Would you wear an Easter Lily?

Crooked Jack

thecommietommy wrote: »

Most of the Irish who joined the British forces were economic conscripts who only as a last resort joined the Brits as a means of survival. And a lot of the so called ' Irish ' men who won VC's were in fact English in Irish regiments.

In fact when England was on it's knees in WW2 you unionists refused to be conscripted as they kept complaining that their feet were too sore form all the orange marches !!!!

Best part is that's not even a joke. The YCV regiments were notorious for this. "The group mutinied twice in 1915, first in June when soldiers drilling at Shane's Castle near Randalstown refused to march back to barracks, insisting that a train be sent to carry them instead."
That's from the timothy Bowman excerpt on Wikipedia but the actual book that's from has loads of similar stories.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

As I see it the context makes it far worse rather than better. I'm sure that Al Queda could give you a context for their involvement in the Madrid bombings but the question is does it justify the action.

For me no way. In order to be logically consistent I have to apply that to every other case of terrorism.

Of course you do because you put it all in the same basket without regards of the historical background. To compare the Irish Volunteers of 1916 with the Al Queda terrorists is just an ill-judgement.

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

Of course you do because you put it all in the same basket without regards of the historical background. To compare the Irish Volunteers of 1916 with the Al Queda terrorists is just an ill-judgement.

Why is it?

The only difference I can see is that one was fuelled by religion and the other was fuelled by nationalism.

karma_

Thomas_I wrote: »

What kind of war crimes had they committed? Some evidence to that at hand?

Sir Winston S. Churchill was no war criminal, he was the greates Englishman that ever lived, imo.:)

Churchill took part in raids in the Swat Valley in Pakistan that razed entire villages to the ground. And he often bragged about how he shot three 'savages' in the Sudan.

Plenty of evidence to suggest that he was a racist.

There are literally hundreds of thousand of Englishmen and women who are far more worthwhile of that title.

Hunterbiker

If you use that logic and put modern day standards to historic action pretty much every Western European living at the time was a racist / hated third World people...

karma_

Hunterbiker wrote: »

If you use that logic and put modern day standards to historic action pretty much every Western European living at the time was a racist / hated third World people...

Are you replying to me? or to the lad who is equating the fighters of 1916 to al-Qaeda?

If it's me than I want to point out that it wasn't me who pointed at one of them and proclaimed them the greatest ever[insert nationality here].

Hunterbiker

karma_ wrote: »

Are you replying to me? or to the lad who is equating the fighters of 1916 to al-Qaeda?

If it's me than I want to point out that it wasn't me who pointed at one of them and proclaimed them the greatest ever[insert nationality here].

To you. Didn't mean to single you out just saw that post

karma_

Hunterbiker wrote: »

To you. Didn't mean to single you out just saw that post

It's not a problem. I'm not really participating in this annual AH debate, it's just this is the second time recently that the same poster has labelled Churchill in that fashion. I bit my lip the first time and on this occasion I couldn't help myself!

Hunterbiker

And the BBC poll that put Winston Churchill as No1 also put a certain M Thatcher as no 16...:eek:

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

The blinkers are on the republican side.

I'm trying to evaluate these things from an objective perspective. I'm not hugely patriotic in respect to this or any other issue.

I think patriotism causes more issues in societies than it solves. I wish less people cared as much about nationality, I genuinely believe the world would be a better place as a result.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: You are not trying to 'evaluate', you are judging with moral hindsight. That is not in any sense 'objective'. Absolutely useless in making any kind of progress based in the real world. But if it makes you feel good and holier than everyone else, rock on, the world will happen around you.

Thomas_I

karma_ wrote: »

Churchill took part in raids in the Swat Valley in Pakistan that razed entire villages to the ground. And he often bragged about how he shot three 'savages' in the Sudan.

Plenty of evidence to suggest that he was a racist.

There are literally hundreds of thousand of Englishmen and women who are far more worthwhile of that title.

So what? That doesn´t makes him a war criminal because that´s the usual thing in wars, killing the enemy. It´s standard by people who oppose Churchill to brand him a racist. I think that such attitudes were quite common among plenty of Europeans at that time in many countries of Europe.

Feel free to name one of those "hundres of thousand of Englishmen and women who are far more worthwhile of the title "the greates Englishman who ever lived" and if you bother to do so, you can also point out their achievements for the common good. Without Churchill you´d be probably speak German as a scond language and serve anywhere in the world for the "Greater German Empire". How´d that be as a prospect to you?

Thomas_I

karma_ wrote: »

It's not a problem. I'm not really participating in this annual AH debate, it's just this is the second time recently that the same poster has labelled Churchill in that fashion. I bit my lip the first time and on this occasion I couldn't help myself!

