Poppy

Folkstonian

Folkstonian wrote: »

I am capable of acknowledging that the British armed forces have done both right and wrong, good and bad, shameful things and heroic acts in their history.

lawred2 wrote: »

Well the poppy represents all the good and the bad, the right and the wrong

And let us be utterly unequivocal right on this point; the vast, vast, vast majority of that British history - British rule over lands beyond Britain - is very, very, very bad indeed. Egregiously so. I'm sure all our poppy pushers would be quite clear about how bad such a thing is if it were Britain under foreign occupation. Shoe. Other foot. There really is not a scintilla of enlightenment from the poppy brigade: 'my country right or wrong'. Even the bad stuff is written off as being for a 'greater good'. These commemorations explicitly honour everybody who fought for the British everywhere - and that implicitly means people who fought for its Empire. They do not confine themselves to people who fought for English freedom from a foreign invasion.

And there's really no point dressing up John Bull as a hero of the world just because it happened to have the good fortune, having collaborated with Nazi Germany for 6 years (1933-1939, just in case they don't teach that in schools anymore), to be on the winning side when Soviet Russia defeated Nazi Germany (with belated and decidedly reluctant supporting roles from the US and Britain).

This being on the "good guys' side" luck allowed the British state to go into Kenya a few years later and engage in mass war crimes against the Kenyans under the guise of being "morally superior". Oh, and those British charmers who committed those little-known, but enormous, crimes against the Kenyans in the 1950s are honoured by the British poppy according to the Royal British Legion which runs the poppy glorification. Just in case anybody is in any doubt about that.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Fuaranach is an absolutist. His position is entirely extreme.

You are in Ireland The 'extreme' position is anyone supporting the BA and holding seemingly unconditional affections for their history in the world.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean, you'll be thanked by all the provos on the thread

"Provo" of course being classified by you as anybody who doesn't buy into your "the nice British Empire helping the rest of the planet" poppy-pushing non-stop Britannia Rules the Waves comedy. Up the Republic.

klaaaz wrote: »

According to RandomName2 logic, anyone who supports the British poppy in Ireland is a member of a loyalist proscribed organisation, rather than just a run of the mill unionist.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your posting quality is terrible, but I'll entertain you for a second.

A member of a loyalist proscribed organisation would be more likely to wear a poppy...

You completely missed the analogy that poster made. Let me spell it out: you said only "Provos" refuse to wear the British poppy, therefore describing the vast majority of Irish people, who wouldn't be seen dead in your poppy, as "Provos". He is doing a parody of you by saying that the only people who wear the poppy are "loyalists" and ordinary unionists wouldn't wear it. Definition of parody.

So, is your comprehension quality terrible?

RandomName2 wrote: »

In the First World War, most Poles were indeed German, and fought for Germany as Germans. Poland did not exist at the time.

This is comical. Let's all 'Dial a Polish Friend' and ask them did the Polish people exist before the modern Polish state came into existence? Given that the exact territorial extent of Poland today can only be dated to 2002, it will be quite the shock for most Poles to discover they didn't exist as a people prior to that, I'd imagine.

I know that all of my grandparents were born in Ireland when this whole country was under British colonial occupation, and they were all Irish no matter what identity your crowd imposed upon them. The Irish people were not invented on 6 December 1922, when the Free State came into being. It's stupidity on a stunning scale to sit there and contend that the Polish etc do not exist as Polish etc when their respective countries are under foreign occupation. Your very British imperialist contempt for the identity of peoples who are subjected to imperial rule indicates so much of what is obnoxious about the poppy and the people who push it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This is comical. Let's all 'Dial a Polish Friend' and ask them did the Polish people exist before the modern Polish state came into existence? Given that the exact territorial extent of Poland today can only be dated to 2002, it will be quite the shock for most Poles to discover they didn't exist as a people prior to that, I'd imagine.

