Would you wear an Easter Lily?

Thomas_I

R P McMurphy wrote: »

That is absolute rubbish. Arming countries with atrocious human rights records is facilitating their grip on power.

There is a ban to sell arms to countries like these. But they get their arms anyway, because someone is selling them.

Thomas_I

Fratton Fred wrote: »

On what do you base that assumption? Why would the Irish have been any different to the rest of Europe?

What line of my post are you referring to? The Empire thing or the last line? What do you mean by "the rest of Europe"?
Isn´t it the case that in most things related to Irish history the Irish people are depicted more as the victims than the villains, and therefore a people with nothing more they wanted than their freedom and no aspirations towards an Empire?

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

We stayed neutral even though it may have brought in a few shekels for the childer had we joined the Allies, we weren't bullied by Churchill, would that the Brits would stand up to America now, then the world REALLY would be a better place.

If it's wrong, call it wrong. Schools and hospitals supported by raping some other country??? No thanks.

I am talking long before that, the Romans, Spanish, french and British empires were not built on loose morality, the where built on ability. Ireland also raided England, if they were more successful would they have stopped there or went on to france? Back in those times you either colonised or became a colony and morals did not decided what side you were on, ability did.

Where do you think all that money to fill the gap in irelands deficit comes from, without france, Germany and GB selling war ireland could not function.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Where do you think all that money to fill the gap in irelands deficit comes from, without france, Germany and GB selling war ireland could not function.

I know where it comes from, am I happy about that? Absolutely not. But one revolution at a time.

Hidalgo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

"Go to war for us and we'll give you home rule."
They went to war. They were rewarded with the black and tans.
Duped. Tricked. Conned.



Feel free to honour them when you wear your lily.

So isn't that the fault of irish politicians rather than British.

Don't wear a lily and don't intend to. If anyone wants to do so to honour dead more power to them.
If I want to honour any dead I'll visit their gravesides.

HoggyRS

philologos wrote: »

I don't wear it for any reason to do with patriotism, or for glorifying a specific army as I explained to you at length last November

It isn't even a British thing, the practice originated in the United States and it began as a result of a Canadian poem about World War 1 (John McCrae's In Flanders Fields).

Obviously wearing the poppy isnt about patriotism considering you earlier mentioned you were irish. The poppy is a symbol of british nationalism and imperialism. To wear one is an insult to every Irishman and woman who died to create an independent united Ireland.

If you dont want to glorify any army, wear a white one. (this point has been covered 100000 times on this forum id say but people seem to be against the white poppy, i wonder why? :rolleyes: )

The real losers in WWI was the Irish, British and every other nation involveds working classes, sent to their deaths because the army was their only hope of a job.

I don't expect every Irish person to wear an easter lilly it is a symbol for those who believe in an united socially just republic and we are a minority.

Hunterbiker

HoggyRS wrote: »

The real losers in WWI was the Irish, British and every other nation involveds working classes, sent to their deaths because the army was their only hope of a job..

Well in another way thats not strictly true.

WW1 changed society forever. Women entered the workplace and weren't willing to just return home and the common man stood up a bit more to a system that had blighted their existence. Im not saying post WW1 life was rosey Im saying WW1 started to changes to the previous social order

HoggyRS

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Well in another way thats not strictly true.

WW1 changed society forever. Women entered the workplace and weren't willing to just return home and the common man stood up a bit more to a system that had blighted their existence. Im not saying post WW1 life was rosey Im saying WW1 started to changes to the previous social order

But you can't say that change would not have been triggered by something else had wwI not occurred.

Hunterbiker

HoggyRS wrote: »

But you can't say that change would not have been triggered by something else had wwI not occurred.

Why not?

WW1 was a massive event. Even the influenza pandemic was, inpart, made worse by the state of things post WW1.

Russian Revolution may have been different had there been no WW1 too.

Lots if what ifs but WW1 was simply a huge event that changed society

Lelantos

HoggyRS wrote: »

Obviously wearing the poppy isnt about patriotism considering you earlier mentioned you were irish. The poppy is a symbol of british nationalism and imperialism. To wear one is an insult to every Irishman and woman who died to create an independent united Ireland.

If you dont want to glorify any army, wear a white one. (this point has been covered 100000 times on this forum id say but people seem to be against the white poppy, i wonder why? :rolleyes: )

The real losers in WWI was the Irish, British and every other nation involveds working classes, sent to their deaths because the army was their only hope of a job.

