'The Haunting Soldier' sculpture vandalised

Lefty Bicek · 25-11-2018 09:14AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you've a train of thought, its very difficult to follow.

It really isn't.

I realise that not everyone here has had the privilege and advantage like myself, of the elite education that is Oxbridge, but this isn't so difficult. You can do it.

A conversation about Tom Barry brings forward his own words about his experiences and motivations of fighting both with, and against, the British Army.

A separate conversation touching on the complexity of our attitudes towards people we in some ways admire, but in other ways do not, brings forward a fairly striking quote from a well-known Irish patriot of very-roughly, the same time.

Focus on what is being said, rather than wasting time on futile attempts to find fault.

And par for the course, rather than acknowledging your faux pas, you had to make the fatuous remark at the end.

Roger Hassenforder · 25-11-2018 09:26AM

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It really isn't.

I realise that not everyone here has had the privilege and advantage like myself, of the elite education that is Oxbridge, but it isn't so difficult. You can do it.

A conversation about Tom Barry brings forward his own words about his experiences and motivations of fighting both with, and against, the British Army.

A separate conversation about the complexity of our attitudes towards people we in some ways admire, but in other ways do not, brings forward a fairly striking quote from a well-known Irish patriot of very-roughly, the same time.

Focus on what is being said, rather than wasting time on futile attempts to find fault.

And par forthe course course, rather than acknowledging your faux pas, you had to make the fatuous remark at the end.

(Says the grammar nazi! First in thread. And probably proud of it. What a hypocrite. Hillarious stuff.
*wipes tears)

Anyway, I'm just trying to follow your train of thought. It's a bit all over the gaff.

Beechwoodspark · 25-11-2018 09:56AM

StereoSound wrote: »

Pretty sure that's an Irish soldier statue, not a Brit. Someone put red paint on it, that's very sad but we have more compelling issues with those teen gangs of "reportedly" African heritage causing havoc in Balbriggan, threatening heavily pregnant women with broken glass bottles. That's an anti social issue requiring attention, not what some drunk teen probably did with his paintbrush.

Well said. This paint throwing issue is minor compared to very serious social problems we have in this country

Joe Duffy and his ilk should get their priorities right.

What is going on in the like of balbriggan is far more serious than someone tipping some paint on a statue.

Lefty Bicek · 25-11-2018 09:57AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

(Says the grammar Nazi! First in thread. And probably proud of it. What a hypocrite. Hilarious stuff.
*wipes tears)

Anyway, I'm just trying to follow your train of thought. It's a bit all over the gaff.

Your admission of difficulty reflects on either your abilities or your integrity here, and nothing else.

That is not my problem.

.

Lefty Bicek · 25-11-2018 10:12AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Well said. This paint throwing issue is minor compared to very serious social problems we have in this country

Joe Duffy and his ilk should get their priorities right.

What is going on in the like of balbriggan is far more serious than someone tipping some paint on a statue.

We can but hope.

The thing is, Joe Duffy is on a nice little earner with his maudlin 'bukes'. He enjoys the mawkish inclusivity.

Furthermore, his radio show generally indulges the hand-wringing tendency in this country that thinks the whole nation is disgraced by a bit of informed vandalism.

timthumbni · 25-11-2018 10:16AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There was a thread about him before, we had one of the prolific SF/IRA apologists argue for weeks about the use of the word pedophile in relation to Liam Adams, something along the lines of he shouldn't be called a pedophile because he only abused one child many times and not multiple children ergo he isnt a pedophile

That doesn’t surprise me one bit after all he was a “good republican” no matter how many kids he happened to rape.

It reminds me of the story of how some dopey family in the republic provided a safe house for an ira man on the run (probably after blowing up some kids)

Anyway he raped their child in the house whilst hiding there. I often wonder if they still consider this man a “good republican”

RandomName2 · 25-11-2018 10:36AM

Whiplash85 wrote: »

The revisionists trying to rewrite history again I see. These people that went fighting in WW1 were sold out by "passivist" John Redmond who liked to have his belly rubbed over in Westminister

I really wish I'd stopped reading at this point.

