# what no annual poppy bunfight thread?



## Pingu (Oct 23, 2014)

well let me rectify that and bring you the 2014 poppy beef thread.

will be wearing mine


----------



## JimW (Oct 23, 2014)

Is the beef going to be if someone else wants to wear yours then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

Pingu said:


> well let me rectify that and bring you the 2014 poppy beef thread.
> 
> will be wearing mine


we'll steak you out


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we'll steak you out


 Well, he is a prime target.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 23, 2014)

ias a bit of an aside we can use this thread to collate all the "xxx" wont allow poppy sellers in cos it offends "zzzzz" bullshit that does the rounds


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

Pingu said:


> ias a bit of an aside we can use this thread to collate all the "xxx" wont allow poppy sellers in cos it offends "zzzzz" bullshit that does the rounds


i'd be pleased to see a few poppy sellers do the rounds, i like poppy tea me.


----------



## JimW (Oct 23, 2014)

Trust you two to take a thread and fillet with nonsense.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

JimW said:


> Trust you two to take a thread and fillet with nonsense.


 Oh, come on, we were just ribbing you.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 23, 2014)

i need some mignons to help me out here


----------



## JimW (Oct 23, 2014)

Well, I'm usually one to see the silverside, but not on this issue


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 23, 2014)

Where is the poll Pingu?


----------



## Pingu (Oct 23, 2014)

*shakes fist* i am off out but i will levae you lot to stew in your own juices for abit


----------



## tony heath (Oct 23, 2014)

A lot of mine were killed in the war and those that survived said we should never buy poppies. Fuck poppies.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 23, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Where is the poll Pingu?



top(side) of the page


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 23, 2014)

I know my onions but this doesn't leave mushroom for compromise.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

tony heath said:


> A lot of mine were killed in the war and those that survived said we should never buy poppies. Fuck poppies.


 Even the ones who won medallions?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 23, 2014)

I'll wear a red one.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 23, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Even the ones who won medallions?


I don't think those ones spoke to us


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Oct 23, 2014)

The meat puns have I think quorn thin...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

Nine Bob Note said:


> The meat puns have definately quorn thin...


 So ya think - or was that just a stock answer?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

Of course we weren't always the good guys in war - just ask the Burghers of Callais.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 23, 2014)

Will wear a red one , not arsed if someone wears red,white, or none


----------



## tony heath (Oct 23, 2014)

mine were peppered


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 23, 2014)

Load of old tripe. It's the extra mature ones wearing their proper medallions that I respect but I can't do this Iraq and ganny vets sympathy

Just got literally stood in front of at the door of my local Morrisons by two blokes in karki with Buckets for A Soldiers Journey ?? Who the fuck are they? Collecting for injured servicemen..

I told them who I thought should be bailing out injured servicemen and said I was happy to pay through my taxes and they should be stood outside number 10 not fucking Morrisons, then some lighthearted words were exchanged

When I go to Morrison's I want some shopping not a fucking row about global hegemony FFS What I really wanted to know is why were they in Uniform because as far as I could see they weren't on Army biznizz



This should get it braising

They haven't even got a working website..
http://a-soldiers-journey.co.uk/


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 23, 2014)

Red, what else would you expect? 

I wear it to remember my friends who have died, and also all the millions of others who died.

Remembrance is not the primary reason for purchase though, the primary reason is to make a donation that will make life better for all those who didn't die, but are badly broken. These people have been serially let let down, by every mealy mouthed bunch of cunts masquerading as a government, since time immemorial.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> I told them who I thought should be bailing out injured servicemen and said I was happy to pay though my taxes and they should be stood outside number 10 not fucking Morrisons, then some lighthearted words were exchanged


 Well done!


----------



## coley (Oct 23, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Red, what else would you expect?
> 
> I wear it to remember my friends who have died, and also all the millions of others who died.
> 
> Remembrance is not the primary reason for purchase though, the primary reason is to make a donation that will make life better for all those who didn't die, but are badly broken. These people have been serially let let down, by every mealy mouthed bunch of cunts masquerading as a government, since time immemorial.



This,^^^^^


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 23, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Well done!


I don't want to feel like a cunt for not throwing in the bucket for their mates which Is why I don't think they should be literally stood in your way hollering help injured soldiers or look like a cunt..
I mean I'm going for a bottle of wine and some fucking frubes for Finn Larden not a debate of war and it's victims...

Last week it was some very charismatic African chap who was giving hugs and kisses to everyone who chucked in his bucket for blind children...He had a fucking queue of old women

I'm going back to Aldi even if the lad doesn't like their yogurt


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> I don't want to feel like a cunt for not throwing in the bucket for their mates which Is why I don't think they should be literally stood in your way hollering help injured soldiers or look like a cunt..


That sort of generosity is very rare.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 23, 2014)

Wilf said:


> That sort of generosity is very rare.


I offered to buy them a pint and a discussion in my local..I don't want to rib them but there's no need for the flank or the kick in the shin of my conscience 

What I'd really like to know though is who the fuck are they? and why have they got that utter cunt smack bang in the middle of their defunct home page?

http://a-soldiers-journey.co.uk/


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 23, 2014)

Pingu said:


> *shakes fist*



*at sky*


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 23, 2014)

I don't think this thread should have been made. The annual poppy gets enough attention as it is without bickering over it.

How about a perennial poppy thread? Check out this lovely specimen:


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 23, 2014)




----------



## geminisnake (Oct 23, 2014)

I tend to wear a lilac poppy for the animals that have died in service. They didn't have a choice.


----------



## Shirl (Oct 23, 2014)

I'll be wearing a white one just as I have for 20+ years now  (not the same one mind)


----------



## Shirl (Oct 23, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I tend to wear a lilac poppy for the animals that have died in service. They didn't have a choice.


Neither did the conscripted lads. I expect most of the young ones wouldn't have dared be conscientious objectors, or realised what they were in for


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 23, 2014)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...hought_for_the_despicable_White_Poppy_appeal/

  I agree with that. Pacifism only works if the other side are happy to play along.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2014)

I wear a multicoloured poppy to remember all those acid casualties from the sixties


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 23, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I tend to wear a lilac poppy for the animals that have died in service. They didn't have a choice.



Indeed.


----------



## StoneRoad (Oct 23, 2014)

I've made a red/white/purple one.
For all the proper reasons, and I'm a pacifist at heart.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

StoneRoad said:


> I'm a pacifist at heart.


i hope you get better


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 23, 2014)

I'll be wearing a brown poppy because war is shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

Shirl said:


> Neither did the conscripted lads. I expect most of the young ones wouldn't have dared be conscientious objectors, or realised what they were in for


tbh you read e.g. the south london press or hackney gazette from the time of the first world war and you'll see loads and loads of people up in court for trying to get out of being called up or dodging conscription: there was a lot of it about because people knew very well what was going on. and if they didn't then it was because of wilful ignorance. round the time of the battle of ancre there was a film of the battle of the somme in loads of cinemas with its bloodthirsty character emphasised. plus if that wasn't enough it said the projectionist was one of a large number of men invalided from the front specially trained to work in cinemas out of sight and mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

friedaweed said:


>


i'll go with that


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh you read e.g. the south london press or hackney gazette from the time of the first world war and you'll see loads and loads of people up in court for trying to get out of being called up or dodging conscription: there was a lot of it about because people knew very well what was going on. and if they didn't then it was because of wilful ignorance. round the time of the battle of ancre there was a film of the battle of the somme in loads of cinemas with its bloodthirsty character emphasised. plus if that wasn't enough it said the projectionist was one of a large number of men invalided from the front specially trained to work in cinemas out of sight and mind.


 Aye, even the 'horrors of war' and 'lions lead by donkeys' narratives don't represent the real picture - that lots of people weren't conned and tried to avoid the whole bloody madness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Aye, even the 'horrors of war' and 'lions lead by donkeys' narratives don't represent the real picture - that lots of people weren't conned and tried to avoid the whole bloody madness.


and then you had people topping themselves in london because they couldn't take the stress of the air raids.


----------



## Shirl (Oct 23, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Aye, even the 'horrors of war' and 'lions lead by donkeys' narratives don't represent the real picture - that lots of people weren't conned and tried to avoid the whole bloody madness.





Pickman's model said:


> and then you had people topping themselves in london because they couldn't take the stress of the air raids.


I nearly liked both of those posts but 'like' doesn't seem right


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

Shirl said:


> I nearly liked both of those posts but 'like' doesn't seem right


like one of my other posts instead.


----------



## Shirl (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> like one of my other posts instead.


Done.


----------



## motsy (Oct 23, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Red, what else would you expect?
> 
> I wear it to remember my friends who have died, and also all the millions of others who died.
> 
> Remembrance is not the primary reason for purchase though, the primary reason is to make a donation that will make life better for all those who didn't die, but are badly broken. These people have been serially let let down, by every mealy mouthed bunch of cunts masquerading as a government, since time immemorial.


  Yeah, why didn't Kitchener join up and serve on the front as well, the hypocrtie


----------



## toggle (Oct 23, 2014)

Shirl said:


> Neither did the conscripted lads. I expect *most of the young ones wouldn't have dared be conscientious objector*s, or realised what they were in for


even if could qualify or had the ability or support to apply for exemption. and had what were deemed acceptable grounds. iirc, usually that they had skills better utilised at home. iirc, not many got to claim a moral objection and those that did usually got assigned to some form of civilian service.


----------



## JTG (Oct 23, 2014)

I think they're a pale imitation without Clint but it's good to hear them do Their Law live these days


----------



## motsy (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh you read e.g. the south london press or hackney gazette from the time of the first world war and you'll see loads and loads of people up in court for trying to get out of being called up or dodging conscription: there was a lot of it about because people knew very well what was going on. and if they didn't then it was because of wilful ignorance. round the time of the battle of ancre there was a film of the battle of the somme in loads of cinemas with its bloodthirsty character emphasised. plus if that wasn't enough it said the projectionist was one of a large number of men invalided from the front specially trained to work in cinemas out of sight and mind.


If anybody should have been up in court and shot at dawn for desertion, it SHOULD have been the shitbag politicians who SHOULD ALWAYS be the very very first to be called up and ordered to the front as cannon fodder in the most junior ranks first.


----------



## N_igma (Oct 24, 2014)

As an Irish Republican it's safe to say I wouldn't be seen dead in one. Good way to tell who's a prod and who's a taig here lol.


----------



## coley (Oct 24, 2014)

N_igma said:


> As an Irish Republican it's safe to say I wouldn't be seen dead in one. Good way to tell who's a prod and who's a taig here lol.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29606475


----------



## N_igma (Oct 24, 2014)

coley said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29606475



And your point is?


----------



## coley (Oct 24, 2014)

N_igma said:


> And your point is?



Just an observation, times were different and mebbes it's time to move on?


----------



## N_igma (Oct 24, 2014)

coley said:


> Just an observation, times were different and mebbes it's time to move on?



The people commemorating that are self serving elitists. I will silently pay my respects to those conscripts who had no choice in fighting war but one thing I will not be doing is contributing money to the RBL or remember soldiers who volunteer to go around the world doing Britain's dirty business. Especially not after the things they done to my country and people.


----------



## coley (Oct 24, 2014)

N_igma said:


> The people commemorating that are self serving elitists. I will silently pay my respects to those conscripts who had no choice in fighting war but one thing I will not be doing is contributing money to the RBL or remember soldiers who volunteer to go around the world doing Britain's dirty business. Especially not after the things they done to my country and people.


That's your view and your position, thankfully we are both in a country where both our views and positions can be expressed, and that's down to those who fought and died. History is a difficult country, focus on the future.


----------



## JTG (Oct 24, 2014)

N_igma said:


> Especially not after the things they done to my country and people.


I think that's fair enough. I wish people could appreciate that history isn't one linear story, there are multiple perspectives. Bit too complex for many folks' purposes though.

I'm fully aware of the impact the world wars had on my grandparents, the loss of two great uncles at the Somme leaving my granddad without his siblings at 8 years old, my other granddad's horrific experiences at sea and the Normandy landings. I'll remember them and their mates my own way, without public displays and without buying into establishment lies about this country's current expeditions.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 24, 2014)

I've ordered one of these ones:








Not sure If I can wear it though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 24, 2014)

Can you get squirt poppies, I wonder?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 24, 2014)

NB Do _not_ Google "squirt poppy" at work without safesearch.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2014)

I'm not really keen on all the support our troops bollocks being rammed down my throat whilst building a culture of war being something noble. I feel sorry for those fucked over by it though either through economic conscription or at the end of a barrel over something they do not want. I suppose the poppy covers all of the above. I probably won't wear one though. Not least because there's a societal pressure to do so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2014)

it feels like we've already had poppy season- wasn't there some other jingo stuff earlier in the year? to reflect this modern state of permanent war we should wear poppies all year round. Maybe get a poppy tattoo just to be on the safe side


----------



## Pingu (Oct 25, 2014)

Bloke in the legion last night moaning about the poppy appeal.. which as you can image went down well.


----------



## dessiato (Oct 25, 2014)

Can't get a poppy here but if I could it would be red to remember all the fallen. I whole heartedly disagree with the current military actions and think that government should be the ones caring for service personnel. But they don't which leaves charities.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it feels like we've already had poppy season- wasn't there some other jingo stuff earlier in the year? to reflect this modern state of permanent war we should wear poppies all year round. Maybe get a poppy tattoo just to be on the safe side


It was the WW1 anniversary stuff.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 25, 2014)

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.


----------



## Geri (Oct 25, 2014)

I bought one of these from eBay:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331342263047?_trksid=p2060778.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 25, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
> Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
> They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
> They fell with their faces to the foe.
> ...



Lawrence Binyon, if I'm not mistaken. Written while staying on the North Cornwall coastline.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2014)

THE boys came back. Bands played and flags were flying,	 
  And Yellow-Pressmen thronged the sunlit street	 
To cheer the soldiers who’d refrained from dying,	 
  And hear the music of returning feet.	 
‘Of all the thrills and ardours War has brought,
This moment is the finest.’ (So they thought.)	 

Snapping their bayonets on to charge the mob,	 
  Grim Fusiliers broke ranks with glint of steel,	 
At last the boys had found a cushy job.
	.	.	.	.

  I heard the Yellow-Pressmen grunt and squeal
And with my trusty bombers turned and went	 
To clear those Junkers out of Parliament.


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

Geri said:


> I bought one of these from eBay:
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331342263047?_trksid=p2060778.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT


So have I now


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> THE boys came back. Bands played and flags were flying,
> And Yellow-Pressmen thronged the sunlit street
> To cheer the soldiers who’d refrained from dying,
> And hear the music of returning feet.
> ...



Got a link for that? Ta


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2014)

coley said:


> Got a link for that? Ta


http://www.bartleby.com/136/15.html

Short poem, that's all of it.


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bartleby.com/136/15.html
> 
> Short poem, that's all of it.


Ta, hadn't heard it.


----------



## motsy (Oct 25, 2014)

I'm refusing to kowtow to all this 'patriotic' duty to support  Britain's involvement in the USA's current war (sorry, 'police action') on the Middle East as I'm sick of it all, especially as we're being constantly bombarded by people who 'fought so that I could' have opinions like this  in a war that happened a hundred years ago.

In other words, sheepishly and mindlessy conform to the general concensus or keep your 'disrespectful;, unpatriotic and non-conformist bile to yourself.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2014)

coley said:


> Ta, hadn't heard it.


For some reason it doesn't get quoted a lot, can't think why


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> For some reason it doesn't get quoted a lot, can't think why


Modern day version need to substitute "the met" for fusiliers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2014)

coley said:


> Modern day version need to substitute "the met" for fusiliers.


That part is the returning soldiers bayonetting journalists. If the Met were prepared to then move on to Parliament they might have a few more supporters.


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That part is the returning soldiers bayonetting journalists. If the Met were prepared to then move on to Parliament they might have a few more supporters.


Ta, for some reason I thought they were being used for strikebreaking.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2014)

I usually buy a red one but it is a little early to wear one yet no?


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I usually buy a red one but it is a little early to wear one yet no?


No.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2014)

coley said:


> No.


They were all wearing them on Question Time this week, I thought it was too early.
Mind you I usually only get around to wearing one on the 11th of the 11th!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 25, 2014)

I don't wear a poppy but if I did then it would be a white one.


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I don't wear a poppy but if I did then it would be a white one.


Your prerogative.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I don't wear a poppy but if I did then it would be a white one.


Why a white one?
I forget what they stand for..
Pretty much everyone I know who wears one wears a red one.


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Why a white one?
> I forget what they stand for..
> Pretty much everyone I know who wears one wears a red one.


Same here, but some odd folks about


----------



## motsy (Oct 26, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not really keen on all the support our troops bollocks being rammed down my throat whilst building a culture of war being something noble. I feel sorry for those fucked over by it though either through economic conscription or at the end of a barrel over something they do not want. I suppose the poppy covers all of the above. I probably won't wear one though. Not least because there's a societal pressure to do so.


 

 I agree entirely.
The shitbag politicians should ALL be called up at the start of a war and ordered to the very front if they want to play war games.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Why a white one?
> I forget what they stand for..
> Pretty much everyone I know who wears one wears a red one.





coley said:


> Same here, but some odd folks about



white poppies are for peace


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> white poppies are for peace



With all			   , try waving them about in areas like Kobane or Gaza.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Oct 26, 2014)

I like the idea of the white poppy but can't bring myself to wear one, it smacks too much of self-rightous hippies.  Won't wear a red poppy - Haig, the state should look after the wounded etc.  Meh.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2014)

Will wear a red poppy.
 Remberance does not mean gloryfying theres a diffrence


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2014)




----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2014)

_You have used a word_
_Which means nothing._
_You have given a word_
_The power to send men to death._
_Men are not free who are sent to die._
_Only those who send them are ‘free.’_
_You should have freedom stuffed down your fat throats.”_

_—Kenneth Patchen_


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> With all respect, try waving them about in areas like Kobane or Gaza.



What a bizarre comment.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> What a bizarre comment.



Possibly, so I've edited it.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2014)

I thought red poppies were for rememberance, not to glorify war, just to remember the people that died.


----------



## Geri (Oct 26, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> I like the idea of the white poppy but can't bring myself to wear one, it smacks too much of self-rightous hippies.  Won't wear a red poppy - Haig, the state should look after the wounded etc.  Meh.


 
They should, but they don't. Not wearing a poppy won't change that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I thought red poppies were for rememberance, not to glorify war, just to remember the people that died.


And symbols can't have (and aren't open to being used for) multiple meanings?


----------



## N_igma (Oct 26, 2014)

Your Poppy's teeth has gingivitis. Ebola actually ran away from your death symbol. TRAMPS!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2014)

Fucking Terry Wogan on the tannoy on the tube about fucking poppies. Fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I usually buy a red one but it is a little early to wear one yet no?


all year round.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Lawrence Binyon, if I'm not mistaken. Written while staying on the North Cornwall coastline.



Yep, 'For the fallen', written in September 1914. I wonder if then, he had an inkling of just how many would fall?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

coley why would anyone wave a poppy of any colour on a battle ground? Your comment makes no sense.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yep, 'For the fallen', written in September 1914. I wonder if then, he had an inkling of just how many would fall?



I don't think anybody did.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> coley why would anyone wave a poppy of any colour on a battle ground? Your comment makes no sense.



While the idea of peace is worthy,people making symbolic protests from their easy middle class backgrounds is, I would imagine,somewhat irksome for people who are either engaged in combat or fleeing from it.
Does that make any more sense?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

People fleeing from war would more than likely welcome peace so no it doesn't.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> THE boys came back. Bands played and flags were flying,
> And Yellow-Pressmen thronged the sunlit street
> To cheer the soldiers who’d refrained from dying,
> And hear the music of returning feet.
> ...





The cruel war was over -- oh, the triumph was so sweet!
We watched the troops returning, through our tears;
There was triumph, triumph, triumph
 down the scarlet glittering street,
And you scarce could hear the music for the cheers.
And you scarce could see the house-tops
 for the flags that flew between;
The bells were pealing madly to the sky;
And everyone was shouting for the Soldiers of the Queen,
And the glory of an age was passing by.

And then there came a shadow, swift and sudden, dark and drear;
The bells were silent, not an echo stirred.
The flags were drooping sullenly, the men forgot to cheer;
We waited, and we never spoke a word.
The sky grew darker, darker, till from out the gloomy rack
There came a voice that checked the heart with dread:
"Tear down, tear down your bunting now, and hang up sable black;
They are coming -- it's the Army of the Dead."

They were coming, they were coming,
 gaunt and ghastly, sad and slow;
They were coming, all the crimson wrecks of pride;
With faces seared, and cheeks red smeared,
 and haunting eyes of woe,
And clotted holes the khaki couldn't hide.
Oh, the clammy brow of anguish! the livid, foam-flecked lips!
The reeling ranks of ruin swept along!
The limb that trailed, the hand that failed,
 the bloody finger tips!
And oh, the dreary rhythm of their song!

"They left us on the veldt-side, but we felt we couldn't stop
On this, our England's crowning festal day;
We're the men of Magersfontein, we're the men of Spion Kop,
Colenso -- we're the men who had to pay.
We're the men who paid the blood-price.
 Shall the grave be all our gain?
You owe us. Long and heavy is the score.
Then cheer us for our glory now, and cheer us for our pain,
And cheer us as ye never cheered before."

The folks were white and stricken,
 and each tongue seemed weighted with lead;
Each heart was clutched in hollow hand of ice;
And every eye was staring at the horror of the dead,
The pity of the men who paid the price.
They were come, were come to mock us,
 in the first flush of our peace;
Through writhing lips their teeth were all agleam;
They were coming in their thousands --
 oh, would they never cease!
I closed my eyes, and then -- it was a dream.

There was triumph, triumph, triumph
 down the scarlet gleaming street;
The town was mad; a man was like a boy.
A thousand flags were flaming where the sky and city meet;
A thousand bells were thundering the joy.
There was music, mirth and sunshine;
 but some eyes shone with regret;
And while we stun with cheers our homing braves,
O God, in Thy great mercy, let us nevermore forget
The graves they left behind, the bitter graves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I thought red poppies were for rememberance, not to glorify war, just to remember the people that died.



The original intent was remembrance, but (especially in the last 30 years or so) remembrance itself has become more and more politicised, as we've had two generations of MPs now, where many never served, and never would serve given their druthers. These jokers have taken remembrance and made it a party-political football where one batch of vile goat semen-drinking fuckwads tries to play "more patriotic than thou" against another bunch of vile goat semen-drinking fuckwads.
Kill them all. I'll lay a turd on their mass grave, along with a wreath of bindweed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

N_igma said:


> As an Irish Republican it's safe to say I wouldn't be seen dead in one. Good way to tell who's a prod and who's a taig here lol.



There were many men from Eire who fought and died.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> People fleeing from war would more than likely welcome peace so no it doesn't.[/QUOTE
> 
> And people wearing symbolic white Poppy's far away from any conflict generates peace does it? White Poppy's haven't saved one life,but the bombs dropped on ISIS would have saved quite a few, I imagine.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

Advocating war isn't really in the spirit of remembrance and 'never again'. Someone like you should be ashamed to wear a poppy.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The original intent was remembrance, but (especially in the last 30 years or so) remembrance itself has become more and more politicised, as we've had two generations of MPs now, where many never served, and never would serve given their druthers. These jokers have taken remembrance and made it a party-political football where one batch of vile goat semen-drinking fuckwads tries to play "more patriotic than thou" against another bunch of vile goat semen-drinking fuckwads.
> Kill them all. I'll lay a turd on their mass grave, along with a wreath of bindweed.



I don't disagree with your sentiments re politicians who have never served; to lead, first you must be led. 

However (and there is always is a 'however'), the work that is done as a result of the poppy campaign is worthwhile, indeed vital work. Certainly, it is work that should be funded from general taxation, but it isn't, and it is work that needs to be done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't disagree with your sentiments re politicians who have never served; to lead, first you must be led.
> 
> However (and there is always is a 'however'), the work that is done as a result of the poppy campaign is worthwhile, indeed vital work. Certainly, it is work that should be funded from general taxation, but it isn't, and it is work that needs to be done.



I'm not saying "don't buy a poppy", I'm saying "look beyond the political rhetoric and point-scoring to the real reason to remember".


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2014)

White poppy for me and I'm not prepared to discuss!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I usually buy a red one but it is a little early to wear one yet no?


Yes!


----------



## N_igma (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> There were many men from Eire who fought and died.



Wow thanks for that useful piece of information. My position has completely changed now knowing this! Thank you Sas!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Fucking Terry Wogan on the tannoy on the tube about fucking poppies. Fuck off.





> Fucking Terry Wogan. Fuck off.


Either works for me.


----------



## felixthecat (Oct 26, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> White poppy for me and I'm not prepared to discuss!


Then why bother posting it?


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Advocating war isn't really in the spirit of remembrance and 'never again'. Someone like you should be ashamed to wear a poppy.


Who's  advocating war? Just pointing out the absurdity of pointless symbolism, you don't agree with remembrance?fine don't wear a poppy, any poppy.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> There were many men from Eire who fought and died.



And until recently were regarded as traitors in the republic IIRC.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

I'll be wearing a red poppy and I'm happy to discuss that's why I posted it here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

I won't wear one. I'm not a pacifist but won't wear any kind of poppy, not while the British state and military remain what they are. I also will not support an organisation that does this to children:







I don't doubt that the British Legion does good work helping people who need help. But they are also a recruiting sergeant for the army. They are spokespeople for present and future wars and cheerleaders of militarism. No, they won't get my support.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Who's  advocating war? .



this:



littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't doubt that the British Legion does good work helping people who need help. But they are also a recruiting sergeant for the army. They are spokespeople for present and future wars and cheerleaders of militarism. No, they won't get my support.



Cheb end.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Who's  advocating war? Just pointing out the absurdity of pointless symbolism, you don't agree with remembrance?fine don't wear a poppy, any poppy.



Yep that's right. That's what I said in my first post, I don't wear a poppy. Who said I don't agree with remembrance? Why do you think not wearing a poppy or wearing a white one equates to not agreeing with remembrance?


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

isnt the point of a white poppy, remembrance, without advocating unjust wars?


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> While the idea of peace is worthy,people making symbolic protests from their easy middle class backgrounds is, I would imagine,somewhat irksome for people who are either engaged in combat or fleeing from it.
> Does that make any more sense?



Surely the wearing of a red poppy is just as much a symbolic gesture as the wearing of a white one, it's just that you approve of the gesture of the former but not the latter, which is why you class the latter as a protest, suggesting that there is somehow something wrong with making a gesture aimed at both commemoration of those who died in the past *and* advocating peace in future.

Myself, I choose not to wear a poppy of any colour - would you categorise that as a symbolic protest, or just a decision not to engage in gestures of any kind?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2014)

felixthecat said:


> Then why bother posting it?


Because I voted and felt that a post to back it up might be required! I've had too much unwarranted abuse fired at me over this so forgive me for being defensive!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

What Andy said.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Surely the wearing of a red poppy is just as much a symbolic gesture as the wearing of a white one, it's just that you approve of the gesture of the former but not the latter, which is why you class the latter as a protest, suggesting that there is somehow something wrong with making a gesture aimed at both commemoration of those who died in the past *and* advocating peace in future.
> 
> Myself, I choose not to wear a poppy of any colour - would you categorise that as a symbolic protest, or just a decision not to engage in gestures of any kind?



exactly, coley seems to be talking complete nonsensical bollocks.... or at the very least ill-thought out bollocks


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2014)

and we'll get treated to the solemn faces of 28k a year private school educated PPE graduate politicians who never had to and never will be at either end of the rifle (untill the day) as they do the annual sad face next to cenotaph ritual. Fuck them.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Scutta said:


> isnt the point of a white poppy, remembrance, without advocating unjust wars?


It's the hi jacking of the poppy itself, I find mildly objectionable, by all means wear a symbol advocating peace


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

Except the symbolism of the red poppy is being used for a real and damaging purpose.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Scutta said:


> this:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheb end.


Aye, that not my post, PT seemed to be thinking I advocated war, nobody in their right mind wants war but sometimes it can't be avoided,


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Except the symbolism of the red poppy is being used for a real and damaging purpose.


But most pay for it and wear it,as a symbol of remembrance, no more no less.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and we'll get treated to the solemn faces of 28k a year private school educated PPE graduate politicians who never had to and never will be at either end of the rifle (untill the day) as they do the annual sad face next to cenotaph ritual. Fuck them.


This man wasn't even responsible for the horrors of WW2 - he showed personal bravery opposing the Nazis - yet he felt the responsibility of a generation. 






Maybe Milliband will take it upon himself to feel responsible for the war crimes of Blair and his associates. 

And maybe not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> But most pay for it and wear it,as a symbol of remembrance, no more no less.


yep. And I do not have a go at those who choose to wear one. I will not, though. And it's not a careless not wearing - it's a calculated one. If for whatever reason I were to be summoned to appear on the BBC during their period of compulsory poppy-wearing, I would refuse to, for instance.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> It's the hi jacking of the poppy itself, I find mildly objectionable, by all means wear a symbol advocating peace



I don't want to get all argumentative on your arse - you clearly feel strongly about this issue, whereas I, TBH, do not.

But how is wearing a white poppy hijacking anything? The British Legion (or whoever it is) don't own the image of all poppies, they use a red poppy. Other people have chosen to use a white poppy to symbolise something else (just as the red ribbon originally used to symbolise AIDS/HIV has now been adapted in various other colours to symbolise various other illnesses).

Just as it's up to you and all the red poppy wearers to chose to do your thing, surely it's equally up to the white poppy wearers to chose to do their thing, to chose their own symbol to convey their message.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yep. And I do not have a go at those who choose to wear one. I will not, though. And it's not a careless not wearing - it's a calculated one. If for whatever reason I were to be summoned to appear on the BBC during their period of compulsory poppy-wearing, I would refuse to, for instance.


No problem with that, as long as you don't rabbit on about how people who do wear them are, in some way, war mongering.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> No problem with that, as long as you don't rabbit on about how people who do wear them are, in some way, war mongering.



And I've no problem with *that*, as long as *you* don't rabbit on about how all people who chose not to wear one, or chose to wear a white one, are rabbiting on about you who chose to wear a red one in some way war mongering.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I won't wear one. I'm not a pacifist but won't wear any kind of poppy, not while the British state and military remain what they are. I also will not support an organisation that does this to children:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nowt wrong with soldiering, if that is what you want to do.

Recent conflicts, not our fight in the first place, and the consequences will be with us for a very long time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> No problem with that, as long as you don't rabbit on about how people who do wear them are, in some way, war mongering.


I don't. I will rabbit on about certain activities by the British Legion. But that's a long way away from judging everyone who wears a poppy. Wearing a poppy is not a war-mongering act.  I won't have any part in this particular set of actions, and certain aspects of it, including the advertising campaigns by the BL, I find deeply objectionable. But I would have joined Willy Brandt in bowing his head, for instance. As I said, I'm not a pacifist, even though I admire pacifism in many ways, but this version of remembrance I will have nothing to do with.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Nowt wrong with soldiering, if that is what you want to do..


On this point, you and I disagree. I see the mothers beaming with pride at their sons' passing out parades as part of the problem. 

I don't want a bunfight with you on this, though. I think you already know that's what I think.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Nowt wrong with soldiering, if that is what you want to do.
> 
> Recent conflicts, not our fight in the first place, and the consequences will be with us for a very long time.



Consider this a rhetorical question, because I genuinely don't want to get into personal arguments with people on this topic, but don't you think there is an interesting and perhaps ironic conflict or contradiction in the juxtaposition of those two sentences?


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't. I will rabbit on about certain activities by the British Legion. But that's a long way away from judging everyone who wears a poppy. Wearing a poppy is not a war-mongering act.  I won't have any part in this particular set of actions, and certain aspects of it, including the advertising campaigns by the BL, I find deeply objectionable. But I would have joined Willy Brandt in bowing his head, for instance. As I said, I'm not a pacifist, even though I admire pacifism in many ways, but this version of remembrance I will have nothing to do with.



Fair enough, I'm of a generation that knew and listened to those who fought in both WWs so I freely  admit to being a bit jaundiced by the peace and love brigade,admirable thought their aims are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Fair enough, I'm of a generation that knew and listened to those who fought in both WWs so I freely  admit to being a bit jaundiced by the peace and love brigade,admirable thought their aims are.


Properly principled pacifism, such as that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is _hard_.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Properly principled pacifism, such as that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is _hard_.


Totally agree, don't think I could even begin to understand how they maintained it.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Fair enough, I'm of a generation that knew and listened to those who fought in both WWs so I freely  admit to being a bit jaundiced by the peace and love brigade,admirable thought their aims are.



dont you think people who fought in ww's would rather a bit more peace n love esp having seen the horrors first hand? i know my family who fought and played their part would



coley said:


> No problem with that, as long as you don't rabbit on about how people who do wear them are, in some way, war mongering.



why rabbit on about middle class hippies then?


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Scutta said:


> dont you think people who fought in ww's would rather a bit more peace n love esp having seen the horrors first hand? i know my family who fought and played their part would
> 
> 
> 
> why rabbit on about middle class hippies then?


Because at this time of year the media seems full of them going on about how terrible war is, without any of them having been anywhere near one, mebbes should have put "middle class types/politicians/celebrities"


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Because at this time of year the media seems full of them going on about how terrible war is, without any of them having been anywhere near one, mebbes should have put "middle class types/politicians/celebrities"


war is terrible, is it not? not sure what your point is? you would rather they advocate it?

EDIT: and tbf it seems this time of year the media seem to be doing the exact opposite imo...for the reasons that have already been said....


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Consider this a rhetorical question, because I genuinely don't want to get into personal arguments with people on this topic, but don't you think there is an interesting and perhaps ironic conflict or contradiction in the juxtaposition of those two sentences?



Yes, and deliberately so.

As a soldier, you make an assumption that when you are sent to fight, you are sent to fight in at least the national interest, at worst because of the hubris of the national leader, but at least you should understand why you are being sent to fight. 

I went a very long way to a couple of insignificant islands. I was bombed and shot at, although the greatest danger was when I nearly drowned. 

Those insignificant islands belonged to us, and another nation had decided to take them, so we went, and we won them back. It was probably the most clear cut action that the British forces had undertaken since WWII, and remains so. If Argentina decides to take them tomorrow, we cannot take them back. We don't have the men and materiel. 

Gulf I, I was very briefly involved in. Had Hussein been allowed to keep Kuwait, the rest of the Gulf would have followed, strangling oil supplies to the West, which we need. War in the national interest, if you like.

Iraq and Afghanistan are a stain that will never wash out. I am very very glad that my soldiering days were over by that point. The quiet voices that accurately foretold what would happen in Iraq were not heard at the time, and are not being held now. Would I have gone? Yes, of course I would, but I am very glad I didn't have to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

Scutta said:


> war is terrible, is it not? not sure what your point is? you would rather they advocate it?
> 
> EDIT: and tbf it seems this time of year the media seem to be doing the exact opposite imo...for the reasons that have already been said....


And this year, it coincides with withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cue talk of a difficult job achieved, etc etc. Not 'they killed and died for less than nothing'. tbh Coley, I see rather the opposite at this time of year - comfortable types who have never been near war acting tough and war-mongering.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

coley when you said bombing isis saves lives that was advocating war. It's about what you say not whether you wear a poppy or not.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> As a soldier, you make an assumption that when you are sent to fight, you are sent to fight in at least the national interest, at worst because of the hubris of the national leader, but at least you should understand why you are being sent to fight.


Its more serious than that = post Neuremburg "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. To my mind it is now more than ever down to the conscience of each solider to decide if the war they are being sent to is legal or not.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Totally agree, don't think I could even begin to understand how they maintained it.



that's because the picture we have of people that we cannonise tends to be enhanced by a lot of myth making into the man we wanted them to be - perfect at all times, rather than an actual human with more complex views and someone capable of mistakes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> that's because the picture we have of people that we cannonise tends to be enhanced by a lot of myth making into the man we wanted them to be - perfect at all times, rather than an actual human with more complex views and someone capable of mistakes.


yes and no. MLK continued even though he knew he would be killed for it. He had a special kind of courage.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't want to get all argumentative on your arse - you clearly feel strongly about this issue, whereas I, TBH, do not.
> 
> But how is wearing a white poppy hijacking anything? The British Legion (or whoever it is) don't own the image of all poppies, they use a red poppy. Other people have chosen to use a white poppy to symbolise something else (just as the red ribbon originally used to symbolise AIDS/HIV has now been adapted in various other colours to symbolise various other illnesses).
> 
> Just as it's up to you and all the red poppy wearers to chose to do your thing, surely it's equally up to the white poppy wearers to chose to do their thing, to chose their own symbol to convey their message.



Because white poppys only ever turn up at the same time as the british legions campaign and the odious peace pledge union http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union#Appeasement_of_Nazi_Germany


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes, and deliberately so.
> 
> As a soldier, you make an assumption that when you are sent to fight, you are sent to fight in at least the national interest, at worst because of the hubris of the national leader, but at least you should understand why you are being sent to fight.
> 
> ...



So perhaps there *is* something wrong with soldiering as a career, in that you willingly* give up any right to be able to choose to take part in a conflict on the basis of your own view on whether it is just/in the national interest/whatever you want to call it.

Once you've signed up, you've abidicated your ability to make any moral choice over your actions to someone else.

*although you may not necessarily recognise the full implications of this at the time you first sign up


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Because white poppys only ever turn up at the same time as the british legions campaign and the odious peace pledge union http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union#Appeasement_of_Nazi_Germany



So everyone who wears a white poppy is a Nazi appeaser?

I said before I didn't want to get into any personal arguments on this thread, but if you carry this shit on I may well make an exception...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Its more serious than that = post Neuremburg "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. To my mind it is now more than ever down to the conscience of each solider to decide if the war they are being sent to is legal or not.


I think this is really difficult. Surely 'following orders' sometimes _is_ an excuse. It has to be, given the relative powerlessness of your ordinary squaddie, and the negative consequences for him of not following an order. There is something of a contradiction for me there.


----------



## krink (Oct 26, 2014)

The local Legion secretary is still an EDL organiser and they've started a campaign 'shaming' local shops who don't sell poppies so no poppy for me again this year, ta.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> So everyone who wears a white poppy is a Nazi appeaser?
> 
> I said before I didn't want to get into any personal arguments on this thread, but if you carry this shit on I may well make an exception...



Coley got personal with me as soon as I started posting on here. It's inevitable on this thread I think.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Because white poppys only ever turn up at the same time as the british legions campaign and the odious peace pledge union http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union#Appeasement_of_Nazi_Germany



isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.

the leaders, the aristocrats who supported appeasement and hitler, were, for the most part rehabilitated. a few black sheep, like the mosleys. but most managed to rewrite their personal histories to a significanty degree. eg, nancy astor.

but the more ordinary people who supported the policy out of a genuine belief in pacifism, they are demonised. the daily mail called for their banning ffs. to cover for their own past. the shouts of ban the appeasers rather than horay for the blackshirts have created a mythology arround opposition to the war

and still no one stops to think why a small powerless pacifist group was deemed so evil, by people who a few years earlier had been arguably worse


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Coley got personal with me as soon as I started posting on here. It's inevitable on this thread I think.



Getting a bit personal is one thing (don't know specifically what Coley said, so not commenting on that one way or the other), and for those who feel strongly it's maybe understandable.

But to roll out nazi appeaser shit is waaaay beyond getting a bit personal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.


yep. And cries of 'appeasement' have been (mis)used ever since by warmongers.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.



I'd call it instructive rather than odd - it's almost like Neville Chamberlain was forced into his actions by a handful of proto-hippies, and the Daily Mail and more members of the establishment than I can be bothered to list were all bang up for opposing Hitler from day one.

Whose interests does that version serve, I wonder?


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.
> 
> the leaders, the aristocrats who supported appeasement and hitler, were, for the most part rehabilitated. a few black sheep, like the mosleys. but most managed to rewrite their personal histories to a significanty degree. eg, nancy astor.
> 
> ...



This remark from a certain Hermann Goering gives food for thought:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> This remark from a certain Hermann Goering gives food for thought:
> 
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
> and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."



i've looked in some detail at the boer war and ww1 era pacifists  and a great many found the accusations of insuficient patriotism to be one of the hardest things to bear. because they also believed they were patriots, doing the best thing to protect their country from cocking it up all over again.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yep. And cries of 'appeasement' have been (mis)used ever since by warmongers.



and it's not as though there was anyhting that NC could have done to stop hitler at that stage anyway. perhaps marched our 5 divisions against germany's 40 odd. and stood back to watch the slaughter.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> coley when you said bombing isis saves lives that was advocating war. It's about what you say not whether you wear a poppy or not.


I have no bother understanding pacifism and actually admire genuine pacifism, but until we are all pacifists we need defence forces and I think they should be honoured for what they are prepared to do, as for bombing ISIS I am totally in support as long as it's limited to engaging ISIS.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Coley got personal with me as soon as I started posting on here. It's inevitable on this thread I think.


Pardon, just where did I get personal? If I remember rightly, you were the only one engaging in personal criticisms, starting, with the " bizarre" remark.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

Yes your comment about waving a white poppy in Gaza and Kobane was incredibly bizarre. That's not a personal remark.

Unlike you, I didn't describe anyone as odd for wearing a red poppy. Or make assumptions about anyone's class.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Yes your comment about waving a white poppy in Gaza and Kobane was incredibly bizarre. That's not a personal remark.
> 
> Unlike you, I didn't describe anyone as odd for wearing a red poppy. Or make assumptions about anyone's class.


It wasn't bizarre you just didn't make the connection, I do find the wearing of the white poppy at this time of the year mildly irritating and I don't know you or you me,so why do you believe I was directing my comments at you? having said that it was me just having an irritated mini rant and I agree I could have put it better.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

If you weren't directing your comments at me then why were you quoting me in your replies?


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

poptyping said:


> If you weren't directing your comments at me then why were you quoting me in your replies?


Directing comments yes, being personal no, as I have done here.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> It wasn't bizarre you just didn't make the connection, I do find the wearing of the white poppy at this time of the year mildly irritating and I don't know you or you me,so why do you believe I was directing my comments at you? having said that it was me just having an irritated mini rant and I agree I could have put it better.


 it was bizarre hence why you've been called out numerous times on your bizarre double standards throughout this thread...


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> It wasn't bizarre you just didn't make the connection, I do find the wearing of the white poppy at this time of the year mildly irritating and I don't know you or you me,so *why do you believe I was directing my comments at you*? having said that it was me just having an irritated mini rant and I agree I could have put it better.





poptyping said:


> If you weren't directing your comments at me then why were you quoting me in your replies?





coley said:


> *Directing comments yes,* being personal no, as I have done here.



Do you read what you've written?


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Suit yourself, I find people insisting on wearing the white poppy mildly annoying at this time of year.
I would love to see a conflict free world but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime or I suspect my great, great etc grandsons life time, and given the current ongoing conflicts, waving peace symbols around in protest is nothing but an empty gesture, but one which people are entitled to do should they wish.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

My first post on this thread stated that I don't wear a poppy. You've been arguing with yourself this whole time.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2014)

Peace pledge union white poppys are a parasitical campaign so fuck them


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Properly principled pacifism, such as that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is _hard_.



I do not equate pacifism, or conscientious objection, to cowardice. When I was a youngster (when I born, it was six years after the end of WWII, it wasn't history then.), I commented to my father about the 'cowards' that wouldn't fight. He told me about the Quakers, who operated an ambulance service, generally right up to the front line. He was brought into a Field Hospital in Italy, after being a bit close to an incoming mortar round. He had the highest praise for them.

Those who wear a white poppy, that is their choice, ditto those who wear none. A few bob into the tin is welcome though, whether you take a poppy or not. Broken soldiers need the help. They shouldn't, but they do.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> On this point, you and I disagree. I see the mothers beaming with pride at their sons' passing out parades as part of the problem.
> 
> I don't want a bunfight with you on this, though. I think you already know that's what I think.



I do. Whether I agree or not is immaterial, you have an immutable right to your view. 

An immutable right, protected by those of my father's generation, who fought and died to preserve it.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Peace pledge union white poppys are a parasitical campaign so fuck them


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Peace pledge union white poppys are a parasitical campaign so fuck them


 why?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And this year, it coincides with withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cue talk of a difficult job achieved, etc etc. Not 'they killed and died for less than nothing'. tbh Coley, I see rather the opposite at this time of year - comfortable types who have never been near war acting tough and war-mongering.



Today in fact. We handed over Camp Bastion today.

I have a colleague at work, a Rock Ape reserve, he should be back in a couple of weeks. He's been in Iraq three times and Afghanistan four times. He's a wee bit vague on what his trade is. 'Comms' is his answer. I suspect with all the time he's been away, he's a bit more than a Radio Op.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Peace pledge union white poppys are a parasitical campaign so fuck them



try thinking about why there was such a campaign against those people


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Its more serious than that = post Neuremburg "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. To my mind it is now more than ever down to the conscience of each solider to decide if the war they are being sent to is legal or not.



Not really. There is no prospect Of Pte Bloggs standing at Nurnberg. (Anybody know how to do a 'u' with an Umlaut?)

As to the legality of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Bush, Blair, Brown or Cameron will ever stand trial for it, or indeed the sainted Obama. 

Anyone care to bet on the number of weeks before countering IS will require 'boots on the ground'? And if ever anything needed boots, it is there. However, you either form a coalition, and send an appropriate number of troops, (who would be there on garrison duty for ever) or, you stay the fuck out.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> try thinking about why there was such a campaign against those people



*Appeasement of Nazi Germany*
Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement, believing that Nazi Germany would cease its aggression if the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty were undone.[8] It backed Neville Chamberlain's policy at Munich in 1938, regarding Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland as legitimate. _Peace News_ editor and PPU sponsor John Middleton Murry and his supporters in the group caused considerable controversy by arguing Germany should be given control of mainland Europe. In a PPU publication, _Warmongers_, Clive Bell said that Germany should be permitted to "absorb" France, Poland, the Low Countries and the Balkans. This position drew criticism from other PPU activists such as Vera Brittain and Andrew Stewart.[9] At the time of the Munich crisis, several PPU sponsors tried to send "five thousand pacifists to the Sudetenland as a non-violent presence", however this attempt came to nothing.[2]
Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2014)

Scutta said:


> why?



 Red Poppys are an act of remberance and the money goes to looking after ex servicemen
  White poppy sonly turn up during november and get spent on the peace pledge union


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Not really. There is no prospect Of Pte Bloggs standing at Nurnberg. (Anybody know how to do a 'u' with an Umlaut?)
> 
> As to the legality of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Bush, Blair, Brown or Cameron will ever stand trial for it, or indeed the sainted Obama.
> 
> Anyone care to bet on the number of weeks before countering IS will require 'boots on the ground'? And if ever anything needed boots, it is there. However, you either form a coalition, and send an appropriate number of troops, (who would be there on garrison duty for ever) or, you stay the fuck out.


Or you provide air support and let those who it affects sort it out.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> *Appeasement of Nazi Germany*
> Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement, believing that Nazi Germany would cease its aggression if the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty were undone.[8] It backed Neville Chamberlain's policy at Munich in 1938, regarding Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland as legitimate. _Peace News_ editor and PPU sponsor John Middleton Murry and his supporters in the group caused considerable controversy by arguing Germany should be given control of mainland Europe. In a PPU publication, _Warmongers_, Clive Bell said that Germany should be permitted to "absorb" France, Poland, the Low Countries and the Balkans. This position drew criticism from other PPU activists such as Vera Brittain and Andrew Stewart.[9] At the time of the Munich crisis, several PPU sponsors tried to send "five thousand pacifists to the Sudetenland as a non-violent presence", however this attempt came to nothing.[2]
> Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.



nicely selective quoting there. read the bit after, about how the campaigns against them were led by the daily mail


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> nicely selective quoting there. read the bit after, about how the campaigns against them were led by the daily mail


No, the whole article is available to read, it's just the bit I highlighted I found hard to believe, as for the daily mail, I know its history and have never read it. Though bringing them in is a bit of a strawman.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> No, the whole article is available to read, it's just the bit I highlighted I found hard to believe, as for the daily mail, I know its history and have never read it. Though bringing them in is a bit of a strawman.



no it isn't.

you have a policy of appeasement that was supported by most of the British establishment. 

when the establishment abandoned that policy, some of those who were shouting most in it's favour are the ones who led the campaign against those didn't abandon it. to try and cover up their about face by trying to associate that policy only with pcifist groups rather than as something they had cheered on


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2014)

Scutta said:


> EDIT: and tbf it seems this time of year the media seem to be doing the exact opposite imo...for the reasons that have already been said....


