the time and those people were willing to pay him to do so.

Heroic. As. Fúck

There are many different ways he could have chosen to make money. But he chose to go to war, knowing he might not come back and that he would be at the behest of his country ‘s old enemy.

To me that’s bravery.

A bit like some young lad today from inner city Dublin who could probably get a minimum wage job in McDonald's but instead takes bigger money from the kinihans to kill whoever he is told to kill. To make ends meet like.

Ragnar Lothbrok

engiweirdo wrote: »

Well I guess put the shoe on the other foot. Would it not concern you gravely if for example during water charge protests or similar large scale demonstrations the Irish Defence forces saw fit to fire live rounds into the crowd as means of control. Now you could say if that crime happened in day Lebanon it would be equally abhorrent yet as Irish citizens we charge our military with the defence of its people, this is not exactly the case with foreign operations. Similar rules would apply. The British Army should absolutely be held to a higher standard on their actions within their national territory as compared to say Afghanistan.

No, sorry but I still disagree with you.

What you are saying is that an army should behave to a civilised standard at home, but can have carte blanche to perform atrocities abroad, or at the very least to break any international rules regarding conduct against civilians or prisoners so long as it's not on "home territory".

Actually, if you look at the various civil wars throughout history, there is a higher chance of the state army behaving in an atrocious manner when fighting an internal enemy (Spanish civil war and the break up of Yugoslavia come to mind).

Zebra3

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are many different ways he could have chosen to make money. But he chose to go to war, knowing he might not come back and that he would be at the behest of his country ‘s old enemy.

To me that’s bravery.

What do you think of all those who he killed?

sbsquarepants

RustyNut wrote: »

A bit like some young lad today from inner city Dublin who could probably get a minimum wage job in McDonald's but instead takes bigger money from the kinihans to kill whoever he is told to kill. To make ends meet like.

It's all down to scale.

Kill 5 people for money - you're a psycho.

Firebomb a city and kill 20,000 for money - you're a war hero!

AudreyHepburn

Zebra3 wrote: »

What do you think of all those who he killed?

I think they should be remembered too.

At the end of the day they were all just innocent young men doing their duty regardless of which side they were on.

RustyNut

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Zebra3 wrote: »

What do you think of all those who he killed?

I think they should be remembered too.

At the end of the day they were all just innocent young men doing their duty regardless of which side they were on.

It was never any Irish man's "duty" to impose British imperial will around the world. An Irish man's "duty" is to resist British imperialism in his own country.

indioblack

Some years ago on AH I had a debate with a poster about this Poppy issue. I suggested that the only logical solution was no commemoration. The poster came back to me with the suggestion that there should only be a remembrance of WW2. I replied that since the empire, [the British empire], was still in being during this period, any effort on behalf of Britain's involvement in the war could be argued to be aiding the maintenance of imperial Britain.
So, no commemoration. A remembrance for "the fallen"? No. Because you'd have to be certain of what they had fallen for. Did they fall because of evil politicians or stupid generals? Doesn't matter. If they were part of a group, nation or race within which some members of the aforementioned units behaved immorally, illegally or to maintain a system that was immoral then any remembrance, public recognition or commemoration of their involvement, [no matter how unwittingly or unwillingly], can be open to criticism.
This doesn't just apply to Remembrance Day and the Poppy Appeal. Any public recognition by any state, organisation or group of people of any activity by any kind of groupings of people within which there are grounds for criticism of the behaviour of some or all within said groupings cannot logically go unchallenged.

Ragnar Lothbrok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Thank you.

The idea that people would to forget or worse make traitors out of the thousands of brave Irish men who went to war makes me sick tbh.

I think my Great Grandfather was very brave to fight for the people he would have considered enemies and to have risked his life to make sure he could make ends meet.

I actually agree with you on this. At the time of the First World War, like it or not, Ireland was still a part of the British Empire, and many young men would have seen nothing wrong with joining the British army as they would have seen it as their army too.

I would certainly not class him, or any other young man who joined up, as a traitor to Ireland (at that time). It was a totally different time, with the majority of the people in the country accepting British rule (although that was, of course, soon to change).

Indeed, many of these young men returned to Ireland after the war and then played an active role in the Republican forces and used the skills learned in the British army to help in Ireland's fight for freedom (Tom Barry being perhaps the best example of this).

I don't think that any young man who joined the British army then should be portrayed as mercenaries or paid killers in the way that someone in an earlier post suggested that it was similar to someone in carrying out a murder for one of the crime gangs of today.

They might not have realised or understood the full horror of the trenches, but they did volunteer to go to war for a cause that was portrayed at the time very much as a defence of small nations (an absolute lie, of course). They must have realised that there was a very strong chance that they would be injured or killed, and therefore their act was indeed very brave.

I would have no problem whatsoever with anyone wearing a distinctly Irish symbol to commemorate any of their ancestors who fought in World War I or II.

