Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Protestors disrupting World War 1 commemoration at Glasnevin

Options
1…1415171920…27

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Hunterbiker wrote: »

    I doubt that.
    You should loom to your own credibility. The sad part is that every excuse is wheeled out - not least the Southern partition one to excuse your hate and angst ridden mindset.
    The real pity here is that as you apout so the soft if head will listen and thus the bitter harvest continues theough the years...

    You do know that the conflict from 69 ws a direct result of the South tacitly accepting partition and leaving Irish men and women at the mercy of a sectarian statelet and that those who ran that statelet are still vehemently and sometimes violently opposed to the normalisation of that statelet?
    There is still work to be done, work that the south reneged on.

    Wash your hands all you want, it doesn't absolve any Irish person who stands by and lets that happen just so they can sleep safe at night.


  • Options
    #483
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    RollieFingers wrote: »
    So you have moved on. but you will continue to bring the past up? That's not really moving on then is it?

    Why bring the past up commemorating the past deeds of the British Army? Move on you say and forget their past yet we have glorification ceremonies!!


  • Options
    #484
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    Strazdas wrote: »
    True, although they would have been regarded as "Irishmen" at the time....there were just the four nationalities as part of the UK : English, Irish (covering the entire island), Scottish and Welsh.

    You're being technical now ;)

    Any Unionist back then and now still classify themselves as British flying the UK flag proudly from their back gardens and parading etc. It about perspective, some of those 50,000 were British from NI and not Irish by their own choice.


  • Options
    #485
    Hunterbiker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Hunterbiker


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Okay I'll make this very simple because you are difficult to understand or are deliberately being obtuse.

    Do you think the relatives of those killed by the British Army in the north should be entitled to have the soldiers investigated/prosecuted for murder?

    No. I don't agree that seeing low ranking individuals put before the courts would serve asjustice.
    The blame lies with the State.


  • Options
    #486
    RollieFingers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭RollieFingers


    moxin wrote: »
    Why bring the past up commemorating the past deeds of the British Army? Move on you say and forget their past yet we have glorification ceremonies!!

    As a mark of respect to the dead, similarly to how nobody would have a problem with remembering the Republican dead in N.I!

    But moving on does not include plans to always bring up the past and constantly referring to the British Army as the "enemy", when, in this day and age, they clearly aren't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Hunterbiker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Hunterbiker


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You do know that the conflict from 69...

    You mean lawless criminality here yes?


  • Options
    #488
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    moxin wrote: »
    Some of those 50,000 from modern day NI were not Irish in their own definition of being British and Unionist.

    I guess that also applied to many from the South too who (at that time) would have been british as well as being Irish, (this would have been the norm at that time). Then the surge in Irish Nationalism post WWI resulted in the switch from being british (with a small b) to being Irish with a capital I.

    So what if many of the Irish soldiers were Irish/British/Unionist men? We must try and look at the events of that time through their eyes and their allegiances, which meant that there was one army "The British Army", which was the army of Britain & Ireland at the time.

    Quarter of a million Irish men joined up during the Great War, and fifty thousand of them died.

    Hence the Glasnevin commemoration.


  • Options
    #489
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    RollieFingers wrote: »
    As a mark of respect to the dead, similarly to how nobody would have a problem with remembering the Republican dead in N.I!

    But moving on does not include plans to always bring up the past and constantly referring to the British Army as the "enemy", when, in this day and age, they clearly aren't.

    What you are really saying is

    'why can't you forget all the things I don't want to accept happened or deal with'

    Sure tell the Americans that 9-11 is 'in the past' get over it or tell the Jews, that the Holocaust is history now, get on with it.*


    *(awaits the idiots coming on thread waving their Godwin theories as if it was original)


  • Options
    #490
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    No. I don't agree that seeing low ranking individuals put before the courts would serve asjustice.
    The blame lies with the State.
    why not, the low ranking knew exactly what they were doing, they are to blame as well as the state

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #491
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    You mean lawless criminality here yes?

    Sleep tight...your clarity of thought won't be keeping you awake anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    No.

    There you have it folks. A person who believes murderers should be immune from prosecution because they were wearing British Army uniforms.

    Lovely.


  • Options
    #493
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    There you have it folks. A person who believes murdered should be immune from prosecution.

    Lovely.

    You couldn't invent them, could you? :D


  • Options
    #494
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    LordSutch wrote: »
    I guess that also applied to many from the South too who (at that time) would have been british as well as being Irish, (this would have been the norm at that time). Then the surge in Irish Nationalism post WWI resulted in the switch from being british (with a small b) to being Irish with a capital I.