Yes, and IMO this has got worse over the last few years which is the reason why I have given up wearing a poppy.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 26, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Red Poppys are an act of remberance and the money goes to looking after ex servicemen
> White poppy sonly turn up during november and get spent on the peace pledge union


read the rest of the thread, cant be arsed to repeat what we have already gone through. But in your original comment you could easily now replace white with red poppies these days... it was just somewhat of a cretinous and pointless comment without explanation and tbf your further reasoning was pretty shit considering what has already been discussed.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2014)

My late dad was a soldier in WWII, which he miraculously survived unscathed as did some of his colleagues, many of their pals did not survive or were horribly injured. He wore a red poppy on the 11th of the 11th and remembered the soldiers sailors and airmen who did not come home, on both sides. I am happy to do the same.


----------



## xenon (Oct 26, 2014)

Black please.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> *Appeasement of Nazi Germany*
> Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement...
> ...Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.



Some of those involved in the PPU back in the 30's may well have been dodgy*, I don't know enough about them to dismiss that idea out of hand. But I think you should ask yourself who the many others mentioned in that piece you've quoted are.

I think you'll find that toggle's outline of who they were (ie a range of members of the establishment) and why their role in appeasement is downplayed in favour of suggesting it was a bunch of generally well meaning if rather naive pacifists who were actually leading the calls for appeasement (ie because when the establishment finally decided their interests were to oppose Nazism rather than cosying up to Hitler, they were keen that the earlier position many of them had taken should be forgotten as quickly as possible) is pretty much spot on.

And this is why many of us are uncomfortable about giving support to things like wearing red poppies on Remembrance Day, not because we don't think it's worth remembering those who died, or even because we question the motives of many, like you, who want to remember people in that particular way, but because we regard the establishment's cynical use of Remembrance Day and the genuine feelings you have about those who have lost their lives as being part of their manipulation to encourage unquestioning support for British war mongering in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan much more recently.

ETA* and as your quote mentions, there were some within the PPU who challenged that position


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Some of those involved in the PPU back in the 30's may well have been dodgy, I don't know enough about them to dismiss that idea out of hand. But I think you should ask yourself who the many others mentioned in that piece you've quoted are.



the one i've looked into in particular was Nancy Astor (she of the infamous exchange with Churchill) . her first election campaign was shortly after ww1, and that involved some fairly sustained attacks on her opponent Isaac foot for having been lawyer to many of the conscientious objectors during the war. not because he opposed it, but because he believed thy had a right to competent representation.

by the 30's she was one of the leading voices for appeasement, so much so that she became known as 'mr hitler's representative in westminster'' for her unquestioning support of german interests

by the end of the war, she had rewritten her own history into the patriot, opposing the germans and giving moral support to the town. the heroine of the home front who gave the wown's women the courage to continue. so much so that locals with a strong interest in their history, who hold her up as the groundbreaking first woman MP (an error in itself), often know absolutely nothing about her activities in between her first election and ww2. mentioning it is something best not done in person, i've faced some quite aggressive responses to that.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> the one i've looked into in particular was Nancy Astor (she of the infamous exchange with Churchill) . her first election campaign was shortly after ww1, and that involved some fairly sustained attacks on her opponent Isaac foot for having been lawyer to many of the conscientious objectors during the war. not because he opposed it, but because he believed thy had a right to competent representation.
> 
> by the 30's she was one of the leading voices for appeasement, so much so that she became known as 'mr hitler's representative in westminster'' for her unquestioning support of german interests
> 
> by the end of the war, she had rewritten her own history into the patriot, opposing the germans and giving moral support to the town. the heroine of the home front who gave the wown's women the courage to continue. so much so that locals with a strong interest in their history, who hold her up as the groundbreaking first woman MP (an error in itself), often know absolutely nothing about her activities in between her first election and ww2. mentioning it is something best not done in person, i've faced some quite aggressive responses to that.



I'm sure you know far more of the detail than I do, but the general theme is clear, even to someone with as sketchy a grasp of that detail as me. Thanks for filling in some of the gaps.

Interesting what happens when people start throwing claims about white poppies and appeasement around though, I'm not sure likesfish was quite expecting that...


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm sure you know far more of the detail than I do, but the general theme is clear, even to someone with as sketchy a grasp of that detail as me. Thanks for filling in some of the gaps.
> 
> Interesting what happens when people start throwing claims about white poppies and appeasement around though, I'm not sure likesfish was quite expecting that...



i don't know much about groups like the ppu. i know the story of the boer war pacifists better. emily hobhouse, who exposed the horrors of the concentration camps to the world, leonard courtney, who continued to support her when she travelled to germany  during ww1 to try to negotiate for peace. Save the Children was founded at a meeting in his home, a result of his and his wife's ongoing campaigns to try to minimise the consequences of war to civilians. they also got portrayed as traitors, cowards. reality is much more complex than the jingoists propeganda


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> i don't know much about groups like the ppu. i know the story of the boer war pacifists better. emily hobhouse, who exposed the horrors of the concentration camps to the world, leonard courtney, who continued to support her when she travelled to germany to try to negotiate for peace. Save the Children was founded at a meeting in his home, a result of his and his wife's ongoing campaigns to try to minimise the consequences of war to civilians. they also got portrayed as traitors, cowards. reality is much more complex than the jingoists propeganda



Yeah, reality is generally more complex than propaganda. Doesn't take that much effort to start peeping behind the curtain though


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> Or you provide air support and let those who it affects sort it out.



It's a mess.


----------



## coley (Oct 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It's a mess.



Not at the minute, boots on the ground? Then it becomes a mess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2014)

coley said:


> *Appeasement of Nazi Germany*
> Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement, believing that Nazi Germany would cease its aggression if the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty were undone.[8] It backed Neville Chamberlain's policy at Munich in 1938, regarding Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland as legitimate. _Peace News_ editor and PPU sponsor John Middleton Murry and his supporters in the group caused considerable controversy by arguing Germany should be given control of mainland Europe. In a PPU publication, _Warmongers_, Clive Bell said that Germany should be permitted to "absorb" France, Poland, the Low Countries and the Balkans. This position drew criticism from other PPU activists such as Vera Brittain and Andrew Stewart.[9] At the time of the Munich crisis, several PPU sponsors tried to send "five thousand pacifists to the Sudetenland as a non-violent presence", however this attempt came to nothing.[2]
> Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.


What I read from that is that 5000 people attempted something massively courageous before war had even started. And that there was dispute within the group as to what the correct response should be - ie the PPU wasn't some top-down monolith. These were engaged, committed people attempting to avert war. Some made bad judgements. Others less bad.

Sorry, what was your point again?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2014)

Thing is, coley, don't quote Clive Bell and what he said without also knowing what others were saying in response. You yourself admit in your quote that his proposition drew criticism. You're quoting one part of a debate, it would appear.

tbh I think you should just withdraw that post altogether. You don't know enough to comment, I reckon. I think you're also falling into the trap of thinking that an organisation like the PPU was, or was intended to be, a Stalinist group with a pre-agreed dogmatic position on everything.

That is what appears to me to have happened here: someone from the PPU said something and this is taken by their detractors as their official position. But not all organisations work like that.

Let's have a look at what the PPU is. It is open to everyone who agrees with this:



> I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war



No talk of appeasement or giving things to Hitler in there. Massive room for argument and disagreement. Not a monolith at all.

i think everyone trotting out the lazy 'PPU supported appeasement' line needs to have a good read about what _actually happened_, tbh. And then stop doing it.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't want to get all argumentative on your arse - you clearly feel strongly about this issue, whereas I, TBH, do not.
> 
> But how is wearing a white poppy hijacking anything? The British Legion (or whoever it is) don't own the image of all poppies, they use a red poppy. Other people have chosen to use a white poppy to symbolise something else (just as the red ribbon originally used to symbolise AIDS/HIV has now been adapted in various other colours to symbolise various other illnesses).
> 
> Just as it's up to you and all the red poppy wearers to chose to do your thing, surely it's equally up to the white poppy wearers to chose to do their thing, to chose their own symbol to convey their message.


The white poppy goes back to the 20s I don't see how that is hijacking anything! Almost as old as the red poppy!


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> The white poppy goes back to the 20s I don't see how that is hijacking anything! Almost as old as the red poppy!



Red poppy raises money for veterans etc.
White poppy raises money to stop war. And a great success that has been hasn't it?

George Orwell, writing in the October 1941 issue of Adelphi magazine: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, coley, don't quote Clive Bell and what he said without also knowing what others were saying in response. You yourself admit in your quote that his proposition drew criticism. You're quoting one part of a debate, it would appear.
> 
> tbh I think you should just withdraw that post altogether. You don't know enough to comment, I reckon. I think you're also falling into the trap of thinking that an organisation like the PPU was, or was intended to be, a Stalinist group with a pre-agreed dogmatic position on everything.
> 
> ...


Actually I agree with you I was just amazed at the statement I highlighted.
Let's leave the subject with another quote from the Wiccy article.

 "and in the words of member Derek Savage, "an amorphous mass of ordinary well-meaning but fluffy peace-lovers".


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2014)

> an amorphous mass of ordinary well-meaning but fluffy peace-lovers



The bastards


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> The bastards









  Turns out it takes more than suggesting war is bad to stop a dictator bent on genocide.
 Who would have thought. Obviously all the smart people got killed in the first world war as looking back on the history of the 20 & 30s some really
idiotic decisions were made.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 27, 2014)

yeah andysays YOU LITERALLY LOVE HITLER


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> *Turns out it takes more than suggesting war is bad to stop a dictator bent on genocide.*
> Who would have thought. Obviously all the smart people got killed in the first world war as looking back on the history of the 20 & 30s some really idiotic decisions were made.



Thank you for that profound truth which no one here would have recognised were it not for you 

Now, on the subject of Nazi appeasement, do you think the most significant idiotic decisions were taken by a significant sector of the British establishment, who later attempted to cover up their willing appeasement of Hitler, or the amorphous mass of ordinary well-meaning but fluffy peace-lovers represented by the PPU?


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 27, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> yeah andysays YOU LITERALLY LOVE HITLER



 Your the sort of person who talks to Nazis are you?





   You are on the list now.


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> yeah andysays YOU LITERALLY LOVE HITLER



Busted 

Nothing more I can say, please just bring the ban hammer down now and put me out of my misery


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thank you for that profound truth which no one here would have recognised were it not for you
> 
> Now, on the subject of Nazi appeasement, do you think the most significant idiotic decisions were taken by a significant sector of the British establishment, who later attempted to cover up their willing appeasement of Hitler, or the amorphous mass of ordinary well-meaning but fluffy peace-lovers represented by the PPU?


	  Obviously those in power have more to blame depending on why they did it. Which ranged from liking Hitler, to wanting to prepare for the war.
 Former case you are either naive or evil. Latter cynically evil.


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Obviously those in power have more to blame depending on why they did it. Which ranged from liking Hitler, to wanting to prepare for the war.
> Former case you are either naive or evil. Latter cynically evil.



Right, so can we please put a stop to this "white poppy wearers are nazi appeasers" shit?

I know you didn't start it, but you appear to be continuing it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 27, 2014)

Harry Smith said this last year and to be honest I can understand his reasoning for not wearing a poppy from this year on.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/poppy-last-time-remembrance-harry-leslie-smith


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

I wouldn't imagine many people who choose to wear a white poppy today - and i've never seen a single one in the wild - have much to do with the PPU or the other groups on similar lines that sprung up in the 30s. Those organisations _were _riddled with nazis and fascists at the top levels (see Fellow Travelers of the Far Right: British enthusiasts for Nazi Germany 1933-39 by Richard Griffiths amongst many others) but the suggestion by some that there is some pro-nazi or pro-fascist sympathy on the part of contemporary wearers by direct comparison is pretty daft. The complicated nature of the pacifists historical entanglement with, and, in many cases, enthusiasm for, fascism tells us very little about today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't doubt that the British Legion does good work helping people who need help. But they are also a recruiting sergeant for the army. They are spokespeople for present and future wars and cheerleaders of militarism. No, they won't get my support.



The RBL are about as much a recruiting sergeant for the army as war poetry is - that is, they're not. What the RBL *try* to do is pick up the pieces that successive governments have happily left broken.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The RBL are about as much a recruiting sergeant for the army as war poetry is - that is, they're not. What the RBL *try* to do is pick up the pieces that successive governments have happily left broken.


In their campaigning and fund-raising, they dress smiling children in t-shirts saying 'future soldier'. They are not a politically neutral organisation.


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In their campaigning and fund-raising, they dress smiling children in t-shirts saying 'future soldier'. They are not a politically neutral organisation.


How's that political?


----------



## krink (Oct 27, 2014)

These threads get worse every year. We should have a flower symbol to remember when they were still worth reading.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thank you for that profound truth which no one here would have recognised were it not for you
> 
> Now, on the subject of Nazi appeasement, do you think the most significant idiotic decisions were taken by a significant sector of the British establishment, who later attempted to cover up their willing appeasement of Hitler, or the amorphous mass of ordinary well-meaning but fluffy peace-lovers represented by the PPU?



I think that a sector of the British upper class were well into cigarette and blindfold territory. However, from 50 years of observation, the higher up the tree you are (were), the easier it is to engender amnesia in the relevant authorities. Viscount X was a tad misguided, whereas Joe Bloggs was shot as a spy,


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> How's that political?



It isn't. There are people who are inimically opposed to the concept of armed forces, and will do what they can to disparage them at every opportunity.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> Right, so can we please put a stop to this "white poppy wearers are nazi appeasers" shit?
> 
> I know you didn't start it, but you appear to be continuing it.



Some of them probably were. Not all, some.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 27, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think that a sector of the British upper class were well into cigarette and blindfold territory. However, from 50 years of observation, the higher up the tree you are (were), the easier it is to engender amnesia in the relevant authorities. Viscount X was a tad misguided, whereas Joe Bloggs was shot as a spy,



 Isn't one of the reasons the secret army of stay behind forces were kept secret for years after the war was they had lists of collaborators to kill?
Which would have caused a lot of embarrassment if published. Supposedly more than one member would have enjoyed his work.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> How's that political?



everything is political. keep up.


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

Scutta said:


> everything is political. keep up.


Is it, how is promoting the armed forces and helping ex servicemen "political"


----------



## Scutta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Is it, how is promoting the armed forces and helping ex servicemen "political"


I was being slightly sarcastic but seen as you ask,

with quite a generalised simple explanation.....

Promoting the armed forces........ as has been discussed some people don't agree with conflicts the armed forces are engaged in therefore promoting their part in this can be seen as being political... and being told you are unpatriotic or whatever for not supporting them as, political.

helping ex-servicemen ....... as has been discussed people may prefer the Gov to do it so that discussion is also political...

whether or not the BL are political (which imo they cannot help) the topics you bring up in your comment are very much political


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

Scutta said:


> I was being slightly sarcastic but seen as you ask,
> 
> with quite a generalised simple explanation.....
> 
> ...


That's like saying a lobby group is political, political is when you pursue a political agenda at some level, IMO.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> That's like saying a lobby group is political, political is when you pursue a political agenda at some level, IMO.


Lobbying is political too: http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/lobbying/


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> Lobbying is political too: http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/lobbying/


Not in true sense  a lobby group will lobby whoever is in power, politics is the seeking of power


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Not in true sense  a lobby group will lobby whoever is in power, politics is the seeking of power


There's not actually much that could be called politics in this view.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Not in true sense  a lobby group will lobby whoever is in power, politics is the seeking of power


Where did you get that definition of politics from?


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> Where did you get that definition of politics from?


Nowhere, just an opinion,


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Nowhere, just an opinion,


I disagree with your opinion, because I think politics is an activity that's not necessarily about seeking power but often about seeking influence on an outcome which may be related to governance but not necessarily.


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> I disagree with your opinion, because I think politics is an activity that's not necessarily about seeking power but often about seeking influence on an outcome which may be related to governance but not necessarily.



Well we could argue that there is a political agenda on the local allotment committee, but generally politics is seen, as the seeking of political power, usually starting at local council level, technically politics is involved wherever there is an elective process, but I prefer to keep it simple,or to generalise, so to speak.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Well we could argue that there is a political agenda on the local allotment committee, but generally politics is seen, as the seeking of political power, usually starting at local council level, technically politics is involved wherever there is an elective process, but I prefer to keep it simple,or to generalise, so to speak.


There are politics at local level of course. Lots of community politics of all kinds. There are politics In organisations too, internal politics.

You're saying that politics is solely confined to state electoral Politics of political parties and that's not the case.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Is it, how is promoting the armed forces and helping ex servicemen "political"



Promoting a violent organisation that mainly exists to protect the interests of the ruling class isn't political?


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> There are politics at local level of course. Lots of community politics of all kinds. There are politics In organisations too, internal politics.
> 
> You're saying that politics is solely confined to state electoral Politics of political parties and that's not the case.


No, I'm saying that's how most people see it, at least most of those I know,or who I have worked with.


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Promoting a violent organisation that mainly exists to protect the interests of the ruling class isn't political?


The RBL has no connection with the Met, AFAIK.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> Right, so can we please put a stop to this "white poppy wearers are nazi appeasers" shit?
> 
> I know you didn't start it, but you appear to be continuing it.


This is why I didn't want to discuss this! Oh um!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Is it, how is promoting the armed forces and helping ex servicemen "political"


you do know that, as clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means?


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know that, as clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means?


Aye.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye.


so the armed forces, as the instrument of that, are political.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> The RBL has no connection with the Met, AFAIK.


Which other violent organisation exists to protect mainly the interests of the ruling class?


----------



## Scutta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> That's like saying a lobby group is political, political is when you pursue a political agenda at some level, IMO.


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

No, the armed forces are apolitical, they are used to do the bidding of the elected goverment if they refused because they didn't like the hue of a particular government, then that would be political.


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> Which other violent organisation exists to protect mainly the interests of the ruling class?


Apart from the police? None that I know of.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> No, the armed forces are apolitical, they are used to do the bidding of the elected goverment if they refused because they didn't like the hue of a particular government, then that would be political.


The armed forces are the might, the enforcer, the physical embodiment of a political position. They are a political force.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Apart from the police? None that I know of.


The armed services.


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2014)

> we're not political, we're only doing the bidding of the elected government



The armed forces are, at the very least, used as a political instrument.


----------



## Scutta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> , they are used to do the bidding of the elected goverment.


which is still political


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> The armed forces are the might, the enforcer, the physical embodiment of a political position. They are a political force.


I would disagree,they are an instrument of the ruling political power,now if we had an army that was in the habit of mounting coup d'états then you would have a point.


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Apart from the police? None that I know of.



By your apparent reasoning about the armed forces, the police aren't political either, because "they're only there to uphold the laws of the land". 

If you can see through that claim in the case of the police, I'm not sure why you can't see through it when it comes to the armed forces.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> No, the armed forces are apolitical, they are used to do the bidding of the elected goverment if they refused because they didn't like the hue of a particular government, then that would be political.



How "apolitical" do you reckon the army would have been if it any point we'd elected a government they didn't fancy? Say Benn had won the 1976 Labour leadership election and started nationalising everything in sight?


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> How "apolitical" do you reckon the army would have been if it any point we'd elected a government they didn't fancy? Say Benn had won the 1976 Labour leadership election and started nationalising everything in sight?


I was in the army as were/is my two sons, the idea of the Army as political organisation is laughable and I was in during that period and I never heard any mutinous rumblings, and thatcher knew better than to try using the army in 84.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> I would disagree,they are an instrument of the ruling political power,now if we had an army that was in the habit of mounting coup d'états then you would have a point.



Why do you see the police as different?

And, why is carrying out politics not political?


----------



## coley (Oct 27, 2014)

Answered above.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Answered above.


No, it's not. The armed forces and the police carry out the will of the politicians. They are political because they are the force of politics. They are not freestanding - they are agents of the state.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> I was in the army as were/is my two sons, the idea of the Army as political organisation is laughable and I was in during that period and I never heard any mutinous rumblings, and thatcher knew better than to try using the army in 84.



Erm... the British government has used the army various times to break strikes both before and after WW2. Also, if Thatcher had used them in the miners' strike they'd likely have done as they were told, exactly as they did all the other times they were used in similar circumstances. Finally, there were plenty of ex-forces involved in the various plots to overthrow Wilson in the 1970s, so it's hardly implausible that similar people would've taken it further if Benn had become PM.

I'm not arguing that most individual soldiers are political. The institution definitely is, both in terms of its inherent nature and in terms of directly involving itself in the political process.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 27, 2014)

I'm not political. I just do violent things on the orders of politicians.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> I disagree with your opinion, because I think politics is an activity that's not necessarily about seeking power but often about seeking influence on an outcome which may be related to governance but not necessarily.



Please make sure that are accurately separating 'politics' and 'politicians'. Two different animals. If you substitute one for the other in Coley's posts...


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Please make sure that are accurately separating 'politics' and 'politicians'. Two different animals. If you substitute one for the other in Coley's posts...


Are you suggesting that what coley means is that only politicians carry out politics?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> Apart from the police? None that I know of.



Whose interests did the Iraq war serve?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2014)

coley said:


> I would disagree,they are an instrument of the ruling political power



Yes, isn't that what I said?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2014)

There's no point arguing with those who are thoroughly indoctrinated.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Erm... the British government has used the army various times to break strikes both before and after WW2. Also, if Thatcher had used them in the miners' strike they'd likely have done as they were told, exactly as they did all the other times they were used in similar circumstances. Finally, there were plenty of ex-forces involved in the various plots to overthrow Wilson in the 1970s, so it's hardly implausible that similar people would've taken it further if Benn had become PM.
> 
> I'm not arguing that most individual soldiers are political. The institution definitely is, both in terms of its inherent nature and in terms of directly involving itself in the political process.


   The coup plots from the 70,s supposedly failed when no serving officer was prepared to go along with it. Though of course no proof either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

Apart from the mass of proof and of people involved openly talking of it years later.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 28, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know that, as clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means?



as Louis XIV said (was inscribed on french canon of the time) - "Ultima ratio regum". (The final argument of kings)


----------



## youngian (Oct 28, 2014)

Is it me or has there been a lull this year in Poppy wearing witch hunts from sanctimonious windbags? Given the fact that its the WW1 outbreak centenary you would think it would have a higher profile this year. Am I being cynical to suggest the complex discussion about this key event is a bit too much effort for the tabloid armchair warriors? Especially for UKIPers: "We didn't fight two world wars to end up doing business in Europe in a peaceful manner"


----------



## Pingu (Oct 28, 2014)

cesare said:


> No, it's not. The armed forces and the police carry out the will of the politicians. They are political because they are the force of politics. They are not freestanding - they are agents of the state.


for me the key differentiator between the police and the armed forces is where they are used.

the police are an extension of domestic policy whilst the armed forces are an extension of foreign policy. Using the armed forces to suppress a domestic situation would mean that the government was REALLY desperate and it would be an admission that they couldn't maintain control. (TBH I am not so clear on using stuff like green goddesses here during fire service strikes but here the army isnt really being used in its primary capacity i.e. shooty stabby stuff)

SO Coley is kind of right in that the forces are not a political tool domestically but  they are certainly an extension of british foreign policy.

IME most normal squaddies etc feel as much antipathy for the ruling government as is displayed by the rest of the populace.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

northern ireland wasn't domestic?


----------



## rekil (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> George Orwell, writing in the October 1941 issue of Adelphi magazine: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."


Pompous old windbag Eoghan Harris used that line in one of his many many articles about why 'we' needed to go into 'Raq. Orwell apologised for the line afterwards, blaming the "madness of war". He knew very well that pacifists served in dangerous occupations, medical corps, bomb disposal, etc. Tell you what though, grassing up communists to intelligence services, now that really is a little bit objectively pro-nazi.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 28, 2014)

Pingu said:


> for me the key differentiator between the police and the armed forces is where they are used.
> 
> the police are an extension of domestic policy whilst the armed forces are an extension of foreign policy. Using the armed forces to suppress a domestic situation would mean that the government was REALLY desperate and it would be an admission that they couldn't maintain control. (TBH I am not so clear on using stuff like green goddesses here during fire service strikes but here the army isnt really being used in its primary capacity i.e. shooty stabby stuff)
> 
> ...


 
Normal coppers are not exactly big fans of the government generally.

Also what about when soldiers are deployed to protect airports like in the aftermath of the IRA strikes in the nineties? Or guarding Faslane, or royal venues and military barracks in London?


----------



## Pingu (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> northern ireland wasn't domestic?



yes IMO it was but see bit about not being able to maintain control. NI and the deployment of troops there was the british gov admitting they couldnt maintain control of the populace without the use of force and thus a "desperate measure".

NI is a weird one though as I think it only "worked" * because it wasnt mainland britain. I dont think it would have worked has the same situation arose in say middlesex. 

* worked is a very very broad term here and I am aware that its probably not the right word to use.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Normal coppers are not exactly big fans of the government generally.
> 
> Also what about when soldiers are deployed to protect airports like in the aftermath of the IRA strikes in the nineties? Or guarding Faslane, or royal venues and military barracks in London?



tbh thats a bit different to deploying them on the streets to maintain general order. DCs point about NI though raises some interesting questions about how NI was viewed by the general populace of the mainland. (was it seen as "foreign" compared to the mainland?) though this is possibly best discussed on a different thread as its going to get messy


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

copliker said:


> Pompous old windbag Eoghan Harris used that line in one of his many many articles about why 'we' needed to go into 'Raq. Orwell apologised for the line afterwards, blaming the "madness of war". He knew very well that pacifists served in dangerous occupations, medical corps, bomb disposal, etc. Tell you what though, grassing up communists to intelligence services, now that really is a little bit objectively pro-nazi.



 No that's  just anti commie. Communists have no right to claim superiority or exclusivity  on anti fascism as they were happy to jump into bed with Nazis.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> No that's  just anti commie. Communists have no right to claim superiority or exclusivity  on anti fascism as they were happy to jump into bed with Nazis.


Did you do WW2 at school at all?


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Did you do WW2 at school at all?









  Did you? There is an argument to be had that if Stalin had not helped Hitler it might not have kicked off after all.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Did you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Did you?


Has this thread turned into post the daftest thing you can think of or something overnight?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> northern ireland wasn't domestic?



Not really (seriously - Jim Callaghan admitted later that when the balloon went up in 1969, no one knew anything about "Ireland", as he called it).


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> No that's  just anti commie. Communists have no right to claim superiority or exclusivity  on anti fascism as they were happy to jump into bed with Nazis.



Oh dear, you just can't help yourself with the Nazi-supporting slurs, can you?

While it's true that Stalin was willing to ally himself with Hitler, and that many official-communist/Soviet allied/Stalinist communists went along with this, the idea that all self-described communists, even then, were happy to jump into bed with Nazis is malicious slandering bollocks, in the same way that suggesting all white poppy wearers are/were appeasers is.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:
			
		

> Did you? There is an argument to be had that if Stalin had not helped Hitler it might not have kicked off after all.



Now you've just outdone yourself. And all others. Apart from pbman who was the last one to take the line that it was the USSR that started the war. But he added that by USSR he really meant _the jews. _Going to take a shot at beating him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Did you? There is an argument to be had that if Stalin had not helped Hitler it might not have kicked off after all.


yes because OBVIOUSLY the "world war" only took place in europe and we don't care the chinese (& japanese) had been fighting for some years already


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

If we're posting pics with which to slander whole groups of people, let's have this one






All us Brits are Nazis, obvs...


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Now you've just outdone yourself. And all others. Apart from pbman who was the last one to take the line that it was the USSR that started the war. But he added that by USSR he really meant _the jews. _Going to take a shot at beating him?



 Never said that. What I said was if Stalin hadn't helped the Nazis it might not have kicked off.  Your claim that being anti commie automatically makes you pro Nazi is just as slanderous.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> If we're posting pics with which to slander whole groups of people, let's have this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 She a yank and he is part german try again


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> If we're posting pics with which to slander whole groups of people, let's have this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think you'll find the man on the right is austrian, the woman on the left american and the gent in the middle german.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find the man on the right is austrian, the woman on the left american and the gent in the middle almost wholly german.


 Your right I apologise


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Never said that. What I said was if Stalin hadn't helped the Nazis it might not have kicked off.  Your claim that being anti commie automatically makes you pro Nazi is just as slanderous.


What claim you prat? I said no such thing. In fact no one said any such thing.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Never said that. What I said was if Stalin hadn't helped the Nazis it might not have kicked off.  Your claim that being anti commie automatically makes you pro Nazi is just as slanderous.



You mean that if it wasn't for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Hitler wouldn't have risked invading Poland? That seems to underestimate or ignore the role of the Reich's internal economic crisis in driving it to war as the only means by which the regime could survive.

And Joe, murdering bastard though he was, had been trying to get some kind of collective security agreement with the western powers all through the summer of 1939. I'm not sure they can be blamed for being suspicious of him, but there indifference to those soviet requests for an alliance help explain why the pact with Germany was signed. For what it's worth, I remember listening to radio Moscow on the fiftieth anniversary of the pact and they still defended it as a tactical manouevre to buy time. They didn't mention what they did to Poland, of course.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> You mean that if it wasn't for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Hitler wouldn't have risked invading Poland? That seems to underestimate or ignore the role of the Reich's internal economic crisis in driving it to war as the only means by which the regime could survive.
> 
> And Joe, murdering bastard though he was, had been trying to get some kind of collective security agreement with the western powers all through the summer of 1939. I'm not sure they can be blamed for being suspicious of him, but there indifference to those soviet requests for an alliance help explain why the pact with Germany was signed. For what it's worth, I remember listening to radio Moscow on the fiftieth anniversary of the pact and they still defended it as a tactical manouevre to buy time. They didn't mention what they did to Poland, of course.



		 They also helped Germans re arm and sold a lot of resources to Germany. Now I have no idea if Russia had no choice in having to do this someone with a better understanding of economics and history would argue better. How far the Nazis would have got in Europe if Stalin had not joined in carving up Poland is debatable. Obviously with hindsight everyone in Europe made the worst choices.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> They also helped Germans re arm and sold a lot of resources to Germany. Now I have no idea if Russia had no choice in having to do this someone with a better understanding of economics and history would argue better. How far the Nazis would have got in Europe if Stalin had not joined in carving up Poland is debatable. Obviously with hindsight everyone in Europe made the worst choices.



And a lot of yank capitalists had fingers in the German pie all the way up to 1941.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

http://io9.com/the-cia-and-fbi-had-1-000-nazi-assets-during-cold-war-1651301118



> Writing in the _New York Times_, Eric Lichtblau cites interviews and declassified records to show how the CIA and FBI actively recruited Nazis after the war, and how, as recently as the 1990s, they refused to share information they had on Nazis living in the U.S. with other government officials.
> 
> During the Cold War, institution heads like the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover and the CIA's Allen Dulles "aggressively" recruited onetime Nazis of all ranks as secret, anti-Soviet "assets." They figured that their intelligence value outweighed their "moral lapses" in their service to the Third Reich.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> http://io9.com/the-cia-and-fbi-had-1-000-nazi-assets-during-cold-war-1651301118



What actual use could they possible be except as decoys?
West and East Germany had no choice as anyone over a certain level had to join the party ,but, CIA and FBI has no excuse it is not like the Nazi's were any good at spying in the first place.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> What actual use could they possible be except as decoys?
> West and East Germany had no choice as anyone over a certain level had to join the party ,but, CIA and FBI has no excuse it is not like the Nazi's were any good at spying in the first place.


It literally says what in the excerpt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

heres the full article

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html?_r=0

for those who CBA to read, a real gem is the recruitment by the CIA of Eichmanns top aide and mentor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> What actual use could they possible be except as decoys?
> West and East Germany had no choice as anyone over a certain level had to join the party ,but, CIA and FBI has no excuse it is not like the Nazi's were any good at spying in the first place.


yeh because you've looked into the matter at length and come to this considered conclusion 

that's doubtless why general gehlen, late of the third reich, ran ops on the eastern front before spending many years in charge of west german intelligence


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> heres the full article
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html?_r=0
> 
> for those who CBA to read, a real gem is the recruitment by the CIA of Eichmanns top aide and mentor.



 Well using SS guys in east Germany is a good idea they speak the language, will probably be loyal, and if they do get caught nothing of value is lost.
Rest of them seem pretty useless.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well using SS guys in east Germany is a good idea they speak the language, will probably be loyal, and if they do get caught nothing of value is lost.
> Rest of them seem pretty useless.


Given that you don't know who they were, what their official roles were or where they operated i think you haven't really the necessary info to say this.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh because you've looked into the matter at length and come to this considered conclusion
> 
> that's doubtless why general gehlen, late of the third reich, ran ops on the eastern front before spending many years in charge of west german intelligence


									 Who else would you get to do it?
 Nazis contaminated all of Germany you couldn't rebuild the country without using people with links to the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Who else would you get to do it?
> Nazis contaminated all of Germany you couldn't rebuild the country without using people with links to the party.


You just argued these people would be of no practical use. Two seconds later you have these same useless people successfully rebuilding the country.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Who else would you get to do it?
> Nazis contaminated all of Germany you couldn't rebuild the country without using people with links to the party.


and a lot of people with links to the party were nazis and all too often unrepentant


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You just argued these people would be of no practical use. Two seconds later you have these same useless people successfully rebuilding the country.


these useless BUT NOT NAZIS if yer man's to be believed


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2014)

youngian said:


> Is it me or has there been a lull this year in Poppy wearing witch hunts from sanctimonious windbags? Given the fact that its the WW1 outbreak centenary you would think it would have a higher profile this year. Am I being cynical to suggest the complex discussion about this key event is a bit too much effort for the tabloid armchair warriors? Especially for UKIPers: "We didn't fight two world wars to end up doing business in Europe in a peaceful manner"



the people i work for ae just about the number 1 demographic for that. and last year's rememberence sunday included the well recieved suggestion that half the country's problems could be fixed with one grenade. the idiots at the top overplayed their hand last year and they probably know it. hence the lack of similar bullshit this year


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Who else would you get to do it?
> Nazis contaminated all of Germany you couldn't rebuild the country without using people with links to the party.




half the ex nazi judiciary went straight over to the same roles in allied west germany. Some people really got the justified hump about that one. warrant signers, black cap wearers, unrepentant nazis. Back in the judges seat


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Who else would you get to do it?
> Nazis contaminated all of Germany you couldn't rebuild the country without using people with links to the party.


the country wouldn't have been destroyed in the first place without them


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

So, what have we learned on this thread then?

Wearing white poppies = Nazi appeaser, BAD
Sweeping under the carpet the activities of numerous ex-Nazis and sympathisers in Germany, USA and Britain (among other countries) and allowing them a significant role in post war states = necessary to rebuilding, GOOD

Give that man a poppy


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 28, 2014)

The photo below is of a window display in a (rather good) independent Auckland bookshop I used to pass on my home from making students cry, and shows a window display they mounted in the run up to ANZAC day, which is when they wear the poppy in the southern hemisphere. I took this pic after I'd been walking behind what appeared to be a normal, everyday person, who took a sharp left turn and entered the shop to yell at the shop assistants that they shouldn't be glorifying militarism, or something similar:


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> The photo below is of a window display in a (rather good) independent bookshop I used to pass on my home from making students cry, and shows a window display they mounted in the run up to ANZAC day, which is when they wear the poppy in the southern hemisphere. I took this pic after I'd been walking behind what appeared to be a normal, everyday person, who took a sharp left turn and entered the shop to yell at the shop assistants that they shouldn't be glorifying militarism, or something similar:


nice bren gun


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Given that you don't know who they were, what their official roles were or where they operated i think you haven't really the necessary info to say this.



 I can only go ,by, what the article says.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In their campaigning and fund-raising, they dress smiling children in t-shirts saying 'future soldier'.



How many of those children will go on to be soldiers? They're making a point, that's all, and not one that promotes the military.



> They are not a politically neutral organisation.



I haven't claimed that they are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

Scutta said:


> helping ex-servicemen ....... as has been discussed people may prefer the Gov to do it so that discussion is also political...



I'd love the government to take responsibility for providing for mentally-and physically-injured ex-service personnel.  Unfortunately, in 300+ years of having a standing army, they haven't done so, which means that organisations like the RBL become quite important.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

coley said:


> Not in true sense  a lobby group will lobby whoever is in power, politics is the seeking of power



Politics is interaction between individuals and/or collectives. You're talking about "power politics", as practiced by the political classes, whereas others are talking about general politically-involved behaviour - i.e. doing stuff for your community, questioning those who are supposed to represent you, etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

cesare said:


> The armed forces are the might, the enforcer, the physical embodiment of a political position. They are a political force.



They're a force directed by politics. They're not, in the sense that the police are, politicised, although it can't be denied that the officer corps has often shown a propensity for plotting to maintain reaction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> By your apparent reasoning about the armed forces, the police aren't political either, because "they're only there to uphold the laws of the land".
> 
> If you can see through that claim in the case of the police, I'm not sure why you can't see through it when it comes to the armed forces.



They're two different things, frankly. The armed forces (by which I mean the bulk of serving personnel, not the brass) aren't "political", they're a *tool* of politics. The police, on the other hand, are active participants in politics in their own right, through their own "interest groups" such as the Police Federation, the Black Police Association, ACPO etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> There's no point arguing with those who are thoroughly indoctrinated.



Which begs the question "why did Coley bother?".


----------



## hipipol (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which begs the question "why did Coley bother?".


cos he a cheap form of white fish?


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're two different things, frankly. The armed forces (by which I mean the bulk of serving personnel, not the brass) aren't "political", they're a *tool* of politics. The police, on the other hand, are active participants in politics in their own right, through their own "interest groups" such as the Police Federation, the Black Police Association, ACPO etc.



Yeah, they are two different things, and perhaps I might have better made the distinction between the institution of the armed forces (which is what I meant) and the bulk of serving personnel.

But are you really suggesting that "the Brass" don't act *in any way whatever* as their own interest group, all be it not as formally as ACPO etc?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yeah, they are two different things, and perhaps I might have better made the distinction between the institution of the armed forces (which is what I meant) and the bulk of serving personnel.
> 
> But are you really suggesting that "the Brass" don't act *in any way whatever* as their own interest group, all be it not as formally as ACPO etc?



I'm suggesting that they don't have an overt forum, in the way that police brass do, and that *that* limits their ability to engage in politics. There's also the small matter of inter-services rivalry and snobbery, which means that the brass have never been as cohesive as the police brass.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which begs the question "why did Coley bother?".


how am I indoctrinated?


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm suggesting that they don't have an overt forum, in the way that police brass do, and that *that* limits their ability to engage in politics. There's also the small matter of inter-services rivalry and snobbery, which means that the brass have never been as cohesive as the police brass.



I take your points, but I think that's still a long way from saying that the armed forces as an institution aren't political at all.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> how am I indoctrinated?



I *think* that was VP's idea of a joke, though admittedly it's a little difficult to tell sometimes


----------



## pacha (Oct 28, 2014)

coley said:


> I was in the army as were/is my two sons, the idea of the Army as political organisation is laughable and I was in during that period and I never heard any mutinous rumblings, and thatcher knew better than to try using the army in 84.



Then you are a hero in my eyes! 

You defended Queen & Country, you & your sons put your lives on the line, that just deserves so much respect


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

pacha said:


> Then you are a hero in my eyes!
> 
> You defended Queen & Country, you & your sons put your lives on the line, that just deserves so much respect


You _do_ believe in angels!

I thought you were banned anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> how am I indoctrinated?



You're applying your opinion as dogmatically as coley applied his, with little room for compromise. To me that carries the scent of indoctrination, albeit not with the state's opinions.
Dogmatism is the enemy of rational thought.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're applying your opinion as dogmatically as coley applied his, with little room for compromise. To me that carries the scent of indoctrination, albeit not with the state's opinions.
> Dogmatism is the enemy of rational thought.


I haven't even stated my opinion on here, let alone try to persuade anyone to my opinion...


And you wont see dogma coming from me!!


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're applying your opinion as dogmatically as coley applied his, with little room for compromise. To me that carries the scent of indoctrination, albeit not with the state's opinions.
> Dogmatism is the enemy of rational thought.



My mistake, you weren't joking.

Would you care to expand on your thesis that AuntiStella is somehow indoctrinated?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> I *think* that was VP's idea of a joke, though admittedly it's a little difficult to tell sometimes



It's *always* difficult to tell.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> My mistake, you weren't joking.
> 
> Would you care to expand on your thesis that AuntiStella is somehow indoctrinated?



We're *all* indoctrinated. That much is plainly obvious. We're all educated to hold a certain set of opinions as somehow self-evident, and as a people we tend to more or less go with those opinions, or react against them. coley voiced his, AuntiStella reacted against it.
I contend that AuntiStella is indoctrinated because her opinion is that coley (as a representative of the military establishment) is "thoroughly indoctrinated". You don't make claims like that unless you believe that your own position is self-evidently correct.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're *all* indoctrinated. That much is plainly obvious. We're all educated to hold a certain set of opinions as somehow self-evident, and as a people we tend to more or less go with those opinions, or react against them. coley voiced his, AuntiStella reacted against it.
> I contend that AuntiStella is indoctrinated because her opinion is that coley (as a representative of the military establishment) is "thoroughly indoctrinated". You don't make claims like that unless you believe that your own position is self-evidently correct.



We *are* all indoctrinated, though I got the impression you were suggesting that AS was more-than-usually indoctrinated on this issue. 

I'm sure AS can speak for herself if she wishes, but I also got the impression she was suggesting that Coley was indoctrinated on the basis of what he was saying as well as on his history in the military.

And would I be entirely out of line in suggesting that members and ex-members of the armed forces are among those who one might expect to have been more thoroughly indoctrinated than average in particular areas? If you look at the comments of some of those who I know to have armed forces history, they're hardly examples of independent free-thinking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> We *are* all indoctrinated, though I got the impression you were suggesting that AS was more-than-usually indoctrinated on this issue.
> 
> I'm sure AS can speak for herself if she wishes, but I also got the impression she was suggesting that Coley was indoctrinated on the basis of what he was saying as well as on his history in the military.
> 
> And would I be entirely out of line in suggesting that members and ex-members of the armed forces are among those who one might expect to have been more thoroughly indoctrinated than average in particular areas? If you look at the comments of some of those who I know to have armed forces history, they're hardly examples of independent free-thinking.



I have an armed forces history. 
I've said many times before on Urban too, that some of the most committed politically-left free-thinkers that I've had the pleasure of knowing have been ex-military too.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> *I have an armed forces history*.
> I've said many times before on Urban too, that some of the most committed politically-left free-thinkers that I've had the pleasure of knowing have been ex-military too.



I know you do.

That's why I said *some* of those etc, because i didn't want to lump you (or coley TBF) in with those who are equating white poppies with Nazi appeasement.

A pleasure, as always


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> We *are* all indoctrinated, though I got the impression you were suggesting that AS was more-than-usually indoctrinated on this issue.
> 
> I'm sure AS can speak for herself if she wishes, but I also got the impression she was suggesting that Coley was indoctrinated on the basis of what he was saying as well as on his history in the military.
> 
> And would I be entirely out of line in suggesting that members and ex-members of the armed forces are among those who one might expect to have been more thoroughly indoctrinated than average in particular areas? If you look at the comments of some of those who I know to have armed forces history, they're hardly examples of independent free-thinking.



more or less spot on!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> We *are* all indoctrinated, though I got the impression you were suggesting that AS was more-than-usually indoctrinated on this issue.
> 
> I'm sure AS can speak for herself if she wishes, but I also got the impression she was suggesting that Coley was indoctrinated on the basis of what he was saying as well as on his history in the military.
> 
> And would I be entirely out of line in suggesting that members and ex-members of the armed forces are among those who one might expect to have been more thoroughly indoctrinated than average in particular areas? If you look at the comments of some of those who I know to have armed forces history, they're hardly examples of independent free-thinking.


What is your expectation as regards indoctrination? Do you know many ex-services?


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What is your expectation as regards indoctrination? Do you know many ex-services?



First, this was not an entirely serious post - it was made in the knowledge that VP has an armed forces history and it was a bit of a gentle leg pull.

And although I don't know that many ex-services, I think I'm able to make the general point that most of them will, to a greater or lesser extent, have been trained/socialised/indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking about the role of the military, in just the same way that members of the police or other arms/institutions of the state (and of course other organisations more widely) will have been into thinking positively about the organisation which they are a member of. 

Is that really such a contentious suggestion?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> First, this was not an entirely serious post - it was made in the knowledge that VP has an armed forces history and it was a bit of a gentle leg pull.
> 
> And although I don't know that many ex-services, I think I'm able to make the general point that most of them will, to a greater or lesser extent, have been trained/socialised/indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking about the role of the military, in just the same way that members of the police or other arms/institutions of the state (and of course other organisations more widely) will have been into thinking positively about the organisation which they are a member of.
> 
> Is that really such a contentious suggestion?


Not at all. What's missing here is the armed forces as a site of struggle - the same as all institutions - in favour of just a/b - indoctrinated or not. And indoctrination is also about the worst concept that could be used here. Insulting to those engaged in that struggle and their capabilities.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not at all. What's missing here is the armed forces as a site of struggle - the same as all institutions - in favour of just a/b - indoctrinated or not. And indoctrination is also about the worst concept that could be used here. Insulting to those engaged in that struggle and their capabilities.



OK, I take your point and agree with the wider issue, but maybe you're reading a little too much into a throw-away post to VP batting his choice of term back at him.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm suggesting that they don't have an overt forum, in the way that police brass do, and that *that* limits their ability to engage in politics. There's also the small matter of inter-services rivalry and snobbery, which means that the brass have never been as cohesive as the police brass.



Snobbery? The RAF are a bunch of posers, and the Navy play with boats. The only REAL service is the army of course.  (Well, we would include the Marines.)


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> We *are* all indoctrinated, though I got the impression you were suggesting that AS was more-than-usually indoctrinated on this issue.
> 
> I'm sure AS can speak for herself if she wishes, but I also got the impression she was suggesting that Coley was indoctrinated on the basis of what he was saying as well as on his history in the military.
> 
> And would I be entirely out of line in suggesting that members and ex-members of the armed forces are among those who one might expect to have been more thoroughly indoctrinated than average in particular areas? If you look at the comments of some of those who I know to have armed forces history, they're hardly examples of independent free-thinking.



By heck, I've read some guff on here, but that really takes the biscuit. No part whatsoever of my military training was of a political nature. I feel you may be confusing the British army with that of the, now defunct, USSR. They attended lectures, and had political officers. 

What a strange thing for you to think, I can only attribute it to a complete lack of knowledge. I was a 'soldier' for 13 weeks of basic training, then again for a couple of weeks during promotion courses. The rest of the time, I was a nurse then a pharmacist, in common with the majority of soldiers, I did my job, pretty much as I would have in civvy street. Other than when out with a Field Surgical Team, I was one of the five.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> So perhaps there *is* something wrong with soldiering as a career, in that you willingly* give up any right to be able to choose to take part in a conflict on the basis of your own view on whether it is just/in the national interest/whatever you want to call it.
> 
> Once you've signed up, you've abidicated your ability to make any moral choice over your actions to someone else.
> 
> *although you may not necessarily recognise the full implications of this at the time you first sign up



That is more than a touch patronising.


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 31, 2014)

http://www.donotlink.com/framed?574703
Article from someone who lived through both WW


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2014)

There's a recorded message on London buses at the moment. Poppy appeal, linking World War 1 to today's wars, speaking of sacrifices to keep us free. They do what Harry Smith speaks of there, justifying today's action by linking it to past wars. One long unbroken tradition.The usual stuff. And they presume a right to broadcast at us just because we use public transport, using the voices of rich people for whom catching the bus is probably a distant memory.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a recorded message on London buses at the moment. Poppy appeal, linking World War 1 to today's wars, speaking of sacrifices to keep us free. They do what Harry Smith speaks of there, justifying today's action by linking it to past wars. One long unbroken tradition.The usual stuff. And they presume a right to broadcast at us just because we use public transport, using the voices of rich people for whom catching the bus is probably a distant memory.


Patch


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

youngian said:


> Is it me or has there been a lull this year in Poppy wearing witch hunts from sanctimonious windbags? Given the fact that its the WW1 outbreak centenary you would think it would have a higher profile this year. Am I being cynical to suggest the complex discussion about this key event is a bit too much effort for the tabloid armchair warriors? Especially for UKIPers: "We didn't fight two world wars to end up doing business in Europe in a peaceful manner"


 
Seems that way here too - the jingoists seem a bit jaded.