RandomName2's history is a tad sketchy to say the least considering that Poland existed as an entity from the 10th to the 18th century. Following his logic then from the 1795 Third Partition, Poles became 'Austrians', 'Prussians' and 'Russians' I suppose........

klaaaz

It's apparent here that the pro-poppy brigade think that once one nation conquers another nation, the conquered nation ceases to exist. Just like insulting the Poles saying they were German instead of being Polish. Same for what the British did to the Irish nation. That's textbook racism.

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

"Provo" of course being classified by you as anybody who doesn't buy into your "the nice British Empire helping the rest of the planet" poppy-pushing non-stop Britannia Rules the Waves comedy. Up the Republic.

You completely missed the analogy that poster made. Let me spell it out: you said only "Provos" refuse to wear the British poppy, therefore describing the vast majority of Irish people, who wouldn't be seen dead in your poppy, as "Provos".

Oh no, not at all. Your not wearing a poppy is separate from everything else about you.

I don't wear a poppy. I like it when Brit imperialist footsoldiers are blown up.

There are two sentences there ^. One of them is more indicative of a political stance than another

So, is your comprehension quality terrible?

Wait, that's you talking.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is comical. Let's all 'Dial a Polish Friend' and ask them did the Polish people exist before the modern Polish state came into existence?

Polish people were German citizens. Many fought for the second reich.

I know you have trouble balancing two opposing thoughts simultaneously, so instead of describing a separate national and ethnic state I will break it down into a simple description.

States are often composed of multiple ethnicities.

That is why someone from Milan saying they are not Italian would be a bit silly today. If Milan gains independence from Italy next year they could then say they are not Italian. Rabid Milanese nationalists may subsequently pretend they were never Italian and may have to have someone explain to them that they were part of the Italian state until 2019.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your very British imperialist contempt for the identity of peoples who are subjected to imperial rule indicates so much of what is obnoxious about the poppy and the people who push it.

I have contempt alright, but just in relation to idiocy, dogmatic ideology, romanticism of violence, and sectarianism.

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

RandomName2's history is a tad sketchy to say the least considering that Poland existed as an entity from the 10th to the 18th century. Following his logic then from the 1795 Third Partition, Poles became 'Austrians', 'Prussians' and 'Russians' I suppose........

So according to you there are no such people as Poles, but rather Polish-Lithuanians?

Good luck finding a Prussian or Austro-Hungarian today, by the way. Or do you prefer the term Alemanni and Ostrogoths?

klaaaz wrote: »

It's apparent here that the pro-poppy brigade think that once one nation conquers another nation, the conquered nation ceases to exist.

Da-doy!

Junkyard Tom

Below are listed many of principle 'ingredients' that helped create and sustain the murderous British empire.

RandomName2 wrote: »

idiocy, dogmatic ideology, romanticism of violence, and sectarianism.

Your lack of self-awareness would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Below are listed many of principle 'ingredients' that helped create and sustain the murderous British empire.



Your lack of self-awareness would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

and has sustained the memory of it. The little red flower helping in that.

RandomName2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Below are listed many of principle 'ingredients' that helped create and sustain the murderous British empire.

Well duh. Empires do tend to consist of that, don't they? This is not exactly news, is it? You should really have written murderous in all-caps to get your point across though.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

So according to you there are no such people as Poles, but rather Polish-Lithuanians?

It's your bizarre logic not mine.

The Rape of Lucretia

We're Irish Ukrainians, not Russians.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

It's your bizarre logic not mine.

Goodness forbid you'd describe that logic 'absolutist', 'extreme', 'to the exclusion of everything else', 'one note' or 'without nuance'.

RandomName2 wrote: »

an absolutist ... entirely extreme ... to exclusion of everything else ... one note ... unadulterated ... without any nuance.

A complete inability to recognise in himself that which he decries in others.

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

It's your bizarre logic not mine.

You say that a Polish [sic] state existed in the 18th century, so in the First World War, there was a Polish nation. That's your argument. That the Poles in the German army weren't legally German, they were Polish. Well I mean, your'e wrong. That's pretty straightforward. Forgive me if that last sentence comes across as 'absolutist'.. it's just stating a fact.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A complete inability to recognise in himself that which he decries in others.