I don't expect every Irish person to wear an easter lilly it is a symbol for those who believe in an united socially just republic and we are a minority.

No, it is a symbol associated with terrorism. And yes, you are definitely in the minority.

philologos

HoggyRS wrote: »

Obviously wearing the poppy isnt about patriotism considering you earlier mentioned you were irish. The poppy is a symbol of british nationalism and imperialism. To wear one is an insult to every Irishman and woman who died to create an independent united Ireland.

If you dont want to glorify any army, wear a white one. (this point has been covered 100000 times on this forum id say but people seem to be against the white poppy, i wonder why? :rolleyes: )

The real losers in WWI was the Irish, British and every other nation involveds working classes, sent to their deaths because the army was their only hope of a job.

I don't expect every Irish person to wear an easter lilly it is a symbol for those who believe in an united socially just republic and we are a minority.

Considering that the poppy as a symbol originated in the USA and was introduced in Britain following this the logic of claiming that it is exclusively a British symbol is silly.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Considering that the poppy as a symbol originated in the USA and was introduced in Britain following this the logic of claiming that it is exclusively a British symbol is silly.

As has been pointed out before, as the one here is sold by the RBL and benefits British Army veterans, it effectively is.

Fratton Fred

Thomas_I wrote: »

What line of my post are you referring to? The Empire thing or the last line? What do you mean by "the rest of Europe"?
Isn´t it the case that in most things related to Irish history the Irish people are depicted more as the victims than the villains, and therefore a people with nothing more they wanted than their freedom and no aspirations towards an Empire?

History shows that pretty much every country was either a coloniser or a colony, particularly in europe.

I know Irish history depicts the Irish as down trodden, peaceful poets who were busily studying the bible before the nasty English came along, but in reality a great many we're out there colonising and conquering alongside the English, Welsh and Scots. Just look at the number of Irishmen awarded the VC during the sepoy rebellion. It's also worth asking why Montserrat celebrates St Patrick's day.

As Gallag points out, the reason Ireland did not have its own empire came down to ability rather than moralistic reasons.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

It did acheive nothing but death. By the by I think partition is and was the only reasonable solution.

The threat of violence 'achieved' partition - but that was a 'reasonable' outcome. Your brain must be well exercised from the mental gymnastics you practice.

Thomas_I wrote: »

You seem to neglect that Britain is also backing those seeking a modern democratic society...

So they've lost their penchant for crushing democracy if that democracy looks like it's going to produce the wrong result? Greece 1946-9, Iran 1953, British Guiana 1963. They also allowed the Unionist suppression of the NICRA 1969- up to and including gunning down protesters on the streets of Derry.

Thomas_I wrote: »

That is my perception of remembrance day in London and the commemoration of the Easter Rising in Dublin, both conducted by each government.

Remembrance day month in the UK is a fucking farce at this stage with x-factor goons singing 'hero songs' to the back-drop of scenes of modern British military adventurism and its soldier victims.

God forbid you'd appear on TV in Britain naked of poppy - the bleating poppy fascists would want to hang your guts on the Siegfried line.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

History shows that pretty much every country was either a coloniser or a colony, particularly in europe.

I know Irish history depicts the Irish as down trodden, peaceful poets who were busily studying the bible before the nasty English came along, but in reality a great many we're out there colonising and conquering alongside the English, Welsh and Scots. Just look at the number of Irishmen awarded the VC during the sepoy rebellion. It's also worth asking why Montserrat celebrates St Patrick's day.

Because large numbers of irish people were sent there as slaves following the cromwellian purges

notfromhere

yes

tosser5

yes i do

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The threat of violence 'achieved' partition - but that was a 'reasonable' outcome. Your brain must be well exercised from the mental gymnastics you practice.

The Home Rule Bill was already passed at that point.

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

1886: First Irish Home Rule Bill defeated in the House of Commons and never introduced in the House of Lords.
1893: Second Irish Home Rule Bill passed the House of Commons, but defeated in the House of Lords.
1914: Third Irish Home Rule Act passed with Royal Assent never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I (1914–18) and of the Easter Rising in Dublin (1916).
1920: Fourth Irish Home Rule Act (replaced Third Act, passed and implemented as the Government of Ireland Act 1920) which established Northern Ireland as a Home Rule entity within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and simultaneously resulted in the partition of Ireland.