----------



## coley (Oct 31, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Snobbery? The RAF are a bunch of posers, and the Navy play with boats. The only REAL service is the army of course.  (Well, we would include the Marines.)


Don't forget the RAF regt


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 31, 2014)

coley said:


> Don't forget the RAF regt



The Rock Apes? To my perpetual annoyance, their Queen's Squadron has probably the best drill team in the world.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 31, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The Rock Apes? To my perpetual annoyance, their Queen's Squadron has probably the best drill team in the world.


 Just mention 5 miles of death and they shut up.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 31, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-to-remember-World-War-One.html#disqus_thread



> *Why British Muslims need a 'poppy hijab' to remember World War One*
> * British Muslim student Tabinda-Kauser Ishaq (24) has created a new headscarf decorated with poppies for Remembrance Day. She tells Radhika Sanghani why and about the 400,000 Muslim soldiers who fought alongside UK troops *



The comments are hotting up


----------



## Pingu (Oct 31, 2014)

coley said:


> Don't forget the RAF regt



speshul forces dontcha know...


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> The comments are hotting up



Bizarre that actual human beings that probably look normal if you pass them in the street can put a story like this up on their website and open a comments thread, knowing exactly the kind of shit it will attract, and still do normal things like having a shave or eating a cooked meal without a single pang of insight or decency strong enough to compel them to slit their own throat.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> Bizarre that actual human beings that probably look normal if you pass them in the street can put a story like this up on their website and open a comments thread, knowing exactly the kind of shit it will attract, and still do normal things like having a shave or eating a cooked meal without a single pang of insight or decency strong enough to compel them to slit their own throat.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29832912

Video on the beeb too.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 1, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> They also helped Germans re arm and sold a lot of resources to Germany. Now I have no idea if Russia had no choice in having to do this someone with a better understanding of economics and history would argue better. How far the Nazis would have got in Europe if Stalin had not joined in carving up Poland is debatable. Obviously with hindsight everyone in Europe made the worst choices.



Soviet foreign policy in its broader long term goals was consistent throughout the Stalin era.

The pact gets used as an example of Stalin merely being an unprincipled opportunist.  Flexible in tactics, too flexible some might argue, but true to the above. It was always for buying time in the hope enemy powers would weaken themselves to exhaustion through war with each other, then entry into that conflict at a favourable moment.

It doesn't really need saying that it turned into a massive fuck up for the Leader of the World Proletariat and endangered the USSR, something the established policy was designed to protect, but there we go.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 1, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-to-remember-World-War-One.html#disqus_thread
> 
> 
> 
> The comments are hotting up



Muslims have to prove they are the 'right sort of muslims' tho innit. Make bold statements to say not in my name. Onus is on individual muslims to prove they are different to the 'bad ones'


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 1, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Soviet foreign policy in its broader long term goals was consistent throughout the Stalin era.
> 
> The pact gets used as an example of Stalin merely being an unprincipled opportunist.  Flexible in tactics, too flexible some might argue, but true to the above. It was always for buying time in the hope enemy powers would weaken themselves to exhaustion through war with each other, then entry into that conflict at a favourable moment.
> 
> It doesn't really need saying that it turned into a massive fuck up for the Leader of the World Proletariat and endangered the USSR, something the established policy was designed to protect, but there we go.



 The after effects of ww1 seems to have knocked the worlds intelligence for six. As with hindsight everyone made the worse decisions possible.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No part whatsoever of my military training was of a political nature.



This is just a statement about your grasp of what politics is.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 1, 2014)

8ball said:


> This is just a statement about your grasp of what politics is.



Really? I was 24 when I joined the army. I was married and had a child, not a naive 16 year old. I well understood the political process, having been interested in politics since my early teens.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Really? I was 24 when I joined the army. I was married and had a child, not a naive 16 year old. I well understood the political process, having been interested in politics since my early teens.



And yet you still say no part of your military training was of a political nature.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 1, 2014)

8ball said:


> And yet you still say no part of your military training was of a political nature.



  Nearest thing to indoctrination is value and standards and equal opportunities lecture you have to sit through yearly.


----------



## coley (Nov 1, 2014)

Apart from the usual moans in the NAFFI or pub, politics was never a burning issue in my lot and I was certainly not indoctrinated in any shape form or fashion by the Army itself, though I can see the belief in ''military indoctrination' would be attractive to a certain mindset.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2014)

8ball said:


> This is just a statement about your grasp of what politics is.


perhaps Sasaferrato could outline what happened in training.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2014)

I think this discussion of the political nature of armed forces has gone slightly awry.

My original point was to do specifically with the British Legion, which plays a political role in linking past conflicts with present ones while never questioning any aspect of any conflict's motivation, execution or consequences. It is an 'our role is but to serve, and that is how it has ever been and ever should be' attitude that is itself not politically neutral.

The military and the police are both arms of the state, the means of maintaining the state's monopoly on violence. As such, both serve power. The military's violence is nominally aimed squarely at an external 'enemy' - from outside the 'in-group' that is the nation. It can be and is in extremis aimed inward at 'enemies within', and certainly their associated secret services are directed in this way _all the time_. Luckily in the UK, the military has not interfered too much with the 'in group' matters [exception below], but it can and does in whatever country when order is threatened. We shouldn't pretend otherwise - people who command men with guns and bombs will always have that power, the power to impose martial law as a last resort.

[The glaring exception here is Northern Ireland - big and glaring, and you might see rather a lot of raised eyebrows among the nationalist community there at the idea that the British army is not political, or aimed solely at an 'out-group'.]

The police are more overtly political in that their violence is aimed at the 'in-group' and maintenance of order. All police forces are thus political in their very nature. But the military is too, in practice, especially the British military. Few would even pretend that the various conflicts the UK has been involved in recently have been undertaken in order to protect us in the UK, and in the more distant past, conflicts of conquest have been overtly undertaken and praised - hence the building of an empire. Things are more hypocritical now. Instead of conquest, talk is about establishing 'democracy'. Today's liberal interventionists do exactly the same thing as imperialist conquerors did - invade and impose regimes that serve their ends - but do so in the name of peace and democracy. That is political - and if you're in the British army, that is the project you are carrying out.


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think this discussion of the political nature of armed forces has gone slightly awry.
> 
> My original point was to do specifically with the British Legion, which plays a political role in linking past conflicts with present ones while never questioning any aspect of any conflict's motivation, execution or consequences. It is an 'our role is but to serve, and that is how it has ever been and ever should be' attitude that is itself not politically neutral.
> 
> ...


Nope, keeping it simple, the army carries out policies,it does not create them or in any meaningful way have a hand in creating them.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> Nope, keeping it simple, the army carries out policies,it does not create them or in any meaningful way have a hand in creating them.


Isn't that quite political in itself?


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

8115 said:


> Isn't that quite political in itself?


In what way?


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> In what way?


Dunno. The idea that the army is there to unquestioningly carry out policies.

I would have thought each soldier and the army should question what they are doing?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> In what way?



Just following orders...


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

8115 said:


> Dunno. The idea that the army is there to unquestioningly carry out policies.
> 
> I would have thought each soldier and the army should question what they are doing?


We did, and those who don't agree with what they are asked to do leave.
But there are no elective procedures in the Army, no unions,that is why it's a bit odd to describe the armed forces as 'political'


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> We did, and those who don't agree with what they are asked to do leave.
> But there are no elective procedures in the Army, no unions,that is why it's a bit odd to describe the armed forces as 'political'


I thought the idea was that being in the armed forces might have a polarising effect on some people's politics.

I think that's true, fwiw.


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

8115 said:


> I thought the idea was that being in the armed forces might have a polarising effect on some people's politics.
> 
> I think that's true, fwiw.


No, why do you think that? I've always been to the centre left as have my two sons, most of those I was in the army with, in my regt, at least, were of a similar political mindset, found when I mixed with other regts on courses etc that those from the South were slightly more inclined to the right.
A reflection on the political  hue  of the UK and boringly normal.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

ffs it- not about whether you individually are left wing or wing, or about the forces trying to persuade you to be right wing -  it's about the political role and function of the military existing r_egardless of whatever political opinions the people in it hold. _Pages of utter drivel on this thread.


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ffs it- not about whether you individually are left wing or wing, or about the forces trying to persuade you to be right wing -  it's about the political role and function of the military existing r_egardless of whatever political opinions the people in it hold. _Pages of utter drivel on this thread.


And I'm arguing that in the broad sense the armed forces don't have a political role, if we had a choice of what we did and didn't do depending on on the party in power than that would be different


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> And I'm arguing that in the broad sense the armed forces don't have a political role, if we had a choice of what we did and didn't do depending on on the party in power than that would be different


And you still ignore the point i make above. You can only make that point if you totally ignore the above. It's not about you or your political choices.


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And you still ignore the point i make above. You can only make that point if you totally ignore the above. It's not about you or your political choices.


"The political role and function" ?  Didn't ignore it just stated I don't think they have oneIMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> "The political role and function" ?  Didn't ignore it just stated I don't think they have oneIMO.


Why would you think that it had? being a member of a non-political body and all.


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why would you think that it had? being a member of a non-political body and all.


Ex member, have , had? Where you going with this, Peterloo?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> Ex member, have , had? Where you going with this, Peterloo?


I don''t have to _go _anywhere with it. The british army weighs  fifteen hundred tons regardless of the views of its members. That is a whacking great series of political elephants in the living room. You might have motivations for ignoring it - not many others though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> Apart from the usual moans in the NAFFI or pub, politics was never a burning issue in my lot and I was certainly not indoctrinated in any shape form or fashion by the Army itself, though I can see the belief in ''military indoctrination' would be attractive to a certain mindset.




motivation, belief in the righteousness of the cause, loyalty to crown and country. I've heard some shocking cold war propaganda from the mouths of old soldiers, decontextualised shit like food queus in 50s russia like that was unusual for that era. Wether it comes from the BBC or the prevailing military culture- it is there. With the caveat obviously that individuals are susceptible to soft propaganda in varying degrees from arch skeptic to total gullible.


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> motivation, belief in the righteousness of the cause, loyalty to crown and country. I've heard some shocking cold war propaganda from the mouths of old soldiers, decontextualised shit like food queus in 50s russia like that was unusual for that era. Wether it comes from the BBC or the prevailing military culture- it is there. With the caveat obviously that individuals are susceptible to soft propaganda in varying degrees from arch skeptic to total gullible.


Should didn't have to be in the military to have that kind of stuff chucked at you it was the prevailing mind set during practically the whole Cold War era.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

coley said:


> Should didn't have to be in the military to have that kind of stuff chucked at you it was the prevailing mind set during practically the whole Cold War era.


But all non-political. All of it. There are no politics in this world.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But all non-political. All of it. There are no politics in this world.



Politics is Labour vs. Tory vs. <insert minor player>.
Did you miss that meeting?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Very little politics at Amritsar. Oh for those politics free days.


----------



## Iownadyson (Nov 2, 2014)

I think we should have less wars personally


----------



## coley (Nov 2, 2014)

Iownadyson said:


> I think we should have less wars personally


Me too.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2014)

Probably been posted before, but then so has everything in the thread, every year!

This year, I will wear a poppy for the last time (article from last year)
I will remember friends and comrades in private next year, as the solemnity of remembrance has been twisted into a justification for conflict
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/poppy-last-time-remembrance-harry-leslie-smith

...
Over the last 10 years the sepia tone of November has become blood-soaked with paper poppies festooning the lapels of our politicians, newsreaders and business leaders. The most fortunate in our society have turned the solemnity of remembrance for fallen soldiers in ancient wars into a justification for our most recent armed conflicts. The American civil war's General Sherman once said that "war is hell", but unfortunately today's politicians in Britain use past wars to bolster our flagging belief in national austerity or to compel us to surrender our rights as citizens, in the name of the public good.

Still, this year I shall wear the poppy as I have done for many years. I wear it because I am from that last generation who remember a war that encompassed the entire world. I wear the poppy because I can recall when Britain was actually threatened with a real invasion and how its citizens stood at the ready to defend her shores. But most importantly, I wear the poppy to commemorate those of my childhood friends and comrades who did not survive the second world war and those who came home physically and emotionally wounded from horrific battles that no poet or journalist could describe.

However, I am afraid it will be the last time that I will bear witness to those soldiers, airmen and sailors who are no more, at my local cenotaph. From now on, I will lament their passing in private because my despair is for those who live in this present world. I will no longer allow my obligation as a veteran to remember those who died in the great wars to be co-opted by current or former politicians to justify our folly in Iraq, our morally dubious war on terror and our elimination of one's right to privacy.
...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 3, 2014)

Pingu said:


> speshul forces dontcha know...



The Rock Apes? Special needs more like.


----------



## toggle (Nov 3, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Today's liberal interventionists do exactly the same thing as imperialist conquerors did - invade and impose regimes that serve their ends - but do so in the name of peace and democracy.



if you look at the main period of territorial expansion of the empire, it was most often done in the name of maintaining peace and imposing good government, equality and freedom, by a liberal government whose stated aims included avoiding the military entanglements they regularly hand wrung themselves into.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 3, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The Rock Apes? Special needs more like.



hey if i EVER need someone to sit in a portacabin watching TV and have a deep understanding of the local pizza/kebab establishments I know which regiment would be top of the list for the duty


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 3, 2014)

Pingu said:


> hey if i EVER need someone to sit in a portacabin watching TV and have a deep understanding of the local pizza/kebab establishments I know which regiment would be top of the list for the duty


Call of duty. Kebab Ops


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 3, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Nearest thing to indoctrination is value and standards and equal opportunities lecture you have to sit through yearly.



Didn't even have to do that in my day.

On reflection, I suppose the 'Army in the contemporary world' bit of EPC* and EPCA* could have been regarded as political, about four hours in 14 years of service.

*Educational courses that had to be passed in order to get promotion, however, they were universal, the same course taken by everyone from the Pioneer Corps to the RAMC. Not overly taxing, I got distinctions in all subjects on both courses.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> motivation, belief in the righteousness of the cause, loyalty to crown and country. I've heard some shocking cold war propaganda from the mouths of old soldiers, decontextualised shit like food queus in 50s russia like that was unusual for that era. Wether it comes from the BBC or the prevailing military culture- it is there. With the caveat obviously that individuals are susceptible to soft propaganda in varying degrees from arch skeptic to total gullible.



Didn't need the army to establish the veracity of that. Except it wasn't 50s Russia, it was early 80s East Berlin. Saw it with my own eyes. 

East Berlin around Alexanderplatz was rebuilt in the 'average tourist' area, but go a bit further into the city, and WWII damage was still very visible, nearly forty years after the war. it wasn't just queues for food, it was queues for all consumer goods.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 3, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Didn't even have to that in my day.[/QUOTE
> 
> You are not missing anything. Death by badly acted videos your supposed to have discussions about the issues that are raised.If your bosses hate you could
> drag it out for a week.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 3, 2014)

they both wanted the carrot


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Good effort from the quakers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2014)

Meanwhile, in Daily Fail Land yesterday... 






'FREE' 'Beautiful' 'giving away' 'lucky readers'

um.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 9, 2014)

Good article here:

"Why are Veterans For Peace walking on Sunday 9th November?

We think that the annual campaign run by The Royal British Legion has little to do with remembrance and is waged in order to promote unquestioning support for the military and war. We have been told by the RBL that the official ceremony is only to remember British war dead and that foreign veterans are not welcome. We want to remember all of those killed in war including civilians and foreign soldiers. We also want to send a clear message that we have experienced war and it should not be glorified."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ry-whitepoppy-wreath-to-cenotaph-9833246.html


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 9, 2014)

Seperated at birth?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Good article here:
> 
> "Why are Veterans For Peace walking on Sunday 9th November?
> 
> ...



 Well I went to the remembrance parade  in Portsmouth as usual not one word of glorification.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Meanwhile, in Daily Fail Land yesterday...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



claiming unique and thousands of em in the same breath is funnier


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well I went to the remembrance parade  in Portsmouth as usual not one word of glorification.


Ditto the festival of remembrance last night, in fact it was a plea for peace amongst nations more than owt else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Didn't need the army to establish the veracity of that. Except it wasn't 50s Russia, it was early 80s East Berlin. Saw it with my own eyes.
> 
> East Berlin around Alexanderplatz was rebuilt in the 'average tourist' area, but go a bit further into the city, and WWII damage was still very visible, nearly forty years after the war. it wasn't just queues for food, it was queues for all consumer goods.



You can still see pockmarks from firearm and artillery on loads of Berlin buildings, even the _Reichstag_. They look like they've got chickenpox.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2014)

coley said:


> Ditto the festival of remembrance last night, in fact it was a plea for peace amongst nations more than owt else.




Though a mate came up with a better act of remembrance  all the assembled soldiers are issued Stella Artois then get drunk and start fighting. Its what the fallen would appreciate.


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Though a mate came up with a better act of remembrance  all the assembled soldiers are issued Stella Artois then get drunk and start fighting. Its what the fallen would appreciate.


Nowt for the navy and Air Force? A shortage of rum and pink gin?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2014)

coley said:


> Nowt for the navy and Air Force? A shortage of rum and pink gin?


  Rum for the navy. White wine sprizters for crab air.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well I went to the remembrance parade  in Portsmouth as usual not one word of glorification.


Really? Not a "they gave our lives for us" or a "they fought so we could be free" or "they did their duty"? Just "It's sad that they died, isn't war terrible"?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Really? Not a "they gave our lives for us" or a "they fought so we could be free" or "they did their duty"? Just "It's sad that they died, isn't war terrible"?



  I don't see those statements as glorifying war or the services in general. Pacifism only works if both sides are not prepared to use violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Really? Not a "they gave our lives for us" or a "they fought so we could be free" or "they did their duty"? Just "It's sad that they died, isn't war terrible"?


i heard on radio 4 earlier that the people who were killed in ww1 (at least our lot) died in the quest for peace. and then i heard later that they died for king and country. i don't think both can be true.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> I don't see those statements as glorifying war or the services in general. Pacifism only works if both sides are not prepared to use violence.


Seriously?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

This shit just makes me:


----------



## Shirl (Nov 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i heard on radio 4 earlier that the people who were killed in ww1 (at least our lot) died in the quest for peace. and then i heard later that they died for king and country. i don't think both can be true.


I think they died because they were conscripted or because they signed up because they believed the bullshit they were fed. Poor sods


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

Seriously. The idea that you could read these three statements:

"they gave our lives for us"
"they fought so we could be free"
"they did their duty"

And not see that they glorify war, that they glorify military service, that they are _massively _ideological statements about what war is for and what soldiers do, is just...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

Shirl said:


> I think they died because they were conscripted or because they signed up because they believed the bullshit they were fed. Poor sods


yeh "killing for peace" is a curious concept.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Seriously. The idea that you could read these three statements:
> 
> "they gave our lives for us"
> "they fought so we could be free"
> ...



I don't think remembering those lost in WWII is glorifying, even if you use those statements. The Nazis wanted all of Europe including the UK, people fought to keep Britain free of the Nazis.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't think remembering those lost in WWII is glorifying, even if you use those statements. The Nazis wanted all of Europe including the UK, people fought to keep Britain free of the Nazis.



It is though, isn't it. Just because it's a war you approve of doesn't change that. All that's changed is that you think the purpose they died for was glorious.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It is though, isn't it. Just because it's a war you approve of doesn't change that. All that's changed is that you think the purpose they died for was glorious.


I think we have a different understanding of the common usage of the word "glorious".

Those who died fighting the Nazis died as a result of a nasty and brutal war, I don't see glory.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 9, 2014)

.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Seriously. The idea that you could read these three statements:
> 
> "they gave our lives for us"
> "they fought so we could be free"
> ...



 I disagree. It is just what they did hard to say it any other way. It is a service of remembrance. We have armed forces day as remembrance does not glorify the military if anything it kind of points out what the result of being in the military can lead to.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> I disagree. It is just what they did hard to say it any other way. It is a service of remembrance. We have armed forces day as remembrance does not glorify the military if anything it kind of points out what the result of being in the military can lead to.


I'm not saying that remembrance isn't possible. I'm saying those specific statements are ideological and I've no idea how you can't see it.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'm not saying that remembrance isn't possible. I'm saying those specific statements are ideological and I've no idea how you can't see it.



  They may well be I don't see anything wrong with using them.


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Seriously. The idea that you could read these three statements:
> 
> "they gave our lives for us"
> "they fought so we could be free"
> ...



I can read them and accept them for what they are, simple statements of fact, I do appreciate the fact, that thanks to these people, I can post on here without the fear of the secret police coming in and 'disappearing me'
The broader arguments re; capitalism,the The stupidity of Afghanistan/ Iraq, the vile hypocrisy of the establishment, etc,are fought daily on these boards, remembrance day is simply that, remembering those who died.
ETA, a comma.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> They may well be I don't see anything wrong with using them.


You don't see anything wrong with casting the army as an institution that protects our freedom, dies for us, whose members do their duty by obeying orders?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 9, 2014)

coley said:


> I can read them and accept them for what they are, simple statements of fact, I do appreciate the fact, that thanks to these people, I can post on here without the fear of the secret police coming in and 'disappearing me'
> The broader arguments re; capitalism,the The stupidity of Afghanistan/ Iraq, the vile hypocrisy of the establishment, etc,are fought daily on these boards, remembrance day is simply that, remembering those who died.
> ETA, a comma.


"Simple statements of fact". Nothing simple about any of them.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. do you object that I remember my father and his colleagues, and their friends who were killed and wounded, who protected Britain against the Nazis during WWII? Or do you object that I do this especially on rememberance day? Or do you object that they were in the armed forces?


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> "Simple statements of fact". Nothing simple about any of them.


Only if you want to put them through some torturous idealogical mangle, which I suspect you wish to do?


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2014)

interesting article...

http://www.judecollins.com/2014/11/...-things-worth-thinking/#.VF-WuewoWyQ.facebook


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

coley said:


> Only if you want to put them through some torturous idealogical mangle, which I suspect you wish to do?


How's this for a "torturous ideological mangle". Apply them to any armed force that isn't the British Army and see how you feel about them. 

Oh, and whilst we're at it, take them out of our remembrance services and ask yourself why it would be weird.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Lo Siento. do you object that I remember my father and his colleagues, and their friends who were killed and wounded, who protected Britain against the Nazis during WWII? Or do you object that I do this especially on rememberance day? Or do you object that they were in the armed forces?


None of the above.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Lo Siento. do you object that I remember my father and his colleagues, and their friends who were killed and wounded, who protected Britain against the Nazis during WWII? Or do you object that I do this especially on rememberance day? Or do you object that they were in the armed forces?


Fucking hell, for once in your life read what people post. Absolutely nobody has said anything like the above.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 10, 2014)

Well done chaps. It usually kicks off a lot earlier than this and it looked like we'd gotten away with it tooo!


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2014)

Well I'm sorry but he does this all the fucking time, skipping over the points people make to post banal rubbish.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Seriously. The idea that you could read these three statements:
> 
> "they gave our lives for us"
> "they fought so we could be free"
> ...



I don't have a problem with these three utterances, especially wrt WWII



Lo Siento. said:


> You don't see anything wrong with casting the army as an institution that protects our freedom, dies for us, whose members do their duty by obeying orders?



In the case of WWII I don't no. Other wars like Afghanistan and Iraq I do.



Lo Siento. said:


> How's this for a "torturous ideological mangle". Apply them to any armed force that isn't the British Army and see how you feel about them.



It depends on which armed forces and relating to which wars!



Lo Siento. said:


> Oh, and whilst we're at it, take them out of our remembrance services and ask yourself why it would be weird.



Eh? You are saying our remembrance service would be weird without these statements? is that what you are saying? I think we could remember with or without these three sayings.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell, for once in your life read what people post. Absolutely nobody has said anything like the above.





redsquirrel said:


> Well I'm sorry but he does this all the fucking time, skipping over the points people make to post banal rubbish.



Two posts, zero content, well done you!


----------



## coley (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> How's this for a "torturous ideological mangle". Apply them to any armed force that isn't the British Army and see how you feel about them.
> 
> Oh, and whilst we're at it, take them out of our remembrance services and ask yourself why it would be weird.


Bit incongruous to apply them to invading armies attempting the permanent occupation and subjugation of their neighbours though?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 10, 2014)

LiamO said:


> interesting article...
> 
> http://www.judecollins.com/2014/11/...-things-worth-thinking/#.VF-WuewoWyQ.facebook



Just the same old British hating pacifist bile. What about the Germans?  Give me strength!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Oh change it to be more inclusive and less militaristic. It is about the loss in 2 world wars and to a lesser extent those killed in other wars.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

coley said:


> Bit incongruous to apply them to invading armies attempting the permanent occupation and subjugation of their neighbours though?



Some introductions:

Coley, My Point.

My Point, Coley.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2014)

coley said:


> Bit incongruous to apply them to invading armies attempting the permanent occupation and subjugation of their neighbours though?


yeah, the British don't invade their neighbours generally. Well not any more. Henry V did. The British prefer to invade, occupy, and subjugate farther afield nowadays. 

And to dylan, if the idea of commemorating the Germans who were sent to their slaughter in WW1 makes you puke, you rather make the article writer's point for him.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't have a problem with these three utterances, especially wrt WWII



(a) In your opinion does poppy day limit these statements solely to soldiers who participated in WW2?
(b) Even if you restrict those statements solely to WW2, do you not think that those statements omit as much as they contain?



> In the case of WWII I don't no. Other wars like Afghanistan and Iraq I do.



See (a) above. That's the point with the state-sponsored poppy day, you don't get to choose. This is _not_ an accident.



> It depends on which armed forces and relating to which wars!



Exactly. It's not a neutral statement if it can only be applied to armed forces and wars that we deem politically acceptable. It's a political statement.



> Eh? You are saying our remembrance service would be weird without these statements? is that what you are saying? I think we could remember with or without these three sayings.


Yes, a remembrance service in which the only statement was: "It was sad that they died" would be weird. How could it not be?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Just *the same old British hating pacifist bile*. What about the Germans?  Give me strength!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But's it's not about nationalism or militarism!!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> But's it's not about nationalism or militarism!!


Or, at least, it shouldn't be.  The trouble is that for a conspicuous amount of people (just look at the media, your own relatives  or work contacts) the wearing of a red poppy, taking part in Rememberance Sunday, and  Armistice Day do seem to be excuses for the worst expressions of both, including a generous dose of "my country right or wrong".


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2014)

I have never worn one. Not my thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Or, at least, it shouldn't be.  The trouble is that for a conspicuous amount of people (just look at the media, your own relatives  or work contacts) the wearing of a red poppy, taking part in Rememberance Sunday, and  Armistice Day do seem to be excuses for the worst expressions of both, including a generous dose of "my country right or wrong".


It forms one part of the normalisation of a situation of permanent war. It's not an accident that remembrance season has been ramped up - military days at football matches, etc - during these times of permanent military action.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

I have no problem with remembrance day but I don't like the way it is getting militarised. And I don't like the trends of for example Muslims being encouraged to wear poppy hijabs etc, it makes me feel really uncomfortable.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 10, 2014)

Tesco keeping it classy here:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I have no problem with remembrance day but I don't like the way it is getting militarised. And I don't like the trends of for example Muslims being encouraged to wear poppy hijabs etc, it makes me feel really uncomfortable.


It's vile, really. And that Daily Mail front page I linked to from Saturday, it is not a coincidence for them to have led on a failed terror plot the day before Remembrance Sunday - need to keep people on their toes and on-side for military action.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Just the same old British hating pacifist bile. What about the Germans?  Give me strength!



So the millions of German dead (military & civilians) deserved what they got? On account of them being Krauts and all?

Whereas all the Allied dead deserved to be remembered and commemorated because they weren't dastardly Germans?



dylanredefined said:


> Oh change it to be more inclusive and less militaristic. It is about the loss in 2 world wars...



But only the loss on 'our' side, yeah?




dylanredefined said:


> ... and to a lesser extent those killed in other wars.



All those awkward, squalid, little colonial wars when britain played nasty Germany's designated role of foreign invader/oppressor?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

Also, Next had a sign in their window asking customers to join a minutes silence on tues

Fair enough if someone wants to join in but it's a bit shit if you go to a shop at 11am and get looked at funny for wanting to buy a pair of shoes. The enforced aspect and fact it's becoming increasingly hyped up and seized upon into a symbol of English nationalism is a bit worrying imo

I never had a problem with it before by the way


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

It just seems to me to be encouraging war these days whereas I never remember it being like that before.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> It just seems to me to be encouraging war these days whereas I never remember it being like that before.


It's changed a lot in the last 20 years, I think. It used to be far more low-key. In part, I suspect this is because marketing bods have become involved at the BL, finding new ways to get poppies everywhere. I noticed a London bus covered in poppies the other day. Tastefully done, of course.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also, Next had a sign in their window asking customers to join a minutes silence on tues
> 
> Fair enough if someone wants to join in but it's a bit shit if you go to a shop at 11am and get looked at funny for wanting to buy a pair of shoes. The enforced aspect and fact it's becoming increasingly hyped up and seized upon into a symbol of English nationalism is a bit worrying imo
> 
> I never had a problem with it before by the way


I got asked, by another member of staff, to make an announcement for it. I said we'd mark 11am "for those that wish to observe Remembrance Sunday", but if anyone had wanted to be served I would have served them.

Felt a bit awkward sitting checking my emails while my other two colleagues stood in reverential silence; I tried to click very quietly


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's changed a lot in the last 20 years, I think. ..


Can't say I have noticed, the ceremony at the cenotaph seems relatively unchanged.
Are you sure you are not noticing changes because of the centenary of WWI?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Can't say I have noticed, the ceremony at the cenotaph seems relatively unchanged.
> Are you sure you are not noticing changes because of the centenary of WWI?


Yes. Very sure. I'm not talking about the ceremony.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2014)

Tbf if your going to do the minutes silence reminding people that its 11 o'clock 
 Seems reasonable  enough people gabbing through the silence rather ruins the effect.
 it is only a minute


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Can't say I have noticed, the ceremony at the cenotaph seems relatively unchanged.


There's a bit more to it than the cenotaph these days!

Poppies on football shirts, poppies on football boots, poppies on DLR trains, poppies on pizzas apparently! Moral outrage if someone in the public view isn't wearing a poppy, and like Christmas it seems to get earlier every year.

It feels like for many it's become a thing to be superior about, or "I'm more reverential than thou". It's starting to get a bit fetishised...


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2014)

The bbc hands poppys  to every celeb regardless of nationality or belief rather people by their own.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

Well, I noticed pretty much everyone on a BBC show last week and perhaps before were wearing a poppy, as if it was a clause in their appearance contract. That certainly did seem a bit false.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's changed a lot in the last 20 years, I think. It used to be far more low-key. In part, I suspect this is because marketing bods have become involved at the BL, finding new ways to get poppies everywhere. I noticed a London bus covered in poppies the other day. Tastefully done, of course.



This often happens with invented traditions during periods of heightened nationalism. You take stuff that people did in a low key way before and hype the shit out of it and if anyone asks why, you turn round and say "what? we always did this..."


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

Well a similar thing is going on in Russia at the moment with the St George Ribbon, which began as a remembrance for Russias wars, it's now become that anyone who doesn't wear it is a Nazi...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2014)

Germans are fortunate not to have a military history of which they are supposed to be proud.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Well, I noticed pretty much everyone on a BBC show last week and perhaps before were wearing a poppy, as if it was a clause in their appearance contract. That certainly did seem a bit false.



Saw some american celeb on some talk show he had one pinned on him didnt have a clue what it was for .
 Guess they dont want the daily mail going berserk because somebody didn't have a poppy on.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. Very sure. I'm not talking about the ceremony.


For me, the minutes silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the .. is important, a private moment where you can remember whatever or whoever you want .. In this year, the final remaining member of my Dad's WWII recce troop died at the ripe old age of 95. I will certainly think of him.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> For me, the minutes silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the .. is important, a private moment where you can remember whatever or whoever you want .. In this year, the final remaining member of my Dad's WWII recce troop died at the ripe old age of 95. I will certainly think of him.


Which is fair enough, but as has been said upthread there's a hell of a lot more to it these days. There's a lot of pressure to join in, and if you don't then you're a certain wrong'un. As you said, folks on TV are all just being handed a poppy by producers without it being a personal choice, because they fear the backlash if they're not seen to be taking part.

The colleague who asked me to make announcement said she felt it would be immoral not to. Not even simply disrespectful, but _immoral_. Now, it could have been just a poor choice of words but I certainly took exception to it (though tried to be polite about it, obviously  ).


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

If remembrance it being pushed more, is it in part in response to greater demands from injured service people from Iraq and Afghanistan? And the centenary, is it not the reason for the poppy display at the tower?

As I have mentioned before, I don't live in the smoke, apart from seeing odd collections of people on the box wearing poppies, I haven't seen so much.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> .. The colleague who asked me to make announcement said she felt it would be immoral not to. Not even simply disrespectful, but _immoral_. Now, it could have been just a poor choice of words but I certainly took exception to it (though tried to be polite about it, obviously  ).



Could be your colleague just had a problem expressing themselves clearly, certainly they had a problem expressing themselves persuasively in your case


----------



## Greebo (Nov 10, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> Which is fair enough, but as has been said upthread there's a hell of a lot more to it these days. There's a lot of pressure to join in, and if you don't then you're a certain wrong'un. As you said, folks on TV are all just being handed a poppy by producers without it being a personal choice, because they fear the backlash if they're not seen to be taking part. <snip>


IMHO one of the things fought for in WWII (AFAIK WWI was more about territory and treaties than anything else) was freedom of conscience, including the right to wear a poppy or not; enforced wearing and display is at odds with part of what those poppies should represent.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

the big ramping up of the jingo this year is the commemorating the start of the war which is just sick, they didn't give a flying about the people who they sent to war then and they don't now. You're a spade or a tyre to these people- when you break they get a new one. You can fuck off and beg help for heroes for a few quid cos your no use in this mans army etc.

That and casting ww1 as a just necessary war, well thats a massive piece of revisionism. We hardly got the 'bosses war' narrative at school but we were at least told it was a stupid waste!

Declaring victory as the last men pull out of afghanistan tail between legs. We have always been at war with eurasia.

Just like when we one iraq 2 and trained a world beating army of locals there to defend freedom  that worked


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If remembrance it being pushed more, is it in part in response to greater demands from injured service people from Iraq and Afghanistan? And the centenary, is it not the reason for the poppy display at the tower?
> 
> As I have mentioned before, I don't live in the smoke, apart from seeing odd collections of people on the box wearing poppies, I haven't seen so much.


Why would any of those be necessary for it to be pushed more? Governments like opportunities to push nationalism, charities like opportunities to push for more donations.


----------



## rioted (Nov 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> it is only a minute


Is it? 

Took the grandkids to football Sunday afternoon: minutes silence and all the bollocks that goes with it. In the morning they'd been to play rugby - minutes silence and all the bollocks that goes with it. On Tuesday they have a minutes silence at school and all the bollocks that goes with it. How many minutes?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2014)

rioted said:


> Is it?
> 
> Took the grandkids to football Sunday afternoon: minutes silence and all the bollocks that goes with it. In the morning they'd been to play rugby - minutes silence and all the bollocks that goes with it. On Tuesday they have a minutes silence at school and all the bollocks that goes with it. How many minutes?


Three.

I can see why you were a teacher. 3x1 =3. Relevant but critical questions.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 10, 2014)

i think part of the increasing profile for it is that we now have people who have fought in more recent conflicts who are now no longer serving who have lost friends in those conflicts. The age range at the cenotaph i went to on Sunday was certainly younger than it was when i first started going in the 90s. Add in the various families of those who served in recent conflicts and who are still serving and the number of people who are directly affected by the idea behind remembrance has increased significantly


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 10, 2014)

LiamO said:


> So the millions of German dead (military & civilians) deserved what they got? On account of them being Krauts and all?
> 
> Whereas all the Allied dead deserved to be remembered and commemorated because they weren't dastardly Germans?
> 
> ...



Tell me at republican commemorations do they remember the British soldiers who died?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yeah, the British don't invade their neighbours generally. Well not any more. Henry V did. The British prefer to invade, occupy, and subjugate farther afield nowadays.
> 
> And to dylan, if the idea of commemorating the Germans who were sent to their slaughter in WW1 makes you puke, you rather make the article writer's point for him.



  The writer is basically hating the fact the British are doing something he doesn't like.
It is a national day of remembrance for the war dead of this nation. Not a fluffy day of war is bad m'kay.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

on another thread, this sites ex military were vehemently denying they had swallowed any propaganda in the army. Denying the existence of such a thing.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2014)

Usually two minutes hardly the oath of alligence every morning is it.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> It just seems to me to be encouraging war these days whereas I never remember it being like that before.



It would be on one of the bunfight threads but when someone on here posted up the pic of the kids stood around the massive poppy with t-shirts proudly saying 'future soldier' and another posted a link to the British Legion's 'corporate partnership' site offering companies 'synergy with patriotic feeling' (poss a misquote but that was the vibe) then I knew I was right in putting the poppy away a couple of years ago.

I wanted the symbol to be about remembering those lost in wars, but I wasn't going to wear a symbol that was involved in glorifying future ones.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Germans are fortunate not to have a military history of which they are supposed to be proud.



Even though they helped win the Battle of Waterloo and smash Boney.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 10, 2014)

convicted neo nazi laying poppies yesterday 






http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/a-national-disgrace-4117


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Good article here:
> 
> "Why are Veterans For Peace walking on Sunday 9th November?
> 
> ...



Even elite troops can lose their nerve, it can happen to the very best.

Anyone who feels that war is never the only option is a clown. Their wreath of white poppies would soon have been red, as the Nazi tanks crushed the bearer. 

As for his whining that the MOD obtained an injunction to prevent him from breaking the law, he can consider himself lucky that he wasn't jailed for breach of the Official Secrets Act, which he signed. Signing a document such as the OSA is in effect giving your word, and a man who does not stand by his word isn't much of a man.

If someone feels that they can no longer serve, there is a mechanism whereby they may leave. 

The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan were of dubious legality and morality. If one's conscience dictates that they can no longer serve, then there is a mechanism to do so. Of course, if you are intent on generating the maximum publicity, then you 'refuse to soldier'. Self publicists 'refuse to soldier', everyone else quietly makes their case and leaves.

I sense a thwarted 'Andy McNab' here.


----------



## andysays (Nov 10, 2014)

coley said:


> Bit incongruous to apply them to invading armies attempting the permanent occupation and subjugation of their neighbours though?



What about those members of the British armed forces who were already part of an occupying and subjecting force, but were killed attempting to resist an invading army seeking to displace them and become the new occupying and subjecting force in British colonies? Or those who were killed resisting the various post WWII wars of independence in those colonies?

They, as individuals, are just as worth of rememberance, but their role can hardly be described simply as


Lo Siento. said:


> "they gave our lives for us"
> "they fought so we could be free"
> "they did their duty"



So to include those statements when remembering all Britain's war dead, wherever and whenever they died, strikes me as being clearly partial and ideological.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

do we remember those who died putting down the mau mau? The dead of the malayan 'emergency'?


----------



## Pingu (Nov 10, 2014)

tbh i didnt see much remembering of british/french/tc dead on Volkstrauertag. each country remembers its own


----------



## coley (Nov 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> on another thread, this sites ex military were vehemently denying they had swallowed any propaganda in the army. Denying the existence of such a thing.


Still do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

and fish have no word for water


----------



## andysays (Nov 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> do we remember those who died putting down the mau mau? The dead of the malayan 'emergency'?





> "they gave our lives for us"
> "they fought so we could be free"
> "they did their duty"


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even elite troops can lose their nerve, it can happen to the very best.
> 
> Anyone who feels that war is never the only option is a clown. Their wreath of white poppies would soon have been red, as the Nazi tanks crushed the bearer.
> 
> ...



Surely everyone, particularly ex-soldiers who have first hand experience of war, has the right to remember in their own way. You seem really angry about this.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Tell me at republican commemorations do they remember the British soldiers who died?



Of course they don't.

They make it very clear exactly who they are commemorating - and why. They do _not_ expect non-republicans to wear Easter Lilies either.

Nor would they ever be so shameless, so delusional as to hijack one of the western world's most well-known anti-war songs for their own militaristic ends like this ...


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Tell me at republican commemorations do they remember the British soldiers who died?




https://amp.twimg.com/v/603f78be-951d-4524-8914-f9d2498c3cf4

this won't embed. It's the Sinn Fein mayor of Dublin (a former IRA volunteer and prisoner) explaining his decision to attend a Remembrance day service in his home town.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> do we remember those who died putting down the mau mau? The dead of the malayan 'emergency'?


Or even stuff like Suez.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 10, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Even though they helped win the Battle of Waterloo and smash Boney.


I thought it was Shakin Stevens who knocked Boney M off the all time longest number one spot. I didn't know it was the bloody Germanz I bet it was Tangerine Dream wasn't it


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 10, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Of course they don't.
> 
> They make it very clear exactly who they are commemorating - and why. They do _not_ expect non-republicans to wear Easter Lilies either.
> 
> Nor would they ever be so shameless, so delusional as to hijack one of the western world's most well-known anti-war songs for their own militaristic ends like this ...




  No idea what they were thinking, I agree it is horrible an original version would have been fine.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

On 9th May every year in Russia and ex soviet states there is a parade to mark the defeat of fascism, there is quite plainly an ideological bias to it as the implications are that Putin is doing the same thing, the state celebration is quite clearly not just about remembrance, and in my opinion it is the same here


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

^^^ and the very people who here swear blind its just remembrance and its just poppies are quick to smirk at jonny foriegners crude propaganda


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> The writer is basically hating the fact the British are doing something he doesn't like.
> It is a national day of remembrance for the war dead of this nation. Not a fluffy day of war is bad m'kay.


Hang on, weren't you and coley claiming above that it wasn't about nationalism and militarism?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Hang on, weren't you and coley claiming above that it wasn't about nationalism and militarism?



 If you think the remembrance service is about glorification of the military and the UK you haven't been to many.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> If you think the remembrance service is about glorification of the military and the UK you haven't been to many.


I think the statement I was directly responding to was nationalist and militarist.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

Wait, so if somebody said "they gave our lives for us" about a _bad_ army that would be bad because it was glorifying them. But otherwise it's not glorifying anything. Er.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Wait, so if somebody said "they gave our lives for us" about a _bad_ army that would be bad because it was glorifying them. But otherwise it's not glorifying anything. Er.


This same group of posters are warbling around claiming that "the army isn't political, it's a neutral organisation that just serves the nation", as if their believing the latter doesn't utterly contradict the former. Can't expect much in terms of consistency, can you?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> If you think the remembrance service is about glorification of the military and the UK you haven't been to many.


I've been to around 20. That you can't see it i says it all.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> This same group of posters are warbling around claiming that "the army isn't political, it's a neutral organisation that just serves the nation", as if their believing the latter doesn't utterly contradict the former. Can't expect much in terms of consistency, can you?



It just serves the nation, nothing to do with nationalism


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> This same group of posters are warbling around claiming that "the army isn't political, it's a neutral organisation that just serves the nation", as if their believing the latter doesn't utterly contradict the former. Can't expect much in terms of consistency, can you?


I am not sure if I am in that group of warblers - but the armed forces (the army is just one of three) serves the UK government and the UK government is supposed to serve the people. Senior armed forces people are expected to remain removed from politics while in office.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

lady on the news just suggested smashing the entire moat of poppies would be an appropriate metaphor for all the crushed and broken bodies of the fallen!

controversial for ITV news. Shiela Hancock, never heard of her.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure if I am in that group of warblers - but the armed forces (the army is just one of three) serves the UK government and the UK government is supposed to serve the people. Senior armed forces people are expected to remain removed from politics while in office.


Yes, you most certainly are. And this post is an excellent example of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

Supposed to serve the people lol


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Supposed to serve the people lol








  Here we see the British army oppresing the workers


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 10, 2014)

UKIP candidate lays poppy wreath emblazoned with UKIP logo at Chatham memorial service. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/storm-over-ukip-poppy-wreath-26696/


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> .. And this post is an excellent example of it.


Is there anything incorrect about that post in your opinion?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is there anything incorrect about that post in your opinion?


No, on the contrary, it's a pretty perfect statement of the ideology behind armies everywhere.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> No, on thr contrary, it's a pretty perfect statement of the ideology behind armies everywhere.


Armies? what about navies and air forces? anyhow despite that you believe our armed forces are political?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Armies? what about navies and air forces? anyhow despite that you believe our armed forces are political?



Yes. That's why I said "everywhere" and "ideology".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

It's a bit silly though isn't it? "Oh they're not political, they just do whatever a political body tells them. Unless they decide to take their own decisions but that only happens in bad countries like, er, Egypt. They're only the armed wing that supports the politics of whoever commands them and enforces their will, and control is crucial to any group that wants to take political power, nothing political about that."


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Here we see the British army oppresing the workers


I take it the flood defence workers were out on strike that day


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

> "We are committed, in front of God, to the [redacted] people that we will protect [redacted], the [redacted] and their freedom."


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

In Israel the remembeance day is massively politicised, iirc people have been attacked for not observing it


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2014)

I also don't see what the army helping out with flood defences etc has to do with criticisms of it being wrong

Surely you can see that the army isn't 100% good all the time or 100% bad


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

I don't think Lo Siento. was saying the armed forces are bad, just that they are political.

It wasn't the armed forces that decided to invade the Faulklands, Afghanistan and Iraq, it was our politicians who decided, the armed forces did what they were told.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> it was our politicians who decided, the armed forces did what they were told.


Well that's a completely apolitical role then.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well that's a completely apolitical role then.


As I already said, the UK armed forces serve the government which is elected by the people. Hopefully people will take electing a government seriously and vote as best they can.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As I already said, the UK armed forces serve the government which is elected by the people. Hopefully people will take electing a government seriously and vote as best they can.


...I don't really want to be too sarcastic here, but I'm not quite sure how else to respond.

Oh, here's a possibility: even if you did think that the orders that the military got via parliament were a reflection of some sort of will of the people, _that would still be a very political role_.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> .. Oh, here's a possibility: even if you did think that the orders that the military got via parliament were a reflection of some sort of will of the people, _that would still be a very political role_.


Well the armed forces are an arm of the state.
Would you say the civil service is very political?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Well the armed forces are an arm of the state.
> Would you say the civil service is very political?


...when a department enforces political decisions to, say, sanction welfare recipients, how are they not playing a political role?

When the police arrest political enemies of the state because those are the orders they're given, that's not a political role?


----------



## andysays (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Well the armed forces are an arm of the state.
> Would you say the civil service is very political?



All the arms of the state are political to some extent, even the "nice" ones like the NHS.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> ...when a department enforces political decisions to, say, sanction welfare recipients, how are they not playing a political role?
> 
> When the police arrest political enemies of the state because those are the orders they're given, that's not a political role?


In a very similar way, they do what they are told by their political masters.

I don't really see why you and others are so keen to establish that the armed forces are political, why for example it is not enough that they are simply an arm of the state?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> In a very similar way, they do what they are told by their political masters.
> 
> I don't really see why you and others are so keen to establish that the armed forces are political, why for example it is not enough that they are simply an arm of the state?


Being an arm of the state is by definition having a political role!


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Being an arm of the state is by definition having a political role!


And yet, when as likely will happen Milliband sweeps into No 10, the civil service, armed forces chiefs, NHS bosses etc will not be changed, they will simply serve the new master.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And yet, when as likely will happen Milliband sweeps into No 10, the civil service, armed forces chiefs, NHS bosses etc will not be changed, they will simply serve the new master.


And?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And?


And nothing, made my point thanks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2014)

Obviously _doing what you're told to enforce political decisions except if you really don't want to_ means you're completely not part of the process.

Oh am I being sarcastic again?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And yet, when as likely will happen Milliband sweeps into No 10, the civil service, armed forces chiefs, NHS bosses etc will not be changed, they will simply serve the new master.


So doing what different politicians tell you means it's not political?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> convicted neo nazi laying poppies yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anyone who wishes may lay a wreath. There is no 'QC' unfortunately.

Can someone change so radically do you think, from racist fascist scum to 'ordinary'? A huge leap I think.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Obviously _doing what you're told to enforce political decisions except if you really don't want to_ means you're completely not part of the process.


We seem both happy that: the UK armed forces are an arm of the UK state.
In that endeavour they execute the decisions of whichever their political masters are at the time.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> So doing what different politicians tell you means it's not political?



