Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Celtic FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15 Mod Warning post #6011

1201202204206207334

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Hagar the Nice.


    I
    So what your saying is even Irishmen are wrong to see him as a killer of innocents. Because all I see is a man who may or may not have pulled the trigger or may or may not have planted or built the bomb. He was part of them so is just as guilty. I don't see him as a freedom fighter because his ilk spawned the likes of Omagh and for me any feelings that him and others like him may have been in some way worthwhile died and I know many Irishmen who want a united Ireland as I do feel the same
    So am I right in saying that you see a difference between Bobby Sands and Nelson Mandela?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Are we still debating this ****?
    The comparison between Wallace and Sands is wrong.
    In England, Wallace is still classed as a criminal. He was executed for acts which would be covered by terrorism charges now.
    He has never been absolved in any way of these crimes.

    So a man who fought against England is seen, by England, as a criminal.
    Sands, who fought against the UK which currently includes Scotland is seen, by the UK as a terrorist.

    To compare Wallace and Sands is a false comparison and while people have every right to be proud of their Irish roots and history the must remember also that they're actually living in the UK, and that cultural differences and viewpoints will happen with regards to a war between those countries.
    Maybe they should try sticking Osama Bin Laden on their next banner in place of Sands? See how that goes?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    so in your opinion location is the difference between bobby sands, william wallace and osama bin laden.. odd viewpoint


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    I
    So what your saying is even Irishmen are wrong to see him as a killer of innocents. Because all I see is a man who may or may not have pulled the trigger or may or may not have planted or built the bomb. He was part of them so is just as guilty. I don't see him as a freedom fighter because his ilk spawned the likes of Omagh and for me any feelings that him and others like him may have been in some way worthwhile died and I know many Irishmen who want a united Ireland as I do feel the same

    Even Irishmen can be ignorant of Irish History! The more you read bout Irish History, quite simply, the 'greyer' it gets. The saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is very apt. Taking exception to someone like Bobby Sands being described as a freedom fighter displays ignorance about Irish History imo. Thats what I'm saying.
    Eirebear wrote: »
    Are we still debating this ****?
    The comparison between Wallace and Sands is wrong.
    In England, Wallace is still classed as a criminal. He was executed for acts which would be covered by terrorism charges now.
    He has never been absolved in any way of these crimes.

    So a man who fought against England is seen, by England, as a criminal.

    Sands, who fought against the UK which currently includes Scotland is seen, by the UK as a terrorist.

    To compare Wallace and Sands is a false comparison and while people have every right to be proud of their Irish roots and history the must remember also that they're actually living in the UK, and that cultural differences and viewpoints will happen with regards to a war between those countries.
    Maybe they should try sticking Osama Bin Laden on their next banner in place of Sands? See how that goes?

    How is Wallace viewed by the Scottish & Irish?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    so in your opinion location is the difference between bobby sands, william wallace and osama bin laden.. odd viewpoint

    My opinion? No.
    But my opinion doesn't really come into it.

    But lets simplify it even further eh?
    The organisation under which Sands fought for, fought against and killed Scots.
    Whether you or I agree with his ideology makes absolutely no difference, you can't expect Scotland to turn around and say 'ach, he was awrite actually'.
    Can you?

    Countries don't tend to like their people being killed. Its a strange thing.
    Dempsey wrote: »
    Even Irishmen can be ignorant of Irish History! The more you read bout Irish History, quite simply, the 'greyer' it gets. The saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is very apt. Taking exception to someone like Bobby Sands being described as a freedom fighter displays ignorance about Irish History imo. Thats what I'm saying.

    Doesn't that swing both ways though?
    Glasgow isn't in Ireland, isn't it showing a certain ignorance to claim some sort of oppression when the powers that be suggest he is a criminal?
    Dempsey wrote: »



    How is Wallace viewed by the Scottish & Irish?

    The Irish don't really come into it with regards to Wallace, he didn't fight for or against them as far as I'm aware.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    well the banner was made by scots so... your point is kind of invalid


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    well the banner was made by scots so... your point is kind of invalid

    Scots claiming that their "Irish Culture" is being oppressed.

    So not really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Doesn't that swing both ways though?
    Glasgow isn't in Ireland, isn't it showing a certain ignorance to claim some sort of oppression when the powers that be suggest he is a criminal?

    The British Empire/UK dont have the best track record of labelling who & what was/is a terrorist/criminal tbh. Its often propaganda for an ulterior motive. I'm sure you know all the prominent examples of this. Why should anyone take them at their word?