Again courtesy of Wikipedia:

After the end of the war in November 1918 Sinn Féin secured a majority of 73 Irish seats in the general election, twenty five of these seats taken uncontested. In January 1919 twenty-seven Sinn Féin MPs assembled in Dublin and proclaimed themselves unilaterally as an independent parliament of an Irish Republic, ignored by Britain. The Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) ensued.
Britain went ahead with its commitment to implement Home Rule by passing a new Fourth Home Rule Bill, the Government of Ireland Act 1920, largely shaped by the Walter Long Committee which followed findings contained in the report of the Irish Convention. Long, a firm unionist, felt free to shape Home Rule in Ulster's favour, and formalised dividing Ireland into Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The latter never functioned, but was replaced under the Anglo-Irish Treaty by the Irish Free State which later became the Republic of Ireland.

They were already going ahead with the Home Rule Bill at that time. It wasn't suddenly because of violence that they started considering it.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

The Home Rule Bill was already passed at that point.

So?

I don't know why I even bother entertaining your hypocrisy but I guess I feel a duty to point it out so that others might become aware. Partition was 'achieved' by the threat of sectarian violence but that threat of violence is deemed 'reasonable' (while violence, or the threat of it, by Republicans/Nationalists was unreasonable and achieved nothing).

The Unionist leaders organised the purchase in Germany of 25,000 rifles and 3 million rounds of ammunition and succeeded in landing them on the night of 24-25th April 1914, at Larne and other ports in Ulster.

The Unionists pledged to use “all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland.”

The UVF was established, therefore, as ... a means of preparing for the worst – the possible need to use physical force to resist an all-Ireland government based in Dublin. By mid 1914, 90,000 men had enlisted province-wide. It was led by General Sir George Richardson who as Lee wrote “had long experience of teaching the natives lessons.”

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/homerule.htm

I think it's safe to say that the 25000 rifles and 3 millions rounds of ammo weren't to be used for hunting rabbits.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So?

I don't know why I even bother entertaining your hypocrisy but I guess I feel a duty to point it out so that others might become aware. Partition was 'achieved' by the threat of sectarian violence but that threat of violence is deemed 'reasonable' (while violence, or the threat of it, by Republicans/Nationalists was unreasonable and achieved nothing).

You're claiming that I'm being a hypocrite when you're intentionally misinterpreting my post.

It was reasonable to partition because a sizeable portion of the population didn't share the same aims as the republicans did.

Not because they threatened violence. If you're going to accuse me of hypocrisy please don't misinterpret my posts first.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that the 25000 rifles and 3 millions rounds of ammo weren't to be used for hunting rabbits.

Agreed. What isn't safe to say is that I thought it was acceptable because the unionists threatened violence. That is equally wrong.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Because large numbers of irish people were sent there as slaves following the cromwellian purges

you really do need to brush up on your history if you want to call yourself a history student. there is more to world history than what is written in an phoblacht you know.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/montserrat.htm

twistyj

Does it have to be a lily?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

You're claiming that I'm being a hypocrite when you're intentionally misinterpreting my post.

Here's your claim.

philologos wrote: »

My point is that the violence acheived nothing and the diplomacy acheived everything

The threat of violence 'achieved' partition - this shows you to be wrong and the fact that you claim partition (arrived at by threat of Unionist violence) was 'reasonable' exposes your hypocrisy.

Then you move the goal posts and say that partition ('achieved' by the threat of violence) was 'reasonable' because of a considerable minority opposed a 32 county Ireland.

It was reasonable to partition because a sizeable portion of the population didn't share the same aims as the republicans did.

Earlier you suggest the Easter Rising was illegitimate on the basis that the majority didn't want it to happen.

philologos wrote: »

in 1916 most opposed the rising. Thus its legitimacy is questionable.

This is more evidence of the mental gymnastics you engage in i.e. Unionist minority threat of violence 'reasonable' Republican minority violence unreasonable.

Be careful now or you'll tie yourself up in so many knots you won't be able to unravel them.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Here's your claim.
The threat of violence 'achieved' partition - this shows you to be wrong and the fact that you claim partition (arrived at by threat of Unionist violence) was 'reasonable' exposes your hypocrisy.