Do you work in the public sector? If so, what do you think guides your work? The tooth fairy? 

Virtually every aspect of life is 'political' in one way or another.

Perhaps you should take some comfort that a change of government does not mean a wholesale resignation/recruitment cycle. Do you really want an army divided along party political lines. One of the strengths of the army is its ability to serve all governments equally.


----------



## andysays (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do you work in the public sector? If so, what do you think guides your work? The tooth fairy?
> 
> Virtually every aspect of life is 'political' in one way or another.
> 
> Perhaps you should take some comfort that a change of government does not mean a wholesale resignation/recruitment cycle. Do you really want an army divided along party political lines. One of the strengths of the army is its ability to serve all governments equally.



So does this mean that you're agreeing that the armed forces are political now? Or are you suggesting that all the other arms of the state are, but the forces are somehow different?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2014)

i doubt these days you get anything as retarded as the mutiny in ireland or people playing silly buggers as claimed in the 70s.
  Genuine contempt for most politicions and senior officers after a complete failure to tell people the truth during the last two wars.
  The aims were impossible.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I have no problem with remembrance day but I don't like the way it is getting militarised. And I don't like the trends of for example Muslims being encouraged to wear poppy hijabs etc, it makes me feel really uncomfortable.



Of course it militaristic, it is after all to remember the dead of the wars, the majority of which, in Britain, were soldiers, sailors and airmen. (And women).


----------



## toggle (Nov 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the big ramping up of the jingo this year is the commemorating the start of the war which is just sick, they didn't give a flying about the people who they sent to war then and they don't now. You're a spade or a tyre to these people- when you break they get a new one. You can fuck off and beg help for heroes for a few quid cos your no use in this mans army etc.
> 
> That and casting ww1 as a just necessary war, well thats a massive piece of revisionism. We hardly got the 'bosses war' narrative at school but we were at least told it was a stupid waste!
> 
> ...



it's not commemoration of the start of the war, it's it being billed as a fucking celebration.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do you work in the public sector? If so, what do you think guides your work? The tooth fairy?
> 
> Virtually every aspect of life is 'political' in one way or another.
> 
> Perhaps you should take some comfort that a change of government does not mean a wholesale resignation/recruitment cycle. Do you really want an army divided along party political lines. One of the strengths of the army is its ability to serve all governments equally.


I don't work in the public sector, but I am saying that the armed forces are political as they go out and kill people on behalf of the state.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> So does this mean that you're agreeing that the armed forces are political now? Or are you suggesting that all the other arms of the state are, but the forces are somehow different?



No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't work in the public sector, but I am saying that the armed forces are political as they go out and kill people on behalf of the state.



Is that not the raison d'etre of armed forces?


----------



## toggle (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even elite troops can lose their nerve, it can happen to the very best.
> 
> Anyone who feels that war is never the only option is a clown. Their wreath of white poppies would soon have been red, as the Nazi tanks crushed the bearer.
> 
> ...



you're attempting to portray him as a coward. an injunction conveniently prevents him  challenging that statement.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Here we see the British army oppresing the workers



Yep, to say nothing of those risking their skin in the Ebola clinics. Real bastards, the lot of them.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2014)

toggle said:


> you're attempting to portray him as a coward. an injunction conveniently prevents him  challenging that statement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't think Lo Siento. was saying the armed forces are bad, just that they are political.
> 
> It wasn't the armed forces that decided to invade the* Faulklands*, Afghanistan and Iraq, it was our politicians who decided, the armed forces did what they were told.



the sound and the fury


----------



## Greebo (Nov 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> lady on the news just suggested smashing the entire moat of poppies would be an appropriate metaphor for all the crushed and broken bodies of the fallen!
> 
> controversial for ITV news. Shiela Hancock, never heard of her.


Actress, writer, and widow of John Thaw.


----------



## toggle (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>



well. i didn't expect a substantive reply.


----------



## andysays (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.



So you're arguing that


Sasaferrato said:


> ...Virtually every aspect of life is 'political' in one way or another...



and you seem to be accepting that working in the public sector and/or being directed by government are political, but when it comes to the armed forces they are (uniquely?) apolitical because they are not aligned to any political party.

That really is incoherent nonsense.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yep, to say nothing of those risking their skin in the Ebola clinics. Real bastards, the lot of them.




the problem here is that army personnel being involved in civil projects in no way invalidates thier ultimate political role- its simply a failure of civil governance through laziness incompetence and avarice that requires the army to step in when all the civilian contractors who have been fed tax millions fail to deliver. It does not mean the army is a great non political good guy. It means they've been drafted in to cover. Much as when several areas of the UK had been flooded for months but the army only got called in when the flooding hit home counties.

See also: defending olympic site security in London after G4S had proved not up to it.

they'd still be calling them out in green goddeses to cover during fireman strikes if we hadn't sold the ageing relics to an african nation and started training up scab crews to ride normal fire engines during a strike (last time that happened the scab crews stacked two of the engines in london. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is that not the raison d'etre of armed forces?


Yes. They are political.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 10, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Of course they don't.
> 
> They make it very clear exactly who they are commemorating - and why. They do _not_ expect non-republicans to wear Easter Lilies either.
> 
> Nor would they ever be so shameless, so delusional as to hijack one of the western world's most well-known anti-war songs for their own militaristic ends like this ...




I *suppose* if Eric Bogle gave his permission, they can do that.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.



They swear allegiance to the Monarchy of the UK. Don't be so naive.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> i doubt these days you get anything as retarded as the mutiny in ireland or people playing silly buggers as claimed in the 70s.
> Genuine contempt for most politicions and senior officers after a complete failure to tell people the truth during the last two wars.
> The aims were impossible.


'Retarded'? Did you mean to use that word?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

N_igma said:


> They swear allegiance to the Monarchy of the UK. Don't be so naive.



It wouldn't be much good as indoctrination if it didn't include a blind spot about having been indoctrinated in the first place.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2014)

Celyn said:


> I *suppose* if Eric Bogle gave his permission, they can do that.






			
				Eric Bogle said:
			
		

> Apparently Joss Stone’s version of my song “No Man’s Land” has polarised opinions. I usually don’t comment publicly on other people’s versions of my songs, but many of you have e-mailed me about this matter and seem genuinely upset about it, so I am sending you the following in reply to some of the questions I have been asked………please note that I will be entering into no further correspondence regarding this matter, I don’t want to spend the rest of my life e-mailing on my computer, so you will have to accept (or reject ) what I have said below and leave it there…….
> The copyright for “No Man’s Land/The Green Fields of France” is held by my UK Publisher, Domino Publishing, who are ultimately responsible for approving applications to record this song. When an artist wishes to record “No Man’s Land” they must apply for a mechanical license to do so from the relevant UK agency, and pay a licensing fee. Permission to record is more or less automatic, especially if, as is the case with this song, it has been recorded before. At no stage in this process am I, the composer, involved. Generally speaking, the first I know of any new recording is when I see any subsequent royalties from the recording appearing on my royalty statements.
> 
> When the artist(s) in question records the cover version of the song, they can, and often do, rework the song as to be almost unrecognisable from the original version. This is especially true in Jazz music, and is generally regarded as an acceptable creative exercise by the artist(s). Although the publisher and/or composer could take legal action if they feel that the original essence of the song has been irrevocably altered and very much to the song’s detriment, this very rarely happens. The bottom line is that so long as royalties are paid, any wounded artistic feelings are usually put aside.
> ...


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yep, to say nothing of those risking their skin in the Ebola clinics. Real bastards, the lot of them.



Harold Shipman cured my asthma.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 10, 2014)

Thanks! 	I had been looking to learn what Bogle thought, then my damn computer froze.  (Hence why trusting myself/computer with only tiny posts).


ETA that was for Athos, re. Eric Bogle.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 10, 2014)

deleted.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.



In no country are the armed forces aligned to any political party. They are always aligned to the state and the present constitutional order. On regular occasions (Spain 1936, Chile 1973,  Egypt 2013 being 3 very well-known examples) historically this has led armed forces to overthrow elected governments that they (or a substantial part of their command) thought were a threat to both. 

The only real difference between those 3 countries and ours is that we've never chosen a government that the Armed Forces deemed a threat to constitutional order.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2014)

Surely the question of whether 'the military' is or is not political is a red herring?

To me, the most compelling reason not to wear a poppy is to refuse to perpetuate the mythology upon which the ruling class relies to further its interests by sending working class men and women to their deaths.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 10, 2014)

Can this thread and the worse than Hitler be merged yet or is there enough time to mention the pins?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

Athos said:


> To me, the most compelling reason not to wear a poppy is to refuse to perpetuate the mythology upon which the ruling class relies to further its interests by sending working class men and women to their deaths.



To be fair some of them like to send their own children along too.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> To be fair some of them like to send their own children along too.



They may share a small part of the cost; but they reap the larger part of the benefit.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

Athos said:


> They may share a small part of the cost; but they reap the larger part of the benefit.



True.  They also hate their kids.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> True.  They also hate their kids.



So do I.

Hate theirs, that is.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

Athos said:


> So do I.
> 
> Hate theirs, that is.



Made me laugh, but that's a bit mean - you don't choose your parents.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Made me laugh, but that's a bit mean - you don't choose your parents.


Imagine choosing Clegg.  I'd rather take my chances in Haute Le Garenne.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 10, 2014)

Athos said:


> Surely the question of whether 'the military' is or is not political is a red herring?
> 
> To me, the most compelling reason not to wear a poppy is to refuse to perpetuate the mythology upon which the ruling class relies to further its interests by sending working class men and women to their deaths.


gotta have an army though, otherwise there'd be no rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm and we couldn't sleep safe in our beds. Amiright?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even elite troops can lose their nerve, it can happen to the very best.
> 
> Anyone who feels that war is never the only option is a clown. Their wreath of white poppies would soon have been red, as the Nazi tanks crushed the bearer.
> 
> ...



That's a disgusting post.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a disgusting post.


It's also basically carte blanche for participating in war crimes.


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And?



If they refuse or quibble then they will be embarking on a political course which will give your argument( and others) credence, until then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's also basically carte blanche for participating in war crimes.


It's nasty. Toggle's right - it is accusing him of being a coward. So keeping quiet and sliding away and not making a fuss would have been the courageous thing to do?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> If they refuse or quibble then they will be embarking on a political course which will give your argument( and others) credence, until then?


I'm running out of ways of saying this, but... here goes one more time.

Even in the best case scenario in which the army literally only does what the government tells them to do and nothing else, that's still a political role. Choosing to obey the politicians is a political course, just like choosing to ignore them is.

Our political system, like all political systems, has an underlying politics to it that goes beyond the individuals and parties that govern. Since 1900 that's involved British soldiers in torture, terrorism, massacres, suppressing revolts by colonised peoples, occupying other people's countries, running concentration camps, extrajudicial murder and firing into unarmed crowds. This they did in service to a British state which had broadly the same priorities regardless of which party was in power. Not because they were bad people, or because of the politics of individual soldiers, but because that's what the institution is for.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

Anyway, here's a nice picture of the British Army not glorifying war and not using Poppy Day as a recruitment tool at Portman Road on Saturday


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2014)

Airborne military police could you be a bigger wanker if you tried


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2014)

Bah, another tannoy announcement: "We will now be observing a 2-minute silence"

Oh, will we? Still think it should have been "for those that wish to observe it". The Italian and Spaniard in the office next to me had a hushed conversation about it and then just carried on as normal  I blew a bit of a raspberry


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

I've just been shamed into the two minute silence.  There was a tannoy announcement that I didn't quite catch followed by loud hushes and dagger looks.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2014)

We had a laying of a wreath


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 11, 2014)

Our fire alarm went off to signal the silence during my break, which just caused me to utter a string of obscenities about having fire drills during break time. I had actually been quietly reading urban up until that point.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

_Help help i'm being oppressed! Won't someone HELP ME!_


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Our fire alarm went off to signal the silence during my break, which just caused me to utter a string of obscenities about having fire drills during break time. I had actually been quietly reading urban up until that point.




Just imagining the reverential silence being broken as "fuck _that_! " reverberates around the corridors


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Help help i'm being oppressed! Won't someone HELP ME!_


Don't worry, we'll send in the armed forces to rid you of this hateful tyranny!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

We're never going to win the next war with this level of feebleicity and _ok i'll read it out._ Stand up quietly for what you don't believe in!


----------



## rioted (Nov 11, 2014)

> Lest they forget the countless children burned alive in napalm's fire
> Lest they forget the dead civilians lying tangled in the wire
> And the faces of the women raped and shattered to the core
> It's not only men in uniform who pay the price of war.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2014)

Ok, now I really am just completely lost


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

Just come back from the village remembrance, horror of horrors,the bairns from the infant /junior school  were there, I will be calling for the headmistress to be sacked for  exposing them to the rampant militarism of having to listen to the elderly members saying a few words about their loved ones who didn't come back.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2014)

I have a lot of respect for the Lord Mayor of Dublin, mind.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's nasty. Toggle's right - it is accusing him of being a coward. So keeping quiet and sliding away and not making a fuss would have been the courageous thing to do?



someone who was in the special forces didn't get there by being scared to fight. he's been in the thick of some nasty shit. he can't mention any of that to disprove the allegations that he's done this because he's scared. and he can't explain what bits of what he saw made him take the decision he did. he's far from the only soldier who has become disillusioned by the experiences he had, may upon realising that the line they were being fed about liberating the people from a brutal dictator didn't bear much relation to the reality he saw. but he's one of the few who can't say anything else about that. it's far more logical to assume he made that decision for similar reasons to the others than to assume that someone who served in the former Yugoslavia, NI and Afghanistan suddenly lost his bottle (given no evidence of PTSD or other combat related MH trauma)


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

found this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Army-to-conduct-American-foreign-policy.html



> he was allowed to leave the Army with his exemplary military record intact and with a glowing testimonial from his commanding officer, who described him as a "balanced and honest soldier who possesses the strength and character to genuinely have the courage of his convictions".


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> someone who was in the special forces didn't get there by being scared to fight. he's been in the thick of some nasty shit. he can't mention any of that to disprove the allegations that he's done this because he's scared. and he can't explain what bits of what he saw made him take the decision he did. he's far from the only soldier who has become disillusioned by the experiences he had, may upon realising that the line they were being fed about liberating the people from a brutal dictator didn't bear much relation to the reality he saw. but he's one of the few who can't say anything else about that. it's far more logical to assume he made that decision for similar reasons to the others than to assume that someone who served in the former Yugoslavia, NI and Afghanistan suddenly lost his bottle (given no evidence of PTSD or other combat related MH trauma)



Aye, got to agree, Sasaferrato was in the wrong to even suggest it.

Eta tag


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2014)

My facebook is a mare of war glorification at the moment...


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> In no country are the armed forces aligned to any political party. They are always aligned to the state and the present constitutional order. On regular occasions (Spain 1936, Chile 1973,  Egypt 2013 being 3 very well-known examples) historically this has led armed forces to overthrow elected governments that they (or a substantial part of their command) thought were a threat to both.
> 
> The only real difference between those 3 countries and ours is that we've never chosen a government that the Armed Forces deemed a threat to constitutional order.


They are examples of armed forces acting in a political manner,if and when the British army does the same then it will have become 'political
Until then it remains, as I have said, apolitical.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> They are examples of armed forces acting in a political manner,if and when the British army does the same then it will have become 'political
> Until then it remains, as I have said, apolitical.



I've been resisting posting this for the last week or something, but you've finally pushed me over the edge


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's changed a lot in the last 20 years, I think. It used to be far more low-key. In part, I suspect this is because marketing bods have become involved at the BL, finding new ways to get poppies everywhere. I noticed a London bus covered in poppies the other day. Tastefully done, of course.



It's very little to do with the RBL, and quite a lot to do with the government (this lot and the last lot) attempting to render ideological something that wasn't previously ideological. Thatcher started this off in about 1983 by scoring political points via the 1983 Remembrance Day incorporating "her" war in the South Atlantic, but no-one really went for it until Blair wrapped himself in the flag during Iraq, and "stole" remembrance from the millions by making the issue about *ongoing* "sacrifice". Brown and Cameron carried on this sordid _faux_-tradition, and have turned remembrance into a "with us or against us" issue, when it is actually about mourning the dead and remembering *why* and how they died.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 11, 2014)

hang your head andysays


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> I've been resisting posting this for the last week or something, but you've finally pushed me over the edge



_Do you really think that's wise?_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's very little to do with the RBL, and quite a lot to do with the government (this lot and the last lot) attempting to render ideological something that wasn't previously ideological. Thatcher started this off in about 1983 by scoring political points via the 1983 Remembrance Day incorporating "her" war in the South Atlantic, but no-one really went for it until Blair wrapped himself in the flag during Iraq, and "stole" remembrance from the millions by making the issue about *ongoing* "sacrifice". Brown and Cameron carried on this sordid _faux_-tradition, and have turned remembrance into a "with us or against us" issue, when it is actually about mourning the dead and remembering *why* and how they died.


While I agree with you about govt actions, it is also a very great deal to do with the RBL. They are enthusiastic participants in the process. As mentioned above, the way they sell corporate remembrance tie-ins is as stark an example of this as you could want.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> hang your head andysays





butchersapron said:


> _Do you really think that's wise?_



I knew I'd hate myself as soon as I'd done it, and I knew wiser heads than mine would criticise me, but I just couldn't help myself.

I can only say in my defence that I've been subjected to 20 pages of militaristic propaganda, and eventually something had to break. I can't even wriggle out with the "only following orders" defence


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If remembrance it being pushed more, is it in part in response to greater demands from injured service people from Iraq and Afghanistan? And the centenary, is it not the reason for the poppy display at the tower?
> 
> As I have mentioned before, I don't live in the smoke, apart from seeing odd collections of people on the box wearing poppies, I haven't seen so much.



Remembrance is being pushed because it allows the government to pass the buck on responsibility for the results of their bellicosity, so "we" (the people) end up paying (through charitable giving) to rehabilitate British military personnel who were injured in *their* war. Remembrance, in the politicised form it has had since Blair, also allows the government to tie everyday policy to issues of "patriotism" - dissent and you're not only an extremist, but unpatriotic to boot!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While I agree with you about govt actions, it is also a very great deal to do with the RBL. They are enthusiastic participants in the process. As mentioned above, the way they sell corporate remembrance tie-ins is as stark an example of this as you could want.



Except that (unlike the government) the RBL don't really have a choice - they have a remit, a "mission" to make life better for those who served, and as they see it, they're doing that. I don't have a lot of time for the RBL (although I'm forever grateful for what help they gave my paternal grandfather, which allowed him to control his PTSD after 20-odd years of it affecting him, post-war), but I don't think they're some pro-corporate bogeyman that indoctrinates kids to an acceptance of military life, either.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

there's a difference between remembering and enforced rememberence. between respecting those who fought, those who died and respecting the entire political structure thatpout them there. between honouring the fallen and celebrating warfare. 

there's a lot of what is happening that makes me feel those lines are being blurred. a jingoism that is attacking the dissenters, they are cowards, they are insufficiently patriotic, they support the enemy, not addressing the reasons why they dissent. and you don't have to look all that hard to find veterans who know that difference. 

i've got a freind who can get a bit of a gobby right winger, more of a real life troll than a complete twat, we got onto to discussing the protests at wooton bassett and the hysteria in the right wing press about them. he dug up some stuff on arrse, an army message board where the opinions were overwhelmingly for the right of the islamacists to hold their protests. the worst aspects of the loud and proud jingoism aren't coming from the people who have to go cash all the cheques our politicians write. 

we need to seperate rememberence, from the history, from the mythology, from the politics and jingoism. in ww1, we sent a generation of men out to fight. to come back broken if they came back at all. we are still sending men out to die. we still see people trying to make political capital out of their deaths, while traumatised and injured soldiers are being listed as fit for work by atos. 

it's not the remembering that's the bloody problem. it's the feeling we all are being pushed into becoming part of a fuciking circus of hypocritical bullshit that is growing up around it. that's the problem.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> They are examples of armed forces acting in a political manner,if and when the British army does the same then it will have become 'political
> Until then it remains, as I have said, apolitical.



if it was truly apolitical, then criticising the armed forces would also be apolitical.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't think they're some pro-corporate bogeyman that indoctrinates kids to an acceptance of military life, either.


Ok. I think you're flying in the face of the evidence on both these things.


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> there's a difference between remembering and enforced rememberence. between respecting those who fought, those who died and respecting the entire political structure thatpout them there. between honouring the fallen and celebrating warfare.
> 
> there's a lot of what is happening that makes me feel those lines are being blurred. a jingoism that is attacking the dissenters, they are cowards, they are insufficiently patriotic, they support the enemy, not addressing the reasons why they dissent. and you don't have to look all that hard to find veterans who know that difference.
> 
> ...



A well balanced post, ta.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 11, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Airborne military police could you be a bigger wanker if you tried



airborne MOD plod?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> They are examples of armed forces acting in a political manner,if and when the British army does the same then it will have become 'political
> Until then it remains, as I have said, apolitical.


It is loyal to the crown. Like it or not that's a political position.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 11, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Anyway, here's a nice picture of the British Army not glorifying war and not using Poppy Day as a recruitment tool at Portman Road on Saturday


an excellent point and well made. 

however i would like to point out that Remembrance Sunday is on the Sunday (not the Saturday) with armistice day being on Tuesday - this year and that there is a distinct lack of poppies/poppy sellers in that picture.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While I agree with you about govt actions, it is also a very great deal to do with the RBL. They are enthusiastic participants in the process. As mentioned above, the way they sell corporate remembrance tie-ins is as stark an example of this as you could want.



yes, no, maybee. while there is an aspect of having drunk the jingo koolaid, they also have a responsibility to do everything they can to fundraise for the people whose ongoing care should not be the responsibility of charity. i'm not going to lay all the blame on them for feeding off the patriotic frenzy when it comes from a place of making sure their mates get MH care that's more than take a few pills and fuck off. or the physio that lets them walk again.

that's a lot different to feeding off the frenzy to justify more war.


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It is loyal to the crown. Like it or not that's a political position.



No, loyal to the head of state and state, doubt if there would be a military coup if we decided to become a republic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ^^^ and the very people who here swear blind its just remembrance and its just poppies are quick to smirk at jonny foriegners crude propaganda



It *should* be "just" remembrance. That it isn't, should be a stain on the souls of the political class, and on anyone who sees no issue with respectful remembrance of *all* the dead of *all* the wars being hijacked and deployed as a tool of jingoism.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> No, loyal to the head of state and state, doubt if there would be a military coup if we decided to become a republic.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> No, loyal to the head of state and state, doubt if there would be a military coup if we decided to become a republic.


It's the Crown forces. ROYAL Navy. ROYAL Airforce. 

What to you think swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen is? Theatre?


----------



## Pingu (Nov 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's the Crown forces. ROYAL Navy. ROYAL Airforce.
> 
> What to you think swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen is? Theatre?



the queen is the head of state


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> yes, no, maybee. while there is an aspect of having drunk the jingo koolaid, they also have a responsibility to do everything they can to fundraise for the people whose ongoing care should not be the responsibility of charity. i'm not going to lay all the blame on them for feeding off the patriotic frenzy when it comes from a place of making sure their mates get MH care that's more than take a few pills and fuck off. or the physio that lets them walk again.
> 
> that's a lot different to feeding off the frenzy to justify more war.


They serve more than one purpose, that's all. They provide help for people who need it, and also produce much of the circus you referred to earlier.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> No, loyal to the head of state and state, doubt if there would be a military coup if we decided to become a republic.


if we decided to become a republic there would likely have been some sort of civil conflict just like the last time we tried to get rid of the foul royal clan.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's the Crown forces. ROYAL Navy. ROYAL Airforce.
> 
> What to you think swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen is? Theatre?



TBH, that's pretty much exactly what it is. *Political* theatre, of course...


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 11, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> If you think the remembrance service is about glorification of the military and the UK you haven't been to many.


I've been to around 20 including this year. I remember very few where the national anthem wasn't sung very shortly after the silence. Where some phrases glorifying war or at least particular wars weren't uttered.

Edit to add - actually I remember none where this didn't happen.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It *should* be "just" remembrance. That it isn't, should be a stain on the souls of the political class, and on anyone who sees no issue with respectful remembrance of *all* the dead of *all* the wars being hijacked and deployed as a tool of jingoism.



it's worth remembering mass  public remembrance and memorialisation began as a result of the boer war.  a nasty little imperial conflict spurred on by jingoism. where the army nearly got their arse handed to them, they needed a 10 to 1 majority to win, despite the willingness to decimate (not in the roman sense, the death toll was worse than that) the civilian population. their complete lack of give-a-shit about the ordinary soldiers got shown up as well.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> it's not the remembering that's the bloody problem. it's the feeling we all are being pushed into becoming part of a fuciking circus of hypocritical bullshit that is growing up around it. that's the problem.


Pretty much, aye. It's now being used by a lot of people as a yardstick to judge others by, and that's rather unpleasant.

Plus others may genuinely be uncomfortable with various aspects of it, which is fair enough and they should neither be forced to participate nor judged for not doing so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> If you think the remembrance service is about glorification of the military and the UK you haven't been to many.



It certainly isn't that to many who served (and to many who didn't), but the act and ceremony of remembrance can certainly be said to have been hijacked by the political classes in an attempt to make it serve such a function.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> it's worth remembering mass  public remembrance and memorialisation began as a result of the boer war.  a nasty little imperial conflict spurred on by jingoism. where the army nearly got their arse handed to them, they needed a 10 to 1 majority to win, despite the willingness to decimate (not in the roman sense, the death toll was worse than that) the civilian population. their complete lack of give-a-shit about the ordinary soldiers got shown up as well.


are you sure? what about the crimean war and the indian mutiny? think there's a monument to soldiers from crimean war in dover, and of course in london. you don't see so many memorials to the boer war except in football grounds (eg the [spion] kop end).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've been to around 20. That you can't see it i says it all.



The "pomp and circumstance" has always been about presenting war as a just pursuit. The act of remembrance itself, though (the remembering of all the dead, and how and why they died), which is what has been increasingly hijacked by the political classes and their media friends, has never glorified militarism and/or war, IMHO.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure? what about the crimean war and the indian mutiny? think there's a monument to soldiers from crimean war in dover, and of course in london. you don't see so many memorials to the boer war except in football grounds (eg the kop end).



I can remember reading that from a fairly decent source, although buggered if I could tell you where from.

the point was not that public rememberence began at that point, but that it scaled up into a bigger thing as a result of something that was an unjustifiable fuckup.

i'll also note the form of the memorial. you list statues. the boer war memorials start to take the form of lists of names a lot more. (i think, the ones i've looked at do). like this one.and i think that was more unusual beforehand. 

http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Cornwall/images/TruroCathedralSAWMSoldiersSailors.jpg


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> No, loyal to the head of state and state, doubt if there would be a military coup if we decided to become a republic.



Depends if it was president blair or cameroon or clegg there would be an outbreak of revoultion frevour to see those wankers hung .
The Queen keeps her views to herself mostly thats why I fear charles may fuck the whole thing up


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Depends if it was president blair or cameroon or clegg there would be an outbreak of revoultion frevour to see those wankers hung .
> The Queen keeps her views to herself mostly thats why I fear charles may fuck the whole thing up


There is more than one model for a republic. Can you name the president of Germany? Or Italy?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

Pingu said:


> the queen is the head of state


And that makes a difference how?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is more than one model for a republic. Can you name the president of Germany? Or Italy?



Do you really think  we'd go for a sensible model when we could pick a lunatic model


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the problem here is that army personnel being involved in civil projects in no way invalidates thier ultimate political role- its simply a failure of civil governance through laziness incompetence and avarice that requires the army to step in when all the civilian contractors who have been fed tax millions fail to deliver. It does not mean the army is a great non political good guy. It means they've been drafted in to cover. Much as when several areas of the UK had been flooded for months but the army only got called in when the flooding hit home counties.
> 
> See also: defending olympic site security in London after G4S had proved not up to it.
> 
> they'd still be calling them out in green goddeses to cover during fireman strikes if we hadn't sold the ageing relics to an african nation and started training up scab crews to ride normal fire engines during a strike (last time that happened the scab crews stacked two of the engines in london. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic)



Look. You and many others on here are inherently 'anti armed forces'. Let us just agree to disagree.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> there's a difference between remembering and enforced rememberence. between respecting those who fought, those who died and respecting the entire political structure thatpout them there. between honouring the fallen and celebrating warfare.
> 
> there's a lot of what is happening that makes me feel those lines are being blurred. a jingoism that is attacking the dissenters, they are cowards, they are insufficiently patriotic, they support the enemy, not addressing the reasons why they dissent. and you don't have to look all that hard to find veterans who know that difference.
> 
> ...



Indeed. It is up to the individual whether they decide to observe the two minute silence, or indeed any other aspect of remembrance.

I'm an ex-soldier, today I sat in silence and remembered my colleagues that are no longer here. A personal thing, no one else in my office knew these people.

I have a growing feeling of unease due to the increasing emphasis on remembering the fallen, almost as if it is 'un-British' or 'disrespectful' not to do so. I don't quite know where it is headed, but I don't like it. My fallen comrades really don't give a fuck whether you observe two minutes of silence or not, they are dead.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Look. You and many others on here are inherently 'anti armed forces'. Let us just agree to disagree.



I think you'll find most of us have no problem with armed forces as long as they're not imperialistic. Up the ra


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Look. You and many others on here are inherently 'anti armed forces'. Let us just agree to disagree.


I can do that- I'll add the caveat that I'm not anti individual soldier or sailor. my parents, my grandfather* and  2 schoolmates have been in the gig, and they are not evil baby killers. 

*for his troubles he took part in a 'flu vacc test' as a subject at Porton Down. It wasn't flu vaccines they tested on them. Thats what loyalty to the crown buys you.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I can do that- I'll add the caveat that I'm not anti individual soldier or sailor. my parents, my grandfather* and  2 schoolmates have been in the gig, and they are not evil baby killers.
> 
> *for his troubles he took part in a 'flu vacc test' as a subject at Porton Down. It wasn't flu vaccines they tested on them. Thats what loyalty to the crown buys you.



I still have a scar from Porton Down due to Nitrogen Mustard permeating through the suit I was testing. It was when I was waiting for my nursing course to start, we were in 'Holding and Drafting' and got hired out as labour to anyone who needed it. Going to Porton for a couple of weeks was a better option.  Scary place. The food was good though.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I still have a scar from Porton Down due to Nitrogen Mustard permeating through the suit I was testing. It was when I was waiting for my nursing course to start, we were in 'Holding and Drafting' and got hired out as labour to anyone who needed it. Going to Porton for a couple of weeks was a better option.  Scary place. The food was good though.


Not so cool for those dead people with no pension. Maybe it was ideology that killed them?

Rather than poisonous gasses


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 11, 2014)

N_igma said:


> I think you'll find most of us have no problem with armed forces as long as they're not imperialistic. Up the ra



 Which one there so many to chose from now?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

N_igma said:


> I think you'll find most of us have no problem with armed forces as long as they're not imperialistic. Up the ra


Don''t drag me into your nationalism. How dare you try and thieve my principles.


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's the Crown forces. ROYAL Navy. ROYAL Airforce.
> 
> What to you think swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen is? Theatre?


Historical tradition, no more or less.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed. It is up to the individual whether they decide to observe the two minute silence, or indeed any other aspect of remembrance.
> 
> I'm an ex-soldier, today I sat in silence and remembered my colleagues that are no longer here. A personal thing, no one else in my office knew these people.
> 
> I have a growing feeling of unease due to the increasing emphasis on remembering the fallen, almost as if it is 'un-British' or 'disrespectful' not to do so. I don't quite know where it is headed, but I don't like it. My fallen comrades really don't give a fuck whether you observe two minutes of silence or not, they are dead.




and that is the place where a lot of people on this thread are coming from. no one is taking offense at you remembering your old mates. they are mostly using their own words to express the same unease you feel.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> They are examples of armed forces acting in a political manner,if and when the British army does the same then it will have become 'political
> Until then it remains, as I have said, apolitical.


That's the point. The British Army did all those things, precisely because they were "apolitical".


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> Historical tradition, no more or less.


You're quite mad.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It certainly isn't that to many who served (and to many who didn't), but the act and ceremony of remembrance can certainly be said to have been hijacked by the political classes in an attempt to make it serve such a function.


Wouldn't say hijacked. Acts of remembrance are about forging collective memories and collective identities. They promote nationalism because of what they are, not because of anyone twisting their meaning.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> Historical tradition, no more or less.


You're either on a wind up or clueless. Which is it?


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You're either on a wind up or clueless. Which is it?


We take an oath of allegiance which as a result of historical tradition takes the form of an oath to the crown but is in fact an oath to serve the state/nation.
Mebbes your on a wind up?


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> Historical tradition, no more or less.



and what purpose is there in maintaining military traditions? they don't hang on to all those traditions and old symbols as something to do and something to decorate the base with, do they.


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> and what purpose is there in maintaining military traditions? they don't hang on to all those traditions and old symbols as something to do and something to decorate the base with, do they.


Depends on what traditions and symbols you mean, the army has quite a collection of odd traditions and symbols.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> We take an oath of allegiance which as a result of historical tradition takes the form of an oath to the crown but is in fact an oath to serve the state/nation.
> Mebbes your on a wind up?


Why take an oath to the crown and not parliament (for instance)?


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Why take an oath to the crown and not parliament (for instance)?


Like I said earlier its historical, but I doubt anyone would have a problem with it being replaced with an oath to the democratically elected government or some such wording.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> Like I said earlier its historical, but I doubt anyone would have a problem with it being replaced with an oath to the democratically elected government or some such wording.


I reckon at least one person would.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> We take an oath of allegiance which as a result of historical tradition takes the form of an oath to the crown but is in fact an oath to serve the state/nation.
> Mebbes your on a wind up?



Yes I know all that. But how is it apolitical?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> Like I said earlier its historical, but I doubt anyone would have a problem with it being replaced with an oath to the democratically elected government or some such wording.


"We asked 100 people why the military swears an oath to queen, you said 'it's just a tradition'...and... our survey says...







Sorry. It's not on the board."


----------



## N_igma (Nov 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don''t drag me into your nationalism. How dare you try and thieve my principles.



I was only fucking about with Sas mate. I didn't think you had any principles though in fairness


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2014)

coley said:


> Depends on what traditions and symbols you mean, the army has quite a collection of odd traditions and symbols.



claiming something is 'just a tradition' when asked about it's purpose is a massive obfuscation.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2014)

Acting 'apolitically' and swearing an oath to the Queen is a political role ffs. And people say that our military is non political because it hasn't intervened in politics, what was the turkish military etc before it actually intervened?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Wouldn't say hijacked. Acts of remembrance are about forging collective memories and collective identities. They promote nationalism because of what they are, not because of anyone twisting their meaning.



I think you're conflating official ceremonial and the intentions behind that, with the actions of individuals, many of whom aren't nationalist by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 11, 2014)

what I want to know is why they don't have a giant poppy that squirts water so we can commemorate all the clowns that died in the war?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2014)

Because nobody cares.
 The corrct answer too how many clowns were killed
 Not enough.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you're conflating official ceremonial and the intentions behind that, with the actions of individuals, many of whom aren't nationalist by any stretch of the imagination.


Both depend on each other surely?


----------



## coley (Nov 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> claiming something is 'just a tradition' when asked about it's purpose is a massive obfuscation.



Not really, don't do "obfuscation" if you were to narrow your question?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 11, 2014)

defining "political" might help the thread also.


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Not really, don't do "obfuscation" if you were to narrow your question?



that wasn't a question. it was a statement discussing your ability to avoid meaningful answers to questions.


----------



## gosub (Nov 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what I want to know is why they don't have a giant poppy that squirts water so we can commemorate all the clowns that died in the war?


clowns were excused service due to overly large, flat feet.


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what I want to know is why they don't have a giant poppy that squirts water so we can commemorate all the clowns that died in the war?



Good idea, which war, which clowns?
I know, it's an old fashioned idea to give a few minutes thanks to those 'clowns' who gave everything to make sure we have the freedom to post  comments, like the above, and SL, and others, are more than entitled to their views.
And aye, Thomas Atkins ain't stupid, he knows he is a tiny chess piece in the 'great game of corporate/political greed" but we put on the uniform to protect a system though hugely imperfect, protected his/her family. Irrespective of politics.

Now let's have a wee bit honesty, remembrance is about those who died, esp in WW1 and 2, those who have a beef about the role of the British armed forces in the political arena and in conflicts other than the two world wars, let them start another thread.

Step forward pogofish


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> that wasn't a question. it was a statement discussing your ability to avoid meaningful answers to questions.



Eh? That's one for Pickman's model


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Now let's have a wee bit honesty, remembrance is about those who died, esp in WW1 and 2, those who have a beef about the role of the British armed forces in the political arena and in conflicts other than the two world wars, let them start another thread.
> 
> Step forward pogofish



rememberence should be about those who died. discussion about more recent conflicts is a result of the politicians who back those conflicts linking rememberence to support of current political positions.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 12, 2014)

This whole poppy worship has gotten worse over the last 10-15 years,I mean when did football teams decide to have a poppy on their shirts,thats seems to be a recent phenomen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2014)

coley said:


> We take an oath of allegiance which as a result of historical tradition takes the form of an oath to the crown but is in fact an oath to serve the state/nation.
> Mebbes your on a wind up?


have you had a look at the wording of this oath?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> This whole poppy worship has gotten worse over the last 10-15 years,I mean when did football teams decide to have a poppy on their shirts,thats seems to be a recent phenomen.


i was looking through the files yesterday and by chance saw an ad for poppy week from 1979, when it was a week and not a month.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2014)

weltweit said:


> defining "political" might help the thread also.


what would better help the thread would be coley's immmediate and permanent departure from it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Now let's have a wee bit honesty, remembrance is about those who died, esp in WW1 and 2, those who have a beef about the role of the British armed forces in the political arena and in conflicts other than the two world wars, let them start another thread.


Honesty from who?


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i was looking through the files yesterday and by chance saw an ad for poppy week from 1979, when it was a week and not a month.


Indeed,I watched an ep of Top of the Pops from the 1st week of  Nov 1979 a while back,didn't notice any poppy wearers among the bands,presenter or the audience....


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> have you had a look at the wording of this oath?


Is "we" a clue?


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> rememberence should be about those who died. discussion about more recent conflicts is a result of the politicians who back those conflicts linking rememberence to support of current political positions.


Fair point, Blair at the cenotaph on Sunday was sickening.


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're quite mad.



Nope, not even slightly annoyed


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Good idea, which war, which clowns?
> I know, it's an old fashioned idea to give a few minutes thanks to those 'clowns' who gave everything to make sure we have the freedom to post  comments, like the above, and SL, and others, are more than entitled to their views.
> And aye, Thomas Atkins ain't stupid, he knows he is a tiny chess piece in the 'great game of corporate/political greed" but we put on the uniform to protect a system though hugely imperfect, protected his/her family. Irrespective of politics.
> 
> ...



Not sure why that's a response to my throw away post, I was making a point about the ludicrous range of different types of poppy you can get now - I'm a red poppy man myself.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 12, 2014)

The armed services are told where to go by politicians, aren't they? So even if they're not loyal to one party, they are political in that they enact policy written by politicians. They're a political tool, if nothing else.


----------



## rekil (Nov 12, 2014)

Front page of the Telegraph is a little bit glorification. The next generation of the officer class is it. At this rate, in a couple of years there'll be 'bayonet a wog' sideshows to keep the kids entertained while the parents have a spot of lunch in the Jamie Oliver popup trench dugout restaurant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Both depend on each other surely?



Not really. Coming from a big family with many paternal generations in the military, I'm aware that a lot of village memorials, on Remembrance Day, don't have any ceremonial, just remembrance. No civic dignitaries or pompous speeches, no public ceremony. 
The village my dad was born in, in north Norfolk, has a churchyard in which stands a memorial to the dead of The Great War. It has 8 names on it, but all of them are remembered, because their surnames are still alive in the area. One of them was my grandmother's brother - he would have been my great-uncle, if he'd lived. We don't remember him and the others because we're nationalists, or because we're shaping some kind of nationalist identity, we remember our dead because they *are* "ours", just as we remember "the dead" because we know that their loss, and their memory is the same as ours. The state might (and does) try to appropriate that sentiment for its' own purposes, and with the big civic Remembrance Day ceremonials, I'm sure they somewhat succeed, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Remembrance, they're just wankers trying to do exactly what you and I have both accused them of.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 12, 2014)

Politics

the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.


----------



## rioted (Nov 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. Coming from a big family with many paternal generations in the military, I'm aware that a lot of village memorials, on Remembrance Day, don't have any ceremonial, just remembrance. No civic dignitaries or pompous speeches, no public ceremony.
> The village my dad was born in, in north Norfolk, has a churchyard in which stands a memorial to the dead of The Great War. It has 8 names on it, but all of them are remembered, because their surnames are still alive in the area. One of them was my grandmother's brother - he would have been my great-uncle, if he'd lived. We don't remember him and the others because we're nationalists, or because we're shaping some kind of nationalist identity, we remember our dead because they *are* "ours", just as we remember "the dead" because we know that their loss, and their memory is the same as ours. The state might (and does) try to appropriate that sentiment for its' own purposes, and with the big civic Remembrance Day ceremonials, I'm sure they somewhat succeed, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Remembrance, they're just wankers trying to do exactly what you and I have both accused them of.


My aunt and two of my cousins died in an air raid. Their surnames are still alive in the area. They are not on any war memorial.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> This whole poppy worship has gotten worse over the last 10-15 years,I mean when did football teams decide to have a poppy on their shirts,thats seems to be a recent phenomen.



As I said earlier in the thread, this surge in jingoism is pretty much directly attributable to Blair's efforts to wrap his poodle-like efforts to win favour with the US by going to war alongside them, in the flag. For him and Cameron, and to a lesser extent Brown, it's all about promoting a myth of military interventionism that is good, and alongside that the sacrifice - *their* sacrifice - of young working class lives, and the lives of non-combatants has to be sold to the public as a necessary evil done for the "greater good". It's *not* what remembrance means to me, or to many I know, but that is what the state is attempting to do with remembrance: Use it to figleaf their crimes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

rioted said:


> My aunt and two of my cousins died in an air raid. Their surnames are still alive in the area. They are not on any war memorial.



Did you not notice in the first sentence of my post, the words "in the military"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> The armed services are told where to go by politician's, aren't they? So even if they're not loyal to one party, they are political in that they enact policy written by politicians. They're a political tool, if nothing else.



Cam arrives at a conclusion that most of the other posters on the thread arrived at a week ago at least!


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Fair point, Blair at the cenotaph on Sunday was sickening.



my boss is heavily involved in the local tory association. last year, he he looked at the politicians at the rememberence parade on tv and suggested that it would only take one grenade to get rid of them ALL. on this particular issue, i aggree with him and don't dicsriminate between slimy arseholes i wouldn't buy a used car off, depending on what colour rosette they wear.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cam arrives at a conclusion that most of the other posters on the thread arrived at a week ago at least!


I was staying out of it, but figured I might as well try and articulate it another way as those already involved in the argument were clearly having no success 

e2a: Although fuck me, what was that apostrophe doing there?!


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

copliker said:


> Front page of the Telegraph is a little bit glorification. The next generation of the officer class is it. At this rate, in a couple of years there'll be 'bayonet a wog' sideshows to keep the kids entertained while the parents have a spot of lunch in the Jamie Oliver popup trench dugout restaurant.



is maudlin the word i'm looking for. sickly sweet sentiment.

lest we forget - we have forgotten the number of kids who died. if you want to focus on military rememberence as officialdom does, that's including the children who got sent out. lad looks about the right age, the youngest to die in uniform on the somme was 12.dressing a child up in uniform to remember the dead children who shouldn't have been there is sickening

we've forgotten how shit it all got. cause if we hadn't, this wouldn't be sentimental. it would be gut wrenchingly horrific.


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2014)

Aye


toggle said:


> my boss is heavily involved in the local tory association. last year, he he looked at the politicians at the rememberence parade on tv and suggested that it would only take one grenade to get rid of them ALL. on this particular issue, i aggree with him and don't dicsriminate between slimy arseholes i wouldn't buy a used car off, depending on what colour rosette they wear.


, one of the things I do agree with on here is the way the main services are being hijacked by smarmy politicians


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 14, 2014)

Yeah lets remember all those who died in wars by stuffing our gobs with pizza...nice one Tesco....


----------



## likesfish (Nov 14, 2014)

The tesco pizza just no
 The children at the somme they werent forced they actually volunteered
 which  is probably worse


----------



## toggle (Nov 14, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The tesco pizza just no
> The children at the somme they werent forced they actually volunteered
> which  is probably worse



but they didn't send them home, after they found out their age and they din't bother doing anyhting much to check.

i do know my great grandfather joined the navy 2 years before he was supposed to have signed up. got his aunt to sign something to say he was old enough.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Front page of the Telegraph is a little bit glorification. The next generation of the officer class is it. At this rate, in a couple of years there'll be 'bayonet a wog' sideshows to keep the kids entertained while the parents have a spot of lunch in the Jamie Oliver popup trench dugout restaurant.
> 
> View attachment 63665


----------



## Pingu (Nov 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> but they didn't send them home, after they found out their age and they din't bother doing anyhting much to check.
> 
> i do know my great grandfather joined the navy 2 years before he was supposed to have signed up. got his aunt to sign something to say he was old enough.



different age. different viewpoint. one which we see differently today
not exactly a direct comparison but when they used to burn witches at the stake it wasnt a punishment. they genuinely thought they were being merciful and cleansing the soul. its hard to look at different periods in time with the values we have today.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> have you had a look at the wording of this oath?



As I write I have sitting on my desk, the New Testament which  was holding at the time, on 14th December 1976 in Inverness.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.


----------



## coley (Nov 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> As I write I have sitting on my desk, the New Testament which  was holding at the time, on 14th December 1976 in Inverness.
> 
> I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.


Bugger, yours is the same as mine


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> As I write I have sitting on my desk, the New Testament which  was holding at the time, on 14th December 1976 in Inverness.
> 
> I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.


Not possible for atheists/ignostics, republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. Coming from a big family with many paternal generations in the military, I'm aware that a lot of village memorials, on Remembrance Day, don't have any ceremonial, just remembrance. No civic dignitaries or pompous speeches, no public ceremony.
> The village my dad was born in, in north Norfolk, has a churchyard in which stands a memorial to the dead of The Great War. It has 8 names on it, but all of them are remembered, because their surnames are still alive in the area. One of them was my grandmother's brother - he would have been my great-uncle, if he'd lived. We don't remember him and the others because we're nationalists, or because we're shaping some kind of nationalist identity, we remember our dead because they *are* "ours", just as we remember "the dead" because we know that their loss, and their memory is the same as ours. The state might (and does) try to appropriate that sentiment for its' own purposes, and with the big civic Remembrance Day ceremonials, I'm sure they somewhat succeed, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Remembrance, they're just wankers trying to do exactly what you and I have both accused them of.



I remember:

One blown up in NI the day Mountbatten died.
One shot in NI.
One killed in an accident during training in Kenya.
Three killed in the Falklands.
One who committed suicide after the Falklands. 
One who died of leukaemia.
One who died in a car accident.

They are 'ours' and always will be. People who shared your life in a way that not even a wife or child can.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Not possible for atheists/ignostics, republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?



As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.



eh?

Does that mean you don't want to answer my question?


----------



## cesare (Nov 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.


Catch yourself on.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> eh?
> 
> Does that mean you don't want to answer my question?



It means that the possessor of more than two connected neurones, would realise that there is a different oath of loyalty for those of other religions, or indeed of no religious belief.

If ever a post demonstrated the wisdom of the old adage 'Better to remain silent...' it was that post of yours.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Catch yourself on.



Indeed. That too.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It means that the possessor of more than two connected neurones, would realise that there is a different oath of loyalty for those of other religions, or indeed of no religious belief.
> 
> If ever a post demonstrated the wisdom of the old adage 'Better to remain silent...' it was that post of yours.


OK, thanks for that. I genuinely have no knowledge about matters military, and was taken aback to see such an apparently out-dated oath. So..you're saying that there is provision for the 'non-religious' to swear solemnly without mention of god. But what about the other things?

What about a patriot that would like to join the armed forces who happens to believe that the "UK" would be better organised as a republic?

