Poppy

Yamanoto wrote: »

You really were half asleep.

It was Eamonn McCann espousing the above position & was quite at odds with the other contributor, FG Senator Neill Richmond.

Thanks Yamanoto - I do admit I was pretty much on auto pilot at the time!

prinzeugen wrote: »

As did the French when they were not surrendering to someone. If fact the French were and still are more imperialistic than Britain.

And the French were more barbaric than Britain ever was. France was still importing slaves into the Americas long after every other country had stopped the slave trade.

Ex British colonies are mainly civilised and developed or developing.

Ex French colonies are usually the most undeveloped and are riddled with poverty, civil wars etc.

But hey, don't let history get in the way of an anti-British rant!

I didn't mention France once Do you think it's impossible to dislike two colonial powers or something? I've chosen Britain so therefore I must support France? That's idiotic.

Also are you seriously suggesting that Britain helped these countries by colonising them, stealing their resources, killing their people and so on?

Do you reckon that the genocidal starvation of a million plus Irish people somehow stands to our benefit now? We should be grateful? (I mean where would they all live for a start, rent would be 10grand a week, think of the HAP payments, and don't even get me started on the traffic on the M50)

I think your logic is about as fúcked up as it possibly could be. Maybe put down the Megan and Harry commemorative brochure and pick up a history book - might open your eyes somewhat!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it incredible how people so willingly ignore the thousands of Irish men who fought in First and Second World Wars.

My Great Grandfather fought in the Battle of Ypres in 1914 - he was a Bombardier in the Royal Field Artillery and lost his left leg as a result of shrapnel wounds. In a way he was one of the lucky ones. He came home. To say we are proud of him would be an understatement.

Here’s the thing though - he didn’t do it because he was a traitor or a West Brit or any other insult folks care to level at him. He did it because it was a job and he needed the money.

In 2014 we went as a family, including my Grandfather (his son) to Ypres to follow in his footsteps and it was eye opening.

The thousands upon thousands of white headstones really brought home what a terrible waste of young life war really is. All those young men lying under those headstones deserve to be remembered.

And that’s why I wear the Poppy in the form of earrings I bought in Ypres. To honor my Great Grandfather’s courage and remember his many friends and fellow soldiers who never came home.

I appreciate the fact that you are proud of your great Grandfather and that you want to honour his memory. Why do you need to fund an organisation that provides help to British soldiers of the modern day though?

Surely a more fitting memorial to your great Grandfather (and all the other Irish people who died fighting for Britain) would be to create a purely Irish organisation that would arrange commemorations and look after memorials and statues, etc?

The poppy, like it or not, is sold to provide care and financial assistance to former members of the British army, many of whom committed outrageous acts of violence and murder not only on the streets of Belfast and Derry, but throughout the world.

Why any Irish person would willingly contribute to such an organisation is, frankly, beyond me.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The Troubles weren’t war though - they weren’t two armies meeting on a field of battle.

They were criminal and terrorist acts which were committed on BOTH sides.

So by your logic, the Vietnam War wasn't a war either? (Not to mention probably every war throughout the world that has taken place since the slaughter of the trenches in the First World War.)

engiweirdo wrote: »

It's a correct an somewhat important distinction though. Legally and factually speaking, regardless of the victims actual wishes and desires they were/are British subjects. Therefore what Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy represented rather than the acts of a soldier at war like is often painted, was the official army of an EU/UN state callously murdering it's own citizens as some kind of warped public order measure. They should have been fcuked out the EU years ago and not had the option of Brexit.

A few PMs should have been in the Hague for crimes against humanity really

weldoninhio wrote: »

Were the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings British citizens?

Ah jaysis are you really trying to pick a hole in the entirely valid point that was made...

For what ends?

British citizens were murdered by British troops in the North. That is a fact.

If somebody’s relatives joined a foreign army, that’s their business.

Don’t expect the rest of us to give a toss about their killing for foreign imperialists.

engiweirdo wrote: »

At the time the incidents occurred and more importantly as far as the soldiers involved were concerned: under British law, those people were very much British subjects. They still chose the courses of action they did.

I would very much doubt that the British soldiers involved in these incidents saw the civilians as anything but Irish, regardless of their legal status.

engiweirdo wrote: »

That doesn't matter though. The soldiers saw "paddies". The civilians likely considered themselves Irish. Legally it was British soldiers attacking, murdering and maiming British subjects (no such thing as a British citizen, they are defacto subjects of the monarchy). You, me, the soldiers or subjects involved do not have to agree with that and may wholly disapprove of the nonenclature. But it is still the case and it makes their actions all the more reprehensible.

I understand what you are saying about the legal status of the civilians. I don't understand why it is "more reprehensible" for British soldiers to murder British subjects than it is for British soldiers to murder non-British subjects.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it incredible how people so willingly ignore the thousands of Irish men who fought in First and Second World Wars.

My Great Grandfather fought in the Battle of Ypres in 1914 - he was a Bombardier in the Royal Field Artillery and lost his left leg as a result of shrapnel wounds. In a way he was one of the lucky ones. He came home. To say we are proud of him would be an understatement.

