Would you wear an Easter Lily?

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

There's a fundamental difference between a struggle carried on for rights, freedom etc, and those carried out to repress a population or impose a regime.

There's also a fundamental difference between a struggle for rights & freedom, and a terrorist campaign as perpetrated by your mates in the PIRA.

EoghanIRL

No , I'm wouldn't .

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

There's also a fundamental difference between a struggle for rights & freedom, and a terrorist campaign as perpetrated by your mates in the PIRA.

...not really. An awful lot is romanticised by distance and/or time. Any violent conflict is a nasty business which inevitably will feature innocents being hurt and killed, abuses etc. Thus, the question must arise at the offset - is armed struggle justified? Given the reaction of the authorities to peaceful protest, it was felt that it was.

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

...not really. An awful lot is romanticised by distance and/or time. Any violent conflict is a nasty business which inevitably will feature innocents being hurt and killed, abuses etc. Thus, the question must arise at the offset - is armed struggle justified? Given the reaction of the authorities to peaceful protest, it was felt that it was.

Churchill understood what a terror campaign was, witness Dresden, he knew exactly what he was doing there.

Míshásta

The poll questions are biased.

I have never worn an Easter Lily but I think we should remember our dead.

The Lily has always been associated with illegal organizations from way back.

It's a symbol of the various Sinn Féins that have been undermining our state since it was founded.

It's always sold by Chuckies of various shades.

It's been politicised for too long. Too late to rescue it now. Perhaps another symbol acceptable to a wider constituency would be an idea.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

is armed struggle justified?

The so called armed struggle (Terrorist Campaign) in Northern Ireland/The ROI & Britain was never justified, and neither was it ever justified in the name of the Irish people. The PIRA did more damage to the two economies of this island, with more damage to the image of this island abroad too (tourists & inward investment), they also poisoned the hearts & minds of so many people on this island for at least another generation. The PIRA also put back any chance of reconciliation between Unionists & Nationalists by decades due to their murderous & cowardly campaign of murder & destruction.

Anybody who acts as their cheerleader needs to take a reality check.

Crooked Jack

Míshásta wrote: »

The poll questions are biased.

I have never worn an Easter Lily but I think we should remember our dead.

The Lily has always been associated with illegal organizations from way back.

It's a symbol of the various Sinn Féins that have been undermining our state since it was founded.

It's always sold by Chuckies of various shades.

It's been politicised for too long. Too late to rescue it now. Perhaps another symbol acceptable to a wider constituency would be an idea.

Its not a symbol of sinn fein. however, i think your undermining statement is funny given that sinn fein played a key role in founding the state

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

The so called armed struggle (Terrorist Campaign) in Northern Ireland/The ROI & Britain was never justified, and neither was it ever justified in the name of the Irish people. The PIRA did more damage to the two economies of this island, with more damage to the image of this island abroad too (tourists & inward investment), they also poisoned the hearts & minds of so many people on this island for at least another generation. The PIRA also put back any chance of reconciliation between Unionists & Nationalists by decades due to their murderous & cowardly campaign of murder & destruction.

Anybody who acts as their cheerleader needs to take a reality check.

Thought you said Mrs Winsdor made it all better???;)

Falthyron

Ireland's history/memory is still selective. We choose to acknowledge/accept the parts of history that suit our cause for recognition of independence; 1798, Grattan's Parliament, The Famine, Parnell's Home Rule Party, 1916, War of Independence, etc. However, we don't take time to recognise and be proud of other moments in history, or people of significant repute who were Irish and contributed to world history, Richard Kane comes to mind.

Nobody wants to hear about 500,000 people turning out in Dublin to welcome Queen Victoria after The Famine, or the fact that she personally donated more money to famine relief than the Catholic Church. Nobody wants to talk about all the Irish who fought in WW2 against the Nazis because they signed up with 'the enemy'. Nobody wants to question why the 1916 rebels were openly rejected by the Irish people when the rebellion occurred - it took executions for treason to cause a more favourable reaction to the Irish cause. Nobody wants to discuss the fact that more Irish people died from pillaging and raiding rival clans, and inter-clan conflicts within the Irish countryside than at the hands of British soldiers.