And what about anyone who is cognisant of the dangers of unquestioningly obeying orders? Do these folk have an alternative oath, or are they just not welcome to join?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2014)

well you are supposed to not obey an order you know to be illegal but I don't know how that squares with the oath.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What about a patriot that would like to join the armed forces who happens to believe that the "UK" would be better organised as a republic?
> 
> And what about anyone who is cognisant of the dangers of unquestioningly obeying orders? Do these folk have an alternative oath, or are they just not welcome to join?


 
  Just say the oath and stop being awkward would probably be the recruiting blokes answer.
  Illegal orders are not to be obeyed.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Just say the oath and stop being awkward would probably be the recruiting blokes answer.
> Illegal orders are not to be obeyed.



Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.

e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...



> To be effective on operations, the Army must act as a disciplined
> force: commanders’ orders carried out, everybody confident that
> they will not be let down by their comrades. Discipline is the
> primary antidote to fear and maintains operational effectiveness:
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.


"hands on cocks"


----------



## LiamO (Nov 15, 2014)

http://undergroundmgzn.com/2014/11/11/tower-london-poppies-obliterated-machine-guns/


----------



## coley (Nov 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.
> 
> e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...


Where does that suggest we obey unlawful orders?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 16, 2014)

Well the army assumes people wont give illegal or blatently stupid orders
   When orders like that  are given things are explained civilly.

Examples 
				" no I cant drive that tanker I'm not a driver"
			   " actually thats turkish controlled cyprus sir what your proposing counts as an invasion sir "


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Well the army assumes people wont give illegal or blatently stupid orders
> When orders like that  are given things are explained civilly.
> 
> Examples
> ...


Which makes complete sense, but leaves me wondering why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "_legal_" between the words "all" and 'orders".


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.
> 
> e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...



Time and place. Most orders should be obeyed


brogdale said:


> Which makes complete sense, but leaves me wondering why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "_legal_" between the words "all" and 'orders".



 Probably inertia, they might change it when we get a King I guess.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 16, 2014)

Because nobody loves a rules lawyer


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Because nobody loves a rules lawyer


No, no...I get that..but from the perspective of the worker, the institution is requiring the workforce to swear an oath that is incompatible with the actual demands of the job. Either way the worker/soldier can't win.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No, no...I get that..but from the perspective of the worker, the institution is requiring the workforce to swear an oath that is incompatible with the actual demands of the job.* Either way the worker/soldier can't win.[*/QUOTE]



welcome to the world of the armed forces


----------



## andysays (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Which makes complete sense, but leaves me wondering why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "_legal_" between the words "all" and 'orders".



Maybe that would be regarded as a bit "political"


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

Pingu said:


> welcome to the world of the armed forces


Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe that would be regarded as a bit "political"


I know. It would, of course, introduce the very notion that the rank and file might have to apply thought or consideration to any given order; unthinkable!


----------



## coley (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I know. It would, of course, introduce the very notion that the rank and file might have to apply thought or consideration to any given order; unthinkable!


Some people have some very odd misconceptions regarding the military, but takes all sort I suppose.


----------



## andysays (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I know. It would, of course, introduce the very notion that the rank and file might have to apply thought or consideration to any given order; unthinkable!



Bad for discipline, as already covered in your quote above


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

coley said:


> Some people have some very odd misconceptions regarding the military, but takes all sort I suppose.


That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....





> *...and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.*



How can anyone with any dignity swear that?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....
> 
> How can anyone with any dignity swear that?



 Well if you want to join you have to play by their rules.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well if you want to join you have to play by their rules.


err...exactly.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> well you are supposed to not obey an order you know to be illegal but I don't know how that squares with the oath.



It squares perfectly well. If ordered to shoot an unarmed prisoner, then you refuse the order. That is absolutely black and white.

The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are much more problematic, decisions taken at a much higher leveltha


brogdale said:


> Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.
> 
> e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...



Selective posting is selective posting. Unfortunately, I don't have a MML to hand, and am unable to provide a direct quote, but, right from the very beginning of basic training it is made quite clear that an order may be illegal. Our squad corporals used a very simple example. 'Go and pick up litter around the barracks' is a perfectly legal order 'Go round to my quarter and mow the lawn' is not. An illegal order should not be obeyed, and the soldier has protection under Military Law for refusing. Obeying an illegal order opens the soldier to the consequences of doing so. Political indoctrination was not part of basic training, the Geneva Convention was.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It squares perfectly well. If ordered to shoot an unarmed prisoner, then you refuse the order. That is absolutely black and white.
> 
> The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are much more problematic, decisions taken at a much higher leveltha
> 
> ...


Which, once again, kinda begs the question about the wording of the oath. If service personnel, from the very outset of their induction, are expected to interpret the legality of orders they are given, and act according to the LOAC, why would the solemn oath commit them to the very opposite?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 16, 2014)

It is or course a coincidence that soldiers commit themselves to following orders (with no legal caveats) and the fact that historically they've committed all this torture, those extrajudicial killings and war crimes. But still if you don't fancy it you can just quietly resign I suppose - anything else would just be cowardly attention-seeking


----------



## coley (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....
> 
> How can anyone with any dignity swear that?



Aye trooping back and forward to the dole office, jumping through the hoops laid out by the 'officers' of the DWP, or trudging/ commuting back and forth to a dead end job,having to obey the instructions of the arseholes set above you! whey aye dignity inspiring stuff.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 16, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It is or course a coincidence that soldiers commit themselves to following orders (with no legal caveats) and the fact that historically they've committed all this torture, those extrajudicial killings and war crimes. But still if you don't fancy it you can just quietly resign I suppose - anything else would just be cowardly attention-seeking



Never served, did you? Thought not.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 16, 2014)

coley said:


> Some people have some very odd misconceptions regarding the military, but takes all sort I suppose.



Only those who have never served, ergo haven't a fucking clue. Doesn't stop them expounding on a subject of which they have no knowledge of course. 

I would dearly have loved to have had one or two of them under my direct command.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....
> 
> How can anyone with any dignity swear that?





I take it the concept of service and the necessary discipline are alien to you?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Which, once again, kinda begs the question about the wording of the oath. If service personnel, from the very outset of their induction, are expected to interpret the legality of orders they are given, and act according to the LOAC, why would the solemn oath commit them to the very opposite?


Yeah, the old "if you ain't done it, you can't comment on it" line. Brilliant!

Doesn't stop me asking questions that you seem unwilling to engage with, though.

****radio silence continues****


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I take it the concept of service and the necessary discipline are alien to you?


Yeah, completely alien if they can only occur after swearing an oath that contradicts the very basis upon which that disciplined 'service' depends.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Never served, did you? Thought not.


Have you ever been a Labour MP, sas?


----------



## coley (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, completely alien if they can only occur after swearing an oath that contradicts the very basis upon which that disciplined 'service' depends.


How does it contradict it?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

coley said:


> How does it contradict it?


If what Sas says is correct, from the very outset of training a recruit would be under obligation of evaluate the legality of any order he/she was given, and acting according to the LOAC, refuse to obey if necessary. Oath says " I will.....*observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me."
*
That.
*
*


----------



## coley (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If what Sas says is correct, from the very outset of training a recruit would be under obligation of evaluate the legality of any order he/she was given, and acting according to the LOAC, refuse to obey if necessary. Oath says " I will.....*observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me."
> *
> That.


 You are taking it to daft levels of hairsplitting, but think on it, someone orders you to mow their lawn or kick the living daylights out of an unarmed prisoner you are perfectly entitled to refuse.
Someone else orders you to a secure a building while under fire than you are not entitled to refuse, that's the difference.
In the final analysis,when you take the shilling and the oath you are starting a process that ultimately could see you being killed and the oath and all the other archaic traditions that civvies find strange are part of the process of binding you to your unit and your mates.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 16, 2014)

coley said:


> You are taking it to daft levels of hairsplitting, but think on it, someone orders you to mow their lawn or kick the living daylights out of an unarmed prisoner you are perfectly entitled to refuse.
> Someone else orders you to a secure a building while under fire than you are not entitled to refuse, that's the difference.
> In the final analysis,when you take the shilling and the oath you are starting a process that ultimately could see you being killed and the oath and all the other archaic traditions that civvies find strange are part of the process of binding you to your unit and your mates.


History is not exactly littered with British Army soldiers refusing illegal orders, is it. (Whereas war crimes are pretty easy to find)


----------



## coley (Nov 16, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> History is not exactly littered with British Army soldiers refusing illegal orders, is it. (Whereas war crimes are pretty easy to find)



Because, on the whole,most in the British Army don't issue illegal orders.
Your other point, war crimes are easy to find? What few their are, are a matter of record, and I don't think 'war crimes' is an accurate description, instances of squaddies behaving badly are not 'war crimes' however the fact these incidents are a matter of public record should be a reassurance should it not?
And when you make reference to history, could you be a bit more specific? I tend to think of the contemporary British Army, wouldn't want you or others,making your points using Cromwell's modern army, ta.


----------



## unitedbrands (Nov 17, 2014)

I'll wear a red one.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 17, 2014)

coley said:


> Because, on the whole,most in the British Army don't issue illegal orders.
> Your other point, war crimes are easy to find? What few their are, are a matter of record, and I don't think 'war crimes' is an accurate description, instances of squaddies behaving badly are not 'war crimes' however the fact these incidents are a matter of public record should be a reassurance should it not?
> And when you make reference to history, could you be a bit more specific? I tend to think of the contemporary British Army, wouldn't want you or others,making your points using Cromwell's modern army, ta.



Is Kenya modern enough for you? British troops acting under orders committed massacres, engaged in torture, mass forced displacement, extrajudicial executions, mutilation, forced labour and more. 
Of course we only know all this because of the testimony of the people it happened to because the people who did it destroyed virtually all the documentation (with the approval of their superiors) and what remains is kept classified by the government for "national security reasons" (ie. Possible legal expenses).


----------



## Pingu (Nov 17, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Is Kenya modern enough for you? British troops acting under orders committed massacres, engaged in torture, mass forced displacement, extrajudicial executions, mutilation, forced labour and more.
> Of course we only know all this because of the testimony of the people it happened to because the people who did it destroyed virtually all the documentation (with the approval of their superiors) and what remains is kept classified by the government for "national security reasons" (ie. Possible legal expenses).



even sas isnt old enough to have served in the mau mau stuff


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

Pingu said:


> even sas isnt old enough to have served in the mau mau stuff


Still, living memory, post-WW2. What has happened in Afghanistan/Iraq that we don't know about? We know something from what Bradley Manning revealed about US crimes. What did the UK do? It's naive to think that they would not have attempted to cover up a bad crime such as blowing up a school or hospital on purpose.

It's what happens when you start wars. And govts lie to their people about it, always. Yet somehow some people seem to think that _this time_ it is different.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 17, 2014)

Pingu said:


> even sas isnt old enough to have served in the mau mau stuff


And? 

I was answering the question as posed. 
The British Army committed various war crimes in Kenya within living memory, then covered it up and the British state to date still denies responsibility for it. 
As in, when British Army officers did issue illegal orders, many British soldiers did follow them unquestioningly. The resulting atrocities were neither examples of "squaddies behaving badly" nor were they accepted as a "matter of record" by the British government. No responsibility has been accepted by the British state and no soldier serving or retired was ever prosecuted for anything.


----------



## toggle (Nov 17, 2014)

Pingu said:


> different age. different viewpoint. one which we see differently today
> not exactly a direct comparison but when they used to burn witches at the stake it wasnt a punishment. they genuinely thought they were being merciful and cleansing the soul. its hard to look at different periods in time with the values we have today.



different viewpoint as long as it was w/c kids. 

and no, the witch burnings were less to do with cleansing fire and more to do with who had the power and who could gain. the motives have changed little


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

coley said:


> You are taking it to daft levels of hairsplitting, but think on it, someone orders you to mow their lawn or kick the living daylights out of an unarmed prisoner you are perfectly entitled to refuse.
> Someone else orders you to a secure a building while under fire than you are not entitled to refuse, that's the difference.
> In the final analysis,when you take the shilling and the oath you are starting a process that ultimately could see you being killed and the oath and all the other archaic traditions that civvies find strange are part of the process of binding you to your unit and your mates.



"Hairsplitting"? Really?

Try to face up to the objective facts...sworn oath says one thing, but the job requires something else (apparently). Surely your loyalty is not so deeply institutionalised that you can't see that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

In modern warfare, war crimes are as often as not committed far from any front. They are not committed by men on the ground staring into the eyes of people they rape and murder. They are committed in a control room by people who will never even know exactly who they killed. 

This is about far more than torturing prisoners (not to underplay how disgusting that is). The criminal orders also involve technicians flying unmanned drones and pressing a button. And the chain of responsibility for such crimes extends all the way back to the top.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

Thing is that said technician may never know that the order was criminal. They may never be told exactly what the target was, or they may be told a lie about it. They may have no way of knowing at the point of action whether or not they are being told to do a criminal thing, which for me means that in order to take responsibility for their actions, they must see far wider. They must in fact ask why they are there in the first place.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

Meanwhile, the Royal Mint gets in on the act. Ah, Lord Kitchener lying to young lads so that he can have them killed. How lovely. 







Only a fiver now. Bargain.


----------



## coley (Nov 17, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> And?
> 
> I was answering the question as posed.
> The British Army committed various war crimes in Kenya within living memory, then covered it up and the British state to date still denies responsibility for it.
> As in, when British Army officers did issue illegal orders, many British soldiers did follow them unquestioningly. The resulting atrocities were neither examples of "squaddies behaving badly" nor were they accepted as a "matter of record" by the British government. No responsibility has been accepted by the British state and no soldier serving or retired was ever prosecuted for anything.



I am not denying that atrocities were committed,they clearly were,but by a generation with a totally different outlook to the ones held by today's or even yesterday's generation.
You are talking about a generation that had just come through one of the bloodiest wars  in history and who weren't particularly sensitive towards the human rights issue, to them the idea of meeting force with even more force was perfectly natural.
It was clearly brutal and,in retrospect, a disgrace to the values we hold today and if we had continued, as a society behaving in such a manner then we would have need to be totally ashamed but we didn't.
Documents from that time testify there was a lot of disquiet about the policy's employed at local and colonial level and I believe Kenya was a turning point in how the armed forces behave when deployed in a peacekeeping/insurrection role.
I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Meanwhile, the Royal Mint gets in on the act. Ah, Lord Kitchener lying to young lads so that he can have them killed. How lovely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuck me.


----------



## coley (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> "Hairsplitting"? Really?
> 
> Try to face up to the objective facts...sworn oath says one thing, but the job requires something else (apparently). Surely your loyalty is not so deeply institutionalised that you can't see that?



My 'loyalty' isn't deeply institutionally in any respect, your arguments don't make any sense on a common sense basis, we take an oath, same as you sign an employment contract, if we find that we are expected to do something that wasn't agreed in the contract we can refuse and follow various lines of arbitration etc.
You will find, I imagine, broadly the same rights and obligations, in any employment contract as in the oath.

With the exception that we accepted the fact we might have to kill people or if we were careless, be killed in turn.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 17, 2014)

coley said:


> I believe Kenya was a turning point in how the armed forces behave when deployed in a peacekeeping/insurrection role.
> I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most.



Yeh their behaviour in Northern Ireland was exemplary, really turned it out around there.


----------



## coley (Nov 17, 2014)

N_igma said:


> Yeh their behaviour in Northern Ireland was exemplary, really turned it out around there.



"I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most"

Now NI isn't perfect but it's one helluva improvement on the place I remember from 69/75.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 18, 2014)

You said Kenya was a turning point but it clearly wasn't. The British army murdered its own unarmed citizens in the street hardly the mark of a well disciplined army.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> I am not denying that atrocities were committed,they clearly were,but by a generation with a totally different outlook to the ones held by today's or even yesterday's generation.
> You are talking about a generation that had just come through one of the bloodiest wars  in history and who weren't particularly sensitive towards the human rights issue, to them the idea of meeting force with even more force was perfectly natural.
> It was clearly brutal and,in retrospect, a disgrace to the values we hold today and if we had continued, as a society behaving in such a manner then we would have need to be totally ashamed but we didn't.
> Documents from that time testify there was a lot of disquiet about the policy's employed at local and colonial level and I believe Kenya was a turning point in how the armed forces behave when deployed in a peacekeeping/insurrection role.
> I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most.


If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?

As to the last point. The main difference between Britain's armed forces and those that depose governments is that the British Army hasn't been put in "seriously difficult positions" of the same order as their counterparts elsewhere.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?



tbh i don't think anyone here is in a position to answer authoritatively on that one unless the Government is posting .


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

Pingu said:


> tbh i don't think anyone here is in a position to answer authoritatively on that one unless the Government is posting .


We could take a good guess though, couldn't we?


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

we could take a guess but no way of knowing if its cynically damning  or rose tintededly benevolant


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?
> 
> As to the last point. The main difference between Britain's armed forces and those that depose governments is that the British Army hasn't been put in "seriously difficult positions" of the same order as their counterparts elsewhere.



Because it wasn't,the government and colonial administration of the time who was culpable and the present govt has paid compensation on that basis.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Because it wasn't,the government and colonial administration of the time who was culpable and the present govt has paid compensation on that basis.



Seriously?

Are you kidding me?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

N_igma said:


> You said Kenya was a turning point but it clearly wasn't. The British army murdered its own unarmed citizens in the street hardly the mark of a well disciplined army.


Read up on the number of innocent civilians killed by the army in the course of operation banner, one,was one two many, but overall, given the length of time involved and the violence employed by the various republican movements the number is tiny compared to other countries peacekeeping/counter insurgency operations.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Are you kidding me?


Yes and no


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Yes and no



So you are actually going to argue that the British government paying off victims of war crimes to avoid legal liability is an example of its respect for human rights?
Or indeed that states cease to be responsibile for violence committed as soon as the government changes?

Are you kidding me?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Nope just trying to take a balanced view, how much did we get off Germany for pain,suffering and damage inflicted during WW2?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Read up on the number of innocent civilians killed by the army in the course of operation banner, one,was one two many, but overall, given the length of time involved and the violence employed by the various republican movements the number is tiny compared to other countries peacekeeping/counter insurgency operations.


30 January 1972


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Nope just trying to take a balanced view, how much did we get off Germany for pain,suffering and damage inflicted during WW2?


Germany paid considerable compensation for crimes committed under the Nazi dictatorship, running to many billions of pounds. It's still paying in fact. It also established several museums dedicating to exploring, publicising and educating people about past atrocities. 

This despite the lack of continuity between the regime that committed those crimes and the one paying for them. Britain on the other hand is still the same political regime as it was in the 1950s and has never done anything of the sort, pays compensation solely as a way of avoiding full legal liability and still has prominent figures in public life (including government) prepared to claim that the British Empire was essentially benign.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Nope just trying to take a balanced view, how much did we get off Germany for pain,suffering and damage inflicted during WW2?


tbf i am still angry that the Angles and the Saxons failed to make any sort of overtures towards reconciliation. once that is sorted I will move on


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Germany paid considerable compensation for crimes committed under the Nazi dictatorship, running to many billions of pounds. It's still paying in fact. It also established several museums dedicating to exploring, publicising and educating people about past atrocities.
> 
> This despite the lack of continuity between the regime that committed those crimes and the one paying for them. Britain on the other hand is still the same political regime as it was in the 1950s and has never done anything of the sort, pays compensation solely as a way of avoiding full legal liability and still has prominent figures in public life (including government) prepared to claim that the British Empire was essentially benign.



just out of interest, and it is a genuine interest and not just shit stirring, what should be done and who should do it?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 30 January 1972


Aye, most know the date, I was referring to the total number of innocent civilian casualties over the course of the whole operation, when you look at it in that perspective things look slightly different, though I fully understand its easier to highlight one (admittedly terrible) incident and ignore the whole picture, makes it easier to vilify the institution you want to have a dig at.
How many innocent civilians has the police killed in the same time period, without the excuse of operating in a war zone?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, most know the date, I was referring to the total number of innocent civilian casualties over the course of the whole operation, when you look at it in that perspective things look slightly different, though I fully understand its easier to highlight one (admittedly terrible) incident and ignore the whole picture, makes it easier to vilify the institution you want to have a dig at.
> How many innocent civilians has the police killed in the same time period, without the excuse of operating in a war zone?


You also have to add those killed by loyalist paramilitaries with UK army help.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You also have to add those killed by loyalist paramilitaries with UK army help.



and for balance the number killed by the IRA and associated organisations?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

Pingu said:


> and for balance the number killed by the IRA and associated organisations?


We are talking about innocent people murdered with UK army help. That other innocent people were killed by others does not diminish the crime.

ETA: How do you think the nationalist community felt having their streets policed by an army that was also helping the terrorist groups the army was supposed to be there to protect them from? What do you think that did to the conflict? That's a war crime, right there.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

not saying that any crimes committed by the UK state in NI are diminished by the acts of otehrs. its just that there is a  very one sided view if you take look at just the killings that are down to the army in NI. IIRC the IRA considered NI a war and in any war, sadly, innocents die as well as combatants.  you could argue that if it wasnt for the IRA there would have been no need for british troops on the streets of NI and therefore they have to also accept some responsibility for the actions of said troops*

* i also concur that if the british troops hadnt been there in the first place <And acted like right cunts at times> (going all the way back to 1536 and Henrys decision to invade or whenever it originally goes back to - my knowledge of the history of the period isnt great) tbh the IRA wouldnt have been there either and that the statement i made is very simplistic indeed. but the situation in NI is very complex and both sides need to shoulder some of the blame for innocents dying - be that as a result of the armys actions or by being blown up/shot by the IRA


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

Pingu said:


> just out of interest, and it is a genuine interest and not just shit stirring, what should be done and who should do it?



I don't think there's anything that could be done by the British state to genuinely compensate the victims of British colonialism. And that's not why I raised it on this thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

PInk = Countries Britain has invaded.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> PInk = Countries Britain has invaded.


No its not.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I don't think there's anything that could be done by the British state to genuinely compensate the victims of British colonialism. And that's not why I raised it on this thread.



but the financial reprisals on germany and the fact they have the odd place or two saying that killing people is bad is sufficient? - trying not to misrepresent your post here (and possibly failing)  but that is how it reads.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

Pingu said:


> but the financial reprisals on germany and the fact they have the odd place or two saying that killing people is bad is sufficient? - trying not to misrepresent your post here (and possibly failing)  but that is how it reads.


I don't see how you could read it that way. Certainly not when I'm responding directly to someone else making a German comparison.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Germany paid considerable compensation for crimes committed under the Nazi dictatorship, running to many billions of pounds. It's still paying in fact. It also established several museums dedicating to exploring, publicising and educating people about past atrocities.
> 
> This despite the lack of continuity between the regime that committed those crimes and the one paying for them. Britain on the other hand is still the same political regime as it was in the 1950s and has never done anything of the sort, pays compensation solely as a way of avoiding full legal liability and still has prominent figures in public life (including government) prepared to claim that the British Empire was essentially benign.


Remind me how much did *we* get in compensation from G


Lo Siento. said:


> I don't think there's anything that could be done by the British state to genuinely compensate the victims of British colonialism. And that's not why I raised it on this thread.


Then why did you? While I think its important to acknowledge the mistakes and transgressions of the past it's equally important not to beat yourself over the head with them.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Remind me how much did *we* get in compensation from G



In lieu of money the British government took forced labour from 400,000 German POWs. For rather obvious geo-political reasons the Allies preferred not to overdo reparations.



> Then why did you? While I think its important to acknowledge the mistakes and transgressions of the past it's equally important not to beat yourself over the head with them.



Ha, as if you could accuse any European nation of "beating themselves over the head" for past atrocities! 

I raised it as an example of British soldiers complying with immoral orders, in line with the actual content of their oaths, rather than the rather rose-tinted interpretation of it offered by some on here.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> My 'loyalty' isn't deeply institutionally in any respect, your arguments don't make any sense on a common sense basis, we take an oath, same as you sign an employment contract, if we find that we are expected to do something that wasn't agreed in the contract we can refuse and follow various lines of arbitration etc.
> You will find, I imagine, broadly the same rights and obligations, in any employment contract as in the oath.
> 
> With the exception that we accepted the fact we might have to kill people or if we were careless, be killed in turn.


I don't think its very credible to equate a solemn oath pledging loyalty and complete obedience to one family with a voluntary agreement of legal obligations.

I'm finding it hard to imagine how rank & file service-people can be expected, in the heat of action, to evaluate the legality of any particular order and then act according to their understanding of the law....particularly when they have pledged to do exactly as they are told.

For instance, on 30/01/1972 how would the paras under Derek Wilford's command have known that his orders were issued in direct contravention of those issued by his immediate superior?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

...and what about our flyers who are told to shoot down passenger airliners if they fail to respond to communications? They'd be following orders, right?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You also have to add those killed by loyalist paramilitaries with UK army help.



More MI5 than the green army however it's hard to sort out who did what to whom given the various organisations involved and and infiltration and collusion between the UDF and RUC.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

...or strike-breaking? That legal?

And ultimately...you'd fire on your own people if they somehow threatened the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...and what about our flyers who are told to shoot down passenger airliners if they fail to respond to communications? They'd be following orders, right?


So,you'd rather an airliner was deliberately crashed into, say Brixton, than destroyed over open water? Some here are losing the plot.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> So,you'd rather an airliner was deliberately crashed into, say Brixton, than destroyed over open water? Some here are losing the plot.


 You think they wouldn't down one over the suburbs to save the seat of the state?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You think they wouldn't down one over the suburbs to save the seat of the state?


You are getting into fantasy land now.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...or strike-breaking? That legal?
> 
> And ultimately...you'd fire on your own people if they somehow threatened the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family?



The moving food and supplies to protect the general public isn't strike breaking, if the Army had been sent down the pit to mine coal *now* that would be strike breaking.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> The moving food and supplies to protect the general public isn't strike breaking, if the Army had been sent down the pit to mine coal *now* that would be strike breaking.


Breaking strikes under the guise of protecting the public is strike-breaking. That's why they wrote it to sound like it's a general good for society. Use your loaf ffs.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> You are getting into fantasy land now.



I was struggling a second ago to define where exactly it is that we part ways, but this is essentially it.

I think you're naive if you think that the government wouldn't prioritise defending the state over the safety and well-being of the citizens. Not only is it there in black and white in the oath you pledge, but it's also what most senior politicians and forces officials would say if pressed.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Then the army is guilty of strike breaking when the green goddesses were used? It's a fine line between protecting essential public services and strike breaking


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I was struggling a second ago to define where exactly it is that we part ways, but this is essentially it.
> 
> I think you're naive if you think that the government wouldn't prioritise defending the state over the safety and well-being of the citizens. Not only is it there in black and white in the oath you pledge, but it's also what most senior politicians and forces officials would say if pressed.


You seem to think that people in the armed forces would protect the establishment versus the general public because of the archaic wording of our terms of employment? That all squaddies are fervent royalists ?
That the RAF would see thousands killed in order to protect the queen?
Your losing it.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> You seem to think that people in the armed forces would protect the establishment versus the general public because of the archaic wording of our terms of employment? That all squaddies are fervent royalists ?
> That the RAF would see thousands killed in order to protect the queen?
> Your losing it.



   I'm not sure who wouldn't want to shoot at the general public if given half a chance?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> I'm not sure who wouldn't want to shoot at the general public if given half a chance?


_Didn't we have a lovely time the day we went to derry._

You clown.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Didn't we have a lovely time the day we went to derry._
> 
> You clown.


		 Just been to the supermarket all ways makes me think some people need culling


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> You seem to think that people in the armed forces would protect the establishment versus the general public because of the archaic wording of our terms of employment? That all squaddies are fervent royalists ?
> That the RAF would see thousands killed in order to protect the queen?
> Your losing it.


No, I think they'd follow the orders they were given. Don't you?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> You seem to think that people in the armed forces would protect the establishment versus the general public because of the archaic wording of our terms of employment? That all squaddies are fervent royalists ?
> That the RAF would see thousands killed in order to protect the queen?
> Your losing it.


You sound like a man who's never really thought through the implications of that oath you swore.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You sound like a man who's never really thought through the implications of that oath you swore.


Course I have and I and most who took it would interpret  it as a commitment to the general public, personified by the current head of state.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Course I have and I and most who took it would interpret  it as a commitment to the general public, personified by the current head of state.


Setting aside the fact that you can't speak for "most" oath-takers, why would you interpret it like that when it's quite explicit what those swearing it are committed to. Faced with a "choice" between the people and the monarchy, you pledged to fire upon the people. That's why they employed you.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> No, I think they'd follow the orders they were given. Don't you?


It would depend on the circumstances, say the coalition got badly beaten by labour but refused to give up power and there followed riots and mass protests I doubt the Army would be involved,but if it was, I think the first time it was ordered to use violence would be when open mutiny would break out.
People seem to forget the armed forces are mainly comprised of the WC, not some elitist section of society.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside the fact that you can't speak for "most" oath-takers, why would you interpret it like that when it's quite explicit what those swearing it are committed to. Faced with a "choice" between the people and the monarchy, you pledged to fire upon the people. That's why they employed you.


You do understand the term archaic ?
Nobody takes it as a solemn commitment to defend the royal family against the rabble, I can't understand why you and others seek to define it as a literal commitment to do so.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside the fact that you can't speak for "most" oath-takers, why would you interpret it like that when it's quite explicit what those swearing it are committed to. Faced with a "choice" between the people and the monarchy, you pledged to fire upon the people. That's why they employed you.


Oh aye, and most of the oath takers knew and know would laugh their arses off at your beliefs.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 18, 2014)

The Army as an organisation claims and expects your total allegiance without reservation. It enters into every aspect of your life. It invades the privacy of your home life, it fragments your family and friends, in other words claims your total allegiance.

Another important aspect all potential volunteers should think about is their ability to obey orders from a superior officer. All volunteers must obey orders issued to them by a superior officer whether they like the particular officer or not.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

Pingu said:


> The Army as an organisation claims and expects your total allegiance without reservation. It enters into every aspect of your life. It invades the privacy of your home life, it fragments your family and friends, in other words claims your total allegiance.
> 
> Another important aspect all potential volunteers should think about is their ability to obey orders from a superior officer. All volunteers must obey orders issued to them by a superior officer whether they like the particular officer or not.



...or, arguably more importantly, the order.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> You do understand the term archaic ?
> Nobody takes it as a solemn commitment to defend the royal family against the rabble, I can't understand why you and others seek to define it as a literal commitment to do so.



Do you?



> (of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavour.
> "a term with a rather archaic ring to it"
> of an early period of art or culture, especially the 7th–6th centuries BC in Greece.
> "the archaic temple at Corinth"




The oath is still used? Would I be able to serve today without swearing it?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Do you?
> 
> The oath is still used? Would I be able to serve today without swearing it?


 no


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> no


Thought not; so "archaic" has limited application really.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> It would depend on the circumstances, say the coalition got badly beaten by labour but refused to give up power and there followed riots and mass protests I doubt the Army would be involved,but if it was, I think the first time it was ordered to use violence would be when open mutiny would break out.
> People seem to forget the armed forces are mainly comprised of the WC, not some elitist section of society.


I'm not sure what that has to do with the example we were just discussing. But anyway...

I think it's unlikely you'd ever have a constitutional crisis that was as clear cut as that. But if you did the the army as an institution would act to defend the interests of the state (that's what it means when you're an "apolitical" arm of the state). What exactly that meant would depend on the exact context.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Thought not; so "archaic" has limited application really.



 The Armed forces have traditions dating back hundreds of years. Well the navy and the Army does. The Air force just has nasty habits.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Oh aye, and most of the oath takers knew and know would laugh their arses off at your beliefs.


Speaking for others again.

What was it that you "knew"? And what "beliefs" of mine (that you claim to know) make you laugh?

Are you saying that the UK state would not use the military against the people, or break strikes? Or are you saying that you would refuse to obey such an order? Are you sure that its illegal for a soldier to break a strike?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Oh aye, and most of the oath takers knew and know would laugh their arses off at your beliefs.


Soldiers involved in repressing their own population are never told that what they're doing is a matter of the state versus the people (or the working class or whatever), they're told they're defending the nation. It's part of their "neutrality".

Refusing to follow orders because you agree with a group of protesters/strikers/whoever would be political/taking sides. 

Even if you don't believe that, can guarantee sas does/did.


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Speaking for others again.
> 
> What was it that you "knew"? And what "beliefs" of mine (that you claim to know) make you laugh?
> 
> Are you saying that the UK state would not use the military against the people, or break strikes? Or are you saying that you would refuse to obey such an order? Are you sure that its illegal for a soldier to break a strike?



Whey I was in the Army, my two sons have 35 years service between them, so I have some background regarding the 'oathtakers' and your belief that we/ those who take the oath,take it literally is frankly laughable.
As for the state to use the military to " break strikes" that's, as I have said earlier, a very thin line, yes they would make sure essential supplies and services were maintained, beyond that I would imagine all sorts of 'logistical problems' would start to emerge.
Just out of curiosity,how old were you in 72?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Whey I was in the Army, my two sons have 35 years service between them, so I have some background regarding the 'oathtakers' and your belief that we/ those who take the oath,take it literally is frankly laughable.
> As for the state to use the military to " break strikes" that's, as I have said earlier, a very thin line, yes they would make sure essential supplies and services were maintained, beyond that I would imagine all sorts of 'logistical problems' would start to emerge.
> Just out of curiosity,how old were you in 72?


It's not about whether you take it literally, is it?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

Why do you want to know how old I am?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Soldiers involved in repressing their own population are never told that what they're doing is a matter of the state versus the people (or the working class or whatever), they're told they're defending the nation. It's part of their "neutrality".
> 
> Refusing to follow orders because you agree with a group of protesters/strikers/whoever would be political/taking sides.
> 
> Even if you don't believe that, can guarantee sas does/did.



See my replies to Brogdales, I imagine if a government started using the military to break strikes, ie to literally reproduce the lost output of the strikers then serious issues would be raised, in the Army you have a process called 'redress of grievance' where (in non combat situations) you can refuse an order and ask for a RG, it's a pain as you will be given endless Shyte jobs till it's sorted, then again I think that me son mentioned it had been replaced by a form of tribunal, 
If your going to drag Sasaferrato into this, polite to tag him,don't you think?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Why do you want to know how old I am?



Just wondering if you are basing your opinions on being around at the time or on what you have read?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Just wondering if you are basing your opinions on being around at the time or on what you have read?


What "opinions"?
I was talking about the findings of the Saville enquiry; do you dispute them?


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Whey I was in the Army, my two sons have 35 years service between them, so I have some background regarding the 'oathtakers' and your belief that we/ those who take the oath,take it literally is frankly laughable.
> As for the state to use the military to " break strikes" that's, as I have said earlier, a very thin line, yes they would make sure essential supplies and services were maintained, beyond that I would imagine all sorts of 'logistical problems' would start to emerge.
> Just out of curiosity,how old were you in 72?





brogdale said:


> It's not about whether you take it literally, is it?
> 
> Of course it is,I wouldn't want to serve alongside some bat eyed loon who had joined up with the sole intention of protecting the Royal family


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What "opinions"?
> I was talking about the findings of the Saville enquiry; do you dispute them?


Just where have you mentioned the Saville enquiry?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

coley said:


> Just where have you mentioned the Saville enquiry?


what no annual poppy bunfight thread?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

I was 11, if that helps


----------



## coley (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> what no annual poppy bunfight thread?



Not even going there, you argument has been that the British Army is a bunch of royalists who have an unswerving belief in their obligation to primarily defend the royal family through an archaic oath to the queen and crown and who would be prepared to put down the masses in order to do so, even to destroy airliners who posed a threat to buck house!
I have being replying in the hope you had some form of cohesive argument lined up?
Haddaway back to your game boy or PS 3 or whatever electronic toy is today's fad.


----------



## coley (Nov 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I was 11, if that helps



I was 19 and had just finished me third tour there, went back in 73 for a two year deployment in Derry, Straban and Claudy and associated other muddy bits, interesting times.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

coley said:


> See my replies to Brogdales, I imagine if a government started using the military to break strikes, ie to literally reproduce the lost output of the strikers then serious issues would be raised, in the Army you have a process called 'redress of grievance' where (in non combat situations) you can refuse an order and ask for a RG, it's a pain as you will be given endless Shyte jobs till it's sorted, then again I think that me son mentioned it had been replaced by a form of tribunal,
> If your going to drag Sasaferrato into this, polite to tag him,don't you think?



The army was used to "replace lost output" during (IIRC) 7 separate dock strikes between 1945 and 1951. To my knowledge no serious issues were raised, even when the government had some of the dockers arrested.

To be honest I don't really get why you think this so controversial a statement. Professional armies exist for such purposes, have been used for them throughout history. If the British Army did happen to be conscious enough of popular rights or class solidarity to refuse to be used in a such a way that would make them pretty much unique. The only other armies to behave similarly were comprised of conscripts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2014)

Portuguesr army 1970s. Not volunteers, conscripts. Armies can and have sided with the people


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Portuguesr army 1970s. Not volunteers, conscripts. Armies can and have sided with the people


Yes and no in that case - rather more complicated then the army siding with the people, far closer to the people siding with the army in fact. And that same army then being used to restrain and limit the actions of the people once they had made their move.  In the same way the german army was used to neuter the german revolution. And that army was in rather specialised conditions - such that even when operating normally it faced 10 000s of thousands of deserters and armed attacks on its own ships and barracks from within itself.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Portuguesr army 1970s. Not volunteers, conscripts. Armies can and have sided with the people


sorry, wrote that wrong. I meant to write conscript not volunteer at the end


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

N_igma said:


> Yeh their behaviour in Northern Ireland was exemplary, really turned it out around there.



To be brutally frank, Northern Ireland was lucky that National Service was dead and buried by the time the British Army was sent in, because I hate to think what the body count might have been if you'd had a load of NS knob jockeys running around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

N_igma said:


> You said Kenya was a turning point but it clearly wasn't. The British army murdered its own unarmed citizens in the street hardly the mark of a well disciplined army.



Interestingly, the same piece of human waste was responsible for counter-insurgency operations in Kenya, as was responsible for them in Northern Ireland in the late '80s/early '70s -Frank Kitson. Kitson's ideas on how to deal with "low level insurgency" informed British military policy, and arguably fucked up a lot of people, and cost an awful number of non-combatants their lives, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?



Money. It's *always* money.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> PInk = Countries Britain has invaded.



Massively inaccurate in the Indian Ocean alone, mate.
Plus, you need to differentiate between places invaded/taken over by private British subjects and concerns, and places invaded by the British state.
It's also unhelpful that the map represents *modern* boundaries. Russia, for example, was constituted of a different size and shape of territory last time we invaded, than it has now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Massively inaccurate in the Indian Ocean alone, mate.
> Plus, you need to differentiate between places invaded/taken over by private British subjects and concerns, and places invaded by the British state.
> It's also unhelpful that the map represents *modern* boundaries. Russia, for example, was constituted of a different size and shape of territory last time we invaded, than it has now.


It's even worse than that - it uses the term invasion to denote any and all military presence no matter how tiny and fleeting and also includes pirates, local mercenary armies hired by private citizens or businesses etc. It's a load of nonsense.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be brutally frank, Northern Ireland was lucky that National Service was dead and buried by the time the British Army was sent in, because I hate to think what the body count might have been if you'd had a load of NS knob jockeys running around.



I suspect that there would be enquiries running until about the year 3000.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> PInk = Countries Britain has invaded.



That is impressive, it is pretty much the whole damn world. We punched well above our weight in those day.

As a map, it is a wee bit inaccurate though, depending on what it is portraying. In Africa, for example, some of the 'conquered' areas were taken from other European countries, mainly Germany.

We will never see those days again, and rightly so. What is an ongoing problem though, and not just Britain's fault, is the arbitrary lines drawn on the map, with no consideration of who you have 'contained' within the lines. The fall out from that grumbles on, with no end in sight.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2014)

Sorry, but what's this crap about how conscripts would have been far worse? It was the most highly trained - the SAS and their ilk - who killed the most in NI.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but what's this crap about how conscripts would have been far worse? It was the most highly trained - the SAS and their ilk - who killed the most in NI.




I think the implication is that the conscripts/service boys would have been largely resentful scared and highly likely to be trigger happy etc. Whereas the professionals are doing the killing by intent and order rather than panic


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I don't think its very credible to equate a solemn oath pledging loyalty and complete obedience to one family with a voluntary agreement of legal obligations.
> 
> I'm finding it hard to imagine how rank & file service-people can be expected, in the heat of action, to evaluate the legality of any particular order and then act according to their understanding of the law....particularly when they have pledged to do exactly as they are told.
> 
> For instance, on 30/01/1972 how would the paras under Derek Wilford's command have known that his orders were issued in direct contravention of those issued by his immediate superior?



They didn't. However, whatever the order from whoever, an order in itself does not justify a soldier breaking the law of the land, military law, international law and the Geneva Convention. It is the responsibility of the individual soldier to asses the legitimacy of their actions, irrespective of orders.

Thankfully, in my time in the army, I was never in a situation I did have to assess the legality before opening fire. 

The closest I came to killing anyone was one of our own, who had returned drunk from a night out in Hannover in his car, and had zig-zagged the barrier. I didn't recognise the car, and was in the firing position, gun cocked, safety off, waiting for him to be silhouetted in a light over an archway. I shouted for my mate, who was asleep in the sentry box. He recognised the car, and pushed the gun off aim, just as I was taking the slack in the trigger. The car was 30 yards away, he would have got two in the back of the head. Had I fired, I would have been absolutely justified, it was during an IRA bombing campaign in Germany, and the car was heading for the male accommodation. Thank God I didn't fire, had I done so, although justified, it would have been very hard to live with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but what's this crap about how conscripts would have been far worse? It was the most highly trained - the SAS and their ilk - who killed the most in NI.



In every "policing" situation that the British army has participated in in the 20th century, the presence of conscripts (mostly poorly to averagely trained) has meant unnecessary deaths. This isn't "crap", it's historical analysis borne out by a host of Empire and post-Empire actions in which conscripts were used by the British army.

As for who "killed the most", there are more deaths attributable to regulars than to special forces. Only about 20% maximum of those killed by the British Army in Northern Ireland were kills attributed to "the SAS and their ilk" (even if you include MI5 kills). The majority, sadly, were carried out by regulars.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

coley said:


> See my replies to Brogdales, I imagine if a government started using the military to break strikes, ie to literally reproduce the lost output of the strikers then serious issues would be raised, in the Army you have a process called 'redress of grievance' where (in non combat situations) you can refuse an order and ask for a RG, it's a pain as you will be given endless Shyte jobs till it's sorted, then again I think that me son mentioned it had been replaced by a form of tribunal,
> If your going to drag Sasaferrato into this, polite to tag him,don't you think?



I would not, under any circumstances, have fired on unarmed peaceful protesters, nor do I know anyone who would.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I think the implication is that the conscripts/service boys would have been largely resentful scared and highly likely to be trigger happy etc. Whereas the professionals are doing the killing by intent and order rather than panic



Pretty much. Add to that, that if you didn't want to be there in the first place, you're very unlikely to have any sympathy with or bother about locals and their culture - in fact we know from Malaya that conscripts came to see the locals _per se_ as their enemies, not just the "communist" insurgents.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> In every "policing" situation that the British army has participated in in the 20th century, the presence of conscripts (mostly poorly to averagely trained) has meant unnecessary deaths. This isn't "crap", it's historical analysis borne out by a host of Empire and post-Empire actions in which conscripts were used by the British army.
> 
> As for who "killed the most", there are more deaths attributable to regulars than to special forces. Only about 20% maximum of those killed by the British Army in Northern Ireland were kills attributed to "the SAS and their ilk" (even if you include MI5 kills). The majority, sadly, were carried out by regulars.



I was quartered in Aldershot at one point, my neighbours were mainly Paras. One of them had killed someone in NI, and still, some years later, had nightmares about it. Even amongst the Paras, who were a damn sight more 'gung ho' than the Medics were, I didn't meet anyone who had specifically joined up to kill people. Had you stated at your initial assessment in the recruiting process, that that was why you wanted to join, you would not have got in.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would not, under any circumstances, have fired on unarmed peaceful protesters, nor do I know anyone who would.


How come it happened over and over then?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was quartered in Aldershot at one point, my neighbours were mainly Paras. One of them had killed someone in NI, and still, some years later, had nightmares about it. Even amongst the Paras, who were a damn sight more 'gung ho' than the Medics were, I didn't meet anyone who had specifically joined up to kill people. Had you stated at your initial assessment in the recruiting process, that that was why you wanted to join, you would not have got in.


Maybe some sort of subterfuge would be in order - maybe not saying this was why you wanted to join.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would not, under any circumstances, have fired on unarmed peaceful protesters, nor do I know anyone who would.


Do you think in these situations your commanding officer comes in and tells you all "right lads, today we're going to murder some unarmed civilian protesters who are no threat to anything"?

In your head is that what the officers in Chile/Spain/Egypt all said before their coup d'etats?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was quartered in Aldershot at one point, my neighbours were mainly Paras. One of them had killed someone in NI, and still, some years later, had nightmares about it. Even amongst the Paras, who were a damn sight more 'gung ho' than the Medics were, I didn't meet anyone who had specifically joined up to kill people. Had you stated at your initial assessment in the recruiting process, that that was why you wanted to join, you would not have got in.



 Known several people who claimed to join because they wanted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill someone. All of them weeded out for being useless.
 The only person who has even suggested shooting peaceful demonstrators were Iraqis on the grounds they wouldn't come back if we shoot a few.
  They didn't seem to understand why we thought this was wrong.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How come it happened over and over then?



  Mistakes and the odd psycho. Frightfully easy for the mind to play tricks on you and see a gun where there  wasn't one.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Do you think in these situations your commanding officer comes in a tells you all "right lads, today we're going to murder some unarmed civilian protesters who are no threat to anything"?
> 
> In your head is that what the officers in Chile/Spain/Egypt all said before their coup d'etats?



We don't live in Chile/Spain/Egypt, we live in the UK. Any soldier is perfectly aware of the legality, order or not, in shooting unarmed, peaceful protesters.

Even in a riot situation, you cannot open fire willy nilly, you must be very sure that the person you are firing at is firing at 'you'. Stones and petrol bombs are not in themselves justification for opening fire. If you are in a position where you are going to be overrun by the mob, and you genuinely fear for your life, you may open fire. Which I would have done.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Mistakes and the odd psycho. Frightfully easy for the mind to play tricks on you and see a gun where there  wasn't one.



In which case you have to live with the consequences. You might not go to Colchester, but you still have to live with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Mistakes and the odd psycho. Frightfully easy for the mind to play tricks on you and see a gun where there  wasn't one.


Just mistakes. Odd how they kept happening over and over in the same way and at the same point - when the interests of the British state or its local allies were threatened. Whole lot of mistakes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Known several people who claimed to join because they wanted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill someone. All of them weeded out for being useless.
> The only person who has even suggested shooting peaceful demonstrators were Iraqis on the grounds they wouldn't come back if we shoot a few.
> They didn't seem to understand why we thought this was wrong.





I think that the civilians who are posting on this thread have little grasp of the realities of service. They have never been in the position where they may have to kill another human being. Nor have they seen their colleagues die beside them, then wiped their colleague's blood off their face. They haven't faced a rioting mob, and had to beat out the flames when their breeks are on fire, due to a petrol bomb. To say nothing of being on the receiving end of a rain of broken paving stones and half bricks. 

They seem to think that every soldier wants nothing more than the opportunity to kill, whereas it is the last thing that a soldier wants to do. Taking a life is not ever a trivial matter.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think that the civilians who are posting on this thread have little grasp of the realities of service. They have never been in the position where they may have to kill another human being. Nor have they seen their colleagues die beside them, then wiped their colleague's blood off their face. They haven't faced a rioting mob, and had to beat out the flames when their breeks are on fire, due to a petrol bomb. To say nothing of being on the receiving end of a rain of broken paving stones and half bricks.
> 
> They seem to think that every soldier wants nothing more than the opportunity to kill, whereas it is the last thing that a soldier wants to do. Taking a life is not ever a trivial matter.


Have you ever been a member of parliament, Sas?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think that the civilians who are posting on this thread have little grasp of the realities of service. They have never been in the position where they may have to kill another human being. Nor have they seen their colleagues die beside them, then wiped their colleague's blood off their face. They haven't faced a rioting mob, and had to beat out the flames when their breeks are on fire, due to a petrol bomb. To say nothing of being on the receiving end of a rain of broken paving stones and half bricks.
> 
> They seem to think that every soldier wants nothing more than the opportunity to kill, whereas it is the last thing that a soldier wants to do. Taking a life is not ever a trivial matter.