Sorry for not telling you earlier, I´m an Churchill admirer for good reasons.:D

mathepac

karma_ wrote: »

Churchill took part in raids in the Swat Valley in Pakistan that razed entire villages to the ground. And he often bragged about how he shot three 'savages' in the Sudan. ...

During the 2nd Boer War (or the Afrikaaners' 2nd War of Independence 1899 - 1902), Churchill served in the British Army. During this war the British starved an estimated 37,000 Afrikaaner women & children to death in the concentration camps.

This is an Afrkaaner child starving. Did Churchill receive any of his multitude of awards for those war-crimes and acts of genocide?

Ah yes the greatest Englishman ever. What a man to hold up as a hero.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

So what? That doesn´t makes him a war criminal because that´s the usual thing in wars, killing the enemy. It´s standard by people who oppose Churchill to brand him a racist. I think that such attitudes were quite common among plenty of Europeans at that time in many countries of Europe.

Feel free to name one of those "hundres of thousand of Englishmen and women who are far more worthwhile of the title "the greates Englishman who ever lived" and if you bother to do so, you can also point out their achievements for the common good. Without Churchill you´d be probably speak German as a scond language and serve anywhere in the world for the "Greater German Empire". How´d that be as a prospect to you?

What other racists do you hold up as exemplars?
Churchill is a very dubious figure to deserve the title of 'Greatest Englishman Who Ever Lived'.
You are in Germany you say, nip down to Dresden and ask it's natives would they concur with your 'common good' consensus.

Though no one involved in the bombing of Dresden was ever charged with a war crime, there are those that hold the opinion that the bombing was a war crime.
According to Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, lawyer and president of Genocide Watch:

The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.[137]

Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime."[138] He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."[138]
German author Günter Grass is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.[139]
Proponents of the war crime position argue the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[140] War crime proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[141] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.
British historian Antony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[142] In Fire Sites, Austrian historian Jörg Friedrich agrees the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[143]

Just like those wearing the Poppy or indeed The Lily, you need to be careful what you are standing over when you use all emcompassing labels.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes: You are not trying to 'evaluate', you are judging with moral hindsight. That is not in any sense 'objective'. Absolutely useless in making any kind of progress based in the real world. But if it makes you feel good and holier than everyone else, rock on, the world will happen around you.

Hindsight is the only thing we have. The context doesn't somehow redeem it, much in the same way that Al Queda telling me that because the kufaar were in Iraq and Afghanistan that it justifies blowing up commuter trains.

I'm evaluating it as if it were any other event. Without the sacred cows of Irish republicanism involved just like any other person outside would.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

What other racists do you hold up as exemplars?
Churchill is a very dubious figure to deserve the title of 'Greatest Englishman Who Ever Lived'.
You are in Germany you say, nip down to Dresden and ask it's natives would they concur with your 'common good' consensus.
...
Just like those wearing the Poppy or indeed The Lily, you need to be careful what you are standing over when you use all emcompassing labels.

It´s not on me to point out other racists because I´m not the one who has come up with that.

Dresden is in compare in no way different to the cities in the UK which were attacked by the German Luftwaffe some years earlier. The Germans at that time doesn´t feel pity upon those who died in the UK so what is to expect, it was still a war going on and in February 1945 when the British and the Americans bombed Dresden into ruins, it was to shorten the war.

Btw, there wouldn´t be any Englishman who really deserved that title according to your point of view, which is obiously the Irish point of view.

The "common good" consensus? To end Nazi tyranny in defeating them.

Fratton Fred

mathepac wrote: »

During the 2nd Boer War (or the Afrikaaners' 2nd War of Independence 1899 - 1902), Churchill served in the British Army. During this war the British starved an estimated 37,000 Afrikaaner women & children to death in the concentration camps.

This is an Afrkaaner child starving. Did Churchill receive any of his multitude of awards for those war-crimes and acts of genocide?

Ah yes the greatest Englishman ever. What a man to hold up as a hero.

Churchill was a war correspondent at the time.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Dresden is in compare in no way different to the cities in the UK which were attacked by the German Luftwaffe some years earlier. The Germans at that time doesn´t feel pity upon those who died in the UK so what is to expect, it was still a war going on and in February 1945 when the British and the Americans bombed Dresden into ruins, it was to shorten the war.

The "common good" consensus? To end Nazi tyranny in defeating them.

Which is exactly the justification (an eye for an eye)that the IRA would use for their campaign, and when you see what the GFA has brought, who could disagree that it was all for the 'common good'.
Is Marty McGuinness or Gerry the 'greatest ever Irishman' in your estimation?
What's your address, I'll send you a lily!

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

Hindsight is the only thing we have. The context doesn't somehow redeem it, much in the same way that Al Queda telling me that because the kufaar were in Iraq and Afghanistan that it justifies blowing up commuter trains.

I'm evaluating it as if it were any other event. Without the sacred cows of Irish republicanism involved just like any other person outside would.

