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

billybudd

the_syco wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the IRA killed more Catholics than the british forces did.

BTW, which colour poppy are we talking about? The white one or the red one?

Being catholic is a nationality now?

Chuck Stone

the_syco wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the IRA killed more Catholics than the british forces did.

This ignores many things and is horribly reductive.

The loyalist death gangs got much of their weaponry and training from the UDR which was a regiment of the BA. Also, there was collusion between British security forces and loyalist death squads. How many deaths of Catholic civilians are attributable to this unholy alliance?

billybudd

noodler wrote: »

I don't wear one but I am very grateful for the British saving Ireland from certain invasion in the Second World War Two.

Britain would have been wiped out by the germans if it was a case of Britain v Germany. The allies i think as a whole maybe something you should br grateful of.

whatsthetime

billybudd wrote: »

Britain would have been wiped out by the germans if it was a case of Britain v Germany. The allies i think as a whole maybe something you should br grateful of.

Very true

golden lane

billybudd wrote: »

Britain would have been wiped out by the germans if it was a case of Britain v Germany. The allies i think as a whole maybe something you should br grateful of.

why did the germans not invade then.......????

were they just too nice....????

billybudd

golden lane wrote: »

why did the germans not invade then.......????

were they just too nice....????

Stragetic planning i guess. they had bigger fish to fry first probaly.

Judgement Day

billybudd wrote: »

Stragetic planning i guess. they had bigger fish to fry first probaly.

You should try reading a history book or two before posting again.

billybudd

Judgement Day wrote: »

You should try reading a history book or two before posting again.

really depends on what history books you believe.

golden lane

billybudd wrote: »

Stragetic planning i guess. they had bigger fish to fry first probaly.

you mean they couldn't beat the air force or navy....it was no longer a surprise......

so they took on the untermensch russians.....and got the shoite beaten out of them.......

they lost five million of their citizens........and great tracts of their country....

how clever is that......

Chuck Stone

golden lane wrote: »

why did the germans not invade then.......????

The English Channel.

Blitzkrieg was designed for land based rapid advancement warfare.

The British Navy.

The RAF.

The Eastern Front.

Hitler liked tea and crumpets and hoped to form an alliance with the British.

summerskin

billybudd wrote: »

really depends on what history books you believe.

Is that because Irish ones are the only accurate ones and not peddling. Anti-British propaganda?

billybudd

golden lane wrote: »

you mean they couldn't beat the air force or navy....it was no longer a surprise......

so they took on the untermensch russians.....and got the shoite beaten out of them.......

they lost five million of their citizens........and great tracts of their country....

how clever is that......

I never said they were clever, i gather from some history books they planned too but because of the position of Britain that they could not raise a superior air force as money was being spent else where in mainland europe to fight and ooccupy mainland europe countries first and when this was achieved to move onto islands when they had the rest of europe occupied.

billybudd

summerskin wrote: »

Is that because Irish ones are the only accurate ones and not peddling. Anti-British propaganda?

I never mentioned Irish history books, your apparent hatred of Ireland is ugly.

Judgement Day

billybudd wrote: »

I never said they were clever, i gather from some history books they planned too but because of the position of Britain that they could not raise a superior air force as money was being spent else where in mainland europe to fight and ooccupy mainland europe countries first and when this was achieved to move onto islands when they had the rest of europe occupied.

Don't know what books you found that in - any chance of a link?

Jimoslimos

Rhinocharge wrote: »

The red poppy symbolises the blood that was spilt in Flanders & was the seen to be the only flower to grow there afterwards.

The blood of one side only. Hardly a gesture symbolising the futility of war.

Rhinocharge wrote: »

Alot of Irish men fought in the Great War & many did not return. The poppy honours their memory, both those whom returned home & those whom sleep there still.

So did a lot of Germans, are their lives not worth honouring too? Nope only Irish and by extension the side they were fighting on matter.

The red poppy may have symbolised one thing but it raises money for another. Most people wouldn't have a problem attending a Holocaust memorial but many would rightly baulk if it was used to help fund Israeli Defence Force soldiers involved in battle with Palestinians. It would have become a political symbol - no different to what has happened with the poppy.

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Just got a huge poppy for the front of my car. Local reactions should be interesting.

I think this post pretty much sums up why (most) Irish people would wear a poppy.

Not to rememberer soldiers who died in the World Wars
Not to raise money for soldiers involved in recent conflicts.
But rather a misguided attempt to piss off the Shinners.

And a final point on the (unrelated to this thread) lily. I don't wear it, never have for a number of reasons, primarily

1) I have little idea who it raises funds for
2) if it is for the NGA, I don't see grave-tending as a particularly worthy cause.
3) The NGA aren't a charity

Disagreeing with the poppy and who it funds doesn't mean that by default I embrace a republican symbol.

billybudd

Judgement Day wrote: »

Don't what books you found that in - any chance of a link?

Various things i have read over the years, i will do my best to find them and link them when i had time.