Okay, you are not only repeating yourself you are actually saying nothing substantial. This is the equivalent of saying 'I know you are, but what am I?' as a retort.

Okay, how about I do it.

Junkyard Tom has inability to recognise in himself that which he decries in others.

There, I think the point stands. Evidence? Elaboration? Oh my, I hardly need that when I am so clearly in the right.

Did I catch the smugness? All I'm missing is the circle-jerk.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 completely shredding his credibility himself. Amazing to watch.

droidman123

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RandomName2 completely shredding his credibility himself. Amazing to watch.

In fairness the guy is fast becoming a legend

klaaaz

droidman123 wrote: »

In fairness the guy is fast becoming a legend

Ah the poor guy alone in his ivory ahem round tower! Those types tend to be out of touch with the plebs!

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RandomName2 completely shredding his credibility himself. Amazing to watch.

Wait, have you stopped arguing that Peter Casey got 10% of the vote? Congratulations FrancieBrady, I knew you had it in you.

Now if you want to attack me, it's pretty simple. You take something that I said, preferably in the last few posts, and show where I am mistaken. This is a straightforward thing to do. If you are finding it a challenge, feel free to be pedantic, twist what I've said, take the quote out of context. I'd suggest sticking with opinions, personal sentiments, and a strong form of pathos. But this: you're better than heckling from the sidelines. We all believe in you FrancieBrady.

droidman123 wrote: »

In fairness the guy is fast becoming a legend

Ah sprinkling of desperation guy! Have you worked out anything to say, yet?

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Wait, have you stopped arguing that Peter Casey got 10% of the vote? Congratulations FrancieBrady, I knew you had it in you.

Now if you want to attack me, it's pretty simple. You take something that I said, preferably in the last few posts, and show where I am mistaken. This is a straightforward thing to do. If you are finding it a challenge, feel free to be pedantic, twist what I've said, take the quote out of context. I'd suggest sticking with opinions, personal sentiments, and a strong form of pathos. But this: you're better than heckling from the sidelines.

I think you are doing a mighty fine job of attacking yourself, in fairness.

p.s. PC did get 10% of the electorate to vote for him. Incontestable fact that.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

You say that a Polish [sic] state existed in the 18th century, so in the First World War, there was a Polish nation. That's your argument. That the Poles in the German army weren't legally German, they were Polish. Well I mean, your'e wrong

Nope, all your demonstrating is the subjective nature of history and the fact that the 'winners' (in other words, the strongest) write the history books. You wouldn't be the first to be duped by this approach. Even lacking the edifice of a state, Poles still considered themselves to be Poles first and foremost and didn't give a f**k what the Germans thought tbh.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you are doing a mighty fine job of attacking yourself, in fairness.

p.s. PC did get 10% of the electorate to vote for him. Incontestable fact that.

Ah now, I have to say I'm disappointed FrancieBrady. It sounds as if you don't have an argument against me at all, or that you have learned how voting works, either. It looks as if you have got friends in a thread for the first time though, so that's something.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah now, I have to say I'm disappointed FrancieBrady. It sounds as if you don't have an argument against me at all, or that you have learned how voting works, either. It looks as if you have got friends in a thread for the first time though, so that's something.

I don't need an argument against you. You are doing a fine job demolishing your own credibility yourself.

And in the style of all defeated posters you begin the bot/team accusations.

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, all your demonstrating is the subjective nature of history and the fact that the 'winners' (in other words, the strongest) write the history books. You wouldn't be the first to be duped by this approach. Even lacking the edifice of a state, Poles still considered themselves to be Poles first and foremost and didn't give a f**k what the Germans thought tbh.

Well the Polish people were a constant, but they were still part of the German Empire at the time. You can't rewrite history.

This doesn't make the Poles irrelevant, it just means they didn't have nationhood, and it's ridiculous to pretend that they did. Jews, for thousands of years didn't have a nation-state, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. But you equally can't pretend that they didn't have the statehood of the country they found themselves in.