I suppose Daniel O'Connell and Parnell were traitors too?

Far right toxic nationalists like yourself crying about historic November criminals while claiming to be carrying the flame of true Irish patriotism.

whisky_galore · 25-11-2018 10:52AM

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

We can but hope.

The thing is, Joe Duffy is on a nice little earner with his maudlin 'bukes'. He enjoys the mawkish inclusivity.

Furthermore, his radio show generally indulges the hand-wringing tendency in this country that thinks the whole nation is disgraced by a bit of informed vandalism.

Yes. Because throwing a bucket of red paint is the mark of real intelligence.

This thread is pages upon pages of people triggered by something with British associations. Hatred of the 'auld enemy' is our version of Godwinning.

Lefty Bicek · 25-11-2018 11:04AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Yes. Because throwing a bucket of red paint is the mark of real intelligence.

It wouldn't be my course of action, especially in relation to a piece of private property which someone was generous enough to loan.

One thing is absolutely certain though - putting that piece there, was truly imbecilic. Head-in-the-clouds moronic.

It was so predictable what would happen.

This thread is pages upon pages of people triggered by something with British associations. Hatred of the 'auld enemy' is our version of Godwinning.

'Something with British associations' is certainly one way of characterising the British Army.

FrancieBrady · 25-11-2018 11:29AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Yes. Because throwing a bucket of red paint is the mark of real intelligence.

This thread is pages upon pages of people triggered by something with British associations. Hatred of the 'auld enemy' is our version of Godwinning.

Nobody has adequately explained what is wrong with hating warmongering here.

We have had plenty of deflection, angry defence of Blighty, the usual 'shinner bot' allegations etc etc from the usual suspects (they are flat out trying to drag the thread around to their usual subject :rolleyes:), but we haven't yet have anybody explain what is wrong with not wanting this country to turn into a hotbed of unchallenged support for militarism and support for an army that is STILL used to belligerent pursue the interests of Britain.

RandomName2 · 25-11-2018 11:36AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has adequately explained what is wrong with hating warmongering here.

We have had plenty of deflection, angry defence of Blighty, the usual 'shinner bot' allegations etc etc from the usual suspects (they are flat out trying to drag the thread around to their usual subject :rolleyes:), but we haven't yet have anybody explain what is wrong with not wanting this country to turn into a hotbed of unchallenged support for militarism and support for an army that is STILL used to belligerent pursue the interests of Britain.

You do actively support Sinn Fein though, and yet you have failed to show anybody here (or anywhere else, but that's besides the point) supporting war. You just take it as given. Someone says it was a pity that so many people died in WW1 and you say 'WHY DO YOU SUPPORT IMPERIALIST WARMONGERING'.

I mean, we all know why you're doing it, but you could at least be a bit more creative.

FrancieBrady · 25-11-2018 11:40AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

You actively support Sinn Fein, yet you have failed to show anybody here (or anywhere else, but that's besides the point) supporting war. You just take it as given. Someone says it was a pity that so many people died in WW1 and you say 'WHY DO YOU SUPPORT IMPERIALIST WARMONGERING'.

I mean, we all know why you're doing it, but you could at least be a bit more creative.

That is just another deflection, could you try and be a little self aware?

I have already explained why I think this is 'supportive' rather than critical of militarism and war mongering.

Do you at least agree that Britain has been and still is a nation that goes looking for war and strife - that it has a need for this to support the spending it makes and the money it makes from it?
If you could tell us your opinion of the above - give some reasoning and stay away from the petty deflections, that would be good for the conversation.

Dyr · 25-11-2018 11:55AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you at least agree that Britain has been and still is a nation that goes looking for war and strife - that it has a need for this to support the spending it makes and the money it makes from it?
If you could tell us your opinion of the above - give some reasoning and stay away from the petty deflections, that would be good for the conversation.