Don't you believe in civilian oversight of the military then?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Have you ever been a member of parliament, Sas?



What a strange question. I'll answer it though. No.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> We don't live in Chile/Spain/Egypt, we live in the UK. Any soldier is perfectly aware of the legality, order or not, in shooting unarmed, peaceful protesters.



Is it your opinion that British soldiers are qualitatively different in nature to soldiers in those armies?



> Even in a riot situation, you cannot open fire willy nilly, you must be very sure that the person you are firing at is firing at 'you'. Stones and petrol bombs are not in themselves justification for opening fire. If you are in a position where you are going to be overrun by the mob, and you genuinely fear for your life, you may open fire. Which I would have done.



This doesn't actually contradict the point I've been making throughout this thread.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> What a strange question. I'll answer it though. No.



I'd say the implications of the question are pretty obvious, but I'll try to be clearer.

You've expressed lots of opinions on members of parliament, parliament as an institution, political parties over your time here. What qualifies you to assess them as institutions?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'd say the implications of the question are pretty obvious, but I'll try to be clearer.
> 
> You've expressed lots of opinions on members of parliament, parliament as an institution, political parties over your time here. What qualifies you to assess them as institutions?



Their performance. Their regard for the ordinary citizen, their management of the national economy, their maintenance of the national infrastructure and their sense of what is a decent way to behave. On all of the preceding measures, the current government has pretty much failed, as did the government before them. 

It is debatable how much parliament should be involved in a fair distribution of the national income, but on this, both this and the preceding government have failed. Where is the inherent decency and honesty, when millions of our citizens are dependent on state handouts simply to exist?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just mistakes. Odd how they kept happening over and over in the same way and at the same point - when the interests of the British state or its local allies were threatened. Whole lot of mistakes.



 Unfortunately you put soldiers into those situations and this is what happens. 
	   Either because they make a genuine mistake which no one could have avoided. Their idiots who shouldn't be allowed sharp scissors. Or for some lunatic reason they decide to deliberately shoot when they shouldn't.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Is it your opinion that British soldiers are qualitatively different in nature to soldiers in those armies?
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't actually contradict the point I've been making throughout this thread.



Yes.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Their performance. Their regard for the ordinary citizen, their management of the national economy, their maintenance of the national infrastructure and their sense of what is a decent way to behave. On all of the preceding measures, the current government has pretty much failed, as did the government before them.
> 
> It is debatable how much parliament should be involved in a fair distribution of the national income, but on this, both this and the preceding government have failed. Where is the inherent decency and honesty, when millions of our citizens are dependent on state handouts simply to exist?


Amazing! 

You have all these opinions and yet you've never served.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes.


Well, they're not. Soldiers in all those places - just people - soldiers in Britain - just people.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Unfortunately you put soldiers into those situations and this is what happens.
> Either because they make a genuine mistake which no one could have avoided. Their idiots who shouldn't be allowed sharp scissors. Or for some lunatic reason they decide to deliberately shoot when they shouldn't.


Are you really not going to try and address the question of why these things - the killing of unarmed protesters - happens over and over again at points where the interests of the british state or its local allies are challenged? Really? 3 centuries of the same thing happening over and over at the same point each time - and each time its a mistake? Are there any things that happen so regularly and so predictably over such an extended period that you would be happy to classify away as simply mistakes - and mistakes that no one could have avoided apparently. Have a look at this short list and pay attention to the british  army massacres in just this country - were none of them avoidable? And if they were, why did they keep happening?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you really not going to try and address the question of why these things - the killing of unarmed protesters - happens over and over again at points where the interests of the british state or its local allies are challenged? Really? 3 centuries of the same thing happening over and over at the same point each time - and each time its a mistake? Are there any things that happen so regularly and so predictably over such an extended period that you would be happy to classify away as simply mistakes - and mistakes that no one could have avoided apparently. Have a look at this short list and pay attention to the british  army massacres in just this country - were none of them avoidable? And if they were, why did they keep happening?



   Pre 20th century I leave that to the historians to answer  seems  shooting  people who didn't want to do what the establishment wanted was fine

 The two incidents in NI both done by the Paras while bloody Sunday has  been covered , Bally Murphy just seems indefensible one accidental shooting could be excused as a tragedy 14 cannot be. Why they were not dragged in front of the courts is beyond me? Still mostly boils down to idiocy or criminality from either the trigger puller or those above him. Though why after BallyMurphy the paras were not banned from NI I don't know?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Pre 20th century I leave that to the historians to answer  seems  shooting  people who didn't want to do what the establishment wanted was fine
> 
> The two incidents in NI both done by the Paras while bloody Sunday has  been covered , Bally Murphy just seems indefensible one accidental shooting could be excused as a tragedy 14 cannot be. Why they were not dragged in front of the courts is beyond me? Still mostly boils down to idiocy or criminality from either the trigger puller or those above him. Though why after BallyMurphy the paras were not banned from NI I don't know?


How about we play the same game again but this on a global level? All mistakes again?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Well, they're not. Soldiers in all those places - just people - soldiers in Britain - just people.



You could not be more wrong were you deliberately trying to be wrong. I've served with US, French, German, Kenyan and Belgian troops. The US arethe only ones of those that come close to UK troops.

Your comparison is bogus of course, the last desperate howl of a lost argument.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> You could not be more wrong were you deliberately trying to be wrong. I've served with US, French, German, Kenyan and Belgian troops. The US arethe only ones of those that come close to UK troops.



Do you not think that your opinion on this might be a little partial? 



> Your comparison is bogus of course, the last desperate howl of a lost argument.


Which comparison is that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> You could not be more wrong were you deliberately trying to be wrong. I've served with US, French, German, Kenyan and Belgian troops. The US arethe only ones of those that come close to UK troops.


this is a poor reflection on the personal hygiene of british forces.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How about we play the same game again but this on a global level? All mistakes again?



 Well with hindsight they all appear to be a combination of idiocy and cruelty of various commanders. No idea what people thought they were achieving.
		 Just look at the Kenya we have nicked someone's country and now they want it back. Just after having fought ww2 and for some reason instead of
asking and just why should we defend a bunch of rich people who sat out the war in luxury? The British turned into the SS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How come it happened over and over then?



Most usually, unfortunately, one person panics, and that sets the rest off, especially as gunfire isn't *quite* as directionally-discernable as tv would have it.
Other times, of course, you have vacuous wastes of life like Lee Clegg thinking he'll shore up his hard-man credentials by opening fire on a vehicle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Is it your opinion that British soldiers are qualitatively different in nature to soldiers in those armies?


I'd say that there's not really much comparison between Egyptian and British troops - the quality of troop will always be better when you don't rely on conscription to fill the shitty jobs, and when you don't set some of your forces to work as a second police service.
I'd also say that with regard to Chile, their general staff is a fair bit more "political" than the British general staff, but that their troops currently (as they no longer use conscription, and don't currently sustain a _Junta_) aren't that much different *except* insofar as they get used for *overtly* political purposes.

As for Spain, I find it hard to make a judgement because the army was (supposedly - I don't know how thoroughgoing it was) reformed post-Franco, and hasn't really seen a major internal or external conflict since then. I like their uniforms, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just mistakes. Odd how they kept happening over and over in the same way and at the same point - when the interests of the British state or its local allies were threatened. Whole lot of mistakes.



It doesn't help if you issue kit (baton rounds) that are supposed to be deployed only at *over* a specific distance and in a particular way, and they then get deployed up close and personal. There'd be about a hundred more people alive in the six counties, otherwise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you really not going to try and address the question of why these things - the killing of unarmed protesters - happens over and over again at points where the interests of the british state or its local allies are challenged? Really? 3 centuries of the same thing happening over and over at the same point each time - and each time its a mistake? Are there any things that happen so regularly and so predictably over such an extended period that you would be happy to classify away as simply mistakes - and mistakes that no one could have avoided apparently. Have a look at this short list and pay attention to the british  army massacres in just this country - were none of them avoidable? And if they were, why did they keep happening?



Because many of them, especially colonial-era massacres, weren't mistake, they were policy.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2014)

coley said:


> Not even going there, you argument has been that the British Army is a bunch of royalists who have an unswerving belief in their obligation to primarily defend the royal family through an archaic oath to the queen and crown and who would be prepared to put down the masses in order to do so, even to destroy airliners who posed a threat to buck house!
> I have being replying in the *hope you had some form of cohesive argument lined up*?
> Haddaway back to your game boy or PS 3 or whatever electronic toy is today's fad.


 
OK, so you don't want to consider Saville's findings of an incident when UK forces fulfilled their oath, followed orders and shot dead unarmed civilians. I can appreciate why you would seek to dodge that.

My "_cohesive argument" _appears to be one that you find challenging. Those swearing the oath are committed to follow all orders, and you insist that you would not follow what you consider to be illegal ones. I'll ask again; is it actually illegal to down a passenger jet failing to respond to warnings; is it illegal to fire upon unarmed civilians breaking down the gates of Buckingham Palace and is it illegal to strike-break? 

Do you actually know the definitive answers to these orders that a service-person would have sworn to follow?


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, so you don't want to consider Saville's findings of an incident when UK forces fulfilled their oath, followed orders and shot dead unarmed civilians. I can appreciate why you would seek to dodge that.
> 
> My "_cohesive argument" _appears to be one that you find challenging. Those swearing the oath are committed to follow all orders, and you insist that you would not follow what you consider to be illegal ones. I'll ask again; is it actually illegal to down a passenger jet failing to respond to warnings; is it illegal to fire upon unarmed civilians breaking down the gates of Buckingham Palace and is it illegal to strike-break?
> 
> Do you actually know the definitive answers to these orders that a service-person would have sworn to follow?



I don't find you cohesive, challenging or even interesting, sorry.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2014)

Odd that you should dodge such questions in that case.


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> Odd that you should dodge such questions in that case.



Never dodged a direct question but can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives


----------



## toggle (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interestingly, the same piece of human waste was responsible for counter-insurgency operations in Kenya, as was responsible for them in Northern Ireland in the late '80s/early '70s -Frank Kitson. Kitson's ideas on how to deal with "low level insurgency" informed British military policy, and arguably fucked up a lot of people, and cost an awful number of non-combatants their lives, too.



but was able to give the appearance of getting stuff done to the chattering classes?


----------



## toggle (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> Not even going there, you argument has been that the British Army is a bunch of royalists who have an unswerving belief in their obligation to primarily defend the royal family through an archaic oath to the queen and crown and who would be prepared to put down the masses in order to do so, even to destroy airliners who posed a threat to buck house!
> I have being replying in the hope you had some form of cohesive argument lined up?
> Haddaway back to your game boy or PS 3 or whatever electronic toy is today's fad.



Seems to me that joe squaddie dosen't give much of a fuck. officers are somethign different? far more expectation they will play the political games? if i understand what a my freind was telling me.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> Never dodged a direct question but can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives



With the exception of these, that is...



brogdale said:


> Not possible for ........ republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?





brogdale said:


> What about a patriot that would like to join the armed forces who happens to believe that the "UK" would be better organised as a republic?
> 
> And what about anyone who is cognisant of the dangers of unquestioningly obeying orders? Do these folk have an alternative oath, or are they just not welcome to join?





brogdale said:


> why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "_legal_" between the words "all" and 'orders".





brogdale said:


> Which, once again, kinda begs the question about the wording of the oath. If service personnel, from the very outset of their induction, are expected to interpret the legality of orders they are given, and act according to the LOAC, why would the solemn oath commit them to the very opposite?





brogdale said:


> I'm finding it hard to imagine how rank & file service-people can be expected, in the heat of action, to evaluate the legality of any particular order and then act according to their understanding of the law....particularly when they have pledged to do exactly as they are told.
> 
> For instance, on 30/01/1972 how would the paras under Derek Wilford's command have known that his orders were issued in direct contravention of those issued by his immediate superior?





brogdale said:


> ...and what about our flyers who are told to shoot down passenger airliners if they fail to respond to communications? They'd be following orders, right?





brogdale said:


> ...or strike-breaking? That legal?
> 
> And ultimately...you'd fire on your own people if they somehow threatened the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family?





brogdale said:


> Are you saying that the UK state would not use the military against the people, or break strikes? Or are you saying that you would refuse to obey such an order? Are you sure that its illegal for a soldier to break a strike?





brogdale said:


> I was talking about the findings of the Saville enquiry; do you dispute them?





brogdale said:


> I'll ask again; is it actually illegal to down a passenger jet failing to respond to warnings; is it illegal to fire upon unarmed civilians breaking down the gates of Buckingham Palace and is it illegal to strike-break?
> 
> Do you actually know the definitive answers to these orders that a service-person would have sworn to follow?



So much goal-post moving!


----------



## likesfish (Nov 20, 2014)

I think savillie found there was no "plan" that involved shooting protestors.
 Just a suggestion if they started something they were too be dealt with frimly.
 Add a couple of nutters from support company who wanted to find out what it was to like to kill someone
 Then bad things happen really fast.
 a failure to investigate and charge the guilty bastards due to a relutance to charge soldiers while people are trying to kill them made everything worse.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I think savillie found there was no "plan" that involved shooting protestors.
> Just a suggestion if they started something they were too be dealt with frimly.
> Add a couple of nutters from support company who wanted to find out what it was to like to kill someone
> Then bad things happen really fast.
> a failure to investigate and charge the guilty bastards due to a relutance to charge soldiers while people are trying to kill them made everything worse.


Yep, but they were following orders, (as their oath committed them to), but those orders happened to be unauthorised and, therefore illegal.


> Saville said British soldiers should not have been ordered to enter the Bogside area as "Colonel Wilford either deliberately disobeyed Brigadier MacLellan’s order or failed for no good reason to appreciate the clear limits on what he had been authorised to do".[14] The report stated five British soldiers aimed shots at civilians they knew did not pose a threat and two other British soldiers shot at civilians "in the belief that they might have identified gunmen, but without being certain that this was the case"


----------



## likesfish (Nov 20, 2014)

At squaddie level that  order would appear to be legal and not completely out of the question.
  As for  example on exercise told to set up an observation post in turkish controlled northern cyprus
Plainly illegal and or insane  Or a certain officers "plan" that involved taking on an ira machine gun nest in belfast with machine guns rockets launchers and grenades on a saturday afternoon.
 That plan was listened to the toops loaded up got to the drop off point when ncos called a halt to the insanity and everyone went home for tea and said Lt had his medication increased


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> With the exception of these, that is...
> 
> All answered by me or others, not my responsibility if you don't comprehend or like the answers.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

Shame really, I _would _have been interested to hear your views...but never mind.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> At squaddie level that  order would appear to be legal and not completely out of the question.



Yeah, but that was (partly) the point that I _was _attempting to explore with Coley & Sas. Their contention was that the Oath needed no revision because any one given service-person would be able to discern an illegal order and refuse to obey it.


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but that was (partly) the point that I _was _attempting to explore with Coley & Sas. Their contention was that the Oath needed no revision because any one given service-person would be able to discern an illegal order and refuse to obey it.



Your lack of comprehension is worse than I suspected, I said earlier that I couldn't imagine anyone in the services objecting to a change in the wording, your assertion that we would all obey every order unthinkingly because we had taken the oath is childishly simple.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but that was (partly) the point that I _was _attempting to explore with Coley & Sas. Their contention was that the Oath needed no revision because any one given service-person would be able to discern an illegal order and refuse to obey it.



In a situation like that parachute regiment has been deployed to aid the civil power stopping riots and the like. stopping riots in one part of londonderry or another seems perfectly legal. unless you were at the briefing that the brigadier gave which is far from normal you wouldnt know that there was a limit to where you were suppoused to go.
 Bit like the hooding of prisoners in iraq apprantly it was illegal and had been banned in the 70s in northern ireland.
 Unfortunatly nobody had been told it was illegal
 Was common practice on exercise and in resistance to interogation/escape and evasion exercises. Given the chances of being captured by enemies of the uk who were unlikely to play by the geneva conventition . People playing the capturing were encourged to push the boundarys or just play hostel. Being water boarded or just having your head held underwater till you start drowning is unpleasant in the extreme. Fake executions having dogs inches from your face were all fair game ( more scared that the pratts would fuck  it up than intentionally hurt you). then let people who thought that was a right larf loose in iraq with no better training shit is going to happen.
  Proper interrogators knew what they were doing the infantry not so much


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> Never dodged a direct question but can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives


you're right. you've not dodged one direct question, you've dodged round a dozen.


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you're right. you've not dodged one direct question, you've dodged round a dozen.


Nope, all answered,mebbes if he cut the slavver and asked a direct unambiguous question instead of trying to hide his agenda?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> Nope, all answered,mebbes if he cut the slavver and asked a direct unambiguous question instead of trying to hide his agenda?


why don't you answer each of his questions in turn? and then we can all move on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

toggle said:


> but was able to give the appearance of getting stuff done to the chattering classes?



Quite, and more importantly silenced the political class and helped deter them from scrutinising what was being done, especially with regard to the assistance to (and sometimes manufacture of) loyalist terrorism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, so you don't want to consider Saville's findings of an incident when UK forces fulfilled their oath, followed orders and shot dead unarmed civilians. I can appreciate why you would seek to dodge that.
> 
> My "_cohesive argument" _appears to be one that you find challenging. Those swearing the oath are committed to follow all orders, and you insist that you would not follow what you consider to be illegal ones. I'll ask again; is it actually illegal to down a passenger jet failing to respond to warnings; is it illegal to fire upon unarmed civilians breaking down the gates of Buckingham Palace and is it illegal to strike-break?



I suggest you read, alongside the oath, Queens' regulations, and the British Army's standard RoE.
What you *should* be asking, but seemingly won't (perhaps you have antipathy toward the military?) is: "Is it legal for a pilot to refuse to shoot down a passenger jet/fire upon unarmed civilians/strike-break?". If you did, you might get constructive answers.
The answers, by the way, are:
1) Yes, it's legal for a pilot to refuse such an order (although it's also the case that pilots are trained to depersonalise what they do, which makes them more liable to carry out their mission regardless of legality - that and because they're floppy-haired cunts).
2) It's legal for a soldier to refuse to open fire on unarmed civilians. There's a measure of "proportionate response" expected in orders, so an officer issuing such an order if there were no imminent threat wouldn't be acting within the boundaries of their responsibilities.
3) It's legal for a soldier to strike-break *if*, and only if, the strike-break threatens lives and safety, hence the breaking of fire strikes. The use of soldiers in the various large-scale strikes in the first half of the 20th century, while not illegal, was certainly a misuse of manpower, and an illustration of just how interlinked the Establishment and the military were.



> Do you actually know the definitive answers to these orders that a service-person would have sworn to follow?



Given the legal system there *aren't* "definitive" answers, only what happens case by case, and the applicability of a "conscience clause" to the actions of an individual.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the military legal system there *aren't* "definitive" answers, only what happens case by case, and the applicability of a "conscience clause" to the actions of an individual.


 
I'm still not sure whether that means it's fine wipe out a wedding party by launching a missile from something that you are piloting with an Xbox controller.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm still not sure whether that means it's fine wipe out a wedding party by launching a missile from something that you are piloting with an Xbox controller.



That's because you're thinking in terms of unitary situations. None of those situations exist in a legal or moral vacuum, though. You can't judge the action unless you explore the contexts of the situation, so saying "a wedding party" is meaningless, whereas saying "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with no known ties to terrorists" isn't.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's because you're thinking in terms of unitary situations. None of those situations exist in a legal or moral vacuum, though. You can't judge the action unless you explore the contexts of the situation, so saying "a wedding party" is meaningless, whereas saying "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with no known ties to terrorists" isn't.


 
How about "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with suspected ties to terrorists". 

I'm always a bit fuzzy on the niceties of extrajudicial executions...


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> How about "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with suspected ties to terrorists".
> 
> I'm always a bit fuzzy on the niceties of extrajudicial executions...


When have we attacked a wedding party?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> When have we attacked a wedding party?


 
That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.


Bomb any bugger those lot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> When have we attacked a wedding party?


i'm sure we were rude about william and kate


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> Bomb any bugger those lot.


 
They're still _supposed_ to have similar rules on illegal orders, though, I believe.


----------



## coley (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> They're still _supposed_ to have similar rules on illegal orders, though, I believe.


Supposed too, but I would suggest over the years we have become pretty good at 'playing within the rules' whereas they just pay nominal lip service to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

coley said:


> Supposed too, but I would suggest over the years we have become pretty good at 'playing within the rules' whereas they just pay nominal lip service to them.


that's because 'we' make the rules and 'we' interpret the rules and many things 'we''d be livid about if _they_ did them are within 'our' rules.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.



 Some of those are legitimate strikes others more dubious also a lot of Taliban inspired hate against them as they work and the Taliban have no counter to them. Supposedly lots of criteria are gone through before weapons are fired and they have tables to work out how much collateral damage is acceptable.
 So Bin Laden might have been be worth an orphanage while a low level commander is not even worth the rest of his family.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Shame really, I _would _have been interested to hear your views...but never mind.



If you put your questions in a neutral manner, then it is appreciated that information is being sought. Your questions are not put in a neutral manner, they are put in a very partisan way, which, understandably puts people's backs up.

It is, of course up, to you how you frame your questions; but, if you are genuinely seeking information/informed opinion, you may care to have a look at some of the 'questions' you have asked on this thread and 're-ask' in a more mannerly way. The ex-forces people on this thread are far from stupid, and really don't appreciate being hectored, and spoken to as if they are idiots.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.



I'm more than slightly troubled about drone strikes. The situation on the ground can be very fluid, and without human eyeballs observing directly, there is scope for tragedy, as has already happened.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> How about "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with suspected ties to terrorists".
> 
> I'm always a bit fuzzy on the niceties of extrajudicial executions...



Indeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'm more than slightly troubled about drone strikes. The situation on the ground can be very fluid, and without human eyeballs observing directly, there is scope for tragedy, as has already happened.


leaving human eyeballs on the ground


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'm more than slightly troubled about drone strikes. The situation on the ground can be very fluid, and without human eyeballs observing directly, there is scope for tragedy, as has already happened.


 
It's also very *convenient* for politicians - under the guise of "protecting our boys" they get to:

i) Continue to safeguard the profits of the Arms industry
ii) Make military action more politically expedient by limiting both the kinds of pictures that come back of the aftermath and damaging media portrayal of body bags coming home
iii) Alienate the Forces from the act of killing (a successful strike is called a 'bug splat' in their jargon)
iv) Sanitise the public appreciation of what war means to the level of something akin to pest control and in doing so, dehumanize their victims

These are probably bullet points on a sales spreadsheet at an Arms Fair somewhere...


----------



## likesfish (Nov 20, 2014)

Some of those drone strikes are usaf close support actions.
   Yemen and pakistan tend to be the CIA spook affairs


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> If you put your questions in a neutral manner, then it is appreciated that information is being sought. Your questions are not put in a neutral manner, they are put in a very partisan way, which, understandably puts people's backs up.
> 
> It is, of course up, to you how you frame your questions; but, if you are genuinely seeking information/informed opinion, you may care to have a look at some of the 'questions' you have asked on this thread and 're-ask' in a more mannerly way. The ex-forces people on this thread are far from stupid, and really don't appreciate being hectored, and spoken to as if they are idiots.



I really don't see what you're on about Sas.

Since when was it necessary to post "neutral", "non-partisan" questions In P&P? And if you think any of my posting has "hectored" or implied "stupidity" and "idiocy", you'd be able to support that by pointing out where exactly.

Those things aside, my opening contribution to the thread was, what I perceive to be a "neutral" question posed in a perfectly "mannerly" way. It was this....


brogdale said:


> Not possible for atheists/ignostics, republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?



To which you replied....


Sasaferrato said:


> As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.



Thereafter I've seen a few "unmannerly" replies to my questions about the oath and it's implications for the armed forces....including....


Sasaferrato said:


> Only those who have never served, ergo *haven't a fucking clue.*





Sasaferrato said:


> *I take it the concept of service and the necessary discipline are alien to you?*





coley said:


> *Some here are losing the plot.*





coley said:


> *You are getting into fantasy land now*





coley said:


> *most of the oath takers ... would laugh their arses off at your beliefs.*





coley said:


> *Haddaway back to your game boy or PS 3 or whatever electronic toy is today's fad.*





coley said:


> *I don't find you cohesive, challenging or even interesting, sorry.*





coley said:


> *Your lack of comprehension is worse than I suspected*





coley said:


> *...can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives*





coley said:


> *mebbes if he cut the slavver and asked a direct unambiguous question instead of trying to hide his agenda*


...so you'll understand if I politely decline to take any advice about my posting style; thanks.

Seen in the round, I'd say that those speaking as ex-forces appear overly defensive when questioned about the oath and its possible implications. Shame, really.


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I really don't see what you're on about Sas.
> 
> Since when was it necessary to post "neutral", "non-partisan" questions In P&P? And if you think any of my posting has "hectored" or implied "stupidity" and "idiocy", you'd be able to support that by pointing out where exactly.
> 
> ...



No, you got perfectly thought through answers,then, I suspect after your claim the RAF would without question shoot an airliner out of the sky to protect the royals, people started to lose patience and doubt your credibility.
Ask whatever questions you choose, make them direct questions, then you might get direct answers

Just remember even us thick squaddies know the difference between unlawful and illegal.
But remember also that interpretations of the above can be coloured by circumstances.

IE, Brogdale is coming towards me armed with a copy of the guardian and a concerned look on his face I would step aside and offer a casual greeting.
Scores of Brogdales are running towards me armed with sharp implements and a deeply concerned look on their faces, I would look for an avenue of escape, should there not be one available, I would fix bayonets. Should  that not give them pause I would initially shoot to wound the leader of the mob, should that not stop their advance I would use the remainder of my ammunition to kill the ringleaders.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> No, you got perfectly thought through answers,then, I suspect after your claim the RAF would without question shoot an airliner out of the sky to protect the royals, _*people*_ started to lose patience and doubt your credibility.
> Ask whatever questions you choose, make them direct questions, then you might get direct answers
> 
> Just remember even us thick squaddies know the difference between unlawful and illegal.
> ...



"*People*"? Who are they, then?


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> "*People*"? Who are they, then?



One or two of us that have actually served in HM forces and find amusement in your claim that we have some kind of blind obedience to the monarchy as a result of taking the oath.
 Though the more you bang on about it,the more I can feel a distinct preference to being allowed a choice to say, obey Blair and Cameron  or Wor Liz? somehow I feel Auld Liz given a say in the matter wouldn't have sent us out on the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> One or two of us that have actually served in HM forces and find amusement in your claim that we have some kind of blind obedience to the monarchy as a result of taking the oath.



This 'speaking for others' schtick....really?

If you read what I've been posting you'll see that I have not been saying that at all. In fact, in reality, you're the one who has actually uttered those words when you swore the oath....


Sasaferrato said:


> I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.



I've consistently questioned the wisdom of, or need for, a pledge that commits those swearing to loyalty to the Saxe-Coburgs, rather than the people, and an open-ended obligation to obey all orders.


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> This 'speaking for others' schtick....really?



Aye, I'm speaking for mesel, six years service, me two sons 15 and 20 years service and many of me marras and relations ( with gawd knows how many years accumulated service) mainly socialist in their political views who would piss themselves laughing at your posts.
I'm not knocking you, I genuinely am at a loss as to where your coming from.
You don't like the military? Fine, you don't like the monarchy fine, you don't like the 'establishment' fine, just don't make the assumption the military would protect 2&3without question.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, I'm speaking for mesel, six years service, me two sons 15 and 20 years service and many of me marras and relations ( with gawd knows how many years accumulated service) mainly socialist in their political views who would piss themselves laughing at your posts.
> I'm not knocking you, I genuinely am at a loss as to where your coming from.
> You don't like the military? Fine, you don't like the monarchy fine, you don't like the 'establishment' fine, just don't make the assumption the military would protect 2&3without question.



So...speaking for yourself, (maybe?), you appear to be saying that you don't agree with the wording of the oath.


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So...speaking for yourself, (maybe?), you appear to be saying that you don't agree with the wording of the oath.


I'm saying,that many if not most, wouldn't feel bound by the literal wording of it, and if you are going to be so particular in your assumptions and accusations, stop referring to the royals by a name none of the present lot were born with.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> I'm saying,that many if not most, wouldn't feel bound by the literal wording of it, and if you are going to be so particular in your assumptions and accusations, stop referring to the royals by a name none of the present lot were born with.



I've been arguing that the royalist oath demanding absolute obedience does not appear fit for purpose, or relate to the day-to-day experience of many of those employed in the armed forces. You appear to be in agreement.

Why the defensive stuff wrt the RF? They only made up their new name because they were ashamed of their ancestry, didn't they?


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I've been arguing that the royalist oath demanding absolute obedience does not appear fit for purpose, or relate to the day-to-day experience of many of those employed in the armed forces. You appear to be in agreement.
> 
> Why the defensive stuff wrt the RF? They only made up their new name because they were ashamed of their ancestry, didn't they?


Haven't disagreed at all, you want it reworded! fine by me, as for the RF? just pointing out a need for accuracy.
All I've disagreed with is your daft assumption that all service personnel would feel obligated to blindly obey it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Haven't disagreed at all, you want it reworded! fine by me, as for the RF? just pointing out a need for accuracy.
> All I've disagreed with is your daft assumption that all service personnel would feel obligated to blindly obey it.


Yeah, but saying "_fine by me_" implies a curious degree of disinterest. We are talking about an oath requiring formal loyalty to the monarchy and obedience to all orders that you have personally solemnly sworn. I would have thought that, given your professed views, you'd have more enthusiastically embraced the notion of another oath (or none?). 

Instead, throughout much of this discussion, you appear to have reacted in a defensive manner to the notion that change might be beneficial. Maybe we won't find any agreement on this issue, but I'm genuinely confused by such an apparently conflicted position.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The answers, by the way, are:
> 1) Yes, it's legal for a pilot to refuse such an order (although it's also the case that pilots are trained to depersonalise what they do, which makes them more liable to carry out their mission regardless of legality - that and because they're floppy-haired cunts).
> 2) It's legal for a soldier to refuse to open fire on unarmed civilians. There's a measure of "proportionate response" expected in orders, so an officer issuing such an order if there were no imminent threat wouldn't be acting within the boundaries of their responsibilities.
> 3) It's legal for a soldier to strike-break *if*, and only if, the strike-break threatens lives and safety, hence the breaking of fire strikes. The use of soldiers in the various large-scale strikes in the first half of the 20th century, while not illegal, was certainly a misuse of manpower, and an illustration of just how interlinked the Establishment and the military were.
> ...



Thanks for the straight talking VP.

On point 1, is it not the case that the RAF & Downing St. have established a clear protocol for shooting down 'unresponsive' aircraft? It very much looks as though any such ultimate decision would be taken by a politician, and therefore I'm figuring that if a flyer received the order to fire any refusal would result in some sort of sanction as a breach of oath?

wrt 2, "threat" to who?

...and with 3. do you know of any instance in which UK forces have ever refused to strike-break?


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but saying "_fine by me_" implies a curious degree of disinterest. We are talking about an oath requiring formal loyalty to the monarchy and obedience to all orders that you have personally solemnly sworn. I would have thought that, given your professed views, you'd have more enthusiastically embraced the notion of another oath (or none?).
> 
> Instead, throughout much of this discussion, you appear to have reacted in a defensive manner to the notion that change might be beneficial. Maybe we won't find any agreement on this issue, but I'm genuinely confused by such an apparently conflicted position.


It's not a " conflicted opinion" more a position of common sense, if anyone is confused or conflicted it would seem to be you given your belief that service personnel would attach any importance to the wording of the oath as opposed to its accepted meaning.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> It's not a " conflicted opinion" more a position of common sense, if anyone is confused or conflicted it would seem to be you given your belief that service personnel would attach any importance to the wording of the oath as opposed to its accepted meaning.



Hmmm "_common sense_", eh?

Earlier you said..


coley said:


> ...we take an oath, same as you sign an employment contract...


Now much as I may have wished otherwise, when I did sign job contracts I was bound by them and certainly couldn't dismiss the wording as unimportant. In fact, a great deal of the union case-work that I undertook specifically involved holding employers to the wording of contractual agreements.

I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance in your posting.


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm "_common sense_", eh?
> 
> Earlier you said..
> 
> ...


Aye, I blame the damp weather.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, I blame the damp weather.


aye, i blame your cognitive dissonance


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, I blame the damp weather.


Yeah, funny and all that...but don't start the dodging difficult questions again, eh?


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

Where are all these difficult questions?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Where are all these difficult questions?


the questions aren't difficult: but you seem to find answering them tricky.


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the questions aren't difficult: but you seem to find answering them tricky.


Nope, anyone asks a straight question they get a straight answer, but framing questions so you can attack or twist the replies? Different ball game


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Nope, anyone asks a straight question they get a straight answer, but framing questions so you can attack or twist the replies? Different ball game


from what i've seen you're reluctant to answer questions.


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> from what i've seen you're reluctant to answer questions.


Where?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

coley said:


> Where?


here!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Thanks for the straight talking VP.
> 
> On point 1, is it not the case that the RAF & Downing St. have established a clear protocol for shooting down 'unresponsive' aircraft? It very much looks as though any such ultimate decision would be taken by a politician, and therefore I'm figuring that if a flyer received the order to fire any refusal would result in some sort of sanction as a breach of oath?



Yes, there is a clear protocol, and failure to carry out that order would result in trial before Court Martial. However, Court Martial is consonant with extant UK law, so a number of defences can be rendered for the failure.



> wrt 2, "threat" to who?



Threat to whoever/whatever the soldiers are tasked to defend. My point is that the Guardsmen at Buck House wouldn't open fire *and wouldn't be ordered to open fire* unless threat to life and limb of who they're defending is imminent. I'm fairly sure it still pertains (it did in my day) that while live ammo is carried, it *isn't* loaded. An empty mag is loaded, and a live mag kept in an ammo pouch. Disciplinaries for carrying a loaded weapon when you're not supposed to are harsh. Even carrying a lone live round on your person can see you put away.



> ...and with 3. do you know of any instance in which UK forces have ever refused to strike-break?



As a whole, no. As individual units, yes. Several individual units during "The Great Strike" refused to strike-break, and were threatened with mutiny charges. The one I know most about (which isn't much, because this stuff was kept under wraps) was a company of infantry whose personnel were assigned to drive trains, and refused to do so, on the sensible grounds that while the army had some of its' own trains that they were trained to operate, most of the rolling stock they were being expected to handle was outside their competence, as was operating a train with passenger carriages, rather than goods vans.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I really don't see what you're on about Sas.
> 
> Since when was it necessary to post "neutral", "non-partisan" questions In P&P? And if you think any of my posting has "hectored" or implied "stupidity" and "idiocy", you'd be able to support that by pointing out where exactly.
> 
> ...




The above have been in RESPONSE to your 'questions'. I truly despair sometimes. I have bitten my tongue, up to now, and tried to remain relatively polite. Any further ill mannered attempts at interrogation by you will result in you being told to 'GO and fuck yourself'. There is a limit to my civility, and you are way past it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, there is a clear protocol, and failure to carry out that order would result in trial before Court Martial. However, Court Martial is consonant with extant UK law, so a number of defences can be rendered for the failure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'I have no live rounds, pyrotechnics or empty cases in my possession (Sir)'.

We had a lad walk off the ranges with a box of 50 9mm rounds in his pocket. He'd been loading mags when he got called to the firing point, and had stuck them in his pocket rather than leave them on the ground. Luckily we had a good Squad Sgt, who quietly returned them to the Weapons Instructor. I remember being absolutely amazed at the time, that there was no count of rounds supplied, rounds fired and rounds left. I dare say it's different now.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The above have been in RESPONSE to your 'questions'. I truly despair sometimes. I have bitten my tongue, up to now, and tried to remain relatively polite. Any further ill mannered attempts at interrogation by you will result in you being told to 'GO and fuck yourself'. There is a limit to my civility, and you are way past it.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 21, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> 'I have no live rounds, pyrotechnics or empty cases in my possession (Sir)'
> 
> We had a lad walk off the ranges with a box of 50 9mm rounds in his pocket. He'd been loading mags when he got called to the firing point, and had stuck them in his pocket rather than leave them on the ground. Luckily we had a good Squad Sgt, who quietly returned them to the Weapons Instructor. I remember being absolutely amazed at the time, that there was no count of rounds supplied, rounds fired and rounds left. I dare say it's different now.



  Not really still happens. While ranges should be tighter controlled. Live fire exercises it would be difficult to work out who has what and who dumped excess ammo in the nearest convenient river or bush. . The declaration now includes the words And I will inform on anyone I know who has rounds on him or words to that effect.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2014)

So those serving in the Navy haven't sworn the oath, then? How does that work? They could be godless republicans ffs.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So those serving in the Navy haven't sworn the oath, then? How does that work? They could be godless republicans ffs.


60 years ago RN folk did not swear an Oath of Allegiance; ratings wre considered potentially mutinous as a hangover from impressment; officers were considered to be loyal and an oath was not necessary.
  Nowadays they swear the same oath due to the armed forces act.


----------



## Dowie (Nov 23, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> 'I have no live rounds, pyrotechnics or empty cases in my possession (Sir)'.
> 
> We had a lad walk off the ranges with a box of 50 9mm rounds in his pocket. He'd been loading mags when he got called to the firing point, and had stuck them in his pocket rather than leave them on the ground. Luckily we had a good Squad Sgt, who quietly returned them to the Weapons Instructor. I remember being absolutely amazed at the time, that there was no count of rounds supplied, rounds fired and rounds left. I dare say it's different now.



nah tis still easy to get buckshee rounds on ops... and useful too given there is a penalty for every round missing

weapons have to be zeroed, ranges used fairly frequently... usually the date on the rounds used for this is separate to the date used on the rounds you've been issued for the operation... sometimes it isn't... when you notice it isn't then it is prudent to perhaps keep hold of a few of those. You now have some spares to replace the issued rounds you have to account for, just in case you lose some.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 24, 2014)

Fuck me, this thread misses all the points now.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Just the same old British hating pacifist bile. What about the Germans?  Give me strength!



This has been niggling me a wee bit, dylanredefined.

What exactly is your problem with "What about the Germans"? Millions of Germans died in WW1 in a war they had fuck all to do with (essentially a fall-out between in-bred cousins over the Berlin-Baghdad railway). Why should we not remember them?

As for WW2, I suppose it doesn't sit too well with the "_WW2 was an anti-Fascist crusade_" schtick if it's pointed out that the first victims of the Nazis were _German_ workers (mostly Communists and Anarchists) - targeted and neutralised as Hitler's supporters in Britain, France and the US cheered them on.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 28, 2014)

LiamO said:


> This has been niggling me a wee bit, dylanredefined.
> 
> What exactly is your problem with "What about the Germans"? Millions of Germans died in WW1 in a war they had fuck all to do with (essentially a fall-out between in-bred cousins over the Berlin-Baghdad railway). Why should we not remember them?


Not to mention the fact that it was German soldiers who helped end the war and as a consequence saved many British, French and American lives.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Not to mention the fact that it was German soldiers who helped end the war and as a consequence saved many British, French and American lives.


Bollocks they mutinied as the end was near not the other way round



LiamO said:


> This has been niggling me a wee bit, dylanredefined.
> 
> What exactly is your problem with "What about the Germans"? Millions of Germans died in WW1 in a war they had fuck all to do with (essentially a fall-out between in-bred cousins over the Berlin-Baghdad railway). Why should we not remember them?
> 
> As for WW2, I suppose it doesn't sit too well with the "_WW2 was an anti-Fascist crusade_" schtick if it's pointed out that the first victims of the Nazis were _German_ workers (mostly Communists and Anarchists) - targeted and neutralised as Hitler's supporters in Britain, France and the US cheered them on.



As I said do republicans commemorate the British dead of the easter uprising?
  Why should we remember the enemy dead other than in the vaguest terms. While I'll acknowledge they suffered too they started it.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Bollocks they mutinied as the end was near not the other way round


They mutinied when German troops were still on French soil and when the German Commander in Chief was still issuing orders to continue fighting. Without German civilians and soldiers refusing to accept more war it could easily have dragged on longer.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> They mutinied when German troops were still on French soil and when the German Commander in Chief was still issuing orders to continue fighting. Without German civilians and soldiers refusing to accept more war it could easily have dragged on longer.


		  The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.



Yeah, they quit rather than obey an order to fight. Many German soldiers then joined in, seizing major cities, making further continuation of the war impossible and forcing the abdication of the Kaiser. _Then_ the war ended.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> While I'll acknowledge they suffered too they started it.



WTF are you rattling on about now? German soldiers and civilans started WW1?

waddaloddabollocks.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.



I think you might find that it was all a little more nuanced than that but then you do like your brush strokes to be broad - and your history Imperial.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.


The soldiers had quit and was setting up soviets all over Europe - check out the belgian communes.

The top brass - which in your mind = army, not so powerful. In fact, define army in your terms/post.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 28, 2014)

LiamO said:


> WTF are you rattling on about now? German soldiers and civilans started WW1?
> 
> waddaloddabollocks.


Technically (not that it matters), I wouldn't actually take the point that the German state "started WW1" either.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Technically (not that it matters), I wouldn't actual take the point that the German state "started WW1" either.





_Course_ they did ... it all kicked off over that Archduke Ferdinand geezer didn't it? Or so we were told in school. Nothing about the Berlin-Baghdad railroad threatening the british empire at all. Looks like DR could never be bothered to get past schoolboy history.

I remember reading bits of one of them poncy books ('Howard's End' I think) where two charaters had a row over who would win the upcoming/imminent war between britain and germany. 

It was published in 1910.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

The german state did engineer ww1.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2014)

LiamO said:


> _Course_ they did ... it all kicked off over that Archduke Ferdinand geezer didn't it? Or so we were told in school. Nothing about the Berlin-Baghdad railroad threatening the british empire at all. Looks like DR could never be bothered to get past schoolboy history.
> 
> I remember reading bits of one of them poncy books ('Howard's End' I think) where two charaters had a row over who would win the upcoming/imminent war between britain and germany.
> 
> It was published in 1910.



There was a whole genre of "Germany invades UK" books in the decades before 1914, they were the Tom Clancy novels of their day. The Riddle of the Sands is probably the only that's still read today.

butchersapron - you're thinking of the Fischer thesis, right?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> wouldn't actual take the point that the German state "started WW1" either.



Remember reading some utterly stupid stuff from when the balkan wars were going on, blaming Serbia for WW1 with the idea that this proves something about the country today. 

I thought that WW1 was a pointless waste of life for all countries involved and saying that any country started it is completely missing the point tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> There was a whole genre of "Germany invades UK" books in the decades before 1914, they were the Tom Clancy novels of their day. The Riddle of the Sands is probably the only that's still read today.
> 
> butchersapron - you're thinking of the Fischer thesis, right?


The fischer thesis is correct. It identifies the way that capitalist competition works and then tagged it to imperial German  state policy. Only silly lefites deny it's truth.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The german state did engineer ww1.



Do you have anything to recommend about this Butchers?  I keep meaning to read more about this as it's an area of my knowledge that's a bit lacking. 

Also I recently saw a new autobiography of Gavrilo Princip out, is it worth getting?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The fischer thesis is correct. It identifies the way that capitalist competition works and then tagged it to imperial German  state policy. Only silly lefites deny it's truth.



Interestingly, mainstream bourgeois histories - like that _Sleepwalkers _book - try to downplay that angle of the story.

Poor show, chaps.



Spoiler


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Do you have anything to recommend about this Butchers?  I keep meaning to read more about this as it's an area of my knowledge that's a bit lacking.
> 
> Also I recently saw a new autobiography of Gavrilo Princip out, is it worth getting?



Yeah, read Fischer's _World Policy or Decline  _I think that's what it's called.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

Also a lot of the 'hun raped' nun' sort of stories from Belgium were later proven to be true after long being thought to be an example of war propaganda.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also a lot of the 'hun raped' nun' sort of stories from Belgium were later proven to be true after long being thought to be an example of war propaganda.



But they did commit some crimes against humanity in occupied Belgium, that's also true. As did "gallant little Belgium" itself did in Congo, of course (or the Belgian ruling class I should say, before Butchers shouts "ramming speed" and aims his wheelchair at me).

And as did "plucky little Serbia" in the areas it seized from Austro-Hungary. The _Sleepwalkers _book is good on that detail.

The important thing to never lose sight of in relation to 1914 is that all the ruling classes really were all as bad as each other. No matter what they imply to the contrary.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> But they did commit some crimes against humanity in occupied Belgium, that's also true. As did "gallant little Belgium" itself did in Congo, of course.
> 
> And as did "plucky little Serbia" in the areas it seized from Austro-Hungary. The _Sleepwalkers _book is good on that detail.
> 
> The important thing to never lose sight of in relation to 1914 is that all the ruling classes really were all as bad as each other. No matter what they imply to the contrary.



Yeah, my point is that those stories were actually true, despite being claimed as false for the apologists of the German state. 

Exactly, that's basically what I thought about world war 1. Bizarre that people are still trying to claim Britain was in the right.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> But they did commit some crimes against humanity in occupied Belgium, that's also true. As did "gallant little Belgium" itself did in Congo, of course (or the Belgian ruling class I should say, before Butchers shouts "ramming speed" and aims his wheelchair at me).
> 
> And as did "plucky little Serbia" in the areas it seized from Austro-Hungary. The _Sleepwalkers _book is good on that detail.
> 
> The important thing to never lose sight of in relation to 1914 is that all the ruling classes really were all as bad as each other. No matter what they imply to the contrary.



For sure. Although it was a bit distasteful to see the idea that serbs started ww1 used as a way to promote nato's/the more recent actions tbh. Weirdly I remember seeing a poster from WW1 celebrating 'plucky Serbia' and advertising a celebration of the battle of Kosovo!  

The Belgian ruling class was fucking grim in the Congo.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah, my point is that those stories were actually true, despite being claimed as false for the apologists of the German state.
> 
> Exactly, that's basically what I thought about world war 1. Bizarre that people are still trying to claim Britain was in the right.



Christ, I must stop speed reading like this.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

Another idea that I have even come across on occasion from people on here is the idea that while the Spanish, French etc empires were all cunts, the British empire was fairly 'benign' and didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The soldiers had quit and was setting up soviets all over Europe - check out the belgian communes.
> 
> The top brass - which in your mind = army, not so powerful. In fact, define army in your terms/post.



  So who was fighting till the armistice was declared? Were the allies shooting at each other till 11:00hrs


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> So who was fighting till the armistice was declared? Were the allies shooting at each other till 11:00hrs



Not all the German soldiers were though were they (a fact that seriously pissed off Hitler and his military backers)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> So who was fighting till the armistice was declared? Were the allies shooting at each other till 11:00hrs


Who was killing officers and going home setting up revolutionary communes on the way? It was the German  army.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Another idea that I have even come across on occasion from people on here is the idea that while the Spanish, French etc empires were all cunts, the British empire was fairly 'benign' and didn't do anything wrong.



  Nahh they were all horrible at times Belgian Congo is probably the worst of a terrible lot.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Nahh they were all horrible at times Belgian Congo is probably the worst of a terrible lot.



Nah, it wasn't you I was referring to but it is a pretty common place idea sadly.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who was killing officers and going home setting up revolutionary communes on the way? It was the German  army.


 
	 Only because their state had been  broken and beaten.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Only because their state had been  broken and beaten.


So it's only true because it's true.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Nah, it wasn't you I was referring to but it is a pretty common place idea sadly.



  No one likes the truth and there is so much imperial propaganda floating around even now.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So it's only true because it's true.



 Well they only discovered revolutionary fever after the allies started winning


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well they only discovered revolutionary fever after the allies started winning


No they didn't.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here.