Iwasfrozen

golden lane wrote: »

you mean they couldn't beat the air force or navy....it was no longer a surprise......

so they took on the untermensch russians.....and got the shoite beaten out of them.......

they lost five million of their citizens........and great tracts of their country....

how clever is that......

Don't be ridiculous. I don't doubt the British valour in the war but they were no match for the Germans on the field. This isn't surprising island nations tend to lose out against continental ones.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Whats that to do with the poppy?

Nothing.

Says a lot about people who wear the Lilly but chastise those who wear the poppy for commemorating murderers though.

I believe it is called hypocrisy.

Judgement Day

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. I don't doubt the British valour in the war but they were no match for the Germans on the field. This isn't surprising island nations tend to lose out against continental ones.

Like Agincourt http://www.britishbattles.com/100-years-war/agincourt.htm and Waterloo http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/waterloo-june-1815.htm I suppose. :rolleyes:

mattjack

Can we not just declare a truce, an armistice day ? maybe have a day of remembrance for all posters.

golden lane

celebrate the death of the celtic tiger...????

billybudd

Judgement Day wrote: »

Don't what know books you found that in - any chance of a link?

http://worldwar2questions.blogspot.ie/2007/06/could-germany-have-invaded-and.html

Thats quite an impartial view of one opinion, i will link some more in time, one of my points was that no one knows for sure why Britain was not invaded and there are many theories.

I still stand by original comment that if it was just Britain against Germany then Germany would have won just purely based on size, eventually they would have penetrated British land.

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

http://worldwar2questions.blogspot.ie/2007/06/could-germany-have-invaded-and.html

Thats quite an impartial view of one opinion, i will link some more in time, one of my points was that no one knows for sure why Britain was not invaded and there are many theories.

I still stand by original comment that if it was just Britain against Germany then Germany would have won just purely based on size, eventually they would have penetrated British land.

Maybe, Maybe not.

It does not detract from the bravery of the RAF, Royal Navy and Merchant navy who, for a time, stood alone against possibly the biggest evil Europe has ever seen,

Does it not?

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe, Maybe not.

It does not detract from the bravery of the RAF, Royal Navy and Merchant navy who, for a time,

stood alone against possibly the biggest evil Europe has ever seen,

Does it not?

Not arguing that.

No comment :pac:

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nothing.

Says a lot about people who wear the Lilly but chastise those who wear the poppy for commemorating murderers though.

I believe it is called hypocrisy.

So its another variation on the "but the belgians.../"but Gerry adams..." line. Fair enuffski.

Judgement Day

billybudd wrote: »

http://worldwar2questions.blogspot.ie/2007/06/could-germany-have-invaded-and.html

Thats quite an impartial view of one opinion, i will link some more in time, one of my points was that no one knows for sure why Britain was not invaded and there are many theories.

I still stand by original comment that if it was just Britain against Germany then Germany would have won just purely based on size, eventually they would have penetrated British land.

Not a very convincing link I'm afraid. Anyway without supremacy of the air the Germans were never going to be able to mount an invasion. The lack of suitable transport ships, the presence of the Royal Navy, the treacherous channel weather all combined to defer and eventually cancel the invasion plans. There's no doubt that Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was his eventual undoing but even had he managed to invade Britain there were contingency plans to fight on from Canada. The only way the Germans could have won the war was to have developed the A-bomb first and we can be might thankful they didn't as they wouldn't have been discriminating in using it. It's worth contemplating that if Britain had stayed out of the war, Hitler's scientists would have had all the time in the world to develop such weapons as the USA would also have stayed out.

billybudd

Judgement Day wrote: »

Not a very convincing link I'm afraid. Anyway without supremacy of the air the Germans were never going to be able to mount an invasion. The lack of suitable transport ships, the presence of the Royal Navy, the treacherous channel weather all combined to defer and eventually cancel the invasion plans. There's no doubt that Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was his eventual undoing but even had he managed to invade Britain there were contingency plans to fight on from Canada. The only way the Germans could have won the war was to have developed the A-bomb first and we can be might thankful they didn't as they wouldn't have been discriminating in using it. It's worth contemplating that if Britain had stayed out of the war, Hitler's scientists would have had all the time in the world to develop such weapons as the USA would also have stayed out.

Some fair points, but that is not really my original arguement,one on one, who would win?

There is plenty of theories though that hitler prioritised not only the USSR but the east of the world and after winning those battles then Britain would become a easy place to conquer even without having to do battle.

caste_in_exile

stop bein so exclusively embroiled in this stuff, Frederick.. spouting that poppycock have you discovered the make love not pawrn, thread for instance.

the_syco

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How many deaths of Catholic civilians are attributable to this unholy alliance?

My point; the IRA did a great job protecting the catholics by killing catholics without the BA & loyalst terrorist organisations help.

GRMA

What does any of this have to do with the IRA? Telling how the only response the British nationalists can come up with to the reality of their army is "but the IRA did x"