    RE Bolded: Its ignorance to suggest that oppression didnt happen or the extent of it was fabricated.
    Eirebear wrote: »
    The Irish don't really come into it with regards to Wallace, he didn't fight for or against them as far as I'm aware.

    So they Irish cant have an opinion on Wallace, interesting...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    The British Empire/UK dont have the best track record of labelling who & what was/is a terrorist/criminal tbh. Its often propaganda for an ulterior motive.

    RE Bolded: Its ignorance to suggest that oppression didnt happen or the extent of it was fabricated.



    So they Irish cant have an opinion on Wallace, interesting...

    You're kind of missing my point here.
    All I'm trying to do is strip things back to simple logic, I'm putting absolutely none of my own feelings or opinions towards the men mentioned into it and trying to see things without being clouded by any of those opinions.

    I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative and certainly not denying any historical oppression or wrongdoing - but let's not belittle that by suggesting that the banners we're talking about are anywhere near that level.

    And yes, of course Ireland as a nation can have an opinion - it just doesn't really come into this particular equation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Scots claiming that their "Irish Culture" is being oppressed.

    So not really.

    so only scots with a unionist mindset count in your eyes?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    so only scots with a unionist mindset count in your eyes?

    See above post regarding missing my point, except add "By a mile" to it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Scots claiming that their "Irish Culture" is being oppressed.

    So not really.

    Scots can have Irish backgrounds so yes, they can feel that their "Irish Culture" as you put it is being oppressed, stigmatized or even criminalized. The Brits would never do that, would they....:eek::rolleyes:

    As I said earlier in this thread, the UK had a very muddled idea of what freedom of speech is these days.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Scots can have Irish backgrounds so yes, they can feel that their "Irish Culture" as you put it is being oppressed, stigmatized or even criminalized. The Brits would never do that, would they....:eek::rolleyes:

    As I said earlier in this thread, the UK had a very muddled idea of what freedom of speech is these days.

    Yes, but at what point should Irish Culture be allowed to celebrate acts of violence (Terrorism or Freedom Fighter, they're still violence) against the country they are standing in?
    To go back to my example from when the banner was initially raised - can you imagine a similar scenario with Serbian nationals of Croat descent raising banners of Ante Gotovina in Belgrade?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Yes, but at what point should Irish Culture be allowed to celebrate acts of violence (Terrorism or Freedom Fighter, they're still violence) against the country they are standing in?
    To go back to my example from when the banner was initially raised - can you imagine a similar scenario with Serbian nationals of Croat descent raising banners of Ante Gotovina in Belgrade?

    Doesnt the English & Scottish National Anthems celebrate wins on the battlefield? Rebel songs dont incite violence or hatred no more than they do.

    The squabbling over these songs and others come down to each side choosing to be offended and then using the UK's poorly conceived laws on the matter to get petty one-upmanship and it has descended from there. There are exceptions of course.

    The UK claims to protect multiculturalism & freedom of speech through policies enacted by government. Does Serbia claim the same?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Doesnt the English & Scottish National Anthems celebrate wins on the battlefield? Rebel songs dont incite violence or hatred no more than they do.

    The squabbling over these songs and others come down to each side choosing to be offended and then using the UK's poorly conceived laws on the matter to get petty one-upmanship and it has descended from there. There are exceptions of course.

    The UK claims to protect multiculturalism & freedom of speech through policies enacted by government. Does Serbia claim the same?

    Your not really responding to my question here, songs aren't really the subject here as the waters become a lot more muddied when the various interpretations come into play.
    (I do agree though, petty squabbling and one upmanship along with rushed laws)

    The banner is a pointed statement in support of a man who carried out acts of violence against the country the banner appeared in.
    Surely we can see that there was always going to be a reaction to that?
    Again, all I'm trying to do is talk through this logically, I'm not interested in apportioning blame for wars and conflicts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Even Irishmen can be ignorant of Irish History! The more you read bout Irish History, quite simply, the 'greyer' it gets. The saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is very apt. Taking exception to someone like Bobby Sands being described as a freedom fighter displays ignorance about Irish History imo. Thats what I'm saying.
    ?

    Right I see where your coming from now I misunderstood your viewpoint.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    so by your own logic those british soldiers werent welcome in Ibrox due to the atrocities their ilk created such as bloody sunday?

