Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Poppy Middle Class Death Cult

1…34689…16

Comments

  • #152
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Jayop wrote: »
    It's whataboutery because it's absolutely nothing to do with this subject. You could have as well brought up the Anthem protests in America which would be more relevant but still whataboutery, but for some reason you decided to have a go at Celtic in response to defending James McClean.
    In fairness I was going to make the same point about Celtic being fined, and FF did state that he disagreed with the recent phenomenon of poppies on shirts. At least he was consistent in arguing the point.

    While we are on the topic of politics in football I wonder would UEFA ever reprimand Barcelona for pro-Catalan independence chants?


  • #153
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tipptom wrote: »
    +1.
    They have turned something that was a nice dignified yearly commerarative day in to months of a type of rule Britannia "with us or against us" jingoistic fest hijacked by EDL and C18 types who ironically hate preach about lack of freedoms.

    That's why I am against the poppy being sewn in to football shirts.

    In the 80s, the national front hijacked the English flag and it became a symbol of militant nationalism and fascism, I think it is important that the poppy doesn't go the same way.

    Unfortunately, there's two sides to this and there will always be equal and opposite effects.


  • #154
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    In fairness I was going to make the same point about Celtic being fined, and FF did state that he disagreed with the recent phenomenon of poppies on shirts. At least he was consistent in arguing the point.

    While we are on the topic of politics in football I wonder would UEFA ever reprimand Barcelona for pro-Catalan independence chants?

    In fairness nothing. He was only bringing Celtic into it to divert from the original point and to try to get a rise thinking anyone that was defending McClean must by extension be a Celtic supporter or something. Read the context leading up to the post and the wording of it. Completely unnecessary and nothing more than whataboutery in this thread. If he's so worried about Celtic fans then he should go start a thread about them because they have less than nothing to do with a Poppy thread.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I will let Celtic fans answer you about keeping politics out of sport.


  • #155
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    That's why I am against the poppy being sewn in to football shirts.

    In the 80s, the national front hijacked the English flag and it became a symbol of militant nationalism and fascism, I think it is important that the poppy doesn't go the same way.

    Unfortunately, there's two sides to this and there will always be equal and opposite effects.

    2 sides to this how?

    Those who berate people for not wearing the Poppy and what's the other side? People who choose not to for their own reasons?


  • #156
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jayop wrote: »
    In fairness nothing. He was only bringing Celtic into it to divert from the original point and to try to get a rise thinking anyone that was defending McClean must by extension be a Celtic supporter or something. Read the context leading up to the post and the wording of it. Completely unnecessary and nothing more than whataboutery in this thread. If he's so worried about Celtic fans then he should go start a thread about them because they have less than nothing to do with a Poppy thread.

    You're paranoid.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jayop wrote: »
    2 sides to this how?

    Those who berate people for not wearing the Poppy and what's the other side? People who choose not to for their own reasons?

    There is definitely an increase in anti poppy sentiment, which only inflames the pro poppy side

    And vice versa.


  • #158
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭storker


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    From your own link.
    'most of the war’s dead were from the working class'.

    So were most of the survivors...


  • #159
    shaunr68
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭shaunr68


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Fred I think you should reread the comment chain I replied to. That poster is trying to make exactly the point I am refuting.

    Edit: for ease here is the relevant part of their post.
    "I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason: because of the violation of Belgian neutrality"

    It is an indisputable fact that Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914 because of Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality.

    This may help your comprehension

    http://www.firstworldwar.com/onthisday/1914_08_04.htm


  • #160
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    While we are on the topic of politics in football I wonder would UEFA ever reprimand Barcelona for pro-Catalan independence chants?
    To answer my own question, yes they have!
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/19/barcelona-fight-second-uefa-catalonia-fine

    Still begs the question as to why poppies are allowed?


  • #161
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    To answer my own question, yes they have!
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/19/barcelona-fight-second-uefa-catalonia-fine

    Still begs the question as to why poppies are allowed?

    Same reason the British Military are allowed to carry present the FA cup on cup final day. Politics in sport is A-OK providing it's the politics of the establishment.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Fred I think you should reread the comment chain I replied to. That poster is trying to make exactly the point I am refuting.

    Edit: for ease here is the relevant part of their post.
    "I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason: because of the violation of Belgian neutrality"

    We obviously interpret that sentence differently. Germany invaded Belgium, which was neutral. But neutral or not, it would have been the trigger for Britain to declare war on Germany.

    If I recall correctly, the campaign to get men to enlist to "save Catholic Belgium" was only used in Ireland, in Britain it was very much "Britons need you".

    Of course (and why the poppy is far less contentious in Britain) eventually the campaign became less important, as enlisting became compulsory.


  • #163
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jayop wrote: »
    Same reason the British Military are allowed to carry present the FA cup on cup final day. Politics in sport is A-OK providing it's the politics of the establishment.

    Should we ban flags and anthems as well?

    Maybe stop presidents and monarchs from presenting trophies, in case we offend people who didn't vote for them?


  • #164
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Poor old downtrodden Belgians who were the epitome of the oppressed.

    Aside from their program of mass slavery and murder in the Congo that is.


  • #165
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Poor old downtrodden Belgians who were the epitome of the oppressed.

    Aside from their program of mass slavery and murder in the Congo that is.

    Maybe, but in fairness, the Germans were pretty brutal in occupied Belgium.


  • #166
    brickmauser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭brickmauser


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    I refused to wear a poppy in remembrance of the 'Great' War. Not because I have republican or shinner sympathies, but because when you really get down to it, it celebrates pointless mass slaughter by the European Aristocrats of millions of men, and it achieved nothing except set up the chess pieces for world war two.

    I loathed these middle class self-consciousness Irish types going on about how they will wear a poppy as "Uncle Frank ran into a German Machine gun" for the same royal family which both armies were fighting for. Go back far enough in our history and we all have an Uncle Frank who was cut down in battle somewhere at sometime. No poppy or lily for them?

    Then you get the other excuses in that a kind of class-based territorial pissing is involved. All the Sinn Fein knackers were a Lilly, so in order for Sentanta NiCasbastini to show he is middle class, he will wear a poppy.

    You know what. It's all bollox and all you do is show the world that you are a cnut. If you had a brain you would realize it just all feeds into the same royal families who caused it. Rather trying to look inclusive, how about not wearing it and stop celebrating and glorifying mass murder so the same blue bloods can keep their castles and titles.

    Read a history book.

    Germany was the aggressor in WW1.

    They marched into Belgium and occupied much of North Eastern France and almost reached Paris. In the East they occupied most the same territory conquered by Hitler's armies more than twenty years later. If they had dominated continental Europe from coast to coast they would eventually strangled Britain and Ireland too.

    The war was every bit as justified as WW2.

    It was a war for the very existence of civilization.

    The millions who fought and died did not die for Royal families. They fought for their families and homes and villages and towns because they did not wish to be subject to the Germans as a slave race.

    When Irishmen came home from the war they fought the British when their freedom and nationhood was denied them by the Black and Tans

    I am proud of the men who fought for the freedom of Europe in the Great War as much as I am proud of the heroes of the Irish War of Independence.

    If you bothered to read a history book you would be too.

    World War I and II were both people's wars. The people were not blind herds but individuals who were fighting for their interests.


  • #167
    getzls
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 806 ✭✭✭getzls


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    I refused to wear a poppy in remembrance of the 'Great' War. Not because I have republican or shinner sympathies, but because when you really get down to it, it celebrates pointless mass slaughter by the European Aristocrats of millions of men,.
    Did you really type all that or was it a copy and paste?
    Whatever it was , you talk about load of bolloxs


  • #168
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,409 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    shaunr68 wrote: »

    It is an indisputable fact that Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914 because of Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality.

    This may help your comprehension

    http://www.firstworldwar.com/onthisday/1914_08_04.htm

    No Shaun it is quite far from indisputable even Fred admits so in his post below.
    The link you provided yet again did not offer any evidence that the indisputable reason for Britain entering the war was as you say.

    Now if you wish to discuss Britain's reason for entering ww1 I suggest you start a thread on that.

    Fratton Fred wrote: »

    We obviously interpret that sentence differently. Germany invaded Belgium, which was neutral. But neutral or not, it would have been the trigger for Britain to declare war on Germany.

    If I recall correctly, the campaign to get men to enlist to "save Catholic Belgium" was only used in Ireland, in Britain it was very much "Britons need you".

    Of course (and why the poppy is far less contentious in Britain) eventually the campaign became less important, as enlisting became compulsory.

    You obviously interpreted it wrong them Fred. The poster has yet again clarified that is the point they are trying to make.
    At this stage though you just wish to argue with me and because you cannot argue against the fact that the poppy has become a nationalistic pride symbol you attempt to deflect by arguing some other vague point.

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #169
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,668 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    brickmauser wrote: »
    ...they did not wish to be subject to the Germans as a slave race.

    I think those who fought on both sides were the slaves.
    And their leaders on both sides had been enslaving the rest of the world for centuries.
    And WWI was nothing more than a battle between the enslavers to see who would hold sway in Europe.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #170
    shaunr68
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭shaunr68


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    No Shaun it is quite far from indisputable even Fred admits so in his post below.
    The link you provided yet again did not offer any evidence that the indisputable reason for Britain entering the war was as you say.

    From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/england-declares-war-germany-1914


    Great Britain declared war on Germany at 11 o'clock last night.

    The Cabinet yesterday delivered an ultimatum to Germany. Announcing the fact to the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said: "We have repeated the request made last week to the German Government that they should give us the same assurance in regard to Belgian neutrality that was given to us and Belgium by France last week. We have asked that it should be given before midnight."

    Last evening a reply was received from Germany. This being unsatisfactory the King held at once a Council which had been called for midnight. The declaration of war was then signed. The Foreign Office issued the following official statement:-
    Owing to the summary rejection by the German Government of the request made by his Majesty's Government for assurances that the neutrality of Belgium will be respected, his Majesty's Ambassador to Berlin has received his passports, and his Majesty's Government declared to the German Government that a state of war exists between Great Britain and Germany as from 11 p.m. on August 4, 1914.
    A statement made in London last night said the British Note to Germany was sent direct to Sir E. Goschen, the Ambassador in Berlin.
    German troops have invaded Belgium. The Premier informed the Brussels Chamber yesterday, after King Albert had addressed the Deputies in a speech calling on the nation to defend its integrity. Mr. Asquith knew of the invasion when he made his statement in the Commons.

    I look forward to the next thread where you argue that black is white, night is day and up is down!


  • #171
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,409 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    shaunr68 wrote: »
    From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/england-declares-war-germany-1914


    Great Britain declared war on Germany at 11 o'clock last night.

    The Cabinet yesterday delivered an ultimatum to Germany. Announcing the fact to the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said: "We have repeated the request made last week to the German Government that they should give us the same assurance in regard to Belgian neutrality that was given to us and Belgium by France last week. We have asked that it should be given before midnight."

    Last evening a reply was received from Germany. This being unsatisfactory the King held at once a Council which had been called for midnight. The declaration of war was then signed. The Foreign Office issued the following official statement:-
    Owing to the summary rejection by the German Government of the request made by his Majesty's Government for assurances that the neutrality of Belgium will be respected, his Majesty's Ambassador to Berlin has received his passports, and his Majesty's Government declared to the German Government that a state of war exists between Great Britain and Germany as from 11 p.m. on August 4, 1914.
    A statement made in London last night said the British Note to Germany was sent direct to Sir E. Goschen, the Ambassador in Berlin.
    German troops have invaded Belgium. The Premier informed the Brussels Chamber yesterday, after King Albert had addressed the Deputies in a speech calling on the nation to defend its integrity. Mr. Asquith knew of the invasion when he made his statement in the Commons.