It is kind of odd though that every memorial about World War 1 that these people champion always happens to also fetishize the British Army. And then on Boards the posters who are most defensive about these British Army memorials have a history of enthusiasm for all things Imperial or at least an aversion to all thing Republican (or "Shinner", which in an apt term given their forebears were also throwing it around a century ago

). it's almost as if there's some agenda at play other than solely a concern for remembering the poor chaps who got slaughtered.

Weird eh?

Makes you wonder if there was a memorial that divorced the dead from the empire they died for would these lads display the same enthusiasm for it

FrancieBrady · 25-11-2018 12:04PM

Bambi wrote: »

It is kind of odd though that every memorial about World War 1 that these people champion always happens to also fetishize the British Army. And then on Boards the posters who are most defensive about these British Army memorials have a history of enthusiasm for all things Imperial or at least an aversion to all thing Republican (or "Shinner", which in an apt term given their forebears were also throwing it around a century ago ). it's almost as if there's some agenda at play other than solely a concern for remembering the poor chaps who got slaughtered.

Weird eh?

Makes you wonder if there was a memorial that divorced the dead from the empire they died for would these lads display the same enthusiasm for it

It is very true that you can count the same guys onto threads like this, the ones that desperately try to deflect them from an examination of what these gestures(the gallant soldier thinly disguised as an empire soldier) are designed to do/achieve.
I make no apology for coming onto these threads to object and argue against any rehabilitation of this empire while it still operates belligerently in the world.

Which is why I asked RandomName the question. Let's see if he/she can offer an opinion without the usual silly 'shinner bot' deflection.
For the record, I am not a member of SF, I am a republican Irish man, fully aware that republicanism has not always done the right thing or that it has not made tragic mistakes, like those that responded to the call of empire did 100 years ago.

RandomName2 · 25-11-2018 12:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is just another deflection, could you try and be a little self aware?

You say that there is a baseless accusation that people of a certain persuasion are parroting republican views for the sake of political ideology. I fail to see how it's baseless. If you think it's a deflection, then don't bring it up.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have already explained why I think this is 'supportive' rather than critical of militarism and war mongering.

Did you? Sigh.

Okay, you made me look, and I'm not seeing it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, there is an inordinate focus on it imo = reveling in it. You can revel in misery Roger, you know.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because that is what I see.
People reveling in massive death and carnage.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This obscene reveling in ignominious death and death because of criminal behaviour is wrong on all levels.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reveling in the 'gallantry' and 'honour' of what was ignominious death is the archaic pursuit tbh.

Right, I mean is this it? Repeating the idea that it's reveling in death. That's circular logic right there. You also say that it does not say anything explicit, in writing, against the war. That indeed is true, but I think it's a bit of a leap to go from that, to saying that it actively supports war.

Rowan Gillespie's famine sculptures say nothing, in writing, about the famine. The fact that it portrays victims of the famine could be argued that it is reveling in the famine, I imagine, but that would probably be a flawed reading.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you at least agree that Britain has been and still is a nation that goes looking for war and strife - that it has a need for this to support the spending it makes and the money it makes from it?

Okay, so just that you know, you are slightly straying from the Republican position here, which could make things awkward for you going forward.

'Looking for war and strife' is an obviously poor way to phrase it. All of the large countries on Earth, and even a couple of supranational organisations, are keen to exercise their control over as much as the can, and to pursue self-serving policies that are likely to make other people less well off. These nations are often liable to use physical strength to ensure success in these endeavors.

War and strife are not what's actually being looked for here, but war and strife are usually a consequence of such actions. The UK has, and still is, one such country to be guilty of this.

Granted that in the Crimean War, WW1, and WW2 the UK was 'the aggressor' despite not looking for material wealth, but rather to maintain balances of power. However, one could argue that were again motived by self-interest (particularly the first two wars).

Most geopolitical manipulation is strictly political, and that's always the preference of governments like the UK when dealing with other large nations. The UK would have been happy enough to sacrifice Serbia in WW1, or Czechoslovakia in WW2, if either had led to lasting political solutions.

FrancieBrady · 25-11-2018 12:23PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

You say that there is a baseless accusation that people of a certain persuasion are parroting republican views for the sake of political ideology. I fail to see how it's baseless. If you think it's a deflection, then don't bring it up.