    They weren't particularly welcomed by my but that is only my viewpoint. I will defend the clubs right to hold a minutes silence for fallen troops.
    Don't think I have ever defended Bloodt Sunday or even tried to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,903 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    For Sands, Wallace, Nelson Mandela, Ian Paisley or indeed any political figure, there are some who will admire them and others who oppose them.
    You could argue all day and there would never be consensus. We shouldn't even be discussing this on a football thread.

    I actually agree with UEFA that to save the whole discussion on who is acceptable or not, just keep them all out of football. If there rule was "Anything political - leave it out", then that would be fine by me.
    UEFA are there to regulate football competitions, not to be political, so that's fine. Understand their viewpoint.

    However, what bothers me is when British soldiers, poppies, Nelson Mandela, the Barca stuff and many more is allowed, minute's silences when politicans die etc.
    For example, I think a minutes silence or black armbands should only be reserved for people who were involved in football.

    While I understand Celtic's frustration at being fined for stuff done by the GB, they could represent their fans a bit more. They could appeal and point out hypocrisy in other games at other clubs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    They weren't particularly welcomed by my but that is only my viewpoint. I will defend the clubs right to hold a minutes silence for fallen troops.
    Don't think I have ever defended Bloodt Sunday or even tried to.

    Congrats On dodging the point, you said sands was guilty by association with republicanism. How can you reconcile that viewpoint with the dancing soldiers in ibrox?

    Are they not subjected to the same tarring? By YOUR logic celebrating sands is condoning omagh etc.

    Is celebrating the British armed forces not condoning their actions too?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭LiamoSail


    So much for cancelling a SPL game to give "players a rest"

    All about the £££ which they wont spend.

    I don't see a problem with the tournament given theres no European football. The squad is strong enough by Scottish standards to rest as many as necessary whenever required in league games. There's no real competition to speak of domestically, may as well make a few quid at this tournament and rotate the squad in league games, giving the younger players a chance as the established are rested


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    bobmalooka wrote: »
    Congrats On dodging the point, you said sands was guilty by association with republicanism. How can you reconcile that viewpoint with the dancing soldiers in ibrox?

    Are they not subjected to the same tarring? By YOUR logic celebrating sands is condoning omagh etc.

    Is celebrating the British armed forces not condoning their actions too?

    Right obviously I wasn't clear enough for you.
    I don't agree with armed forces day at Ibrox. But I won't condemn the minutes silence on rememberence day
    Hope that's clear enough for you

    Let's try answering without the petty sarcasm ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    bobmalooka wrote: »
    Congrats On dodging the point, you said sands was guilty by association with republicanism. How can you reconcile that viewpoint with the dancing soldiers in ibrox?

    Are they not subjected to the same tarring? By YOUR logic celebrating sands is condoning omagh etc.

    Is celebrating the British armed forces not condoning their actions too?

    Are you trying to tell me that Sands can't be held responsible through his actions of making things in the North much worse


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭Lennonist


    Are you trying to tell me that Sands can't be held responsible through his actions of making things in the North much worse

    There are some who would say that some of his actions ultimately helped to make things better for some people in The North.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    Lennonist wrote: »
    There are some who would say that some of his actions ultimately helped to make things better for some people in The North.

    There's also many who believe he is guilty of crimes against innocents.
    Really we are going round in circles here :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭Lennonist


    There's also many who believe he is guilty of crimes against innocents.
    Really we are going round in circles here :)

    I think a level of maturity needs to be applied to these things. It would display a degree of self confidence if the authorities in Britain didn't make a big thing about these matters. If some people wish to sing a song about 10 men who died on a hunger strike 20 years ago, I'd be of the view that they'd be better off to let them sing away. A line would be drawn if football supporters were engaging in chants or songs that were overtly racist, sectarian or discriminative.

    The alternative would be that all displays and references to politics of whatever hue should be prohibited across the board inside football stadiums. UEFA appear to follow this route, but then obviously they don't apply it in relation to certain events like the recent commemorations of Nelson Mandela's passing and they also seem to turn a blind eye to Barcelona fans exhibiting displays in support of Catalonian Independence. The other option within reason is the better way to manage these matters in my view.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 464 ✭✭rosskind


    @Oranje_Live: Celtic coach Neil Lennon present to watch AZ v Heerenveen with Alfred Finnbogason the target.”
    Bit late now.:(

    Apparently he was looking at Aron Jóhannsson rather than Finnbogason. AJ scored twice to take his tally to 13 in 18.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Hagar the Nice.


    rosskind wrote: »
    Apparently he was looking at Aron Jóhannsson rather than Finnbogason. AJ scored twice to take his tally to 13 in 18.
    My Santa wish,please can we have both players and ho ho ho's tyvm.:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Hagar the Nice.