But you accept that your earlier posts were nonsense now?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 28, 2014)

No it wasn't the Germans were defeated thats when the mutinys started
 Trying to send the fleet out to die gloriously Was the last straw .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive Along with the royal navy blocade broke germany the revolutions were a symptom of the collapse not the cause.
  Morale had collapsed in the navy the main fleet had been stripped of sailors who wanted to fight, those that did  had volunteered for u boats and torpedo boats the ones left with the main fleet had been stuck in harbour on half rations under brutal discipline not a way of  building morale.
 The last german offensive had failed and haig had finally figure put how to fight a modern war


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2014)

Well the German generals obviously didn't see themselves as defeated if they were trying to send the fleet out again.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

likesfish said:


> No it wasn't the Germans were defeated thats when the mutinys started
> Trying to send the fleet out to die gloriously Was the last straw .
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive Along with the royal navy blocade broke germany the revolutions were a symptom of the collapse not the cause.
> Morale had collapsed in the navy the main fleet had been stripped of sailors who wanted to fight, those that did  had volunteered for u boats and torpedo boats the ones left with the main fleet had been stuck in harbour on half rations under brutal discipline not a way of  building morale.
> The last german offensive had failed and haig had finally figure put how to fight a modern war


What on earth are you an about? An army with only generals is not an army. So to describe the generals of a deserted and revolted army as _the army_ is worthless.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 29, 2014)

The mutinys and revoultionary activity started because of defeat not the germans were stabbed in the back by the communists a dangerous lie belivd by the nazis.
 The were blocaded by sea and starving at home and defeated on the battle field not stabbed in th back.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 29, 2014)

Who's saying they were stabbed in the back though?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The mutinys and revoultionary activity started because of defeat not the germans were stabbed in the back by the communists a dangerous lie belivd by the nazis.
> The were blocaded by sea and starving at home and defeated on the battle field not stabbed in th back.



They started  because the soldiers and sailors had decided not to die for their generals. And they stabbed the generals right in the back. As was proper and fitting. Your problem - and the other solider boy - is in mistaking the generals for the army and the army for the people.


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They started  because the soldiers and sailors had decided not to die for their generals. And they stabbed the generals right in the back. As was proper and fitting. Your problem - and the other solider boy - is in mistaking the generals for the army and the army for the people.


Army = the people = apolitical; is a theme throughout this thread from many of the serving/ex serving people. That's how they get them to "serve" though, innit.


----------



## coley (Nov 29, 2014)

cesare said:


> Army = the people = apolitical; is a theme throughout this thread from many of the serving/ex serving people. That's how they get them to "serve" though, innit.


What's wrong in deciding to join an organisation that has always had the overwhelming support of the general public?
It's not like the army has a history of attempting to conquer and subjugate our European neighbours, is it?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 29, 2014)

coley said:


> What's wrong in deciding to join an organisation that has always had the overwhelming support of the general public?
> It's not like the army has a history of attempting to conquer and subjugate our European neighbours, is it?


they done a proper number on you!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

coley said:


> What's wrong in deciding to join an organisation that has always had the overwhelming support of the general public?
> It's not like the army has a history of attempting to conquer and subjugate our European neighbours, is it?


Don't try and spin this into an anti-individual soldier thing please.


----------



## coley (Nov 29, 2014)

ddraig said:


> they done a proper number on you!



I enjoyed it


----------



## coley (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't try and spin this into an anti-individual soldier thing please.


Not at all, the main thrust on here,by some,seems to be against the need for ( and a distain) for the military in general.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

coley said:


> Not at all, the main thrust on here,by some,seems to be against the need for ( and a distain) for the military in general.


You've entirely missed the whole point that people have been arguing then, which was an entirely about the structural role of state funded and state run militaries.


----------



## coley (Nov 29, 2014)

The thread is all over the shop, few pages ago people seemed to be suggesting we all become mindless automatons on taking the oath. There are those who don't like the military which is fair enough, though I prefer those who are honest enough to say why, those with Irish republican sympathies for instance.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

coley said:


> The thread is all over the shop, few pages ago people seemed to be suggesting we all become mindless automatons on taking the oath. There are those who don't like the military which is fair enough, though I prefer those who are honest enough to say why, those with Irish republican sympathies for instance.


The thread isn't all over the place - it's remarkably focused. What's all over the place is your and others understanding of what being said about the role of the military - as military - not as individuals.


----------



## coley (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The thread isn't all over the place - it's remarkably focused. What's all over the place is your and others understanding of what being said about the role of the military - as military - not as individuals.


If you say so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2014)

coley said:


> What's wrong in deciding to join an organisation that *has always had the overwhelming support of the general public?*
> It's not like the army has a history of attempting to conquer and subjugate our European neighbours, is it?



the soldier as an honourable profession is a relatively recent modern thing btw.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 29, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Another idea that I have even come across on occasion from people on here is the idea that while the Spanish, French etc empires were all cunts, the British empire was fairly 'benign' and didn't do anything wrong.



The British Empire was marginally better than some of the others. Funnily enough the 'laid back' Dutch and Belgians were possibly the most savage of colonialists.

Britain was very successful in the empire stakes, we annexed huge chunks of the world. We were good at it, and benefited greatly as a nation.

That was then, with the norms that were extant then. Occupying other people's land was fine. Virtually enslaving, or actually enslaving a goodly proportion of the people's of these lands was fine, and we did it.

Now, it is not all right. The norms have changed, the ethos has changed.

I do not feel one moment of guilt with regard to either the Empire, or the slave trade. It was wrong, but a wrong that I had no part of. Given the number of black people who share my somewhat uncommon surname, it seems logical that some of my ancestors did have a hand in it, but as there has been no cash passed down the generations, again, I feel no guilt whatsoever.

People who wring their hands over the Empire as if it was extant today puzzle me. It is done, it is gone, and it isn't returning. I have no control over the actions of my ancestors, nor, of course, does anyone else, so why feel guilt about it?

Just as today's generation of young Germans are saying 'We had nothing to do with the Third Reich, and are a little tired of Germany being expected to apologise forever.', it is time to say 'Yes, we did have an Empire, yes, we did treat people savagely, yes we did enrich ourselves as a nation, but, that was in the past.'. Britain is never going to be an Imperial power again.

As a subject worthy of study, fine. As something we should be continually 'apologising' about, no. Time to move on.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

What on earth does 'as a nation' mean?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 29, 2014)

Who said 'we' had to apologise? Not sure how you got that from my post.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 29, 2014)

coley said:


> I enjoyed it



Me too. Trained in nursing and pharmacy, whilst getting paid about double what civvy trainees were paid. Saw a lot of bits of the world I would never have seen otherwise. Got paid to do parachute jumps. 

There were some downsides though. I saw injuries that you would have difficulty in believing could occur. I got bombed and shot at, and seeing your comrades die in front of you is not good.

On balance, It was mostly good. Someone once summarised military service as 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror. That is probably right for the infantry, but as a medic you always had your 'day job'.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 29, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Who said 'we' had to apologise? Not sure how you got that from my post.



Not your post in  particular, just a general reply really.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the soldier as an honourable profession is a relatively recent modern thing btw.


Yep. They used to fight mostly on the promise of booty. 

As Jacob Bronowski put it, 'War is organised theft.'


----------



## likesfish (Nov 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They started  because the soldiers and sailors had decided not to die for their generals. And they stabbed the generals right in the back. As was proper and fitting. Your problem - and the other solider boy - is in mistaking the generals for the army and the army for the people.



Because the war was lost and everybody knew it only some generals and  especially admirals wanted to go out in a blaze of glory taking the fleet on a "death ride."
  Fortunatly the most gung ho sailors having volunteered for u boat or torpedo boat already. Those left on the battleships had spent a year on half rations confined to the harbour so were already extremly pissed off being ordered on a sucide mission for no good reason did nothing to improve things.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive#Logistical_limitations

The germans were quite happy to fight when it looked like they could win but after that failure and the allies 100 days offensive everything fell apart. It wasnt a stab in the back the war was lost everyone knew it thats why the mutinys happened


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2014)

Do you know what the german revolution was? That didn't happen because the war was lost - the war was lost because the revolution was happening. And you above do exactly what i said - confusing germans for army and army for generals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Bollocks they mutinied as the end was near not the other way round



The German army didn't mutiny. It didn't fight because on most fronts it could no longer fight. Infantry without food and bullets, and artillery without food and shells aren't very effective, and even the _Junkers_ monkeys who made up the German officer class weren't stupid enough to send their troops into battle with only a bayonet between them and the enemy.

The German navy mutinied (several times), but that was different, more to do with internal discipline and political agitation, although also with hunger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Yeah, they quit rather than obey an order to fight. Many German soldiers then joined in, seizing major cities, making further continuation of the war impossible and forcing the abdication of the Kaiser. _Then_ the war ended.



The German army didn't "quit". The workers who made up the ranks couldn't fight - it's difficult to do so when you're freezing and starving, and you're getting news from home that your family is too - even if they wanted to. Rifles and machine guns don't function without bullets. Some of the action within German towns and cities was undertaken by troops who returned to barracks. They weren't all raving reds, either, but socialism was a fairly good medium through which to enunciate their discontent with the state - some of the poor bastards were still awaiting official demob in early 1920!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The german state did engineer ww1.



With a little help from their friends enemies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well they only discovered revolutionary fever after the allies started winning



You're talking out of your arse. The governments of many of the _lande_, as well as the national goverment, had been suppressing revolutionary activity for at least 30 years prior to WW1. A significant minority of "other ranks" in the German army were of the left and hard left, even though leftwing parties were under sanction.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

Interesting article here 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret

about the political role of the army in post war Greece.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 20, 2015)

Bump, because the army is full of fascists:


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 20, 2015)

Is there a source for that? I can't find anything.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Is there a source for that? I can't find anything.


£wall (STimes I think).


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

Regardless, another chance to post this...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

An (un-named) "..._senior serving General.."
_
Lol, doesn't say which armed forces! Could be the yanks!!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

I'm picturing a meaty hand clutching the third double glenmorangie on ice, red jowl a-quiver in some london gents club as he articulates a fantasy land bollocks. Probably some cold war relic


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm picturing a meaty hand clutching the third double glenmorangie on ice, red jowl a-quiver in some london gents club as he articulates a fantasy land bollocks. Probably some cold war relic


"Dumb insolence that's what it is, nothing but dumb insolence morning noon and night from Johnny Native"


----------



## krink (Sep 20, 2015)

this poppy thing comes round quicker than christmas

is there a book running for if Jezza wears his poppy or not? or maybe for if he pisses on the cenotaph or not?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 20, 2015)

I saw the first poppy sellers of the year during the week at New Street station - I'd forgotten it was coming round.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

Well given the glorious and stunning victorys the general staff have won in the last ten years of war 

Goodybe and good riddence would seem to be the most appopiate response.


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 2, 2015)

My grandfather didn't die in two world wars just so someone famous didn't wear a poppy on the TV you know.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

thats another thing about how annoying this annual row is. You have to lay out your war-dead credentials before you start laying into the concept of poppy day. Oh my old man personally took the Eagle at Talevera before being cut down by machine gun fire etc. 

It affected everyone. World war. Thats why the we shouldn't do our nods to the conscience salver of them who fucking well....I don't even know. Just annoyed now. I know the flu pandemic that wiped out nearly as many as the war itself post ww1. The politics of 'glorious dead' are rank. They were brave, yes but the choice was shot by the officer in charge or shot by enemy guns. Not ever knocking the people involved in either of the wars. Only its supposed to be all wars now. Bollocks and bullshit. A working class soldier has been mugged twice imho, first you are prole, second you took the queens quid.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

Remembrance .. does not have to be political.

I can remember whoever I chose.

A red poppy for me I think.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2015)

One thing I was totally unaware of was how little people donate in return for a poppy.

I only know this cos the till I'm working on at the moment has a box of poppies and a tin in front of it. Most people seem to put <50p in, some as little as 2p, and the shop is in a very affluent area.

I bet the same cunts that put 2p in the tin and take a poppy out are the same cunts that clutch at their pearls when someone doesn't wear a poppy. Hypocrites.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2015)

Oh and I was told I had to add a small poppy sticker to my name tag and refused, fuck off I don't support your wars and I'm not going to endorse them for 7 quid an hour.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

I always thought you should put in at least a quid.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Oh and I was told I had to add a small poppy sticker to my name tag and refused, fuck off I don't support your wars and I'm not going to endorse them for 7 quid an hour.


It isn't about supporting wars for me, rather remembering the people that got caught up in them.

Though I have family that were in WWII whose motivation was ok.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I always thought you should put in at least a quid.



Nah you should put in 50p take a poppy then wander out the shop, forget you bought a poppy recount your change and come back in accusing me of short changing you.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Nah you should put in 50p take a poppy then wander out the shop, forget you bought a poppy recount your change and come back in accusing me of short changing you.


I will remember that for next time - and don't worry, you are going on the list


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

weltweit said:


> remembering the people that got caught up in them.


this argument always does my nut. Do you just remember once a year, look at the rolls of dead and say your hail maries to the glorious dead? its a charade. Given how eager they have always been to feed working class people into some meatginder over bullshit I don't think bunging a salute to the cenotaph and wearing a poppy is sensible. It's _their symbolism. _Start accepting that and you've already lost. I'll observe the silence because I am polite and don't want to hurt the feelings of people around me. But like fuck will I wear a poppy. Some of those ww1 vets came home to nothing and were reduced to selling those things while wearing medals and sleeping a fucking bush. Or a Spike. Its gross.

once you start to take on the ritualism of the people who think you are simply a tool then you are one.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2015)

I am wearing a poppy because my grandma gave me one, think the whole poppy thing is getting out of hand and is a cover for fairly distasteful nationalism but cba with the row and tbf she was alive during the war


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 2, 2015)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I saw the first poppy sellers of the year during the week at New Street station - I'd forgotten it was coming round.



I blame Daniel Craig at the James Bond premiere.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this argument always does my nut. Do you just remember once a year, look at the rolls of dead and say your hail maries to the glorious dead? its a charade. Given how eager they have always been to feed working class people into some meatginder over bullshit I don't think bunging a salute to the cenotaph and wearing a poppy is sensible. It's _their symbolism. _Start accepting that and you've already lost. I'll observe the silence because I am polite and don't want to hurt the feelings of people around me. But like fuck will I wear a poppy. Some of those ww1 vets came home to nothing and were reduced to selling those things while wearing medals and sleeping a fucking bush. Or a Spike. Its gross.
> 
> once you start to take on the ritualism of the people who think you are simply a tool then you are one.


The idea of having a remembrance day once a year is to keep war dead (and those who suffered) in our memories. If we didn't have the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the whole topic could be brushed under the carpet.

I don't have a problem wearing a poppy, for me it signifies more remembrance of WWII in which my dad was engaged, and luckily came through while many of his buddies did not.

You make a big deal of "them" as opposed to us, what do you think different could have happened when Hitler began his rampage through Europe, Britain was doomed into war, there was no escape and it was total war.

We have been lucky in that we grew up in a time of peace, our parents generations were not so lucky. Hence it is right to remember them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

jesus this shit again? the 'peace' we grew up with? are you having a giggle? I grew up with PIRA in fine form while the falklands kicked off and so on. Thats not excluding the Omani conflict and various other british miltary projects. We have always been at war with Oceania.

The reason I can recall those things without looking it up is becuase the savagery of conflict, the knowledge of what they'd do if a prole became economically viable as a squaddie, is not some annual griefing for me. I'm reminded this year as every year that it was the british working classes who saw the threat of fascism long before the state did. The state and the press reviled the IB lads and ladies.

Its not about your one day solemn face once a year. All of this is part of a process.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2015)

It perpetuates a culture of pride in warfare. Those who have laid down their lives for the interests of the ruling class are more worthy than folk who died working in construction or fighting fires. It's lip service of course as in reality they're structurally shat upon just like the rest of us.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 2, 2015)

Part of what irritates me about so much of the attitude towards the poppy thing is that it seems to be the same as the whole "armed forces are heroes" stuff - somehow, we distance ourselves from people who are doing the dirty jobs, like getting killed in the name of some (usually purely political) agenda, and then pretend to worship them.

I usually buy a poppy so as to stick a couple of quid in to make my tiny contribution to the charity/ies that do a decent job of looking after these people and their families - a job which, if we were the just society they are supposed to have died for, would be being done by the State, not left to charities and private organisations to do while ex-services types are more or less left to get on with it by their former employer.

As far as I am concerned, the moralising and posturing are a distraction and a sideshow, and play right into the politicians' game of creating some kind of false dichotomy between *us* caring about the people who die in our name and *us* somehow being expected to buy into the narrative that everything they are sent to do is noble and just.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> jesus this shit again? the 'peace' we grew up with? are you having a giggle? I grew up with PIRA in fine form while the falklands kicked off and so on. Thats not excluding the Omani conflict and various other british miltary projects. We have always been at war with Oceania.



I don't recall being conscripted, sent to a distant land to fight in my 50 odd years, I have been lucky so have you.



DotCommunist said:


> The reason I can recall those things without looking it up is becuase the savagery of conflict, the knowledge of what they'd do if a prole became economically viable as a squaddie, is not some annual griefing for me. I'm reminded this year as every year that it was the british working classes who saw the threat of fascism long before the state did. The state and the press reviled the IB lads and ladies.
> 
> Its not about your one day solemn face once a year. All of this is part of a process.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

so thats no, you can't support your 'peace' argument so move the goalposts to include conscription. 



weltweit said:


> I have been lucky so have you




and you can fuck off with this as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> It perpetuates a culture of pride in warfare. Those who have laid down their lives for the interests of the ruling class are more worthy than folk who died working in construction or fighting fires. It's lip service of course as in reality they're structurally shat upon just like the rest of us.


worse in some cases. My 'not grandad' fred ended up as test subject for a flu vaccine at porton down. It wasn't flu vaccine. Fuck knows what went on but that was some proper abuse of trust by the MoD. 


At least if a non state employer had pulled that shit you'd have more chance of some recompense.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> so thats no, you can't support your 'peace' argument so move the goalposts to include conscription. ..


Bollocks, there were two "world wars" engulfing Europe and much further afield, we haven't seen the like of in our lifetimes, for which I am grateful. I am not claiming there has been no conflict since, because there has been, both with UK involvement and further afield, but nothing on the scale of WWI or WWII and nothing requiring UK conscription.

That will be scant comfort to people in Syria or Ukraine and others who are caught up in wars today, but the UK has been spared large scale conflict for a couple of generations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

weltweit said:


> requiring UK conscription.



this is why you are a penis on the matter


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm picturing a meaty hand clutching the third double glenmorangie on ice, red jowl a-quiver in some london gents club as he articulates a fantasy land bollocks. Probably some cold war relic



On ice? Philistine cunt!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The idea of having a remembrance day once a year is to keep war dead (and those who suffered) in our memories. If we didn't have the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the whole topic could be brushed under the carpet.



Do some historical research on 11/11. This wasn't originally a "top-down" project by the state to remind us of sacrifice, it was originally a grassroots movement by local communities - those same local communities that subscribed to memorials in their local churchyards or market squares - to honour those they'd lost. It would *never* have been "brushed under the carpet", because local communities remember. They remember because the honoured dead were their relatives.



> I don't have a problem wearing a poppy, for me it signifies more remembrance of WWII in which my dad was engaged, and luckily came through while many of his buddies did not.
> 
> You make a big deal of "them" as opposed to us, what do you think different could have happened when Hitler began his rampage through Europe, Britain was doomed into war, there was no escape and it was total war.



That's a pisspoor reading of his history, even for you. If Chamberlain and his coterie had gotten their way, we'd have stood outside of a European war at least until 1942, possibly all the way. Chamberlain's government had already broken their guarantees of military aid to Czechoslovakia, and would have done so with Poland too.



> We have been lucky in that we grew up in a time of peace, our parents generations were not so lucky. Hence it is right to remember them.



We haven't grown up "in a time of peace". We've merely grown up in an absence of total war. The two are very different things.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> On ice? Philistine cunt!!!



i was at a do quite recently where some chap from a reasonably fashionable regiment - who therefore should have known better - asked for a Whisky and coke.

suddenly, i felt very old. though, in truth, not as old as the Torygraphs made-up General, who if he ever existed, was already on a pension during the Hundred Years War.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> their guarantees of military aid to Czechoslovakia


one that always riles me. We're told the people of the place welcomed uncle adolf with open arms and a big parade. Some did for sure. But there was a lot of people thrown to the nazi wolves


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 2, 2015)

Poppy:- A bit like standing to respect the Queen, I just think I'm being badgered into doing things that make me feel uncomfortable.
I'm given a side to pick and if I don't pick their poppy side I'm accused of being someone I'm not.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> .. We haven't grown up "in a time of peace". We've merely grown up in an absence of total war. The two are very different things.


Indeed, that is pretty much what I meant, an absence of total war.


----------



## JimW (Nov 2, 2015)

I do a bit of litter picking round the war memorial when I go out of the pub in Horsley for a tab instead (all-year round deal). We did have the sellers round here last week already.


----------



## Markulous (Nov 2, 2015)

Must admit I used to wear a white poppy years ago but nowadays I just put the pennies in and pick up a red (probably an age thing - and cynicism for the whole of society) - though I do publicly support the purple poppy (and the dogs wear them)


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 2, 2015)

I don't wear a poppy and I've never worn one and if anyone wants to make a fuss about that, fuck 'em.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2015)

I will wear a red poppy when the World War is over. The World War is not a two film franchise with an eagerly anticipated third instalment, it is a continuing horror of a soap opera with no end in sight (yet)


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I am wearing a poppy because my grandma gave me one, think the whole poppy thing is getting out of hand and is a cover for fairly distasteful nationalism but cba with the row and tbf she was alive during the war


so was mine. She still has a scar on her face from glass blown out due to a bomb raid. Never got evacuated.

thats the thing, everyone knows someone who suffered. And on a wider point how much did working class society end up ridden with PTSD because of it all? How much badness and misery was handed down by people who had never got over the war? Thats why I don't do poppy day, its just like everytime I look at it I see the power and ingenuity of the war machinery involved and think 'you could have done something useful with that m8'

same with the cold war. We'd have a martian colony by now if all that energy had gone into not fighting over a scrap of land. Such waste.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Poppy:- A bit like standing to respect the Queen, I just think I'm being badgered into doing things that make me feel uncomfortable.
> I'm given a side to pick and if I don't pick their poppy side I'm accused of being someone I'm not.



i have some sympathy - i don't like public sentimentality, and i certainly don't like being badgered into expressing public sentimentality. i dislike intensely what has become a parody, a witchunt requiring 'proper rememberencing', often from those who - imv - wish to be the centre of attention. personally the whole poppy cult seems to be to be a complete missing of the point...


----------



## existentialist (Nov 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do some historical research on 11/11. This wasn't originally a "top-down" project by the state to remind us of sacrifice, it was originally a grassroots movement by local communities - those same local communities that subscribed to memorials in their local churchyards or market squares - to honour those they'd lost. It would *never* have been "brushed under the carpet", because local communities remember. They remember because the honoured dead were their relatives.


Indeed, it *would* have been brushed under the carpet had it been down to officialdom. The population were extremely angry after the First World War, both at the scale of loss of life, and at the ineptitude that led to it. With the Russian Revolution well underway, and serious upheaval throughout Europe, our lords and masters would have liked nothing more than to brush the whole business under the carpet, ignore and forget about the appalling sacrifices made, and get on with grinding the faces of the poor into the dust.

It's a miracle that popular feeling surfaced as a desire to remember the fallen, rather than in insurrection, but yes, the State can stake no great claim to the remembrance movement, and the fact that they continue to grandstand in front of it demonstrates to me that they're no more in tune with the will of the people now than they were a century ago.

To answer weltweit's remarks, wars provide, by their nature, opportunities for people to perform extraordinary acts of courage, and it is gratifying that we can still remember some of those people and their acts 100 years afterwards. But that's no thanks to _exactly_ the same kind of people then who are lording it over us now, and it's bad enough that they attempt to ride the bandwagon, without us having to be grateful to them. Remembrance should, in my view, come with a broad seam of anger, at the donkeys who start wars and lead men into battle, and at the bastards who are only interested in the sacrifice of others when it serves their own ends.

Slogans like "total war" are irrelevant - if you're the one the shells are falling on, that's total enough war for most people. Conscription, too, is largely irrelevant - the military-industrial complex's product line is such that we don't have the same need for conscripted armies of cannon-fodder - but that's not something to be "grateful" for, as if we should somehow be relieved that, by an accident of technology, most of us shouldn't expect to have to fight and possibly die to make some kind of geopolitical point. It doesn't mean that the likes of Cameron et al would not shove us into the front line with an out of date rifle and leaky boots just as soon as it suited them to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Slogans like "total war" are irrelevant


I'd disagree here exy. Its a way of expressing that war never went away but people I know stopped being called up to go die for their shithouse aims. Its an understanding that the war never did end, we've spent the majority of the post war period seeing that war continue. The russian revolution scared the shit out of the western booj.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd disagree here exy. Its a way of expressing that war never went away but people I know stopped being called up to go die for their shthouse aims. Its an acknowlgement that the war never did end, we've spent the majority of the post war period seeing that war continue. The russian revolution scared the shit out of the western booj.


Maybe I should have been a bit more specific - I don't mean the _concept_ is irrelevant, but when it's bandied around to say "we much be grateful - we had total war, and we don't any more", it's pointless. And probably misleading - as you say, the war never really stopped.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Maybe I should have been a bit more specific - I don't mean the _concept_ is irrelevant, but when it's bandied around to say "we much be grateful - we had total war, and we don't any more", it's pointless. And probably misleading - as you say, the war never really stopped.


I'm reminded of how in the era of the napoleonic wars the role of soldier was seen as scummy. You steal from people, you murder kids. You are not good.

When or where that transformed into St. Tommy whose grave must be gunuflected to, I do not know. Crimean probably. When the first telegraph from the front came in


----------



## existentialist (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm reminded of how in the era of the napoleonic wars the role of soldier was seen as scummy. You steal from people, you murder kids. You are not good.
> 
> When or where that transformed into St. Tommy whose grave must be gunuflected to, I do not know. Crimean probably. When the first telegraph from the front came in


I'm not sure it's really changed all that much. Tommy coming home from WWI didn't get a particularly rapturous welcome from society at large, and WWII wasn't much better. Looking across the pond, returning servicemen from Vietnam were positively ostracised, as if they personally were responsible for the failure of their state's adventurism.

Governments laud the soldier when they're trying to browbeat the population into signing up (or morally blackmailing sons/lovers/brothers/"pals" into doing so - WWI was an obscene example of this), but large numbers of demobilised men coming back into a depressed economy, full of PTSD and ideals about what they've fought for, are a lot less welcome.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 2, 2015)

Back in the old days, people used to just recycle them. Dave has moved on to modern times and he is that patriotic he has his social media team photoshop them on.  And who was he calling unpatriotic last week?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2015)

More likely someone has used photoshop to remove one than add one.

/party pooper


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2015)

Although the terrible shop suggests I'm wrong.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

why doesn't he just go full evil?

'I was voted in on a fraction of a very small proportion of the people. I am from a lineage that did very well out of those wars you plebians weep about. Fuck the lot of you'


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> why doesn't he just go full evil?
> 
> 'I was voted in on a fraction of a very small proportion of the people. I am from a lineage that did very well out of those wars you plebians weep about. Fuck the lot of you'



He basically has done that really it's just that their PR acts as if they do the opposite of what they actually do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He basically has done that really it's just that their PR acts as if they do the opposite of what they actually do.


Right now at tory HQ they are scheming as to wether they can get away with 'Britain Prevails' as a slogan and hoping Ashcroft is struck down by bollock cancer next.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> More likely someone has used photoshop to remove one than add one.
> 
> /party pooper


if a tory prime minister failed to wear the flower of blood the world would go insane and Queen Elizabeth would be seen mounting that horse on nelsons column while screaming 'THE WORLD HAS TURNED! IT IS ALL EVIL AND I AM THE HERALD OF A NEW DARKNESS TO CRUSH YOU PEONS'


although she might well do that anyway for the lols of it


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 2, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Back in the old days, people used to just recycle them. Dave has moved on to modern times and he is that patriotic he has his social media team photoshop them on.  And who was he calling unpatriotic last week?
> 
> View attachment 79014


Christ you think they'd at least do a better job of it.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 2, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Back in the old days, people used to just recycle them. Dave has moved on to modern times and he is that patriotic he has his social media team photoshop them on.  And who was he calling unpatriotic last week?
> 
> View attachment 79014


Apparently, they've removed it.

Here's my suggestion for a replacement...


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2015)

James McClean again refuses to wear Remembrance Day poppy on West Brom shirt

Good for him.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 2, 2015)

McClean's a man of principle. Sign him up Ronny!


----------



## Cheesepig3 (Nov 3, 2015)

I met a Glosters (front and back) yesterday, with 9 medals and a very obvious case of fucked-up squaddie ism, selling poppies.

He had a pithy comment or two about recent defence policy. 

Best quote: "fucking Trident? Wankers. Can't kill terrorist fuckers with fucking Trident mate. Spend it on fucking tanks and fucking rifles mate. Fucking Trident. Suck my fucking cock."

He was standing in Waitrose,  we chatted awhile, security were in a quandary to be honest.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 3, 2015)

I didn't realise it was a genuine story. Is it worse than not singing the national anthem?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 3, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I didn't realise it was a genuine story. Is it worse than not singing the national anthem?


Going by the death threats, it would seem so.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

Footballer in being a twat shock I hate britian but I love the cash


----------



## ddraig (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Footballer in being a twat shock I hate britian but I love the cash


Why is he a twat?


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 3, 2015)

My mum lost two brothers in WW2, my dad lost his eldest brother and a few mates too, he served from 39 onwards in the RAF.
I always remember from being young their despair every November, when they put the memorial service on the Saturday night before the cenotaph service and both would say in different ways, this is not a memorial to the glorious dead, there's nothing glorious in being dead, it's a way to promote militarism and justify the money spent on ways to kill people who don't agree with them. Mum was very vocal in her hope that it should all be stopped and forgotten about.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> Why is he a twat?


 He's a professional footballer.

The national anthem thing in the states it was a friendly match yanks do their patriotic thing it wasn't prinicple he just looks like a twat.
If your in entertainment pissing on your audience eventually ends with no auidence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> He's a professional footballer.
> 
> The national anthem thing in the states it was a friendly match yanks do their patriotic thing it wasn't prinicple he just looks like a twat.
> If your in entertainment pissing on your audience eventually ends with no auidence.


given where he's from he'd have to be looking his friends and family in the eye after wearing a poppy. And himself in the mirror when shaving. Not so easy as just aquiesce for the crowd is it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 3, 2015)

Cat Boyd: Wearing a poppy should be a choice, not an obligation


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> If your in entertainment pissing on your audience eventually ends with no auidence.


Why is choosing not to wear a poppy "pissing in your audience"?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

More the about face when the national anthem was played


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> More the about face when the national anthem was played



It's a stupid song, there is no god and the Queen is a hereditary monarch with no shortage of fawning morons willing to defend her and her institution unconditionally including a state broadcaster and that's before we get to the fact that he's a Catholic from Derry.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

did he not have a sufficiently respectful face when the occupiers anthem was played? Fucking hell, sack him


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> did he not have a sufficiently respectful face when the occupiers anthem was played? Fucking hell, sack him



You know it's funny, Brits used to sneer at American crass displays of patriotism now it's as if we're competing with them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You know it's funny, Brits used to sneer at American crass displays of patriotism now it's as if we're competing with them.


I've always thought having your kids at school stand and pledge alliegance to a flag every morning is a bit sinister.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You know it's funny, Brits used to sneer at American crass displays of patriotism now it's as if we're competing with them.



It was only because the match was in the states where they do  that sort of thing not in the UK where we don't.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> It was only because the match was in the states where they do  that sort of thing not in the UK where we don't.



Have you not watched the FA Cup Final in recent years?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

Nope don't really care about football.
 But most country's do this sort of stuff at national sporting events.

Although McLean doesn't have to worry about that seeing as he will never play at one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

they all line up in the 'at ease' position and pretend to know the words of the dirge.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Nope don't really care about football.
> But most country's do this sort of stuff at national sporting events.
> 
> Although McLean doesn't have to worry about that seeing as he will never play at one.



Well he's played for the Irish national team quite a few times


----------



## ddraig (Nov 3, 2015)

Did a proper number on you didn't they likesfish !!


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

£


J Ed said:


> Well he's played for the Irish national team quite a few times


so he's no problem with irish displays of patrotism
 just english ones buts not to principled to take english pounds to play in the english league?


ddraig said:


> Did a proper number on you didn't they likesfish !!


of course your be wearing an easter lily next year?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> one that always riles me. We're told the people of the place welcomed uncle adolf with open arms and a big parade. Some did for sure. But there was a lot of people thrown to the nazi wolves



My mate Stuart's mum was Sudeten German, or as she saw herself, Bohemian. She was 12-13 when Hitler marched in, and was politically-aware enough that she remarked that it was the burghers (aldermen and councillors and the like) and the mayors who welcomed the Nazis - the _petit bourgeois_, in other words.
She survived a circuitous march to Germany, met a London-Irish soldier, and married him. She also made sure she gave up info on her town's local politicians and prominent Nazis to the authorities. A sweet woman with a cool motto: "the only good fascist is a dead fascist".


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> £
> 
> so he's no problem with irish displays of patrotism
> just english ones buts not to principled to take english pounds to play in the english league?



Well the Irish army hasn't ransacked Derry and killed civilians, has it? Also Amhrán na bhFiann is just a better song.

I'm a Republican and I get paid in 'English pounds' with the Queen's face, it's not like I can opt out is it? Black people in the US can't opt out of using currency with slaver owners' faces on it.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 3, 2015)

You don't and never will get it, poor you



likesfish said:


> £
> 
> so he's no problem with irish displays of patrotism
> just english ones buts not to principled to take english pounds to play in the english league?
> ...


never


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You know it's funny, Brits used to sneer at American crass displays of patriotism now it's as if we're competing with them.



Because our "lords and masters" are once again well aware that crass patriotism, and the accompanying urge to conform, is a great tool for social control.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 3, 2015)

I thought Peter Hitchens did a good post on this today:

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog


----------



## LiamO (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Although McLean doesn't have to worry about that seeing as he will never play at one.



He plays for Ireland you daft cunt


----------



## LiamO (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> £
> 
> so he's no problem with irish displays of patrotism
> just english ones buts not to principled to take english pounds to play in the english league?



You really are a silly billy aren't you?

Like most people from Derry, McLean has no problem whatsoever with english people. 

He does however have an issue with represenatives of the British state coming into his hometown and murdering 14 civilians, including neighbours of his own family, in broad daylight.

He does have an issue with then being pressurised into wearing an emblem that he perceives as commemorating that event.

That's not hard to understand is it? Even for you.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they all line up in the 'at ease' position and pretend to know the words of the dirge.



Dirges globally are hurt by your comparison of that dross being likened to them!


----------



## LiamO (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> £
> of course your be wearing an easter lily next year?



I certainly will. Same as I do every year.

Many thousands of Irish people won't though. Because they are in a bit of a moral quandary. 

You see, for many, the Easter Lily has come to be associated with the IRA's campaign of the last 40 years - rather than just commemorating the Easter Rising, when a small group of brave young men took on the might of an Empire. So many Irish people are wary of wearing them. Lest people think they were in favour of the IRA's armed campaign.

Just like the Poppy, which isa supposed to represent the fallen of WW1 and WW2 - but for many also represents every sordid Colonial campaign that the BA was involved in - and continues to be involved in. So many british people, as well as Irish ones like McLean, are also uneasy about wearing Poppies. Lest people think they are endorsing BA atrocities in Ireland Kenya, Cyprus, Aden etc etc.

That simple enough for you?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

so no fa cup final then
and unlikely to see the world cup final
but at least he won't make a complete prat of himself on the world stage unlike the england team 
 not that bothered about the poppy thing the turning the back on the national anthem though was a deliberate snub and the mark of a pratt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

I assume you'd see the famous black power olympic salute as 'the mark of a pratt' _sic
_
having the platform and using it to make a statement isn't wankerish, its to be given a fist-bump imho. Or should he just have cast aside all personal integrity and upbringing to sing a shit song at non-league football opening?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 3, 2015)

The Pale King said:


> I thought Peter Hitchens did a good post on this today:
> 
> Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog


Tendency to waffle and veer off-topic, but some good points. B-


----------



## weltweit (Nov 3, 2015)

Well I have bought a poppy now, but I ain't wearing it because I almost injured myself with the pin!!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

Someone came into the supermarket today and got angry at us because we only had one size of poppy, she already had one on she just wanted a bigger one.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Someone came into the supermarket today and got angry at us because we only had one size of poppy, she already had one on she just wanted a bigger one.


don't they have massive ones to put on cars? she could wear one of those to shows she cares more about dead soldiers than anyone else


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 3, 2015)

I saw someone on the train today wearing a pin badge of _three_ poppies. Not three badges, one badge, three poppies.

I just found it... odd. Are they becoming a fashion item?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> don't they have massive ones to put on cars? she could wear one of those to shows she cares more about dead soldiers than anyone else



I personally think that she should take a couple of the ones that they seem to put on the front of the supermarket lorries (to show that the supermarket doesn't hate Britain, which it obviously would otherwise) and then she could make herself a sort of poppy-niqab by putting them together. Then surely no one could question her credentials as the person who hates Britain the least and loves soldiers the most.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I assume you'd see the famous black power olympic salute as 'the mark of a pratt' _sic
> _
> having the platform and using it to make a statement isn't wankerish, its to be given a fist-bump imho. Or should he just have cast aside all personal integrity and upbringing to sing a shit song at non-league football opening?



no because what statement was he making in the states he just looks like a wanker which he is


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> I saw someone on the train today wearing a pin badge of _three_ poppies. Not three badges, one badge, three poppies.
> 
> I just found it... odd. Are they becoming a fashion item?


no, it just means he's 3 times more patriotic than other people


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

likesfish said:


> no because what statement was he making in the states he just looks like a wanker which he is


the states of course being notorious for not joining in with the cause of irish liberation


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 3, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> I saw someone on the train today wearing a pin badge of _three_ poppies. Not three badges, one badge, three poppies.
> 
> I just found it... odd. Are they becoming a fashion item?




NEVER FORGET LEE RIGBY POPPY BADGE - LIMITED EDITION - TRY BURNING THIS ONE!!!!

Or








Etc

100% of proffits go one coke or something.


----------



## JimW (Nov 3, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> NEVER FORGET LEE RIGBY POPPY BADGE - LIMITED EDITION - TRY BURNING THIS ONE!!!!
> 
> Or
> 
> ...


I thought our army used to burn poppies all across Afghanistan. Oh the ironing, etc


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2015)

JimW said:


> I thought our army used to burn poppies all across Afghanistan. Oh the ironing, etc


Wasn't there some fuss over Hameron wearing one during a Chinese state visit or summat?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

JimW said:


> I thought our army used to burn poppies all across Afghanistan. Oh the ironing, etc


the bonus with that is you got paid to have them burned then you could just grow more when the annoying army men had fucked off. A double payday effectively


----------



## JimW (Nov 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the bonus with that is you got paid to have them burned then you could just grow more when the annoying army men had fucked off. A double payday effectively


Maybe it was even a good way to prep the soil for next year's bumper crop


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2015)

JimW said:


> Maybe it was even a good way to prep the soil for next year's bumper crop


and they burned them for them! You didn't even have to get out of bed, just let these mad fucking brits flame the fields up. No worries, they are perrenial!


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2015)

no they weren't allowed to.
 canadians got into trouble for using local camouflage on a tank high command didn't appreciate the reefer tank.
 were ordered to burn the field even though people pointing burning a vast field of dope possibly wasn't a good idea


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 4, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> I saw someone on the train today wearing a pin badge of _three_ poppies. Not three badges, one badge, three poppies.
> 
> I just found it... odd. Are they becoming a fashion item?


I really dislike that shit. Your average person on/presenting X Factor have been showing them off for years. Can't quite put my finger on why it winds me up so much.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2015)

I saw someone on the train with some plastic poppy attachment on the zip of their hoody. 

Which to me is totally bullshit as the whole point of the shitty paper poppy is a recognition that you've made a charitable donation. In fact shouldn't these private companies cashing in on a charitable cause be exposed?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2015)

The paper poppies are made by a private company too and they only give 10% of the profits to Royal British Legion.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The paper poppies are made by a private company too and they only give 10% of the profits to Royal British Legion.


That's not what I understood to be the case - you got a source for that?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2015)

existentialist said:


> That's not what I understood to be the case - you got a source for that?


Can't remember. Will have to Google. Hang on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2015)

OK, one of the two companies, Kleshna, that makes them donates just 10%, the other gives 100%
Via Wiki:
The great poppy con: How one company selling the little red flowers only gives 10% to the British Legion
They also make those horrid crystal ones.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 4, 2015)

Orang Utan; post: 14194685 said:
			
		

> OK, one of the two companies, Kleshna, that makes them donates just 10%, the other gives 100%
> Via Wiki:
> The great poppy con: How one company selling the little red flowers only gives 10% to the British Legion
> They also make those horrid crystal ones.


From what I can tell, Kleshna don't make the paper poppies at all...?

In fact, that article you linked to is pure Daily Mail, in that it is what it doesn't say that is significant. From the headline and subheads, you would think - as I briefly did - that the Kleshna poppies were in some way comparable, either in terms of the numbers sold, or type.

But that's not the case: Kleshna make small quantities of jewelled and "designer" poppies, in small numbers, and have nothing to do with the paper poppy production.

It's a deliberately misleading article, in my view, and I'm somewhat surprised at an Urbanite quoting such a piece of drivel!


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 4, 2015)

A work colleague is wearing an enormous sparkly crocheted one, but her ex works for the British Legion so maybe she's doesn't want to pay her wages.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2015)

existentialist said:


> From what I can tell, Kleshna don't make the paper poppies at all...?
> 
> In fact, that article you linked to is pure Daily Mail, in that it is what it doesn't say that is significant. From the headline and subheads, you would think - as I briefly did - that the Kleshna poppies were in some way comparable, either in terms of the numbers sold, or type.
> 
> ...


Apologies, Wiki was misleading


----------



## existentialist (Nov 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Apologies, Wiki was misleading


It does that, sometimes.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2015)

I thought Remploy made all the poppies?

Although they seem to be more of an employment agency now judging from their website.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 4, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I thought Remploy made all the poppies?
> 
> Although they seem to be more of an employment agency now judging from their website.


Remploy were closed down by the Coalition government, but so far as I know have never made the poppies, which have always been manufactured at a factory (and with outworkers) operated by the Royal British Legion, currently in Richmond, Surrey.

You're probably being confused by the fact that the poppy factories employ disabled ex-servicemen (and, I think, family members) to work in it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 4, 2015)

Remploy technically still exists, but certainly locally they only support people who already are in employment to retain that employment when suffering health problems and/or disabilities. The previous role of the organisation as a provider of jobs for people with disabilities is completely defunct.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2015)

Woman’s massive poppy clearly meant for van


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2015)

Britain First will start going round in their second hand MoD landrovers and weirdly tudor fascist uniforms stoning the unwearers before long. And don't think that will get the cunts off facebook. They have smartphones.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 4, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Remploy technically still exists, but certainly locally they only support people who already are in employment to retain that employment when suffering health problems and/or disabilities. The previous role of the organisation as a provider of jobs for people with disabilities is completely defunct.



Just came across this article from earlier in the year:



> Remploy, the agency charged with helping disabled people find work, has been sold by the Department for Work and Pensions to a US-listed company — one of a number of outsourcing deals the coalition is pursuing before the general election.
> 
> The New York-listed Maximus already provides assessment tests in the UK to check whether the disabled are fit for work. It will take a 70 per cent stake in a newly created company, while giving the remaining 30 per cent to employees. The DWP declined to provide financial details of the deal, arguing it was “commercially sensitive”.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 4, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Well I have bought a poppy now, but I ain't wearing it because I almost injured myself with the pin!!



Impromptu nipple piercing?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2015)

NoXion said:


> Impromptu nipple piercing?


No, thumb damage ..

My poppy now resides in my coat pocket .. where it will probably stay !!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2015)

weltweit said:


> No, thumb damage ..
> 
> My poppy now resides in my coat pocket .. where it will probably stay !!


unless you need to whip it out and show that you also love britain and hate terrorism


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2015)

I was always told that poppies were made by people using their feet cos they had no arms, in that big building up Richmond Hill. Have I been sold a lie on the poppy issue?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> unless you need to whip it out and show that you also love britain and hate terrorism


I don't anticipate many moments when that will be necessary !


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I was always told that poppies were made by people using their feet cos they had no arms, in that big building up Richmond Hill. Have I been sold a lie on the poppy issue?


Jobs for Disabled Veterans | The Poppy Factory not exactly


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2015)

J Ed's Poppy update 04/11/2015 - today I served someone with a poppy that looked like it was encrusted with some sort of jewellery, I looked closer and in the middle bit it had '007'


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2015)

A emblem symbolising the state's willingness to wage war, its refusal to meet its employer's obligation to those harmed, its refusal to allow its employees the right to independent association and its desire to inculcate militaristic, chauvinistic sentiment. An emblem of a state-sanctioned body born of the reactionary fear of the de-mobilised workers and their independent, autonomous organisations.

What's not to like?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2015)

Commodity fetishism infused with jingoism


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Commodity fetishism infused with jingoism


----------



## likesfish (Nov 4, 2015)

british legion does a lot of good.

Avoiding marketing brands and stuff is virtually impossible


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2015)




----------



## coley (Nov 4, 2015)

likesfish said:


> british legion does a lot of good.
> 
> Avoiding marketing brands and stuff is virtually impossible



Aye, but they are losing the plot, have been a subscriber for many years,but this latest load of Shyte through  the post! win a car or £20,000 is the last straw, before a penny goes to ex servicemen( and women) god know show much is being spent on this raffle and the slick media types who are going to be paid for organising it


----------



## coley (Nov 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> A emblem symbolising the state's willingness to wage war, its refusal to meet its employer's obligation to those harmed, its refusal to allow its employees the right to independent association and its desire to inculcate militaristic, chauvinistic sentiment. An emblem of a state-sanctioned body born of the reactionary fear of the de-mobilised workers and their independent, autonomous organisations.
> 
> What's not to like?



An awful lot of 'ex servicemen' suffered because of the states 'unwillingness' to wage war on an emergent Nazi Germany, mebbes a lot of grief could have been avoided?
I use the term "states" as an understanding you mean the UK?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2015)

the class tried to crush fascism at its inception and got called cunts for it by the entire establishment


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2015)

This takes some head getting round..


> *The Poppy Rocks Ball thanks Lockheed Martin UK for their support in 2015*


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2015)

When you think about the formation of the British Legion it was a master-stroke of proto-small-state shysterism. Off-load the state's obligation to those killed, maimed or damaged onto a quasi-militarised, nationalistic body funded on the back of the 'popular' jingoism developed during the conflict. All of which had the effect of controlling and defusing the revolutionary potential of a mass of demobilised personnel. Important to remember that the 'grateful' state set mounted police on NFDDSS veterans in 1919 who dared to demand things of the state.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2015)

That enduring exhortation to wear the poppy "*with pride*" 

FFS. Regret maybe, possibly sorrow...but pride?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That enduring exhortation to wear the poppy "*with pride*"
> 
> FFS. Regret maybe, possibly sorrow...but pride?


its not enoughto serve the machine brogdale, it demands your love and respect also


----------



## J Ed (Nov 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its not enoughto serve the machine brogdale, it demands your love and respect also



Reminds me of those jobs adverts for toilet cleaners or call centre workers which say shit like 'ONLY PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND BREATHE CLEANING TOILETS WITH PASSION NEED APPLY'.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2015)

...and on it goes...








Worth a read:-
MY NAME IS LEGION – The British Legion and the Control of Remembrance » VFP UK


> With its links to the arms trade, increasingly militarised presentation of Remembrance, and growing commercialisation and corporatisation of the poppy “brand”, it’s time to reconsider whether the Royal British Legion is still suitable to be the “national custodian of Remembrance”.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 6, 2015)

> The RBL’s decision to launch their 2013 Poppy Appeal with corporate-friendly girl band The Saturdays dressed in patent leather mini skirts singing “I’m a bad girl, I’m a bad girl, I’m notorious” while wearing Swarovski-encrusted poppies, shows how badly the Legion has lost its way. In one sense it’s a remarkably clever and commercially savvy instance of brand product placement and what the Legion calls “Cause Related Marketing” – i.e. using a “cause’ that people care about in order to co-opt it to sell frozen goods, ketchup, or jewellery. But it’s also a deeply demeaning and disrespectful way to commemorate the deaths of those who dies in conflict.