Here’s the thing though - he didn’t do it because he was a traitor or a West Brit or any other insult folks care to level at him. He did it because it was a job and he needed the money.

In 2014 we went as a family, including my Grandfather (his son) to Ypres to follow in his footsteps and it was eye opening.

The thousands upon thousands of white headstones really brought home what a terrible waste of young life war really is. All those young men lying under those headstones deserve to be remembered.

And that’s why I wear the Poppy in the form of earrings I bought in Ypres. To honor my Great Grandfather’s courage and remember his many friends and fellow soldiers who never came home.

Nobody has to forget what the Irish did in the wars.

But you don't need to use a British symbol to honour their memory.
Why not just use an Irish one.

Other countries also use their own. Why should we be any different?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are many different ways he could have chosen to make money. But he chose to go to war, knowing he might not come back and that he would be at the behest of his country ‘s old enemy.

To me that’s bravery.

You yourself said he done it to make ends meet, not out of any sense of duty?

To me that's killing strangers for money.

He may well have been brave, but he also was willing to kill people for money.

engiweirdo wrote: »

Well I guess put the shoe on the other foot. Would it not concern you gravely if for example during water charge protests or similar large scale demonstrations the Irish Defence forces saw fit to fire live rounds into the crowd as means of control. Now you could say if that crime happened in day Lebanon it would be equally abhorrent yet as Irish citizens we charge our military with the defence of its people, this is not exactly the case with foreign operations. Similar rules would apply. The British Army should absolutely be held to a higher standard on their actions within their national territory as compared to say Afghanistan.

No, sorry but I still disagree with you.

What you are saying is that an army should behave to a civilised standard at home, but can have carte blanche to perform atrocities abroad, or at the very least to break any international rules regarding conduct against civilians or prisoners so long as it's not on "home territory".

Actually, if you look at the various civil wars throughout history, there is a higher chance of the state army behaving in an atrocious manner when fighting an internal enemy (Spanish civil war and the break up of Yugoslavia come to mind).

RustyNut wrote: »

A bit like some young lad today from inner city Dublin who could probably get a minimum wage job in McDonald's but instead takes bigger money from the kinihans to kill whoever he is told to kill. To make ends meet like.

It's all down to scale.

Kill 5 people for money - you're a psycho.

Firebomb a city and kill 20,000 for money - you're a war hero!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Thank you.

The idea that people would to forget or worse make traitors out of the thousands of brave Irish men who went to war makes me sick tbh.

I think my Great Grandfather was very brave to fight for the people he would have considered enemies and to have risked his life to make sure he could make ends meet.

I actually agree with you on this. At the time of the First World War, like it or not, Ireland was still a part of the British Empire, and many young men would have seen nothing wrong with joining the British army as they would have seen it as their army too.

I would certainly not class him, or any other young man who joined up, as a traitor to Ireland (at that time). It was a totally different time, with the majority of the people in the country accepting British rule (although that was, of course, soon to change).

Indeed, many of these young men returned to Ireland after the war and then played an active role in the Republican forces and used the skills learned in the British army to help in Ireland's fight for freedom (Tom Barry being perhaps the best example of this).

I don't think that any young man who joined the British army then should be portrayed as mercenaries or paid killers in the way that someone in an earlier post suggested that it was similar to someone in carrying out a murder for one of the crime gangs of today.

They might not have realised or understood the full horror of the trenches, but they did volunteer to go to war for a cause that was portrayed at the time very much as a defence of small nations (an absolute lie, of course). They must have realised that there was a very strong chance that they would be injured or killed, and therefore their act was indeed very brave.

I would have no problem whatsoever with anyone wearing a distinctly Irish symbol to commemorate any of their ancestors who fought in World War I or II.

However, as I've said many times, I am a Republican and I cannot for the life of me condone the wearing of a poppy, as this does nothing except raise money for the modern day former British soldiers.

Aegir wrote: »

so as a Republican, I presume you wear the Easter Lilly

Of course I do

And for many years I sold them too, despite the best efforts of the Special Branch and Gardaí to prevent this.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think they should be remembered too.

At the end of the day they were all just innocent young men doing their duty regardless of which side they were on.

But they weren’t innocent young men.

Your hero went and picked up a gun to kill people to make money for himself.

There’s no innocence in that.

Edgware wrote: »

Oh I'd say they really went out to frustrate the scrotes going around the pubs with their tin box collecting a few bob from the bar stool republicans

While taking a break from chauffeuring Haughey around the place and battering working class people on Moore Street.

Bless them.

Edgware wrote: »

Oh I'd say they really went out to frustrate the scrotes going around the pubs with their tin box collecting a few bob from the bar stool republicans

So, I'm a scrote am I? That's a highly impressive way of you to join a debate.

The Special Branch were extremely petty when it came to harassment of Republicans - they needed to ensure they got their massive overtime cheques too. Regular stop and search on the street of Republicans continued until way into the Peace Process and after the GFA too.

Not to mention the rather more serious activities of the Heavy Gang and their like that were common enough too.