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

Poppy

Options
1…34689…40

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    It is the Brits fault. They’re the foreign invader. No invasion, no war.

    You don’t punch someone repeatedly in the face and then complain about violence when they hit you back.

    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.


  • Options
    #153
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    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:confused: 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!


  • Options
    #154
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    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.

    Armies don't meet on a field of battle anymore - that's just romantic bollox. How could any army stand against a vastly superior force in such a fashion?

    It would be like sending me in to fight Mike Tyson, walk in the ring and stand toe to toe, I wouldn't have a hope - sneak up behind the bastard and bang him on the head with something though and maybe I might just come out on top!

    You've got to play the cards you're dealt. There are precious few armies in the world who could even hope to defeat the British by conventional means. Centuries of global plunder have left them far too strong for that.


  • Options
    #155
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    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.


  • Options
    #156
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    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.

    When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    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.)


  • Options
    #158
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.

    Korea?
    The Falklands?
    Iran/Iraq?
    Yom Kippur war?


  • Options
    #159
    engiweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engiweirdo


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    One of the poorer quality wind up exercises I’ve read on boards in a while.

    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.


  • Options
    #160
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    Aegir wrote: »
    Korea?
    The Falklands?
    Iran/Iraq?
    Yom Kippur war?

    Because some wars were fought in the field does not mean that other forms of conflict cannot be classed as wars.


  • Options
    #161
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    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.

    Were the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings British citizens?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    engiweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engiweirdo


    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.

    That's a very touching and personal way to remember a relative. Kudos. It is also a lot different to purchasing the British Legion poppy on an annual basis which is what most would take issue with rather than the symbol/sentiment itself.


  • Options
    #163
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,271 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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


  • Options
    #164
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    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.

    Being an unwilling subject of the British state doesn't make you any less Irish.


  • Options
    #165
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,271 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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.


  • Options
    #166
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,271 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »
    Being an unwilling subject of the British state doesn't make you any less Irish.

    Another... do you think reducing the Irishness of those murdered in the North was the purpose of that person's post?


  • Options
    #167
    engiweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engiweirdo


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Were the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings British citizens?

    You would have to prove direct British government involvement to lay that at their feet and good luck with that tbh. Especially as it would appear both governments have "lost" relevant information. Besides is attacking your own citizens inside your own state not enough of a crime ?


  • Options
    #168
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Another... do you think reducing the Irishness of those murdered in the North was the purpose of that person's post?

    To a certain degree I understand the point that the poster was making. However, I would take issue with the assertion that people in the north are not Irish just because they live under British jurisdiction.


  • Options
    #169
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,851 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    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.


  • Options
    #170
    engiweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engiweirdo


    Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »
    To a certain degree I understand the point that the poster was making. However, I would take issue with the assertion that people in the north are not Irish just because they live under British jurisdiction.

    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.


  • Options
    #171
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    engiweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engiweirdo


    Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »
    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #173
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    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.


  • Options
    #174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »
    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.

    it isn't relevant either. British citizens are British citizens, not subjects


  • Options
    #175
    engiweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engiweirdo


    Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »
    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »
    Because some wars were fought in the field does not mean that other forms of conflict cannot be classed as wars.

    I was responding to the post below, which is quite clearly wrong.
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.


  • Options
    #177
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    When since 1945, have two armies met on the field of battle?? Absolute nonsense.

    I meant it more in the sense of meeting as equals. That’s not what the Troubles were imo.


  • Options
    #178
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    engiweirdo wrote: »
    That's a very touching and personal way to remember a relative. Kudos. It is also a lot different to purchasing the British Legion poppy on an annual basis which is what most would take issue with rather than the symbol/sentiment itself.

    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.


  • Options
    #179
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,391 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    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?


  • Options
    #180
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »

    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.

    See this is what I just don't get about this sentimentalisation of war.

    When it comes right down to it - your great grandfather needed money. To get it, he agreed to kill strangers purely because they were enemies of the people occupying his own country at the time and those people were willing to pay him and others like him to do so.

    Heroic. As. Fúck


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    See this is what I just don't get about this sentimentalisation of war.

    When it comes right down to it - your great grandfather needed money. To get it, he agreed to kill strangers purely because they were enemies of the people occupying his own country at the time and those people were willing to pay him to do so.

    Heroic. As. Fúck

    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.


Advertisement