    So what if many of the Irish soldiers were Irish/British/Unionist men? We must try and look at the events of that time through their eyes and their allegiances, which meant that there was one army "The British Army", which was the army of Britain & Ireland at the time.

    Quarter of a million Irish men joined up during the Great War, and fifty thousand of them died.

    Hence the Glasnevin commemoration.

    So what you say. As some of them(was it 20,000?) were British/Unionist in their own eyes, perhaps respect their view? They did not belong to this state.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I
    The number of Irish deaths in the British Army recorded by the registrar general was 27,405, a casualty rate of 14 percent, roughly in line with the rest of the British forces.[53] By contrast, the National War Memorial at Islandbridge, Dublin is dedicated "to the memory of the 49,400 Irish soldiers who gave their lives in the Great War, 1914–1918".[68] This figure is often questioned. Recent estimates for Northern Ireland are given at up to 20,000 casualties, and between 30,000 to 35,000 for the whole of Ireland. It has been suggested that the often-cited death toll of 40–50,000 refers to all the fatalities in the Irish Divisions. In fact, only 71 percent of the casualties in these Divisions were natives of Ireland.[25] According to the Irish National War Memorial, the figure of 49,400 is inclusive of recent Irish immigrants living in America.


  • Options
    #495
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    Come on its been at least 24 hrs for you to get your facts right on this.

    Eh?


  • Options
    #496
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    RollieFingers wrote: »
    As a mark of respect to the dead, similarly to how nobody would have a problem with remembering the Republican dead in N.I!

    But moving on does not include plans to always bring up the past and constantly referring to the British Army as the "enemy", when, in this day and age, they clearly aren't.

    You'll find many objections to remembrance of Republican dead in NI, the latest a while back being that parade in Castlederg. Upcoming is a similar parade being objected to by Unionists in Fermanagh. The same people who have no objections to remembering Loyalist killers.

    But anyway as we're moving on, its quite odd that prosecutions are rigourously sought against past crimes by Republicans yet no prosecutions are sought against British Army crimes in NI(we know of Bloody Sunday, there is Ballymurphy also to name a few). If there is a moving on, do a clean slate for all.


  • Options
    #497
    RollieFingers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭RollieFingers


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What you are really saying is

    'why can't you forget all the things I don't want to accept happened or deal with'

    Sure tell the Americans that 9-11 is 'in the past' get over it or tell the Jews, that the Holocaust is history now, get on with it.*


    *(awaits the idiots coming on thread waving their Godwin theories as if it was original)

    That's not what I'm saying at all!
    The British Army are not our enemy in this day and age, so why refer to them as such?


  • Options
    #498
    Mosby61
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Mosby61


    RollieFingers wrote: »
    That's not what I'm saying at all!
    The British Army are not our enemy in this day and age, so why refer to them as such?
    Delusions of grandeur. No other reason for it.


  • Options
    #499
    Hunterbiker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Hunterbiker


    Now who's twisting things... :)

    Having lived through years of bloody violence I honestly do not see the point in processing these crimes through the Courts. No matter what side a person was on it serves no real purpose. In my view.
    As I am sure those who support the shouters at Glasnevin will agree a different opinion is allowed.


  • Options
    #500
    Hunterbiker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Hunterbiker


    moxin wrote: »

    But anyway as we're moving on, its quite odd that prosecutions are rigourously sought against past crimes by Republicans...r all.
    I agree with this. I see little point in taking people to Court when the liklihood of a realistic sentence is nil.
    A line needs to be drawn and it might as well be up to the GFA


  • Options
    #501
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    Madam wrote: »
    Eh?

    Oh and by the way perhaps if I wasn't clear - what I said about my dad and his brother I did mean the second world war not the first:o


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    Now who's twisting things... :)

    Own your words.
    I honestly do not see the point in processing these crimes through the Courts.

    I don't care what you think. I care what the families of the murdered think.
    No matter what side a person was on it serves no real purpose.

    Leaving collusion aside the BA killed 150 innocent men, women, and children. Explain to me what 'side' these civilians were on? Actually don't bother.
    As I am sure those who support the shouters at Glasnevin will agree a different opinion is allowed.

    'If you're not with us you're with the terrorists'. I remember when George Bush used that pathetic false dilemma to destroy Iraq. Now you're using it in a failed attempt to discredit me for highlighting your moral bankruptcy.

    Keep digging.


  • Options
    #503
    Hunterbiker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Hunterbiker


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Own your words.



    I don't care what you think. I care what the families of the murdered think.