Did you? Sigh.

Okay, you made me look, and I'm not seeing it.

Right, I mean is this it? Repeating the idea that it's reveling in death. That's circular logic right there. You also say that it does not say anything explicit, in writing, against the war. That indeed is true, but I think it's a bit of a leap to go from that, to saying that it actively supports war.

Rowan Gillespie's famine sculptures say nothing, in writing, about the famine. The fact that it portrays victims of the famine could be argued that it is reveling in the famine, I imagine, but that would probably be a flawed reading.

Do you think that 100 years after a war that slaughtered so many that it might be time for us as a people to question why that war happened and who criminally sent a generation to ignominious death?
Instead of the great pretence that we 'are remembering or still feel personally bereaved' by deaths that happened many generations ago. All wars resulted in the deaths of many many people, yet we choose one 'great war' to remember intensely.

Okay, so just that you know, you are slightly straying from the Republican position here, which could make things awkward for you going forward.

'Looking for war and strife' is an obviously poor way to phrase it. All of the large countries on Earth, and even a couple of supranational organisations, are keen to exercise their control over as much as the can, and to pursue self-serving policies that are likely to make other people less well off. These nations are often liable to use physical strength to ensure success in these endeavors.

War and strife are not what's actually being looked for here, but war and strife are usually a consequence of such actions. The UK has, and still is, one such country to be guilty of this.

Granted that in the Crimean War, WW1, and WW2 the UK was 'the aggressor' despite not looking for material wealth, but rather to maintain balances of power. However, one could argue that were again motived by self-interest (particularly the first two wars).

Most geopolitical manipulation is strictly political, and that's always the preference of governments like the UK when dealing with other large nations. The UK would have been happy enough to sacrifice Serbia in WW1, or Czechoslovakia in WW2, if either had led to lasting political solutions.

You haven't given an opinion of these endeavours. Because that is precisely what the 'poppy frenzy' supports and which many many citizens of one of those countries (Britain) object to and which a minority cohort wish to establish as a yearly 'frenzy' here.

RandomName2 · 25-11-2018 12:32PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think that 100 years after a war that slaughtered so many that it might be time for us as a people to question why that war happened and who criminally sent a generation to ignominious death?

Yes.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Instead of the great pretence that we 'are remembering or still feel personally bereaved' by deaths that happened many generations ago. All wars resulted in the deaths of many many people, yet we choose one 'great war' to remember intensely.

This comes off a bit hollow given how heated the discussion has become about it here. Besides which, centenaries are important. This should come as no surprise. Also, WW1 was arguably the worst war in Europe for several hundred years. WW2 certainly rivals it, but since WW1 directly led to WW2, it sort of wins out on those stakes.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You haven't given an opinion of these endeavours. Because that is precisely what the 'poppy frenzy' supports and which many many citizens of one of those countries (Britain) object to and which a minority cohort wish to establish as a yearly 'frenzy' here.

Stop with the poppy obsession.

FrancieBrady · 25-11-2018 12:41PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes.

So why the objections and anger here if anybody is critical of obscuring that debate with trite, tear jerking emotional manipulation of people that these statues and visually awesome displays are.
We all know and shouldn't need to be told that soldiers came home exhausted and destroyed by the war they had just taken part in.

This comes off a bit hollow given how heated the discussion has become about it here. Besides which, centenaries are important. This should come as no surprise. Also, WW1 was arguably the worst war in Europe for several hundred years. WW2 certainly rivals it, but since WW1 directly led to WW2, it sort of wins out on those stakes.

We just had an inclusive, thoughtful and non triumphalist centenary in this country. And there will be more.
They can be done in meaningful ways. And an over indulgence in militarism and reveling in the misery of death is not the way to do it.
Generalising that all military input is to be honoured is also the wrong way to do it too.

Stop with the poppy obsession.

And the accusatory deflection because you don't want to discuss it, how apt that you finish with that! :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_ · 25-11-2018 12:59PM

So I've read a bit more here..