Our history begins in 1922, and the only records we choose to observe of time before that are records demonstrating Ireland's ultimate cause for independence and how we longed for it for 800 years. The truth is, our independence was always a minority's cause, and most people in Ireland were happy with the status quo.

If you really want to understand history, you need to see all sides, all arguments, and all the facts - not just the one.

Morag

Oh look it's that time of the year again.

Yes I would, and yes I have and yes I do.
I won't let the provos/terrorists hijack it, won't hand it over by not wearing it,
they don't own it. I would love to seen it worn publicly like the poppy is.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

The so called armed struggle (Terrorist Campaign) in Northern Ireland/The ROI & Britain was never justified, .........

...in your opinion.

TheLastMohican

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and yet you quite happily wear the Lilly, despite it glorifying people who carried out their own atrocities.:rolleyes:

we've been here before Nodin. you do not have the right to critcise the poppy if you wear the Lilly.

If the British Army had not been in India, some of it's soldiers would not have been killed by Indian 'terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Aden, they would not have been killed by Yemeni "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Afghanistan (a few times) they would not have been killed by Afghani "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in America they would not have been killed by American Revolutionary "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Cyprus they would not have been killed by Cypriot "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 32 Counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 6 counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".

There are two constants here. The British Army and "terrorists".
Reading The Daily Telegraph, one would assume that the British Army were the victims. Fratton Fred, what are your thoughts on the above? Do Poppy wearers agree with the British invasions above?

TheLastMohican

Falthyron wrote: »

Ireland's history/memory is still selective. We choose to acknowledge/accept the parts of history that suit our cause for recognition of independence; 1798, Grattan's Parliament, The Famine, Parnell's Home Rule Party, 1916, War of Independence, etc. However, we don't take time to recognise and be proud of other moments in history, or people of significant repute who were Irish and contributed to world history, Richard Kane comes to mind.

Nobody wants to hear about 500,000 people turning out in Dublin to welcome Queen Victoria after The Famine, or the fact that she personally donated more money to famine relief than the Catholic Church. Nobody wants to talk about all the Irish who fought in WW2 against the Nazis because they signed up with 'the enemy'. Nobody wants to question why the 1916 rebels were openly rejected by the Irish people when the rebellion occurred - it took executions for treason to cause a more favourable reaction to the Irish cause. Nobody wants to discuss the fact that more Irish people died from pillaging and raiding rival clans, and inter-clan conflicts within the Irish countryside than at the hands of British soldiers.

Our history begins in 1922, and the only records we choose to observe of time before that are records demonstrating Ireland's ultimate cause for independence and how we longed for it for 800 years. The truth is, our independence was always a minority's cause, and most people in Ireland were happy with the status quo.

If you really want to understand history, you need to see all sides, all arguments, and all the facts - not just the one.

That's your's out the window straight away.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

...not really. An awful lot is romanticised by distance and/or time. Any violent conflict is a nasty business which inevitably will feature innocents being hurt and killed, abuses etc. Thus, the question must arise at the offset - is armed struggle justified? Given the reaction of the authorities to peaceful protest, it was felt that it was.

I can think of no major acheivement for Irish independence that was acheived through war rather than Westminster.

1916 was to any honest interpretation a terrorist attack that held a city to ransom against its will. There isn't a noble interpretation of it that I can think of.

The War of Independence was a pointless shedding of blood.

We could go through the previous but you get my point.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

...not really. An awful lot is romanticised by distance and/or time. Any violent conflict is a nasty business which inevitably will feature innocents being hurt and killed, abuses etc. Thus, the question must arise at the offset - is armed struggle justified? Given the reaction of the authorities to peaceful protest, it was felt that it was.

Some people still think it is, yet you condemn them. So who gets to choose?

Are any acts in a supposedly justified campaign acceptable? Is this how you reconcile the atrocities carried out by republicans? Or is it by pretending the peaceful protests and the terrorist campaign were connected? Because we all know the IRA had no interest in civil rights.