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Yes, but at what point should Irish Culture be allowed to celebrate acts of violence (Terrorism or Freedom Fighter, they're still violence) against the country they are standing in?
    To go back to my example from when the banner was initially raised - can you imagine a similar scenario with Serbian nationals of Croat descent raising banners of Ante Gotovina in Belgrade?
    At what point should SA culture be allowed to celebrate acts of violence?



    Many argue that the Sharpeville massacre on March 21, 1960, when police opened fire on a peaceful protest in a black township killing 69 people, was the turning point when black resistance went from a non-violent campaign to an armed resistance movement.

    The icon of the anti-apartheid movement and international human rights leader died December 5. He was 95 years old.
    Mandela, far from remaining a passive, non-violent activist, became the first commander in chief of the African National Congress' military wing, called the “Umkhonto we Sizwe,” or “Spear of the Nation,” (and better known as “MK” - the South African version of the IRA) after Sharpeville.
    Inspired more by the writings of Mao Zedong and Che Guevara than Gandhi, Mandela built up from scratch a small insurgent force, trained in blowing up easy targets, like electricity transmission towers and rail lines. His recruits learned to make primitive bombs from ingredients normally found on South African farms.
    The ‘Black Pimpernel’
    By 1962, Mandela was already an underground “terrorist,” wanted by the police and living an outlaw existence who the media had dubbed the “Black Pimpernel” — a twist on the fictional “Scarlet Pimpernel” who struck at will and, Zoro-like, always avoided capture.
    That year, according to multiple historical accounts, he made a secret, six-month-long trip to a dozen African states, seeking political support and money from other African revolutionary armies. He returned to South Africa with about $30,000 in funds and a revived enthusiasm for guerrilla warfare.
    He even underwent his own military training, having spent weeks on the firing range and perfecting his explosives skills in Moroccan and Ethiopian military camps. The night before his arrest on charges of treason and sabotage, Mandela was reportedly seen at a party in Durban proudly sporting khaki fatigues, with pistol at his side.
    “He openly talked about the necessity to move toward guerrilla warfare,” wrote Max du Preez in his book, “The Rough Guide to Nelson Mandela.”
    But Mandela, the guerrilla commander, said he intended to target the apartheid regime’s infrastructure, not the people.
    “Now all over South Africa we had buildings that said ‘Non-Europeans and Dogs Not Allowed,’” Ahmed Kathrada, one of Mandela’s earliest surviving comrades, recalled to NBC News this week. “So the recruits had to lay bombs, but an oath had to be taken that when the bombs are placed, there’s no injury to human beings. So this had to be done at night, when nobody was around.”
    But “Plan M” — Mandela’s plan for insurgent victory — left many good intentions in its wake. Over the next 30 years, the MK launched more than 3,000 attacks and killed at least 100 people, mostly civilians, according to subsequent reports from South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
    And while Mandela himself spent most of those years in prison, he never gave up on the armed struggle, keeping in touch with successive MK commanders on tactics by secret messages passed through occasional prison visitors, including his (then) wife Winnie Mandela and lawyer George Bizos.
    “Mandela was not Gandhi,” said Dooley, the South Africa historian. “Once he had committed himself to armed struggle, he did not waver until the onset of political negotiations in 1990.”
    During that era, both the U.S. State and Defense departments dubbed Mandela’s political party, the African National Congress, a terrorist group, and Mandela’s name remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list till 2008. The U.S. government described it as a “bureaucratic snafu” when it was finally removed 14 years after he was elected president and nine years after he had left power.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make Hagar.

    South Africa's violence was completely internal, whereas that of the organisation which Sands was a member took to another country.
    If the ANC attacked Zimbabwe (Hypothetically) do you think it would be acceptable for South Africans to celebrate this in Harare?

    Again, I'm not adding any of my own political feelings into this, just simply trying to break down the arguments on all sides into something which is a little less filled with emotion.
    I'm not even saying that Celtic fans shouldn't be allowed to do as they wish in this regard, simply trying to point to the fact that it seems odd that people are surprised that it might be a little controversial.
    Dare I say that if the banner was raised by St Pats fans, in Dublin, it would be less so?
    A little odd and out of context maybe, but not quite so controversial.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement