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; } } }

Why would an Irish person wear a poppy ?

thecommietommy

After all it's for a foreign army, I don't see anyone wearing an emblem for the French, American, Spanish army. Ok some say it's for charity for injured British soldiers, but surely if they join up it's up to the British govt to properly look after them when they are injured and not pestering people expecting charity ?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They obviously forgot to announce your appointment as a moderator:rolleyes:

Moderator? None of that low level malarkey for me, I'm going in right at the top.

Say hi to your new Supreme Overlord Ayatollah Admin

Conall Cernach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Someone who wears an Easter Lilly is in no position to criticise someone for wearing a poppy.

The two are not equal. The Lily is for those that fought for Irish Freedom (i.e. the good guys). The Poppy is for those that fought for imperialism. You may as well say that the Croix de Lorraine and the Swastika are equivalent.

Jimoslimos

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The two are not equal. The Lily is for those that fought for Irish Freedom (i.e. the good guys). The Poppy is for those that fought for imperialism. You may as well say that the Croix de Lorraine and the Swastika are equivalent.

I don't actually agree with that sentiment. It's rather simplistic (and usually wrong) to break down a conflict into good and bad sides.

Did the Soviets suddenly become a shining beacon of all that is good when they turned on the Nazis. Like hell they did. Rarely does any side's reputation come out any better after war - that includes the British Army, Irish republicans, etc.

Fratton Fred

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The two are not equal. The Lily is for those that fought for Irish Freedom (i.e. the good guys). The Poppy is for those that fought for imperialism. You may as well say that the Croix de Lorraine and the Swastika are equivalent.

Who exactly are the good guys and who is fighting for imperialism.

Are the British Soldiers killed liberating Kuwait from Iraq, or preventing a school for girls in Afghanistan being bombed fighting for imperialism?

How exactly did placing bombs in two cast iron bins in Warrington high street further the cause of "Irish Freedom" and why should the people who did that be commemorated? What about the mastermind behind the murder of four people in Coventry aged between 15 and 82? should he be commemorated with the easter Lilly?

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

Is there a hierarchical of child victims? Its ok to fund and remember with praise child killers from the BA but its stomach churning to do the same for republicans?

Yep, I think army child killers are much nicer than IRA ones, that's exactly it.

You realise how dumb that sounds?

There should be no doubt that child killers from whichever background should be condemned. However poppy funds do go to soldiers who murdered children in NI (in Irish context), you see the problem now with the red poppy? If the red poppy only represented BA soldiers in WWI, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

Yep I see the problem which is why somebody who sympathises with one bunch of child murderers condemning the other bunch for murdering children is laughable.

bobbysands81

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, I think army child killers are much nicer than IRA ones, that's exactly it.

You realise how dumb that sounds?

Yep I see the problem which is why somebody who sympathises with one bunch of child murderers condemning the other bunch for murdering children is laughable.

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

Japer

gurramok wrote: »

Is there a hierarchical of child victims? Its ok to fund and remember with praise child killers from the BA but its stomach churning to do the same for republicans?

To put things in context, millions of people from many different countries - Scotland, Ireland, England, all the commonwealth countries etc - have served in the army, air force, navy etc during WW! and later conflicts. How many of these millions of people were "child killers"? Extremely few, and probably a lower percentage than the general population, and a lower percentage than other legitimate armed forces around the world. Maybe you think G7 countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

old_aussie

I don't think the Irish have earned the right to wear a poppy

Japer

old_aussie wrote: »

I don't think the Irish have earned the right to wear a poppy

Hundreds of thousands of Irish people fought with the allies - mostly - British armed forces - in WW1 and WW2 and other conflicts. Do not tar everyone in Ireland with the same brush.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Someone who wears an Easter Lilly is in no position to criticise someone for wearing a poppy.

Why? Does the lilly commemorate all who served in the Irish Imperial Forces?

bobbysands81

Japer wrote: »

To put things in context, millions of people from many different countries - Scotland, Ireland, England, all the commonwealth countries etc - have served in the army, air force, navy etc during WW! and later conflicts. How many of these millions of people were "child killers"? Extremely few, and probably a lower percentage than the general population, and a lower percentage than other legitimate armed forces around the world. Maybe you think G7 countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

Every country has a right to protect itself, it's when they start invading other countries that they cross the line. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

Why anyone would want to join an Army just to see 'action' is beyond me. Murder should never b a career.

gurramok

Japer wrote: »

To put things in context, millions of people from many different countries - Scotland, Ireland, England, all the commonwealth countries etc - have served in the army, air force, navy etc during WW! and later conflicts. How many of these millions of people were "child killers"? Extremely few, and probably a lower percentage than the general population, and a lower percentage than other legitimate armed forces around the world. Maybe you think G7 countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

If its 0.1% or 50% of the army engaging in child killing, there is no moral superiority especially when there was not a single prosecution for murder of said soldiers.