    Leaving collusion aside the BA killed 150 innocent men, women, and children. Explain to me what 'side' these civilians were on? Actually don't bother.



    'If you're not with us you're with the terrorists'. I remember when George Bush used that pathetic false dilemma to destroy Iraq. Now you're using it in a failed attempt to discredit me for highlighting your moral bankruptcy.

    Keep digging.

    I seriously doubt seeing oldmen handed down 2 years and likely get off on appeal will appease the families.

    PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

    George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
    why not add Tony Blair?


  • Options
    #504
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

    George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
    why not add Tony Blair?

    Eh, the BA were not supposed to be terrorists and they represent a sovereign law abiding nation.

    Along with the 150 or so unarmed Irish men women and kids(yes there were kids shot dead by the BA), there were another 120 civilians murdered by the Glenane Gang. God knows how many more killings were outsourced to Loyalists.

    And this is insignificant to you??


  • Options
    #505
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    I seriously doubt seeing oldmen handed down 2 years and likely get off on appeal will appease the families.

    You've spoken to them have you? You've carried out interviews to see how they feel? Or are you just pulling this out of your butt? The latter question is rhetorical.
    PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

    Whataboutery.
    George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
    why not add Tony Blair?

    It was your false dilemma. Own your words.

    We're going to need a ladder to get you out of that hole you've dug yourself into.


  • Options
    #506
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    moxin wrote: »
    God knows how many more killings were outsourced to Loyalists.

    Loyalists killed approximately 1000 people. Over 800 were innocent unarmed Catholics. They killed more of each other than they did Republican paramilitaries.


  • Options
    #507
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Loyalists killed approximately 1000 people. Over 800 were innocent unarmed Catholics. They killed more of each other than they did Republican paramilitaries.

    loyalists were more or less an arm of british intelligence and were used to commit killings that would have been politically impossible for the british army to get away with....innocent family members/friends of republicans
    (see murder triangle,collusion)
    ...this was a total shameful act carried out by britin in Ireland....so far removed from what people arelead to believe it being an upstanding army...it got bogged down in an unwinnable war and resorted to despicable tactics that will never be 100% admitted to
    that being said they should be left to remember there wardead in Dublin etc...just ignore them and let them at it...like I wouldn't attend/have anything to do with it

    the same people who are so desperate for them war dead to be remembered are regulary around here at easter time to openly sneer at republicans for remembering there dead in the cause of irish freedom


  • Options
    #508
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Hunterbiker wrote: »
    I seriously doubt seeing oldmen handed down 2 years and likely get off on appeal will appease the families.

    PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

    George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
    why not add Tony Blair?

    Omagh wasn't the Provos.


  • Options
    #509
    An Claidheamh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭An Claidheamh


    FTA69 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with picketing commemorations, the whole thing is a bit cringe worthy in its own right. World War One was a shameful conflict, a wholesale slaughter of working class people who were killed so an imperial ruling class could contest to see who would rob more in future. There was nothing noble about it, it certainly had little to do with "freedom" considering the British Army went on a rampage in Ireland soon after the war in an effort to crush Irish Independence.

    I have no problem commemorating the war dead but I do have a problem when it gets piggy-backed on to the broader narrative of British imperialism being a splendid thing. Why can't we commemorate our own dead without having to do so in front of British imperial trappings such as aristocrats and British Army bands?

    Relieved to see people actually liked this post quoted.
    I completely agree. Anyone half-educated in Irish history must also come to that conclusion (without being accused of you-know-yourself).

    It seems even the National Day of Remembrance for all Irish killed in wars has been hijacked by 'ex-servicemen' solely from the British army. Very rarely would you even see an Irish flag at that event.

    Why can't we remember our own tragic war dead without the help of Britain, from our perspective? And I mean tragic! We do actually have a different perspective. It's completely allowed, and can't be helped.

    I think for everybody watching it looked like a British army ceremony. It was quite silly.

    And why has our President just unveiled a "Commonwealth Cross" in Glasnevin cemetery, considering we're not a member of the British Commonwealth?

    Why not for instance, an actual Cross? And why in Glasnevin?


  • Options
    #510
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Does anyone know if the pipe band that played at Glasnevin was Irish Army or Royal Irish Regiment? I've checked out both and they both seem to wear the same uniform of green tunics and orange kilts!

    Also what was the first tune the pipe band played? It was a lovely tune and I don't think I'd heard it before.

    (Begins at 21:47 mins)


    http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10309101/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    cruais
    Registered Users Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭cruais


    My grandad was in the trenches in the battle of the somme when the troupes on both sides sang silent night.


Advertisement