nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Poppy Middle Class Death Cult

ClovenHoof

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LordSutch

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmm, commemorating the dead by selling things made from other things that actually killed people. The selective morality is quite something........

As an annual poppy wearer myself here in Dublin I must say that I can not agree with the 'shell case' poppy mentioned above, indeed I can't understand what its about :cool:

The fact that it's made out or ordnance that killed other people seems rather crass and against the very spirit of the poppy and what it stands for. I have a good mind to write to the Legion and ask what the hell is this all about (or have I misunderstood)? I also have reservations about the wearing of the poppy on football shirts, even on Armistice day! Yes of course the footie supporters can wear them in the stands, but must they be compulsory on the pitch? I'm not sure...

darlett

brickmauser wrote: »

A Europe dominated by Germany had they won World War I would have been not dissimilar to the Third Reich..

It's rare people struggle to see the differences between the two regimes so even if it were just for the sake of argument, fair play to you.

Ted111

England football team banned from wearing poppy armband.
They're going to defy! the ban.

Mal-Adjusted

Jaysus, is it poppy season already? the time passes so fast

Fleawuss

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmm, commemorating the dead by selling things made from other things that actually killed people. The selective morality is quite something........

https://twitter.com/showcasemassive/status/772785869044477953

It's all very mixed up. But then you're name is 17 pdr which might be a reference to a gigantic baby, a fish or an obscure piece of artillery. Very mixed up it all very is.

[Deleted User]

Hmmm, commemorating the dead by selling things made from other things that actually killed people. The selective morality is quite something........

https://twitter.com/showcasemassive/status/772785869044477953

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah Fred. Still getting upset at any criticism of your country's mass murder across the world and centuries.

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned, I know you'll appreciate if I remind people that the Royal British Legion that organises your poppy appeals, and are now the uber Brits, was a most keen supporter of Hitler and the Nazis, even raising some 20,000 British volunteers in 1938 to help the Nazis police the Sudetenland occupation and going over to Germany in 1938 to meet Hitler. But this is quietly brushed under the carpet in your country's post-WW2 revisionism so pretend I never mentioned it. Enjoy the photos:

Royal British Legion meeting Hitler, 1938

Still posting the same **** as last year I see. This really is an unhealthy obsession you have.

[Deleted User]

Fratton Fred wrote: »

have you ever considered hypnosis, apparantly that is a great way to combat phobias and unnatural obsession

http://www.accesshypnotherapy.com/fears-and-phobias

Ah Fred. Still getting upset at any criticism of your country's mass murder across the world and centuries.

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned, I know you'll appreciate if I remind people that the Royal British Legion that organises your poppy appeals, and are now the uber Brits, was a most keen supporter of Hitler and the Nazis, even raising some 20,000 British volunteers in 1938 to help the Nazis police the Sudetenland occupation and going over to Germany in 1938 to meet Hitler. But this is quietly brushed under the carpet in your country's post-WW2 revisionism so pretend I never mentioned it. Enjoy the photos:

Royal British Legion meeting Hitler, 1938

Fratton Fred

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I wonder where they got that idea from, though?

**Cough cough** British empire.

or France, or Spain, or Rome, or Japan.......

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

How incredibly touching to discover that the very same British state which violated the independence of more peoples and countries than did any other state in recorded world history suddenly, as a matter of principle, had to defend the independence of "little Belgium" in 1914. Aw bless. Such honour, integrity and democracy from those ferociously principled humanitarians and democrats of British imperialism.

have you ever considered hypnosis, apparantly that is a great way to combat phobias and unnatural obsession

http://www.accesshypnotherapy.com/fears-and-phobias

Harvey Normal

brickmauser wrote: »

The France was a Republic and Britain was a Parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarchy.
Germany was effectively an absolutist monarchy presiding over by a militarist state with a rubber stamp and toothless Reichstag.
A Europe dominated by Germany had they won World War I would have been not dissimilar to the Third Reich.
Hitler gained so much support subsequent to 1918 because Prussian militarism since the days of Fredrick the Great and Bismark was about the racial.superiority of the Germans and the right as they saw it to rule inferior peoples.

I wonder where they got that idea from, though?

**Cough cough** British empire.

[Deleted User]

shaunr68 wrote: »

I have made it clear all along that Britain declared war because of the violation of Belgian neutrality.

How incredibly touching to discover that the very same British state which violated the independence of more peoples and countries than did any other state in recorded world history suddenly, as a matter of principle, had to defend the independence of "little Belgium" in 1914. Aw bless. Such honour, integrity and democracy from those ferociously principled humanitarians and democrats of British imperialism.

LordSutch

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.

it celebrates ... no

We certainly don't celebrate the dead on the 11th.

But we do remember & commemorate the tragic loss of life (Irish life in many cases).

shaunr68

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Will you go away out of that.
You multi quoted my post and put the reply directly under a line re britain entering the war for humanitarian reasons..

So you misinterpreted my post. The full paragraph reads:

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.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The meaning of your reply is clear as day. You attempted to paint Britain as some valiant defender of human rights in belgium/europe which could not be further from the truth.
Britain acted only in self interest.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. I confirmed, and provided proof that Britain declared war because Belgian independence was violated, which you had disputed. I never mentioned anything about some great humanitarian crusade.

The fact is that Britain acted upon treaty obligations. Whether doing so was the right or indeed the wrong thing to do at the time is contentious and up for debate. The reasoning for the DoW isn't.

brickmauser

Hermy wrote: »

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.

The France was a Republic and Britain was a Parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarchy.
Germany was effectively an absolutist monarchy presiding over by a militarist state with a rubber stamp and toothless Reichstag.
A Europe dominated by Germany had they won World War I would have been not dissimilar to the Third Reich.
Hitler gained so much support subsequent to 1918 because Prussian militarism since the days of Fredrick the Great and Bismark was about the racial.superiority of the Germans and the right as they saw it to rule inferior peoples.

Lt Dan

tipptom wrote: »

One of the Black and Tan arsonists around that area at the time would have been a lad you would later donate a lot of money to I am sure Lt Dan,
Capt "William Hill".

So see you did donate to the cause after all

My good man. That is no way to address a man of my standing. Give me 20

I was in Nam

tipptom

A Little Pony wrote: »

Another boring poppy thread yet again. Why the obsession?

Thanks Keith!

tipptom

Lt Dan wrote: »

Considering a lot of Cork, especially the City City was burned down by ex WW1 vets during the Tan War, it would be odd to see many poppies floating around the Great People's Republic

One of the Black and Tan arsonists around that area at the time would have been a lad you would later donate a lot of money to I am sure Lt Dan,
Capt "William Hill".

So see you did donate to the cause after all

[Deleted User]

shaunr68 wrote: »

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.

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.

Will you go away out of that.
You multi quoted my post and put the reply directly under a line re britain entering the war for humanitarian reasons.

The meaning of your reply is clear as day. You attempted to paint Britain as some valiant defender of human rights in belgium/europe which could not be further from the truth.
Britain acted only in self interest.

A Little Pony

Another boring poppy thread yet again. Why the obsession?

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.

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.

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.

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/

[Deleted User]

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?

[Deleted User]

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

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.

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............

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.

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.