Protestors disrupting World War 1 commemoration at Glasnevin

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

I have no idea what the relevance of any of the above has to anything I said .

You asked what mandate I had to use 'we'. Work it out.

Strazdas

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did he say part of the blame lies at Britain's door and that they are still engaged in sending youth to futile deaths?

He was certainly very critical of the political ruling class throughout Europe at the time, which would obviously include the British.

In the various speeches yesterday too, it was acknowledged that war was an obscenity and was to be avoided at all costs.

Happyman42

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Celebrating

Lovely! I think you might be Officer material.:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

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



I am pretty sure the last time I looked that this is a democracy, I don't have to agree with what my government does. Shame the majority in Britain don't realise that, the world would be a much better place if they did have the power to change. But they seem to never be able to break the stranglehold of the establishment because of their electoral system...wonder why that is?

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

Happyman42

Strazdas wrote: »

He was certainly very critical of the political ruling class throughout Europe at the time, which would obviously include the British.

In the various speeches yesterday too, it was acknowledged that war was an obscenity and was to be avoided at all costs.

You are being played.
How have Britain done on the avoidance of war and conflict since WW1 would you say?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You asked what mandate I had to use 'we'. Work it out.

Yeah and you never answered , no need to work it out.

This still doesn't clarify your last post in anyway though

feargale

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Nobody was asked to honour the British generals.
Furthermore, the Irish who served in WWI were at the time representative of the the vast majority of the people of Ireland, as borne out by the number who enlisted and the parliamentary representation at the time. Do you know of any country that snubbed such a representative body of its soldiery? Not Slovenia, whose men were slaughtered fighting for Austria-Hungary. There are a myriad examples in Eastern Europe of subject peoples fighting in WWI for other powers, Finns for Russia, Poles for Germany, Austria and Russia etc.. They were not regarded as traitors, as your yob friends would have them.

Strazdas

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are being played.
How have Britain done on the avoidance of war and conflict since WW1 would you say?

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

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

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

and said without a trace of irony ! oh to see ourselves as others see us .

Happyman42

Strazdas wrote: »

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

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

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

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

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

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

Shut up for a minute and recognise that fact.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

Shut up for a minute and recognise that fact.

Where have I said any different?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

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

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

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

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

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

Karl Stein

marienbad wrote: »

What individual points?

1.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

2.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

3.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

4.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santa Cruz

Let evereyone hold hands and sing Kum By Ya

Irelandcool

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

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

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

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

pO1Neil

FierceMild wrote: »

Free State. Poppy Fascism. Secret Police.

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

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

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

pO1Neil

Irelandcool wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

cruais

Jesus. wrote: »

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

Are you takin' the Mick?

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

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

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

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

More self righteous patronising stuff I see.

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

Jesus.

Strazdas wrote: »

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

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

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

What OP was correct mate?

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

So the pipe band was Irish army?

indioblack

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

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

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More self righteous patronising stuff I see.

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

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

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

Happyman42

indioblack wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

1.

2.

3.

4.

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

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

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


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

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

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

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