Perhaps if you stopped looking for moral flaws then your 'evaluation' might have some useful valve. The commuter train still gets blown up whether you think it is moral or not. That is why some people see the need to actually act.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill was a war correspondent at the time.

Never mind that, we can throw that evidence out because there's still plenty more that we can show that displays his true warmongering and racist nature. Certainly not a man to be held up in esteem.

That's not to say he was not the man to lead Britain during the war, he was the right man at the right time for that and I'll concede he was a witty bastard.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is exactly the justification (an eye for an eye)that the IRA would use for their campaign, and when you see what the GFA has brought, who could disagree that it was all for the 'common good'.
Is Marty McGuinness or Gerry the 'greatest ever Irishman' in your estimation?
What's your address, I'll send you a lily!

No. The "greatest Irishman that ever lived" is - of course - Michael Collins in my humble estimation. Mr McGuinness is one of those Irish people who can achieve some things for the "common good" in the present and probably in the future. I´d like to see him once upon in a time leading NI into a UI. I´ve no opinion about Mr Adams, he´s just the SF President and leads that party.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

Perhaps if you stopped looking for moral flaws then your 'evaluation' might have some useful valve. The commuter train still gets blown up whether you think it is moral or not. That is why some people see the need to actually act.

I agree it does. But if you're asking me to praise something, to claim something was good or claim that the perpetrators were heroes that's when morality comes in.

mathepac

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill was a war correspondent at the time.

Apologies if I'm wrong but there are some contradictions in the material I've had access to.

The Roll of Honour web-site agrees with you and states he was a reporter but also says he'd had a bounty of £25.00 on his head. AFAIK the Boers only placed bounties on serving British Army officers - http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Boer/BoerWarChurchillWinston.html

This one, which seemed more exhaustive, states in part " ... As a young army officer, he saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War. ..."

My late grand-father, IRA activist, All Ireland handball champion, hurler, etc used to say he'd have worked all his life for free to pay the Boer who squeezed the trigger. The suspicion he had was that Churchill was actually a serving officer in British Army Intelligence (concurrent with his journalism / writing job, his status as a serving MP, etc.)

EDIT: Just to add I checked the sourced retrospectively. Like all true Irishmen I always believed what Granddad said.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Never mind that, we can throw that evidence out because there's still plenty more that we can show that displays his true warmongering and racist nature. Certainly not a man to be held up in esteem.

That's not to say he was not the man to lead Britain during the war, he was the right man at the right time for that and I'll concede he was a witty bastard.

I would agree that his reputation was made during his five year stint during wwii and he was a bit of a pompous git at times, but as with a lot of high profile people, his detractors only highlight his shortcomings.

He was a complex person and love him or loath him, he is well worth reading up on, if only to differentiate between the truth and the myth.

He was witty though. I think it was lady Astor that said to him that if he were her husband she would put poison in his wine, to which he replied that if she were his wife, he would drink it!

Keen2win

My friend says that you only wear the lily on Easter Sunday... Is he right?

Crooked Jack

Keen2win wrote: »

My friend says that you only wear the lily on Easter Sunday... Is he right?

I dont think there are strict guidelines on it. I wear mine for the week the rising took place (although that's as much because I usually just pin it on when I get it to save carry a pin around in my pocket all week) but I know plenty of people who only pop one on for the Easter parade.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont think there are strict guidelines on it. I wear mine for the week the rising took place (although that's as much because I usually just pin it on when I get it to save carry a pin around in my pocket all week) but I know plenty of people who only pop one on for the Easter parade.

I guess you´ll join them. I´ve seen one of these commemoration Easter parades on youtube, organised by SF in NI. It was rather a sad procession and with plenty of parts in that filming which would provoke some anti-militarists to start with their bickerings. Honestly, some mixture of mourning procession and people in historical uniforms / clothes. Aside from the St Patricks Day parades, is there any other occasion for parades which doesn´t honour the death but Irish culture? I don´t know.

Rather sinister was that RSF Easter Commemoration Parade in Dublin last year, also to see on youtube. The decency of that was obviously by the official commemoration organised and conducted by the Irish State. That was more impressive in a positive sense, if one can say so at all. Such days are not to celebrations, more for thinking, listen and remembrance.

uch

Keen2win wrote: »

My friend says that you only wear the lily on Easter Sunday... Is he right?

Wearer's choice really, I wear mine for about three weeks leading up to Easter

thecommietommy

mathepac wrote: »

The suspicion he had was that Churchill was actually a serving officer in British Army Intelligence (concurrent with his journalism / writing job, his status as a serving MP, etc.)

Interesting, journalism is one of the most used disguises for spy's. Probably was a spy the rat.

mathepac

uch wrote: »

... I wear mine for about three weeks leading up to Easter

For feck's sake, do you want them to ready for us the next time as well? I was hoping security might have improved in the last 100 or so years.