However, as I've said many times, I am a Republican and I cannot for the life of me condone the wearing of a poppy, as this does nothing except raise money for the modern day former British soldiers.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I would have no problem whatsoever with anyone wearing a distinctly Irish symbol to commemorate any of their ancestors who fought in World War I or II.

However, as I've said many times, I am a Republican and I cannot for the life of me condone the wearing of a poppy, as this does nothing except raise money for the modern day former British soldiers.

so as a Republican, I presume you wear the Easter Lilly

Ragnar Lothbrok

Aegir wrote: »

so as a Republican, I presume you wear the Easter Lilly

Of course I do

And for many years I sold them too, despite the best efforts of the Special Branch and Gardaí to prevent this.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Of course I do

And for many years I sold them too, despite the best efforts of the Special Branch and Gardaí to prevent this.

so you sell something that commemorates those that carried out the murder of innocents and contributes to the upkeep of memorials of nazi collaborators.

It is a two way street. I don't see how someone can condemn one and not the other. For both symbols, you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Zebra3

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think they should be remembered too.

At the end of the day they were all just innocent young men doing their duty regardless of which side they were on.

But they weren’t innocent young men.

Your hero went and picked up a gun to kill people to make money for himself.

There’s no innocence in that.

Edgware

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Of course I do

And for many years I sold them too, despite the best efforts of the Special Branch and Gardaí to prevent this.

Oh I'd say they really went out to frustrate the scrotes going around the pubs with their tin box collecting a few bob from the bar stool republicans

Zebra3

Edgware wrote: »

Oh I'd say they really went out to frustrate the scrotes going around the pubs with their tin box collecting a few bob from the bar stool republicans

While taking a break from chauffeuring Haughey around the place and battering working class people on Moore Street.

Bless them.

zapitastas

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I actually agree with you on this. At the time of the First World War, like it or not, Ireland was still a part of the British Empire, and many young men would have seen nothing wrong with joining the British army as they would have seen it as their army too.

I would certainly not class him, or any other young man who joined up, as a traitor to Ireland (at that time). It was a totally different time, with the majority of the people in the country accepting British rule (although that was, of course, soon to change).

Indeed, many of these young men returned to Ireland after the war and then played an active role in the Republican forces and used the skills learned in the British army to help in Ireland's fight for freedom (Tom Barry being perhaps the best example of this).

I don't think that any young man who joined the British army then should be portrayed as mercenaries or paid killers in the way that someone in an earlier post suggested that it was similar to someone in carrying out a murder for one of the crime gangs of today.

They might not have realised or understood the full horror of the trenches, but they did volunteer to go to war for a cause that was portrayed at the time very much as a defence of small nations (an absolute lie, of course). They must have realised that there was a very strong chance that they would be injured or killed, and therefore their act was indeed very brave.

I would have no problem whatsoever with anyone wearing a distinctly Irish symbol to commemorate any of their ancestors who fought in World War I or II.

However, as I've said many times, I am a Republican and I cannot for the life of me condone the wearing of a poppy, as this does nothing except raise money for the modern day former British soldiers.

I think you are misreading the attitude of the time. The British army was never considered 'their' army. Notice the absense of conscription

arybvtcw0eolkf

Aegir wrote: »

Fascinating character.

You know what I mean though, it’s not like the RIR are going to turn up for work tomorrow and be told right lads, grab your guns we’re off to Cavan.

Hostilities take weeks/months to build up before any actual fighting takes place.

I did know what you were talking about but I thought I'd give an example of where it actually happened.

The British military is liable to cross Irish borders these days in an effort to help us in a search and rescue role.. And our Air Corps does the same up north, recently we provided a water bucket carrying heli to help the northern authorities fight gorse fires during our hot dry summer.

These poppy threads always lift the rocks under which post ceasefire republicans shelter, I just don't bother getting into discussion with them.

Personally I think the Poppy Appeal is a great charity in so far as it helps the general public to remember the men and women who'd served in the British armed forces, and the donations help those soldiers and their families during difficult times.

Outside of that I leave the hysterics to the republican knuckle draggers who only emerge during discussions like this, the Easter Lilly and the Israeli/Palestine monkeys tea party.

Ragnar Lothbrok

zapitastas wrote: »

I think you are misreading the attitude of the time. The British army was never considered 'their' army. Notice the absense of conscription

I said "many" not "all". Of course there were many others who, correctly, would not have considered the British army as "theirs".

Ragnar Lothbrok

Edgware wrote: »

Oh I'd say they really went out to frustrate the scrotes going around the pubs with their tin box collecting a few bob from the bar stool republicans

So, I'm a scrote am I? That's a highly impressive way of you to join a debate.

The Special Branch were extremely petty when it came to harassment of Republicans - they needed to ensure they got their massive overtime cheques too. Regular stop and search on the street of Republicans continued until way into the Peace Process and after the GFA too.

Not to mention the rather more serious activities of the Heavy Gang and their like that were common enough too.