All this rubbish from our republican posters about poppies and quoting letters from the 20s to support their outdated arguments :rolleyes:

Do you really think that had the Germans/Axis been victorious in either war that they would have given a toss about the conflict on this island? We would have been absorbed into the Reich - nationalists and unionists alike.

Thankfully there were men who were able to see the bigger picture and who went out to fight and against that happening and defend their homeland and way of life - imperfect as it may have been.

The real 'traitors' here are those who would attempt to rewrite or denigrate their sacrifices and legacy because they can't get over the massive chip on their shoulders about "de Brits" :rolleyes:

Dyr · 25-11-2018 01:10PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So I've read a bit more here..

All this rubbish from our republican posters about poppies and quoting letters from the 20s to support their outdated arguments :rolleyes:

Do you really think that had the Germans/Axis been victorious in either war that they would have given a toss about the conflict on this island? We would have been absorbed into the Reich - nationalists and unionists alike.

Thankfully there were men who were able to see the bigger picture and who went out to fight and against that happening and defend their homeland and way of life - imperfect as it may have been.

The real 'traitors' here are those who would attempt to rewrite or denigrate their sacrifices and legacy because they can't get over the massive chip on their shoulders about "de Brits" :rolleyes:

Indeed, if it wasn't for those lads defending our liberty we'd all be speaking a foreign language and our homeland would be absorbed into an empire.

Oh wait...:D

Lefty Bicek · 25-11-2018 01:11PM

Bambi wrote: »

Indeed, if it wasn't for those lads defending our liberty we'd all be speaking a foreign language and our homeland would be absorbed into an empire.

Oh wait...:D

:D:D

Quality.

25-11-2018 01:20PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Do you really think that had the Germans/Axis been victorious in either war that they would have given a toss about the conflict on this island?

Edward Carson: "What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.". Evidence the British ruling classes ALREADY didn't give a toss about the conflict on this island.

We would have been absorbed into the Reich - nationalists and unionists alike.

We WERE already in this situation under British rule.

Thankfully there were men who were able to see the bigger picture and who went out to fight and against that happening and defend their homeland and way of life - imperfect as it may have been.

The real 'traitors' here are those who would attempt to rewrite or denigrate their sacrifices and legacy because they can't get over the massive chip on their shoulders about "de Brits" :rolleyes:

I'll happily acknowledge they died in the most horrific conditions possible and that specifically should be remembered, but considering the British were willing (and did) to flatten the centre of Dublin right in the middle of WW1 I'll dismiss the rest of your observations as puppy dog eyed guff.

RandomName2 · 25-11-2018 01:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Edward Carson: "What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.". Evidence the British ruling classes ALREADY didn't give a toss about the conflict on this island.

I've said multiple times that England or British ruling classes have never cared about Ireland except to deny it to other empires due to the threat another empire would pose in such close proximity.

Deleted User wrote: »

We WERE already in this situation under British rule.

Are you serious? In WW2 we were very much independent, and during WW1 some form of independence was written on the wall. As for speaking the language of the oppressor, that's its own rabbit hole, but regardless a fairly ridiculous analogy. People had to speak English in public, but spoke a different language at home? We'll be getting into a 'Why don't Americans speak Cherokee?' argument in a minute.

Anyway Kaiser is (slightly ironic username in the circumstances) slightly wrong about WW1. Germany had no interest in Ireland. It's a small island, too far away to easily control, and without any important natural resources, that has no cultural ties to Germany.

Germany did consider annexing the Netherlands in the event of winning WW1. That was a more realistic ambition of there's, and one liable to make them a lot more rich and powerful.

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-11-2018 01:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think that 100 years after a war that slaughtered so many that it might be time for us as a people to question why that war happened and who criminally sent a generation to ignominious death?
Instead of the great pretence that we 'are remembering or still feel personally bereaved' by deaths that happened many generations ago. All wars resulted in the deaths of many many people, yet we choose one 'great war' to remember intensely.

Its remembered BECAUSE of the futility and needless deaths, this seems to float straightover your head though as you're too blinkered in your little republican opinion.