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... Then do what the Americans did and make your own, sell them and put the money towards the Irish armed forces retirement fund. My counter example is only being used to show that the poppy is not a British symbol. It's international.
...
Yes, yes it is. The British selling poppies does not make it a British symbol. I really don't understand your mentality.

We don´t have it here in Germany, so that internationality applies probably for the Commonwealth Nations, maybe the French have it too (but I don´t know). We´ve a different symbol to commemorate the fallen of both world wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_War_Graves_Commission

Their logo is on display of some button sized pins, sold for an individual chosen donation every year from 30. October to 01. November.

Fratton Fred

TheLastMohican wrote: »

If the British Army had not been in India, some of it's soldiers would not have been killed by Indian 'terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Aden, they would not have been killed by Yemeni "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Afghanistan (a few times) they would not have been killed by Afghani "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in America they would not have been killed by American Revolutionary "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Cyprus they would not have been killed by Cypriot "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 32 Counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 6 counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".

There are two constants here. The British Army and "terrorists".
Reading The Daily Telegraph, one would assume that the British Army were the victims. Fratton Fred, what are your thoughts on the above? Do Poppy wearers agree with the British invasions above?

Ah, the good old "Warrington was ok because the British had an empire" line it didn't take long.

The Lilly doesn't just glorify those that killed soldiers, it glorifies those that committed atrocities.

Morally, it is no different to the poppy.

Happyman42

TheLastMohican wrote: »

If the British Army had not been in India, some of it's soldiers would not have been killed by Indian 'terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Aden, they would not have been killed by Yemeni "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Afghanistan (a few times) they would not have been killed by Afghani "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in America they would not have been killed by American Revolutionary "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Cyprus they would not have been killed by Cypriot "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 32 Counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 6 counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".

There are two constants here. The British Army and "terrorists".
Reading The Daily Telegraph, one would assume that the British Army were the victims. Fratton Fred, what are your thoughts on the above? Do Poppy wearers agree with the British invasions above?

But, but...that's history ^ it's not like that anymore and the inscrutable natives should have known that the invaders where bearing gifts.
Stupid natives and now they won't wear the poppy with pride. Ungrateful baxtards!

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

I can think of no major acheivement for Irish independence that was acheived through war rather than Westminster.

1916 was to any honest interpretation a terrorist attack that held a city to ransom against its will. There isn't a noble interpretation of it that I can think of.

The War of Independence was a pointless shedding of blood.

Generations of Magdelene women didn't object to their treatment either, it called 'subjugation'. Sometimes that is done via physical force and sometimes it is done by mental conditioning. Takes years and even generations to end the mental conditioning. Obviously.
Wearing of the poppy and the insistence on the same by a peer group is conditioning.
I am glad that my forebears where brave enough to make a stand, my mind is free to think for itself.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Generations of Magdelene women didn't object to their treatment either, it called 'subjugation'. Sometimes that is done via physical force and sometimes it is done by mental conditioning. Takes years and even generations to end the mental conditioning. Obviously.
Wearing of the poppy and the insistence on the same by a peer group is conditioning.
I am glad that my forebears where brave enough to make a stand, my mind is free to think for itself.

Have you seen that film made about the story of four of them who were sent there in the 1960s? In that film it has also been shown that it was the then Irish society which were in a kind of agreement to that. An interesting film about that matter and it´s some ten years since I´ve seen it the first time.

gobnaitolunacy

Thomas_I wrote: »

We don´t have it here in Germany, so that internationality applies probably for the Commonwealth Nations, maybe the French have it too (but I don´t know). We´ve a different symbol to commemorate the fallen of both world wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_War_Graves_Commission

Their logo is on display of some button sized pins, sold for an individual chosen donation every year from 30. October to 01. November.