    I look forward to the next thread where you argue that black is white, night is day and up is down!


    Britain entered the war because of the risk of a German held Belgium. So yes once Germany attacked Belgium, Britain felt the need to enter the war to defend its own interests.
    The reason they entered the war was not the welfare of Belgian citizens, or some humanitarian concern but simply because a German held Belgium presented a security risk to Britain. Regardless of whether they entered the war that day or not.

    The link you originally posted states that by multiple authors.

    If you want to argue that Britain entered ww1 on some humanitarian or altruistic reason please provide some evidence to support your claim. Britain entered ww1 to protect its own interests not the people of Belgium.

    This is however a thread about poppies what is your opinion on the poppy appeal?

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • Advertisement
  • #172
    tipptom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,219 ✭✭✭tipptom


    It must have been somewhat a bit of a shock to people in Ireland when they read that the British powers that be stated reason for their part in the Great war was because..........wait for it.... "That the right of small nations to self determination is as valid as those of the great powers".


    After this "noble" intention was accomplished the same imperial powers went on a murderous campaign to quell rebellions in their vassel states.


    In saying that the ordinary working class who weren't to know were used as cannon fodder in the Great War should not be used or diminished by right wing empirical backward looking knuckledraggers in the last couple of years to bully people.


  • #173
    Lt Dan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭Lt Dan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why the f**k are clubs in Britain deciding actually to have poppies on their shirts in the first place? Its a relatively recent phenomenon it seems. Politics should be kept out of sport.

    Yes

    Arsenal were the first to do it before it became the norm a few years ago

    What you have to remember is that the British Army have played a massive role in the promotion of soccer around the world, especially in Ireland. Many league players in the UK served in the British Army during World War 1 and World War 2. After all, what was the sport that was played on Christmas Day when the Jerries and British held a ceasefire?

    You see as well, since 9/11 in the US, the massive appearance of the US military at their games and the huge public military displays. Gobbels would be proud. In fairness, to the British, the Army appearance in football games is more genuine and long lasting.


  • #174
    Lt Dan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭Lt Dan


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It is a new thing and I'm not sure why it started. It isn't something I particularly agree with.

    I will let Celtic fans answer you about keeping politics out of sport.

    Celtic or Rangers would not be the only clubs deep in politics. In fact it seems to be much more than politics, but nationality and heritage (not the sectarianism of course)

    Sure both Milan clubs and other Italian Clubs were deep in politics. The Basque teams had policies of only playing Basque players until the great John Aldrige was gifted to them. And look at Barcelona............


  • #175
    shaunr68
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭shaunr68


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Britain entered the war because of the risk of a German held Belgium. So yes once Germany attacked Belgium, Britain felt the need to enter the war to defend its own interests.
    The reason they entered the war was not the welfare of Belgian citizens, or some humanitarian concern but simply because a German held Belgium presented a security risk to Britain. Regardless of whether they entered the war that day or not.

    The link you originally posted states that by multiple authors.

    If you want to argue that Britain entered ww1 on some humanitarian or altruistic reason please provide some evidence to support your claim. Britain entered ww1 to protect its own interests not the people of Belgium.

    This is however a thread about poppies what is your opinion on the poppy appeal?
    You seem to have misread my posts Robbie. I have made it clear all along that Britain declared war because of the violation of Belgian neutrality. In post #142 I pointed out that national interests are a factor. I never used the words humanitarian or altruistic. The cold, hard facts are that Britain was obliged to act to restore Belgian independence, though it may of course have suited the British for a variety of other reasons to have it out with Germany at this time. These reasons influenced the commitment to act on treaty obligations but were not the primary reason for the DoW.

    http://firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm

    You claimed in post #168 that it was not an indisputable fact that Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914 because of Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality. I have proven this point by providing you with the words of Asquith in his speech to the Commons and the text of the declaration of war itself. It seems you are misinterpreting my posts.