I mean empires, by their very nature, contain multiple peoples. This is pretty much a defining characteristic of them. Usually the empire has exercised its control over these various people through force of arms, again fairly characteristic of empires. When Rome conquered Gaul, the Gauls became part of the Roman Empire. I mean, that's what happened.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't need an argument against you. You are doing a fine job demolishing your own credibility yourself.

And in the style of all defeated posters you begin the bot/team accusations.

I'm putting it to you to contribute, but you appear incapable of anything other than low-level ad-hominem.

There's no bots here. Would that there were! It would make it more excusable.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well the Polish people were a constant, but they were still part of the German Empire at the time. You can't rewrite history.

This doesn't make the Poles irrelevant, it just means they didn't have nationhood, and it's ridiculous to pretend that they did. Jews, for thousands of years didn't have a nation-state, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. But you equally can't pretend that they didn't have the statehood of the country they found themselves in.

I mean empires, by their very nature, contain multiple peoples. This is pretty much a defining characteristic of them. Usually the empire has exercised its control over these various people through force of arms, again fairly characteristic of empires. When Rome conquered Gaul, the Gauls became part of the Roman Empire. I mean, that's what happened.

A pretty much defining aspect is also subjugation. And the consequences of that has been the providing of canon fodder to sustain those empires. Could you imagine so many deluded souls toddling off to war now to defend a British empire?

You can get off the horse now Random. Your argument has all the self serving redundancy of all empire nostalgists.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A pretty much defining aspect is also subjugation.

Sweet Jesus you've actually said something, and you haven't even repeated yourself.

Yes of course subjugation! You can't really control without it, can you?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the consequences of that has been the providing of canon fodder to sustain those empires. Could you imagine so many deluded souls toddling off to war now to defend a British empire?

No.. but that's not really due to it not being an empire any more, but rather a mixture of socio-economic reasons coupled with a greater exposure of the horrors of war to the general public.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well the Polish people were a constant, but they were still part of the German Empire at the time. You can't rewrite history.

This doesn't make the Poles irrelevant, it just means they didn't have nationhood, and it's ridiculous to pretend that they did. Jews, for thousands of years didn't have a nation-state, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. But you equally can't pretend that they didn't have the statehood of the country they found themselves in.

I mean empires, by their very nature, contain multiple peoples. This is pretty much a defining characteristic of them. Usually the empire has exercised its control over these various people through force of arms, again fairly characteristic of empires. When Rome conquered Gaul, the Gauls became part of the Roman Empire. I mean, that's what happened.

I'm not denying that differing peoples were a part of empires (whether involuntarily or not). It's your rather simplistic statements that 'Poles were Germans' etc that I take issue with.

RandomName2

klaaaz wrote: »

Ah the poor guy alone in his ivory ahem round tower! Those types tend to be out of touch with the plebs!

You mean the plebs who recognize Dave Lordan as our greatest poet?

Sorry, that was a low blow.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus you've actually said something, and you haven't even repeated yourself.

Yes of course subjugation! You can't really control without it, can you?

Not responding to your self implosion is not me not saying anything. I said plenty already.

No.. but that's not really due to it not being an empire any more, but rather a mixture of socio-economic reasons coupled with a greater exposure of the horrors of war to the general public.

They can call on plenty in what is left of the 'empire' to sarcrifice themselves.

Best thing is to not allow them empire build anymore, don't you think? Somebody should sabotage the new aircraft carriers they can't afford to finish and divert the money to the NHS or something.

droidman123

RandomName2 wrote: »

Wait, have you stopped arguing that Peter Casey got 10% of the vote? Congratulations FrancieBrady, I knew you had it in you.

Now if you want to attack me, it's pretty simple. You take something that I said, preferably in the last few posts, and show where I am mistaken. This is a straightforward thing to do. If you are finding it a challenge, feel free to be pedantic, twist what I've said, take the quote out of context. I'd suggest sticking with opinions, personal sentiments, and a strong form of pathos. But this: you're better than heckling from the sidelines. We all believe in you FrancieBrady.



Ah sprinkling of desperation guy! Have you worked out anything to say, yet?

Again you bring up my incorrect spelling of the word "sprinkling" and again more desperation from your tedious posts