The French have a blue cornflower as an equivalent, but I don't think very many wear it now.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

Generations of Magdelene women didn't object to their treatment either, it called 'subjugation'. Sometimes that is done via physical force and sometimes it is done by mental conditioning. Takes years and even generations to end the mental conditioning. Obviously.
Wearing of the poppy and the insistence on the same by a peer group is conditioning.
I am glad that my forebears where brave enough to make a stand, my mind is free to think for itself.

Completely unrelated.

Most of the residents in Dublin in 1916 didn't want it. That's all that matters.

Much in the same way as when someone blows explosives on public transport in the name while saying 'Allah hu akbar" or in the name of nationalism against the will of it's populace.

One could even claim that these acts are justified. For example our local native Khalid Kelly saying that the 7/7 London bombings were justified because of unbelievers at war in Islamic countries the same logic was applied with nationalism in 1916.

Both are deeply horrific, both are deeply immoral, both recieve my complete condemnation.

If you want to test the 1916 Rising explain the context to someone who isn't Irish, explain that most people in Dublin never wanted it at the time, I can guarantee you when presented with the raw facts most would say that it was a terrorist attack.

Better still, use a hypothetical with all the same information and facts while excluding the time and date and ask if it took place in the 21st century and see what response you get.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ah, the good old "Warrington was ok because the British had an empire" line it didn't take long.

The Lilly doesn't just glorify those that killed soldiers, it glorifies those that committed atrocities.

Morally, it is no different to the poppy.

TheLastMohican said no such thing and the fact that you feel the need to resort to this type of childish straw man shows you really have nothing to say in response to the points they made.

Crooked Jack

philologos wrote: »

I can think of no major acheivement for Irish independence that was acheived through war rather than Westminster.

1916 was to any honest interpretation a terrorist attack that held a city to ransom against its will. There isn't a noble interpretation of it that I can think of.

The War of Independence was a pointless shedding of blood.

We could go through the previous but you get my point.

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

I doubt that very much (your last line).

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

What forceful act brought about an end to the penal laws?

Lelantos

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Its not a symbol of sinn fein. however, i think your undermining statement is funny given that sinn fein played a key role in founding the state

Are you suggesting that the Sinn Féin we know today is the same party?

philologos

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

The Home Rule bill wasn't acheived by violence.

Indeed it was because of the legislative process at Westminster. In part the 1911 Parliament Act was created to pass the Home Rule legislation through the more resistent House of Lords.

Diplomacy did far far more than violence.

Fratton Fred

philologos wrote: »

The Home Rule bill wasn't acheived by violence.

Indeed it was because of the legislative process at Westminster. In part the 1911 Parliament Act was created to pass the Home Rule legislation through the more resistent House of Lords.

Diplomacy did far far more than violence.

Probably worth noting that Scotland will be holding a referendum on its future which they achieved with zero loss of life.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

Completely unrelated.

Most of the residents in Dublin in 1916 didn't want it. That's all that matters.

Much in the same way as when someone blows explosives on public transport in the name while saying 'Allah hu akbar" or in the name of nationalism against the will of it's populace.

One could even claim that these acts are justified. For example our local native Khalid Kelly saying that the 7/7 London bombings were justified because of unbelievers at war in Islamic countries the same logic was applied with nationalism in 1916.

Both are deeply horrific, both are deeply immoral, both recieve my complete condemnation.

If you want to test the 1916 Rising explain the context to someone who isn't Irish, explain that most people in Dublin never wanted it at the time, I can guarantee you when presented with the raw facts most would say that it was a terrorist attack.

Better still, use a hypothetical with all the same information and facts while excluding the time and date and ask if it took place in the 21st century and see what response you get.

I don´t think that the way you´re comparing the Easter Rising with the London bombings is appropriate in many ways, aside from the fact that normal people don´t like to be drawn into terror acts.

Most of the Dublin residents even didn´t know what has started on Easter Monday 1916, let alone were informed that an uprising is prepared. Following your thoughts, it would mean that also the Irish War of Independence was not wanted by the Irish public, despite the fact that they supported the Volunteers. The Black and Tans changed many views by many Irish people and they were not invited to come over by the Irish themselves, they were sent by the British government.

The London bombings was a terror act by home grown Islamic fanatics.