  • #176
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,409 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    shaunr68 wrote: »
    You seem to have misread my posts Robbie. I have made it clear all along that Britain declared war because of the violation of Belgian neutrality. In post #142 I pointed out that national interests are a factor. I never used the words humanitarian or altruistic. The cold, hard facts are that Britain was obliged to act to restore Belgian independence, though it may of course have suited the British for a variety of other reasons to have it out with Germany at this time. These reasons influenced the commitment to act on treaty obligations but were not the primary reason for the DoW.

    http://firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm

    You claimed in post #168 that it was not an indisputable fact that Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914 because of Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality. I have proven this point by providing you with the words of Asquith in his speech to the Commons and the text of the declaration of war itself. It seems you are misinterpreting my posts.

    There is a huge difference between a justification and a reason. The sources you provided explained the reason britain entered the war ie protection of British interests and security. The justification for that was violation of Belgian neutrality.

    Here is another example from ww1 the justification for Germany joining austro hungary in the war was the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. However there is not a single historian who will claim the real reason Germany entered the war being that assassination.

    Here is further reading for you.
    http://wikidiff.com/justification/reason

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #177
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,409 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Shaun in post 142 you refered to the below section of my post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101332430&postcount=142
    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    The English did not participate in world war one out of some sense of obligation to the human rights of people in Belgium or anywhere else around the world.

    You replied
    shaunr68 wrote: »
    I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason: because of the violation of Belgian neutrality. Now of course national interests come into play and it had suited the British to have the Channel ports under the control of a small, non-threatening country. But it is an indisputable fact that the British participation in the war was because the Germans had violated Belgian neutrality.

    You replied to a section where I said Britain did not act "out of some sense of obligation to the human rights of people in Belgium"

    Your reply:
    I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason:

    Those are your words.
    Please explain to me what "precisely that reason" means to you when placed under my comment?

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #178
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Lt Dan wrote: »
    Yes

    Arsenal were the first to do it before it became the norm a few years ago

    What you have to remember is that the British Army have played a massive role in the promotion of soccer around the world, especially in Ireland. Many league players in the UK served in the British Army during World War 1 and World War 2. After all, what was the sport that was played on Christmas Day when the Jerries and British held a ceasefire?

    You see as well, since 9/11 in the US, the massive appearance of the US military at their games and the huge public military displays. Gobbels would be proud. In fairness, to the British, the Army appearance in football games is more genuine and long lasting.

    It isn't just that the army played an important part in promoting football, it is (was?) the working class sport and during both wars, huge numbers of football supporters and professional footballers were killed.

    http://www.footballandthefirstworldwar.org/footballers-killed-first-world-war/


  • #179
    Jude13
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭Jude13


    The British Government spend countless lives invading/entering into war. When the poor unfortunates come back disabled and broken they get sheep to pay for their rehabilitation in the form of a charity funded by poppy sales.

    Genius really.


  • #180
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,668 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Jude13 wrote: »
    The British Government spend countless lives invading/entering into war. When the poor unfortunates come back disabled and broken they get sheep to pay for their rehabilitation in the form of a charity funded by poppy sales.

    Genius really.

    +1

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Advertisement
  • #181
    shaunr68
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭shaunr68


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    There is a huge difference between a justification and a reason. The sources you provided explained the reason britain entered the war ie protection of British interests and security. The justification for that was violation of Belgian neutrality.
    Violation of Belgian neutrality the reason for the DoW. Regardless of other factors such as protection of British interests, Britain would not have intervened had the Germans agreed to respect the Belgian borders and attacked France in its eastern provinces, as they had in 1870. It is quite clear from Grey's attempts at mediation and repeated requests to get the Germans to drop their ultimatum to Belgium that the British were keen to stay out of the conflict but Belgium was a line in the sand.
    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    You replied to a section where I said Britain did not act "out of some sense of obligation to the human rights of people in Belgium"

    Your reply:
    I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason:
    This part-sentence is taken out of context Robbie. Admittedly I could have worded it better but read the full paragraph and the meaning should be clear.


Advertisement