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

You hit me, I kill your children and it's all your fault for hitting me in the first place?

Doesn't sound quite right to me.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who exactly are the good guys and who is fighting for imperialism.

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

The ones in Iraq were fighting to an extend the US hegemony. I like the way you cherry pick conflicts out of the last hundred years.

LordSutch

Somebody was talking about empires.

Roman Empire
Dutch Empire
British Empire
French Empire
Russian Empire
Spanish Empire
Ottoman Empire

Lots of Empires over the centuries, and one could even argue that the US currently has an Empire.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Why? Does the lilly commemorate all who served in the Irish Imperial Forces?

:rolleyes:

Japer

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why anyone would want to join an Army just to see 'action' is beyond me.

I think most who join would hope not to see "action" / get killed / injured.
I would not expect you to understand why people would join armed forces ( army/navy etc ) to fight against Nazism / Communism / invasion of Kuwait or whatever.
Maybe some join not to be on the dole / a drain on their country, and wish to earn money?

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Murder should never b a career.

Do you think countries with democtatically elected governments, and a respected legal system, should not have an army / navy / air force?

I agree murder should never be a career. What career did your idols have who "volunteered" to bomb Warrington, Le Mons, Enniskillen, Bloody Friday, Kingsmills etc ...and did they not kill more civilians than 99.9% of the millions of people who served in the British army + navy?

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

The ones in Iraq were fighting to an extend the US hegemony. I like the way you cherry pick conflicts out of the last hundred years.

why not, you have been doing it consistently over this thread.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Somebody was talking about empires.

Roman Empire
Dutch Empire
British Empire
French Empire
Russian Empire
Spanish Empire
Ottoman Empire

Lots of Empires over the centuries, and one could even argue that the US currently has an Empire.

Yep. Name one - other than the British - that has people defending it on a regular basis. Or a semi-regular basis. Or ever.

gallag

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

Takes balls to plant bombs in civilian shopping centers???? Wtf is wrong with you man?

Serious question, why did the IRA not just target military targets?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why not, you have been doing it consistently over this thread.

Britain had an Empire. Thousands upon thousands of troops were involved in its maintenance. The majority of Britians military involvement has been colonial and I'm merely pointing out the fact.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You hit me, I kill your children and it's all your fault for hitting me in the first place?

Doesn't sound quite right to me.

You think that's a fair analogy?

Read some Irish history and come back to me.

Nodin

gallag wrote: »

Takes balls to plant bombs in civilian shopping centers???? Wtf is wrong with you man?

Serious question, why did the IRA not just target military targets?

Are they in receipt of poppy funds now?

bobbysands81

gallag wrote: »

Takes balls to plant bombs in civilian shopping centers???? Wtf is wrong with you man?

Serious question, why did the IRA not just target military targets?

Can you point me to where I said this was ok?

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Name one - other than the British - that has people defending it on a regular basis. Or a semi-regular basis. Or ever.

No idea, could be many people could be none? would take for ever to find out I reckon.

Japer

Nodin wrote: »

Britain had an Empire. Thousands upon thousands of troops were involved in its maintenance. .

and millions of people - including a few hundred thousand Irish people - fought in Brith uniforms and were pround to do so. They defended these islands against other empires

K-9

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's quite simple mate, nobody should have been killed on this island, children or not. If this island had not been colonised then nobody would have had reason to fight back. Take away the reasons for war and there is no war... but don't blame people for organising and having the balls to fight back.

Yeah that's great, didn't really address my point but wasn't expecting it tbh.

GRMA

Japer wrote: »

and millions of people - including a few hundred thousand Irish people - fought in Brith uniforms and were pround to do so. They defended these islands against other empires

What did we have to fear from other empires? Like France? They wanted to help us.

Japer

GRMA wrote: »

What did we have to fear from other empires?

All the European countries had Empires : Belgium, Germany, France, Spain. Portugal etc. We were part of the UK, and Irish people made up a third of the admonistration of India, for example. In the 20th century, we had much to fear from the like of Germany and Russia, and hundreds of thousands of Irish people fought against those empires....if they did not / nobody did, its almost certain your life would be a lot worse.;)

GRMA

Japer wrote: »

All the European countries had Empires : Belgium, Germany, France, Spain. Portugal etc. We were part of the UK, and Irish people made up a third of the admonistration of India, for example. In the 20th century, we had much to fear from the like of Germany and Russia, and hundreds of thousands of Irish people fought against those empires....if they did not / nobody did, its almost certain your life would be a lot worse.;)

Ah yeah, things were fine and dandy in the ritish empire and sure things got even better after the act of union. You should read a history book.