Then you move the goal posts and say that partition ('achieved' by the threat of violence) was 'reasonable' because of a considerable minority opposed a 32 county Ireland.

I didn't say that at all.

I said that a partition was reasonable considering a sizeable minority in the North opposed a 32 county state. I think that was a reasonable compromise.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Earlier you suggest the Easter Rising was illegitimate on the basis that the majority didn't want it to happen.

It isn't legitimate to throw a whole city into violence when most disagree with it occurring. That's entirely different to the former situation where a minority concentrated in the North didn't want to be a part of a 32 county State.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is more evidence of the mental gymnastics you engage in i.e. Unionist minority threat of violence 'reasonable' Republican minority violence unreasonable.

You have no interest in honestly considering my posts, so I really don't care of the non-existent mental gymnastics you're discussing.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Be careful now or you'll tie yourself up in so many knots you won't be able to unravel them.

Be careful of your dishonesty and sophistry skills you mean?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I said that a partition was reasonable considering a sizeable minority in the North opposed a 32 county state. I think that was a reasonable compromise.

A sizeable minority who achieved their 'reasonable compromise' by threat of extreme violence. Don't pretend you don't know what you've been called out on.

It isn't legitimate to throw a whole city into violence when most disagree with it occurring.

On that basis (majority makes right) neither is the threat of throwing the whole island into a state of bloodshed (unionism with it's 25000 rifles and 3m rounds) yet you contort this to be 'reasonable'.

That's entirely different to the former situation where a minority concentrated in the North didn't want to be a part of a 32 country State.

The goal posts move again. So the minority must be concentrated for their threat of violence to be legitimate? This exposes your lack of knowledge further. There was no concentrated minority. Belfast was one third Catholic. Derry was majority Catholic. By your criteria the north should have been broken up into cantons rather than a deliberately created, majority dominated, sectarian statelet.

Be careful of your dishonesty and sophistry skills you mean?

That's rich coming from you.

I'm done responding to you in this thread.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

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


It isn't legitimate to throw a whole city into violence when most disagree with it occurring. .............

So acting in the right way requires majority approval now? Fascinating.

Hidalgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

History shows that pretty much every country was either a coloniser or a colony, particularly in europe.

I know Irish history depicts the Irish as down trodden, peaceful poets who were busily studying the bible before the nasty English came along, but in reality a great many we're out there colonising and conquering alongside the English, Welsh and Scots. Just look at the number of Irishmen awarded the VC during the sepoy rebellion. It's also worth asking why Montserrat celebrates St Patrick's day.

As Gallag points out, the reason Ireland did not have its own empire came down to ability rather than moralistic reasons.

Any proper academic history of Ireland does not paint Ireland in the above light. Is it just over simplify what you want to suit your argument??

Irish tribes were involved in battles against each other long before the Englis came along.
Many Irish people were down trodden before the English came, were downtrodden during English rule and downtrodden when Ireland gained independence

Hidalgo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The threat of violence 'achieved' partition - but that was a 'reasonable' outcome. Your brain must be well exercised from the mental gymnastics you practice.



So they've lost their penchant for crushing democracy if that democracy looks like it's going to produce the wrong result? Greece 1946-9, Iran 1953, British Guiana 1963. They also allowed the Unionist suppression of the NICRA 1969- up to and including gunning down protesters on the streets of Derry.



Remembrance day month in the UK is a fucking farce at this stage with x-factor goons singing 'hero songs' to the back-drop of scenes of modern British military adventurism and its soldier victims.

God forbid you'd appear on TV in Britain naked of poppy - the bleating poppy fascists would want to hang your guts on the Siegfried line.

The coup in Iran 1953 was more CIA backed and sponsored than Iran. CIA were the brains behind that episode

Chuck Stone

Hidalgo wrote: »

The coup in Iran 1953 was more CIA backed and sponsored than Iran. CIA were the brains behind that episode

That's not what I've come to know.

The 1953 coup is conventionally regarded primarily as a CIA operation, yet the planning record reveals not only that Britain was the prime mover in the initial project to overthrow the government but also that British resources contributed significantly to the eventual success of the operation. Two first-hand accounts of the Anglo-American sponsorship of the coup - by the MI6 and CIA officers primarily responsible for it - are useful in reconstructing events.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. <snip> Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Fuck the Iranians and their pesky democracy.

Nodin

....entirely correct.