You haven't given an opinion of these endeavours. Because that is precisely what the 'poppy frenzy' supports and which many many citizens of one of those countries (Britain) object to and which a minority cohort wish to establish as a yearly 'frenzy' here.

Explain how it's a "frenzy" there please. Do you have poppy sellers on the streets? In bars/clubs? Do you see poppies on lapels when you walk down the street?

RandomName2 · 25-11-2018 01:47PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Explain how it's a "frenzy" there please. Do you have poppy sellers on the streets? In bars/clubs? Do you see poppies on lapels when you walk down the street?

View from FrancieBrady's window

Red%2BSea%2Bof%2BPoppies%252C%2BWorchestershire%252C%2BEngland%2B%25283%2529.jpg

25-11-2018 01:47PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Are you serious? In WW2 we were very much independent, and during WW1 some form of independence was written on the wall. As for speaking the language of the oppressor, that's its own rabbit hole, but regardless a fairly ridiculous analogy. People had to speak English in public, but spoke a different language at home? We'll be getting into a 'Why don't Americans speak Cherokee?' argument in a minute.

Anyway Kaiser is (slightly ironic username in the circumstances) slightly wrong about WW1. Germany had no interest in Ireland. It's a small island, too far away to easily control, and without any important natural resources, that has no cultural ties to Germany.

Germany did consider annexing the Netherlands in the event of winning WW1. That was a more realistic ambition of there's, and one liable to make them a lot more rich and powerful.

Well we were ruled from a parliament in London with no local legislature whatsoever, and if they were really serious about giving us some form of independence why didn't the British negotiate directly with the Dail that emerged in January 1919 instead of declaring it 'illegal' with all the consequences that followed?

Dyr · 25-11-2018 01:49PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Its remembered BECAUSE of the futility and needless deaths, this seems to float straightover your head though as you're too blinkered in your little republican opinion.

Explain how it's a "frenzy" there please. Do you have poppy sellers on the streets? In bars/clubs? Do you see poppies on lapels when you walk down the street?

You keep using the term "republican" in really strange way. Most people in this country are republican, it is, after all, a republic. Odd that you think its a term of abuse. Well, actually it's not odd at all, consistent with a post colonial unionist viewpoint I suppose.

FrancieBrady · 25-11-2018 01:57PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Its remembered BECAUSE of the futility and needless deaths, this seems to float straightover your head though as you're too blinkered in your little republican opinion.

Explain how it's a "frenzy" there please. Do you have poppy sellers on the streets? In bars/clubs? Do you see poppies on lapels when you walk down the street?

Plenty happened on this island that was 'futile and needless' but would Timberrrrr allow that to be remembered respectfully?

And the whole point of my objection is that this 'orgy of revelling' has nothing to do with regret or futility but has everything to do with keeping the empire and what it stands for to front and centre and to promote further modern imperialism.
Look to the state of Britain today and the realisation of it's place in Europe not to mention the World and you will see that this dangerous mentality is on the rise.
It is up to us, who suffered at the hands of this belligerent uncaring imperial power, to call out any rise of it again. The resurgance of the poppy fascists in recent times being one example.

HalloweenJack · 25-11-2018 02:13PM

I am a pacifist and loathe war in all its manifestations.

However, Irish people died fighting in WWI and WWII, for whatever reason it was, they did. I don't have a problem with some kind of recognition of that. There is a memorial to the dead from both world wars in Bray and I've never heard people complain about it.

t doesn't have to necesitate a debate about the whys, can't we just recognise that Irish citizens died fighting in a war? After all, we are, in theory, a neutral country. No Irish citizen should have to die in any way, regardless who they're fighting for.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 25-11-2018 02:23PM

Anyone going in to 'the Green for the stand down ceremony and last post this afternoon?.

Heading in myself.

The army's number 1 band will play and there'll be an honor guard, and the Last Post will close things. It should be pretty special.

This will be my second time to visit the statue, its really breath taking how the artists brought scrap metal to life.

'The Haunting Soldier' sculpture vandalised

Comments