Not being familiar much with the Poppy Appeal, I found this particularly jarring, in addition to the dark irony of plastering a war machine with a supposed symbol of remembrance for the war dead. What the fuck?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 6, 2015)

Mark Steel: Persecuting people for not wearing poppies – now that’s real courage


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2015)

Christ on a bike...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and on it goes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




'Oooh look at our fancy new flying death machine... Lest we forget'






This is mainly why I don't wear one anymore. I do want to in some way remember my poor relative who lied about his age to go off on the 'adventure' of trench warfare. He loved it so much he ended up staying six feet underground in a little French village having been mown down by machine guns at Paschendale. He wasn't 19 though like he told the recruitment office or what's written on his gravestone, he was 16... 16 FFS, fighting in a war he had no idea the reasons of. I wanna mark that in some way, I used to do that by wearing a poppy but I don't anymore because of this sort of thing. It makes me sick really that my relative's wasted life is now used in this yearly festival of jingoism.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 8, 2015)

said vulcan is old  and never flying again and was part of the deterrence force so kept europe from having another chance to build war memorials. the fact that the old men who start wars are no longer safe if they go for the big wargasm means major world wars are off the menu they are left to a few proxy wars


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Christ on a bike...



If that's the Official Leave EU tweet, they've deleted it after an overwhelmingly bad reaction. Wish I'd screen grabbed it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 8, 2015)

There you go:


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 8, 2015)

you can get these lovely 14 words ones if you like


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

You could not make this shit up


----------



## weltweit (Nov 8, 2015)

Some will criticise him no matter what he does.

I thought he was perfectly respectful.


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 8, 2015)

48% people say it was disrespectfull lol


----------



## weltweit (Nov 8, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> 48% people say it was disrespectfull lol


48% of which people?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> you can get these lovely 14 words ones if you like


There's only 4 words there and they don't make sense


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 8, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> There's only 4 words there and they don't make sense



There is a 14 in the black bit...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> There is a 14 in the black bit...


Why?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

likesfish said:


> said vulcan is old  and never flying again and was part of the deterrence force so kept europe from having another chance to build war memorials. the fact that the old men who start wars are no longer safe if they go for the big wargasm means major world wars are off the menu they are left to a few proxy wars



Sorry I'm not up on which death machines are currently in or out of service, either way it's not really appropriate. World wars maybe, just maybe off the table. Instead we have instant vapourisation to look forward to.


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 8, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why?



Fourteen Words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> Fourteen Words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Oh dear


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> you can get these lovely 14 words ones if you like



Yeah, next time do us a favour and point out it's white supremacist bollocks before some of us less in the know go googling thinking 'brother' is something to do with class solidarity and not racist shit, thanks.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

teqniq said:


> You could not make this shit up




'The Labour leader came under fire for only slightly moving his head after laying a traditional wreath of poppies.' Hahahaha


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and on it goes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Really reccommend reading the full pdf too, it's pretty disturbing really.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2015)

likesfish said:


> said vulcan is old  and never flying again and was part of the deterrence force so kept europe from having another chance to build war memorials. the fact that the old men who start wars are no longer safe if they go for the big wargasm means major world wars are off the menu they are left to a few proxy wars


I don't have a problem with the Vulcan. But I do have a big problem with the government/military poppywashing everything they do that might be vaguely military-related. Doctor Carrot's post being a very good case in point of the way in which the remembrance message has been hijacked and corrupted.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Some will criticise him no matter what he does.
> 
> I thought he was perfectly respectful.



He barely nodded.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

And?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

Ranbay said:


> you can get these lovely 14 words ones if you like



You can take that and ram it up your arse.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

teqniq said:


> And?



The comments regarding his conduct are correct.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2015)

He should have just winked


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> The comments regarding his conduct are correct.



It is only 'newsworthy' because someone has decided it is, and the only reason that is so is to make an ongoing case of how generally 'unworthy' and 'unsuitable' he is.


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2015)

Telegraph.



> He was due to read a poem titled "Futility" by the pacifiist World War One poet Wilfred Owen at a ceremony in Islington hours after the Cenotaph ceremony at 1.30pm.


Remembrance day should be called rewriting history day. The pacifist Owen who, after being wounded, volunteered to go back the the front, won the military cross and got killed in the last days of the war during an attack?

The extra 'i' in pacifist probably due to mashing the keyboard in drunken stubby fingered rage.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> The comments regarding his conduct are correct.


Thing is, as far as the RW press were concerned, he was going to do _something_ wrong, regardless of what he actually did. In a way, that brings the whole thing to a screeching halt as far as I am concerned - if his bowing at the Cenotaph is suddenly this huge big deal, I find myself asking "what the fuck does it matter if he bows?"

I saw the shot of him standing next to Cameron, waiting to lay his wreath. For my money, Corbyn's expression (so far as you can rely on a politician's expression for anything) said far more about remembrance and reflection that Cameron's clearly nailed-on "I am Being Srs And Rspctful" face.

I'm simply not prepared to join in with this "let's beast Corbyn for everything he does" farce. I'll judge him on his actions. Frankly, the huge fuss that is being made over Corbyn (and anyone else) being suitably respectful about poppies and Remembrance Day fucks me off to the point that, for the first year that I can remember, I didn't buy a poppy. I even meant to put some money in the tin, but forgot to do even that - the whole business has been cheap, distasteful, and far more disrespectful to the memory of those who died than anything Corbyn could have done short of leading a conga line around the Cenotaph.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 8, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why?


It's to your credit that you don't know


----------



## Fingers (Nov 8, 2015)

Britain First accused of using two schoolgirls for anti-Islam propaganda


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

They really have no shame eh?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Thing is, as far as the RW press were concerned, he was going to do _something_ wrong, regardless of what he actually did. In a way, that brings the whole thing to a screeching halt as far as I am concerned - if his bowing at the Cenotaph is suddenly this huge big deal, I find myself asking "what the fuck does it matter if he bows?"
> 
> I saw the shot of him standing next to Cameron, waiting to lay his wreath. For my money, Corbyn's expression (so far as you can rely on a politician's expression for anything) said far more about remembrance and reflection that Cameron's clearly nailed-on "I am Being Srs And Rspctful" face.
> 
> I'm simply not prepared to join in with this "let's beast Corbyn for everything he does" farce. I'll judge him on his actions. Frankly, the huge fuss that is being made over Corbyn (and anyone else) being suitably respectful about poppies and Remembrance Day fucks me off to the point that, for the first year that I can remember, I didn't buy a poppy. I even meant to put some money in the tin, but forgot to do even that - the whole business has been cheap, distasteful, and far more disrespectful to the memory of those who died than anything Corbyn could have done short of leading a conga line around the Cenotaph.



I wore a poppy this year, and will continue to do so until the 11th. A red poppy.

Whatever any skidmark of a politician does, or does not do. is of little interest. The Conservatives, whilst still vainly trying to peddle the myth of being 'the Armed Forces Party' are running down our military capacity at an alarming rate. Corbyn is of absolutely no consequence, he won't be PM, indeed, it is doubtful if he will still be Labour leader come the next election. I must say that I find Corbyn's stance re nuclear retaliation appalling. If someone has reduced our country to a glowing ruin, they should at least know that such an act will be followed by their own country being in a similar state. It is the ultimate in hypothesis anyway; it is unthinkable that the lunatics of North Korea or Iran would deploy nuclear weapons, they know the consequences. Even tin pot dictators need to have somewhere habitable to be dictator of.

I wear a poppy for a number of reasons. I wear it in memory of my comrades who died beside me. I wear it in memory of men like my father and uncles, who gave a part of their lives to oppose and overcome Hitler. 

Those who died, and those severely wounded, were not the only ones who suffered long term damage. My uncle Rob; like me, served in the RAMC, he was one of those into Bergen-Belsen shortly after its liberation, something that haunted him right up until his death. It was something he rarely spoke of. He visited us in Hannover, and we took him to the site of the camp. He was out in a few minutes, tears running down his face. That night he got incredibly drunk (he didn't normally drink very much), and told me about it. It was horrific. The thing that he remembered most clearly, even after all these years was the smell.

At this time I remember my days in the army. The people, good and bad (simply putting on a uniform doesn't change someone's intrinsic character.). The good times, and the bad. The living and the dead. 

I don't wear my poppy with 'pride', I wear it to commemorate all those who suffered and died. I wear it especially to mark the passing of those who died beside me, I also give thanks that it was not me who died, it so easily could have been.

Wear a poppy if you wish, it is up to you. The dead certainly won't mind if you don't. Do remember though, and I'm talking specifically of the dead of WWII, they gave their lives, so that you live in a society, where you are free to disrespect them, if you wish. They gave their lives with no conditions attached.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Britain First accused of using two schoolgirls for anti-Islam propaganda



FFS! Given that their bollocks has stopped appearing on my FB page, I thought they had disappeared.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> FFS! Given that their bollocks has stopped appearing on my FB page, I thought they had disappeared.


No such luck - you've obviously just done a good job of educating your FB friends!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I wore a poppy this year, and will continue to do so until the 11th. A red poppy.
> 
> Whatever any skidmark of a politician does, or does not do. is of little interest. The Conservatives, whilst still vainly trying to peddle the myth of being 'the Armed Forces Party' are running down our military capacity at an alarming rate. Corbyn is of absolutely no consequence, he won't be PM, indeed, it is doubtful if he will still be Labour leader come the next election. I must say that I find Corbyn's stance re nuclear retaliation appalling. If someone has reduced our country to a glowing ruin, they should at least know that such an act will be followed by their own country being in a similar state. It is the ultimate in hypothesis anyway; it is unthinkable that the lunatics of North Korea or Iran would deploy nuclear weapons, they know the consequences. Even tin pot dictators need to have somewhere habitable to be dictator of.
> 
> ...


You're disgusting


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I wore a poppy this year, and will continue to do so until the 11th. A red poppy.
> 
> Whatever any skidmark of a politician does, or does not do. is of little interest. The Conservatives, whilst still vainly trying to peddle the myth of being 'the Armed Forces Party' are running down our military capacity at an alarming rate. Corbyn is of absolutely no consequence, he won't be PM, indeed, it is doubtful if he will still be Labour leader come the next election. I must say that I find Corbyn's stance re nuclear retaliation appalling. If someone has reduced our country to a glowing ruin, they should at least know that such an act will be followed by their own country being in a similar state. It is the ultimate in hypothesis anyway; it is unthinkable that the lunatics of North Korea or Iran would deploy nuclear weapons, they know the consequences. Even tin pot dictators need to have somewhere habitable to be dictator of.
> 
> ...


You were doing alright until the last paragraph. Who's disrespecting the dead of ww2 here? My grandad liberated Belsen like your uncle and he never spoke if too. I had a great uncle in a tank regiment and I already mentioned my relative in ww1. I used to wear a poppy but now I don't because I'm sick of all the brow beating, the support our troops and the military rubbing its grubby hands all over it. 

'You must remember, you must support our troops, you must do it the way I tell you to and you must, increasingly, do it all year round' 

That's the message I increasingly get from it all and frankly it can fuck off.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do remember though, and I'm talking specifically of the dead of WWII, they gave their lives, so that you live in a society, where you are free to disrespect them, if you wish. They gave their lives with no conditions attached.



If you think not wearing one is disrespecting our fallen, you can fuck right off.  I went to a remembrance service yesterday and wore one, I went to another one today and did not wear one. 

The biggest shame is, that the event is increasingly being taken over by loud mouthed poppy fascists.


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2015)

Fingers said:


> If you think not wearing one is disrespecting our fallen, you can fuck right off.  I went to a remembrance service yesterday and wore one, I went to another one today and did not wear one.
> 
> The biggest shame is, that the event is increasingly being taken over by loud mouthed poppy fascists.


Both my grandfathers were in reserved occupations, so I don't have anyone specific to remember or pay respect to. But I was brought up just 15-20 years after WW2 finished, when rationing and the (for then) relatively recent lack of rationing was very much a thing, an immediate memory of my parents and grandparents. When I was a kid this stuff was Important and the the lines of veterans marching past the cenotaph took a long time. It's different now, and that's the passage of time. However I'll buy and wear a poppy for now, but I'm increasingly sad at the concept being co-opted by all wars and disputes and (for me) that simple act of thanks and remembrance has become degraded into pressurised charity. While my parents are alive I'll still buy and wear one, for theirs and the previous generation. Once they're gone I will stop.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 8, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Thing is, as far as the RW press were concerned, he was going to do _something_ wrong, regardless of what he actually did. In a way, that brings the whole thing to a screeching halt as far as I am concerned - if his bowing at the Cenotaph is suddenly this huge big deal, I find myself asking "what the fuck does it matter if he bows?"



  Exactly we don't as a society  have a rigid code of conduct for these things. I don't even know if they rehearse what they are supposed to do. He turned up and laid a wreathe. What do they want him to do to be more respectful? Sacrifice a goat?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

From FB



> Bet you dont see this in the papers
> After laying a wreath at the Cenotaph, Jeremy Corbyn remained on Horseguards parade, among the crowd, to applaud the veterans' march past, and to talk to them - respecting the living and the dead.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Exactly we don't as a society  have a rigid code of conduct for these things. I don't even know if they rehearse what they are supposed to do. He turned up and laid a wreathe. What do they want him to do to be more respectful? Sacrifice a goat?


It's the same problem you get with religion - some people fall into the trap of believing that the more pious you appear, the more pious you are. Style over substance.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

existentialist said:


> No such luck - you've obviously just done a good job of educating your FB friends!



Thinking about, it anyone who did post it got lobbed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> You were doing alright until the last paragraph. Who's disrespecting the dead of ww2 here? My grandad liberated Belsen like your uncle and he never spoke if too. I had a great uncle in a tank regiment and I already mentioned my relative in ww1. I used to wear a poppy but now I don't because I'm sick of all the brow beating, the support our troops and the military rubbing its grubby hands all over it.
> 
> 'You must remember, you must support our troops, you must do it the way I tell you to and you must, increasingly, do it all year round'
> 
> That's the message I increasingly get from it all and frankly it can fuck off.



Not aimed at anyone on here, however, if that is how you choose to interpret what I said, that is of course your absolute right.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

Fingers said:


> If you think not wearing one is disrespecting our fallen, you can fuck right off.  I went to a remembrance service yesterday and wore one, I went to another one today and did not wear one.
> 
> The biggest shame is, that the event is increasingly being taken over by loud mouthed poppy fascists.



Errr, sorry, I don't actually recall either saying or implying that. I made no mention whatsoever about wearing poppies or not wearing poppies.

Whereas I may not necessarily agree, I can understand why someone doesn't wish to wear a poppy. It is not compulsory, FFS, if it was compulsory, those who died in WWII would be rolling in their graves, that's not the sort of society they fought for.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

cesare said:


> Both my grandfathers were in reserved occupations, so I don't have anyone specific to remember or pay respect to. But I was brought up just 15-20 years after WW2 finished, when rationing and the (for then) relatively recent lack of rationing was very much a thing, an immediate memory of my parents and grandparents. When I was a kid this stuff was Important and the the lines of veterans marching past the cenotaph took a long time. It's different now, and that's the passage of time. However I'll buy and wear a poppy for now, but I'm increasingly sad at the concept being co-opted by all wars and disputes and (for me) that simple act of thanks and remembrance has become degraded into pressurised charity. While my parents are alive I'll still buy and wear one, for theirs and the previous generation. Once they're gone I will stop.



My father was also in a reserved occupation, he volunteered in 1940 though. A lot of folk seem to forget that the country doesn't run itself during a war, people are needed to do that. Those incredibly brave people who fought the fires in the bombed cities were putting their lives on the line day after day.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 8, 2015)

> *Sir Gerald Howarth MP, a former Conservative defence minister, said that remembering Britain’s war dead 'requires complete commitment'*



Go fuck yourself. How fuckin' dare you tell someone else how to remember those (by cunts like you) sent to die in war. Piece of shit


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

existentialist said:


> It's the same problem you get with religion - some people fall into the trap of believing that the more pious you appear, the more pious you are. Style over substance.



Corbyn has more integrity than Cameron, which wouldn't be that difficult really. Unfortunately, because of that integrity, he has stated his beliefs, which then makes him a prime target. I rather like Corbyn as a person, don't agree with his beliefs, but at least he is honest enough to state them. Who knows what the hell Cameron believes in, if anything other than his own well being.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Go fuck yourself. How fuckin' dare you tell someone else how to remember those (by cunts like you) sent to die in war. Piece of shit


We've had similar bollox from the vermin in Wales

Plaid Cymru defends representatives for not singing God Save the Queen



> Lyn Hudson, Cardiff Conservative councillor for the Heath ward tweeted: “Disgusted that Plaid reps did not sing God Save The Queen, no sense of occasion, no respect, no sense”.


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> My father was also in a reserved occupation, he volunteered in 1940 though. A lot of folk seem to forget that the country doesn't run itself during a war, people are needed to do that. Those incredibly brave people who fought the fires in the bombed cities were putting their lives on the line day after day.


I don't think my grandads volunteered at all. One was a miner, the other a GP. But your point stands, I think, about those that helped in whatever way to keeping things going during that time. We watched a Lucy Worsley documentary over the weekend about the effect on women and women's lives. A generation of young men wiped out in WW1 and the reality of many, many women post 1918 of never being able to get married because the young men were all wiped out. I'd never really thought about that aspect before this weekend.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Go fuck yourself. How fuckin' dare you tell someone else how to remember those (by cunts like you) sent to die in war. Piece of shit



Dickhead, complete and utter dickhead. Read the Wiki article on him, it will turn your stomach.

'In 2000, he described the lifting of the ban on homosexuals in the military as "appalling" and went on to say that the "decision will be greeted with dismay, particularly by ordinary soldiers in Her Majesty's forces, many of whom joined the services precisely because they wished to turn their backs on some of the values of modern society".[5]'

I've got news for him, I had gay friends in the forces prior to 2000. As long as people were reasonably discrete, a blind eye was turned. That was absolutely 'equal' though, the same blind eye was turned when males visited their girl friends in the female accommodation. I'm not for one moment saying that the bar on gay men was just, it wasn't, but it was Military Law, and a bit of discretion kept the CO happy.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

teqniq said:


> We've had similar bollox from the vermin in Wales
> 
> Plaid Cymru defends representatives for not singing God Save the Queen



They completely miss the point. Why should you sing the National Anthem if you don't want to? Freedom was what the men of WWII died for, and that includes the freedom not to sing the National Anthem, which is a bloody dirge anyway.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 8, 2015)

The fact corbyn hung about to watch the march past is deeply impressive.
  We don't have a set way to do these things so arguing his bow wasn't low enough is bollocks


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

cesare said:


> Both my grandfathers were in reserved occupations, so I don't have anyone specific to remember or pay respect to. But I was brought up just 15-20 years after WW2 finished, when rationing and the (for then) relatively recent lack of rationing was very much a thing, an immediate memory of my parents and grandparents. When I was a kid this stuff was Important and the the lines of veterans marching past the cenotaph took a long time. It's different now, and that's the passage of time. However I'll buy and wear a poppy for now, but I'm increasingly sad at the concept being co-opted by all wars and disputes and (for me) that simple act of thanks and remembrance has become degraded into pressurised charity. While my parents are alive I'll still buy and wear one, for theirs and the previous generation. Once they're gone I will stop.



I take your point on that, and if the 'hysteria' regarding wearing a poppy or being seen as disrespectful grows any more, I may well stop wearing one myself.

It is right, I feel, to mark the sacrifice of those who died in WWII, but those who died subsequently did not die 'saving the nation', they died in bitter little spats frrom Korea via Kenya and the Falklands, to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

It may be argued that Gulf I, was necessary, to get Hussein out of Kuwait, and stop him from moving against Saudi.
That was something in the national interest, because not only plutocrats need oil, we all do, at present at least.

My own little wars were in NI and the Falklands. NI, we had got in so deep that keeping fighting seemed to be the only thing to do. 
The Falklands? Well, if Galtieri had attacked a PM sooner, or a PM later, he would probably have held on to the islands. He picked the wrong PM. I did not speak to a single soldier at the time who felt that the Falklands shouldn't have been retaken. Now? Don't know. I lost five friends as a result of the Falklands, three on the Galahad, two to suicide associated with poorly treated/untreated PTSD. Personally, and I know this won't go down terribly well here; even with hindsight, I'd do it again. It was what we trained for, it was our purpose. 

It was also a magnificent logistics exercise and showed Britain at its best. When the Galahad went down, 80% of our Field Hospital kit went down with it. Stuff we had to get from the manufacturers to replace it, was arriving at Southampton without any paperwork, or signature required. After I came back, I transferred from nursing to pharmacy. I was at DMED Ludgershall (the medical equipment central stores) nearly two years after the conflict, and we were still trying to get the paperwork straight and everyone paid. When we finally called it quits, it became obvious that some companies had not submitted invoices at all.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 8, 2015)

likesfish said:


> The fact corbyn hung about to watch the march past is deeply impressive.
> We don't have a set way to do these things so arguing his bow wasn't low enough is bollocks



I think Corbyn is a decent man, a genuine man. If he just changed a few things, and moderated others a bit, he could win.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think Corbyn is a decent man, a genuine man. If he just changed a few things, and moderated others a bit, he could win.



Become a bit more Blairite/right wing you mean?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I If someone has reduced our country to a glowing ruin, they should at least know that such an act will be followed by their own country being in a similar state. It is the ultimate in hypothesis anyway; it is unthinkable that the lunatics of North Korea or Iran would deploy nuclear weapons, they know the consequences. Even tin pot dictators need to have somewhere habitable to be dictator of.


And what about the millions of innocent civilians in those countries murdered by a retaliatory strike I guess they deserve death too. Absolutely disgusting, but then it fits in with your vile defence of the attacks on the Gaza flotilla for example.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> Not aimed at anyone on here, however, if that is how you choose to interpret what I said, that is of course your absolute right.


No I'm not saying you're saying that I'm saying it's the general feeling every remembrance day and it seems to get worse every year.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> He barely nodded.


I didn't see anything disrespectful in his placing of his wreath.
He seemed at least as respectful as Cameron.
Did I miss something?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 8, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I didn't see anything disrespectful in his placing of his wreath.
> He seemed at least as respectful as Cameron.
> Did I miss something?


I haven't watched it but perhaps Corbyn wasn't only trying to seem respectful and horror of horrors was actually being respectful thinking of the significance of the event and the lives lost rather than solely about putting in his best performance.  He could also of been nervous a lot people laying the wreaths this morning seemed so and they only had a couple dozen people watching. Even relatively well drilled people who I'm pretty sure I've seen lay wreaths in previous years (instructors in one of the kiddies paramilitary organisations) seemed to my eye to fuck up a bit. Corbyn probably walked up and down his office a couple of times like Nicola Murray in The Thick of It.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

More from FB



> Whilst the rest of the politicians went off for a slap up VIP lunch, Jeremy Corbyn went up to Horseguards to meet and talk with veterans. Such disrespect - how dare he.....


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 8, 2015)

War, which saw my grandfather watch cannibalism and have no shoes in a concentration camp in Siberia because he dared to be born a Polish Jew, which saw him fight at monte casino after his release and watch his best friend get blown to bits, which resulted in him never being able to show love to his children, suffering from terrible nightmares and needing support from Combat Stress until he died. Yeah, this definitely seems like somethings that we should be glorifying and the most important thing to do is have a go at people for wearing a poppy or not and moaning about the extent to which someone bows their heads. Jesus Christ.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Did I miss something?



Possibly this?
A useful distraction on the day when the head of UK armed forces made a very deliberate foray into party politics?


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Possibly this?
> A useful distraction on the day when the head of UK armed forces made a very deliberate foray into party politics?


Saw that early. A bit opportunitistic and disrespectful I feel.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Saw that early. A bit opportunitistic and disrespectful I feel.


Either a planned, deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of LP policy, or a very embarrassing silp of the mask.


----------



## Chick Webb (Nov 8, 2015)

I'll fight ye.  Poppies make me sick.


----------



## Chick Webb (Nov 8, 2015)

Chick Webb said:


> I'll fight ye.


Again this year!


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> And what about the millions of innocent civilians in those countries murdered by a retaliatory strike I guess they deserve death too. Absolutely disgusting, but then it fits in with your vile defence of the attacks on the Gaza flotilla for example.




The whole point of detterence is if you decide your going to order a mass murder strike on the UK you get exactly the same back regardless of if you love your children or not.
 Trident can kill you if your in a bunker or flying command post or brought anti missile defences


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 9, 2015)

likesfish said:


> The whole point of detterence is if you decide your going to order a mass murder strike on the UK you get exactly the same back regardless of if you love your children or not.
> Trident can kill you if your in a bunker or flying command post or brought anti missile defences



Are you serious, stupid or simply insane?


----------



## campanula (Nov 9, 2015)

I choose to remember the tragic, manipulated, bullied, threatened, shamed people who were conscripted into fighting - not for freedom or democracy or anything like that - but for the same reasons as always - for the power crazed demands of a ruling class who saw ordinary soldiers as collateral. And no, I will never offer so much as a penny towards a single organisation which perpetuates the tripe peddled by politicians - I do however, wear a green sprig of evergreen holly.


----------



## Zabo (Nov 9, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Possibly this?
> A useful distraction on the day when the head of UK armed forces made a very deliberate foray into party politics?



From so called Cif.

"Remembrance Sunday and the top two articles on the Guardian site are little more than anti-Corbyn shit-throwing. I'm glad I don't pay for this tripe."


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2015)

Sir Nicolas.
(DM link)


----------



## existentialist (Nov 9, 2015)

campanula said:


> I choose to remember the tragic, manipulated, bullied, threatened, shamed people who were conscripted into fighting - not for freedom or democracy or anything like that - but for the same reasons as always - for the power crazed demands of a ruling class who saw ordinary soldiers as collateral. And no, I will never offer so much as a penny towards a single organisation which perpetuates the tripe peddled by politicians - I do however, wear a green sprig of evergreen holly.


This.

I got involved in an opera thing that had been commissioned to mark the start of WW1. I played the part of the "recruiting officer", and had to play a scene in which we'd gone to a village to get people to sign up. The recruiting officer was not a pleasant character - there was lots of moral blackmail, misogyny, and patronising stuff, all aimed at getting young men signed up.

I felt uncomfortable, because it seemed to me inconceivable that anyone would have been quite so blatantly manipulative about getting people to sign up to fight, so I did some research. And what I learned was that, far from being a caricature of the situation, it was, if anything, a toned down version of what went on. Huge amounts of emotional blackmail were applied, both by the military themselves, but by society at large. People bought into this, to the extent that apparently fit young men who hadn't signed up (this was prior to conscription, which didn't happen until 1916) were often given a hard time in the street.

The "Pal's battalions", similarly, weren't as simple as they're now presented - people were put under considerable pressure to join up with their workmates, neighbours, or friends. We might see the idea of a bunch of mates going off to fight together as noble and laudable, and it was certainly presented that way, but a lot of people joined up because they didn't feel that *not* joining up was an option.

Furthermore, the stories we hear of young people so fired up with patriotic fervour that they signed up with false ages also tell quite a few tales - a lot of that went on with a nod and a wink from the authorities, who were knowingly signing up 14 year olds to go and fight in the horror of the trenches. Any sense of moral rectitude had taken second place behind the goal of getting as many people onto the battlefield by whatever means possible, whether they were old enough or genuinely willing to volunteer - so long as they gave the impression of volunteering, that was good enough.

And that's before we get into economic conscription, or the rights and wrongs of statutory conscription.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 9, 2015)

teqniq said:


> More from FB



See him at the Cenotaph tho? What a disaster. Dunno why, just someone said, on the BBC I think. 

He should be a war criminal who helped ISIS get off the ground like Blair, or cut benefits to former soldiers like cameron, that's proper respect.

Peace? - I mean FFS.

And as for stopping around to talk to veterans - It's the fucking end.

All respect for veterans has gone once you start talking to such cannon fodder serfs as if they are somehow worthy of time and attention. 

I want to wretch. It's a disaster, and I hope someone says so in The Guardian.

Lets hope he isn't around this time next year, dragging down the tone by giving a shit.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Are you serious, stupid or simply insane?



That's the rational behind trident its accuracy the multiple decoys mirv etc etc. It was designed to defeat the extensive abm defences around moscow and kill any hardened bunkers the politbureau might try to hide in.
the french system is less accurate but its not designed for pinpoint accuracy its designed to kill as many russians as possible the french don't believe you can win a nuclear war but if their going to hell your coming too.
 pointing nuclear weapons at each other is possibly insane but apparently not starting a world war is really hard.
 doubt ww3 wouldn't have happened with out them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> He barely nodded.



So what? Not abasing himself is NOT indicative of his level of respect. Neither is the abasement of the other party leaders indicative of their level of respect.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 9, 2015)

Even if Corbyn had bowed to the arbitrary standards set by the gutter press, they'd have insisted that he anoint the feet of the dead too.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> He barely nodded.



Worse than fucking Hitler.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Are you serious, stupid or simply insane?



He's making a rational point about the nature of deterrence and the utility (as a weapon of mass destruction) of Trident.
Turning his point into a sweepstake on whether he's "serious, stupid or simply insane" shows that you were unable or unwilling to grasp that rational point.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 9, 2015)

likesfish said:


> That's the rational behind trident its accuracy the multiple decoys mirv etc etc. It was designed to defeat the extensive abm defences around moscow and kill any hardened bunkers the politbureau might try to hide in.
> the french system is less accurate but its not designed for pinpoint accuracy its designed to kill as many russians as possible the french don't believe you can win a nuclear war but if their going to hell your coming too.
> pointing nuclear weapons at each other is possibly insane but apparently not starting a world war is really hard.
> doubt ww3 wouldn't have happened with out them


Yeah, you see, the French system sounds like a genuine deterrent. The MIRV, designed to evade ABM defences and kill Brezhnev sounds more like something an aggressive imperialist power would design in the belief that it could actually emerge the winner.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2015)

existentialist said:


> This.
> 
> I got involved in an opera thing that had been commissioned to mark the start of WW1. I played the part of the "recruiting officer", and had to play a scene in which we'd gone to a village to get people to sign up. The recruiting officer was not a pleasant character - there was lots of moral blackmail, misogyny, and patronising stuff, all aimed at getting young men signed up.
> 
> ...



One of my paternal great-grandfathers was one of 6 children - he had 3 brothers and 2 sisters. He signed up in 1903 (after getting fed-up with the South Yorkshire coal mines), did his 9 years service, and was nearing the end of his reserve service when he was re-mobilised about a fortnight before the start of the war. He died in April 1915. His "sacrifice" was, according to one of my great-aunts/his sisters, used to emotionally-blackmail his three brothers into enlisting. By the end of the war, my great-great-grandmother had one son left - all because a recruiting sergeant and a bunch of local veterans who'd never served anywhere more taxing than Ireland, thought it was their "duty" to cajole and badger local young men into becoming fodder for the grinder - a policy that was, of course, sanctioned and even encouraged by those on different - "higher" - strata of the class spectrum.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 9, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Yeah, you see, the French system sounds like a genuine deterrent. The MIRV, designed to evade ABM defences and kill Brezhnev sounds more like something an aggressive imperialist power would design in the belief that it could actually emerge the winner.



partly true, also partly not true - one of the problems with the French system is that it would require the person launching it to close their mind to what i about to happen. given that deterence is not about what you will or will not do, but about what the other guy thinks you will, might, or will not do, there is a greater degree of opportunity for the other guy to believe - erroneously or not - that the French president will infact _not_ order a launch because he cannot face the consequences of doing so. this makes a nuclear attack _more_ likely, not less likely.

the UK system however removes - to some degree - that weight from the person ordering its launch, and therefore ensures that the other guy can be less sure about whether a UK would, or would not, launch. if you are less sure than you would like that your enemy will in fact _not_ use his very large, very sharp stick it return for you using yours, you will be more hesitant about using yours.

the more likely an absolute and complete conflagration, the less likely anyone is to tread, however carefully, the steps that might bring it about.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Yeah, you see, the French system sounds like a genuine deterrent. The MIRV, designed to evade ABM defences and kill Brezhnev sounds more like something an aggressive imperialist power would design in the belief that it could actually emerge the winner.


 it cause we were cheap and brought it off the yanks who along with the Soviets indulged in the nuclear war theory
one subs worth of missiles really wouldn be noticed in the cold war 
R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia carries mirvs and penetration aids etc etc.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 9, 2015)

likesfish said:


> it cause we were cheap and brought it off the yanks who along with the Soviets indulged in the nuclear war theory
> one subs worth of missiles really wouldn be noticed in the cold war
> R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia carries mirvs and penetration aids etc etc.



the French system is more expensive than the UK system. building everything from scratch and having a tiny production run will do that for any project.

the French system is also less flexible, it can't be used - effectively - as a counterforce system, its far more of an all or nothing system, and while its quite possible to argue that in some cases its a nothing system when 'a bit' would be ideal, its also possible to argue that its an 'all' system when just 'a bit' would be far better.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 9, 2015)

Thanks to kebabking and likesfish for their responses there. But it looks to me as if the fact that the French system is (apparently) less flexible makes it less likely to be used as anything other than a very last resort, while the flexibility of the US system means that it's more likely that someday a situation will arise when the bomb would be used in anger. . . or as a piece of cold calculated Machiavellianism.

And I'm sure I read somewhere (even though "I read it somewhere" is not an acceptable citation) that the French system would have been used if even one Soviet soldier had stepped foot across the French border.

Which I suppose underlines the fundamental differences in not just nuclear policy, but also general military and geopolitical policy between the UK and France. In the case of France the motto is "1940 must never be allowed to happen again", while in London's case it's "Suez must never be allowed to happen again".

Though for ordinary people it's "I hope what happened to my son/nephew/brother/father/grandfather/uncle/cousin/sister/mother/grandmother/aunt etc. never happens again".


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 9, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Even if Corbyn had bowed to the arbitrary standards set by the gutter press, they'd have insisted that he anoint the feet of the dead too.


I'll just leave this here:


----------



## kebabking (Nov 9, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Thanks to kebabking and likesfish for their responses there. But it looks to me as if the fact that the French system is (apparently) less flexible makes it less likely to be used as anything other than a very last resort, while the flexibility of the US system means that it's more likely that someday a situation will arise when the bomb would be used in anger. . . or as a piece of cold calculated Machiavellianism...



i think the problem with the French system is not this or that capability or non-capability, its that someone is more likely to believe that they can construct a situation which is harmful to France, but which _they think_ falls well short of 'the last resort'. as an aside, this is the reason i believe than any government - heres looking at you, David - is criminally irresponsible to announce under what circumstances it would or would not use nuclear weapons...

personally, i rather admire the French, and i think those who believe that they lack _testicular fortitude _are deeply mistaken, but that stupid belief appears to be widespread enough that someday some idiot might be tempted to test it, and its a mistake that we'd all pay for.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Nov 9, 2015)

The irony is that we are so close to being forced to wear red triangles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_triangle_(badge)) if we don't wear red poppies...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 9, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> I'll just leave this here:


Aye. Howarth is a former member of the Monday Club was elected chairman of Conservative Way Forward in 2012. He's racist scum.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

The french still have some airborne nukes if anyone needs a bit of light nuking.
  We chose not to develop any nukes for the storm shadow cruise missile so its a nice cuddlyy 1000lb of high explosive in stead


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Become a bit more Blairite/right wing you mean?



No, not really. Become a bit less full on. For example, 'My government will explore returning the railways to public ownership', rather than 'We will...'

If you want to get into power, don't scare the horse. Once you are in power, then you have five years to make a real difference.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> No I'm not saying you're saying that I'm saying it's the general feeling every remembrance day and it seems to get worse every year.



Sorry, I must have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I share your unease about the relentless glorification of every dead/alive servicemen as our 'heroes'. There were heroes, men whose acts we observed with awe. The majority of us were not heroes, we were people doing our jobs in difficult circumstances, in a constant state of various levels of terror. 'H' Jones was a hero, although I suspect had he survived, he may have been court martialed, or at least his career would not have advanced.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> And what about the millions of innocent civilians in those countries murdered by a retaliatory strike I guess they deserve death too. Absolutely disgusting, but then it fits in with your vile defence of the attacks on the Gaza flotilla for example.



I have decided not to tolerate abusive idiots any longer. You are now on ignore.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I didn't see anything disrespectful in his placing of his wreath.
> He seemed at least as respectful as Cameron.
> Did I miss something?



No, a question was asked, and I answered. The depth of his nod is immaterial to me really.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I have decided not to tolerate abusive idiots any longer. You are now on ignore.


so you'll be dishing out less of it yourself then? good


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Possibly this?
> A useful distraction on the day when the head of UK armed forces made a very deliberate foray into party politics?



What the soldier said was absolutely correct. A deterrence is of no use if you state categorically that it won't be used.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

ddraig said:


> so you'll be dishing out less of it yourself then? good



You are being considerably less than accurate here. You will struggle to find a post where I gratuitously abused anyone. I used to respond, now I just put obnoxious arseholes like OU on ignore.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Worse than fucking Hitler.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Even if Corbyn had bowed to the arbitrary standards set by the gutter press, they'd have insisted that he anoint the feet of the dead too.



Indeed. The press (both right and left) do not like Corbyn.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

Thing is trident doesnt work like that anyway if somebody decided to nuke us less than a dozen nukes would kill 90% of the  population.
 And jezza wouldnt even know what was happening 

So trident doesnr get  to hear the archers nukes fly


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

existentialist said:


> This.
> 
> I got involved in an opera thing that had been commissioned to mark the start of WW1. I played the part of the "recruiting officer", and had to play a scene in which we'd gone to a village to get people to sign up. The recruiting officer was not a pleasant character - there was lots of moral blackmail, misogyny, and patronising stuff, all aimed at getting young men signed up.
> 
> ...



WWI was indeed a horror. The tactic of basing your battle plan on eventually winning, simply because you have more troops to expend was despicable. WWII was a different story, that was fought to preserve the nation. WWI wasn't.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Thing is trident doesnt work like that anyway if somebody decided to nuke us less than a dozen nukes would kill 90% of the  population.
> And jezza wouldnt even know what was happening
> 
> So trident doesnr get  to hear the archers nukes fly



The thought of using nuclear weapons in a first strike is inconceivable, other than battlefield nukes, they would have been deployed about day 5 or 6 had the Warsaw Pact invaded. North Korea can now reach the US, and their technology in missile design continues. What would Corbyn's response be to NK saying 'Disband your army, and ship your gold reserves to us, or we'll nuke you?'. To say that you will never use nukes in a first strike is one thing, to say we have them but would never use them is quite another.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> You are being considerably less than accurate here. You will struggle to find a post where I gratuitously abused anyone. I used to respond, now I just put obnoxious arseholes like OU on ignore.


errr no you can't hack it and fly off the handle
dishing it out but not taking it


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

ddraig said:


> errr no you can't hack it and fly off the handle
> dishing it out but not taking it



Bollocks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> The thought of using nuclear weapons in a first strike is inconceivable, other than battlefield nukes, they would have been deployed about day 5 or 6 had the Warsaw Pact invaded. North Korea can now reach the US, and their technology in missile design continues. What would Corbyn's response be to NK saying 'Disband your army, and ship your gold reserves to us, or we'll nuke you?'. To say that you will never use nukes in a first strike is one thing, to say we have them but would never use them is quite another.


Just to be clear, the UK needs nukes to protect it from _North Korea_. This is what you're saying here.

You have to feel sorry for Spain and Italy and Germany and Sweden and Poland and Ireland and all the other non-Nuke European countries. They're defenceless against the North Korean threat.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 9, 2015)

has the uk sold nukes to north korea?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2015)

Ax^ said:


> has the uk sold nukes to north korea?


No, but they helped Israel develop them in secret and in violation of international treaties. 

Go UK!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I have decided not to tolerate abusive idiots any longer. You are now on ignore.


That's hardly abuse. It IS vile to advocate the murder of millions of civilians just as a tit for that tactic that hastens the end of the world as we know it.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 9, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, but they helped Israel develop them in secret and in violation of international treaties.
> 
> Go UK!



Britannia fucking up the middle east since the crusades

go UK indeed


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just to be clear, the UK needs nukes to protect it from _North Korea_. This is what you're saying here.
> 
> You have to feel sorry for Spain and Italy and Germany and Sweden and Poland and Ireland and all the other non-Nuke European countries. They're defenceless against the North Korean threat.



No, they are NATO members. They sit under the nuclear umbrella provided by Britain, France* and the US.

Just to put the record straight, I'm no lover of nuclear weapons. Simultaneous multilateral disposal of all nuclear weapons would be a glorious day. People are a wee bit ignorant about the effects of nukes. They seem to think that if Israel nuked Iran, or the US nuked North Korea, it would have no effect on us. They forget about the Welsh and Scottish hill sheep, that were not safe to eat until years after Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was fuck all compared to an air burst nuclear warhead. Use the dreadful things and poison the whole world.

I don't support unilateral disarmament, simply because it keeps the lunatics in check.

*Not sure if France is in NATO at the moment.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, they are NATO members. They sit under the nuclear umbrella provided by Britain, France* and the US.
> 
> Just to put the record straight, I'm no lover of nuclear weapons. Simultaneous multilateral disposal of all nuclear weapons would be a glorious day. People are a wee bit ignorant about the effects of nukes. They seem to think that if Israel nuked Iran, or the US nuked North Korea, it would have no effect on us. They forget about the Welsh and Scottish hill sheep, that were not safe to eat until years after Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was fuck all compared to an air burst nuclear warhead. Use the dreadful things and poison the whole world.
> 
> I don't support unilateral disarmament, simply because it keeps the lunatics in check.


An air burst would be substantially cleaner than a ground burst. The problem with Chernobyl was all the bits of reactor material, but with a bomb, that's less of an issue: the real trouble comes from the the irradiated soil and rock elements, of which there would be thousands of tons.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

existentialist said:


> An air burst would be substantially cleaner than a ground burst. The problem with Chernobyl was all the bits of reactor material, but with a bomb, that's less of an issue: the real trouble comes from the the irradiated soil and rock elements, of which there would be thousands of tons.



An air burst creates a vacuum, which draws a lot of material from the ground, and irradiates it. This then continues up into the atmosphere, and is delivered over big distances by the jet stream. Anyway, we are really arguing over whether you would rather be shot or hanged, both are terrifying scenarios.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> *Not sure if France is in NATO at the moment.


France is in NATO.

Ok, poor old Switzerland. Defenceless in the face of North Korea's might.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

Ax^ said:


> Britannia fucking up the middle east since the crusades
> 
> go UK indeed


 But its cultural innit part of are deep seated traditions just ask the irish


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)




----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> You are being considerably less than accurate here. You will struggle to find a post where I gratuitously abused anyone. I used to respond, now I just put obnoxious arseholes like OU on ignore.


Can someone tell the fool that the post he squealed about wasn't even by OU but me.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 9, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> France is in NATO.
> 
> Ok, poor old Switzerland. Defenceless in the face of North Korea's might.



We are a nation of chocolate lovers, we'd protect Switzerland.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

uk and france possibly stopped the US attempting a "limited" nuclear war in europe.

out of the nuclear club UK and France are the least evil although the UK following the US lead on everything isnt helpful
russia bond villian
USA sane but evil chance to be replaced by more of the sane or Moonbats are us
china evil but not really are problem
isreal evil and capable of starting something possibly the  samson option
india could probably survive a nuclear war with its neighbours
pakistan evil corrupt and paranoid that america's going to steal its nukes

North korea eat a snickers kim please not really a threat but a problem never the less

also runs

iran of course its for peaceful use the fact its underground surrounded by missiles is for self defence
japan could have nukes with in 6 months if they wanted them possibly doesnt.Germany and canada similarly
argentina the nazis have all died by now so no chance 
south africa they burned the plans


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 9, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


>


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's hardly abuse. It IS vile to advocate the murder of millions of civilians just as a tit for that tactic that hastens the end of the world as we know it.



 It works though obscene as it is nuke me I nuke you. Has stopped the 3rd world war happening on numerous occasions nothing other than mad seems to work.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> It works though obscene as it is nuke me I nuke you. Has stopped the 3rd world war happening on numerous occasions [B}nothing other than mad seems to work.[/B]


In a thread with some spectacularly stupid posts this might be the best (tied with likefish's last stream of shite). How the fuck can you possibly know that strategies other than MAD won't work? Is it based on some special exploration of all the alternate dimensions? 

What absolute fucking brain dribbling nonsense


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> In a thread with some spectacularly stupid posts this might be the best (tied with likefish's last stream of shite). How the fuck can you possibly know that strategies other than MAD won't work? Is it based on some special exploration of all the alternate dimensions?
> 
> What absolute fucking brain dribbling nonsense


Has a nation with a nuke ever been messed with?. What was the alternative strategy in the Cold war then?. Trust the Soviets would just stop at Eastern Europe?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

likesfish said:


> uk and france possibly stopped the US attempting a "limited" nuclear war in europe.
> 
> out of the nuclear club UK and France are the least evil although the UK following the US lead on everything isnt helpful
> russia bond villian
> ...


i beg your pardon?


----------



## Gromit (Nov 9, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Has a nation with a nuke ever been messed with?. What was the alternative strategy in the Cold war then?. Trust the Soviets would just stop at Eastern Europe?



Define messed with? America has nukes and had two airliners flown into their major financial center causing huge economic harm and chaos.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Has a nation with a nuke ever been messed with?. What was the alternative strategy in the Cold war then?. Trust the Soviets would just stop at Eastern Europe?


The Argentinians invaded the Falklands, despite Britain having nukes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Has a nation with a nuke ever been messed with?. What was the alternative strategy in the Cold war then?. Trust the Soviets would just stop at Eastern Europe?


Really? The evil red empire just waiting to invade. Christ.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

David Cameron showing us how to bow in a sufficiently respectful manner:


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? The evil red empire just waiting to invade. Christ.


Because they were worth trusting, right?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? The evil red empire just waiting to invade. Christ.



 If they been given a chance they would have gone for it. If only on the grounds you couldn't be a threat if they were in charge.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The Argentinians invaded the Falklands, despite Britain having nukes.


This is a good point. Maybe thatcher realised she didn't need them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 9, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> This is a good point. Maybe thatcher realised she didn't need them.



When welty pwns you it really is time to leave it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> What the soldier said was absolutely correct. A deterrence is of no use if you state categorically that it won't be used.


If you subscribe to the logic of deterrence, that may be right. What is at issue is the fact that 'Sir' Nicolas was (unwisely) drawn into making a very public intervention into a intra and inter party political debate. He has no right to do so in his professional capacity.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Define messed with? America has nukes and had two airliners flown into their major financial center causing huge economic harm and chaos.


where should they have nuked then?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? The evil red empire just waiting to invade. Christ.



The Soviet Union was never going to win prizes for best neighbor Stalin was a monster and those that followed survived the system he created with at best seriously screwed views


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2015)

America remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons against human targets after their invention. Since then, despite the non proliferation treaty, they have spread to a number of nations and no nation has unilaterally disarmed once they were in possession of functional nuclear weapons.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 9, 2015)

ddraig said:


> where should they have nuked then?



If they done Iraq would have probably caused less mess than what they did do.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> America remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons against human targets after their invention. Since then, despite the non proliferation treaty, they have spread to a number of nations and no nation has unilaterally disarmed once they were in possession of functional nuclear weapons.


Thanks for enlightening us.


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> America remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons against human targets after their invention. Since then, despite the non proliferation treaty, they have spread to a number of nations and *no nation has unilaterally disarmed once they were in possession of functional nuclear weapons.*



South Africa...

And in a different manner Kazakhstan and Ukraine.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> South Africa...


I thought someone might come up with that, I did say in possession of functional nuclear weapons, I don't think South Africa ever had that did they?


quiquaquo said:


> And in a different manner Kazakhstan and Ukraine.


Yes a different manner, Soviet nukes based on their land.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2015)

Ukraine got gauruntees from russia and the US about terrtorial integrity in exchange for handing over its nukes. So that worked well


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> In a thread with some spectacularly stupid posts this might be the best (tied with likefish's last stream of shite). How the fuck can you possibly know that strategies other than MAD won't work? Is it based on some special exploration of all the alternate dimensions?
> 
> What absolute fucking brain dribbling nonsense



Well the soviet union and the US both engaged in proxy wars or out right invasions against nuclear powers.
 chinas attacked vietnam
India and pakistan havn't fought a war since they got nukes.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Has a nation with a nuke ever been messed with?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 10, 2015)

Are we in danger of reaching peak poppy?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> South Africa...
> 
> And in a different manner Kazakhstan and Ukraine.



Argentina and Brazil got a long way towards getting nuclear weapons under their respective dictatorships, once democracy returned to those countries they abandoned it.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are we in danger of reaching peak poppy?



Nah, I reckon the current hysteria will run and run for years


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Nah, I reckon the current hysteria will run and run for years


The 'peak bullshit' limit was reached and breached quite some time ago, mind.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2015)

that tatoo of jeremy corbyns face wasn't wearing a poppy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are we in danger of reaching peak poppy?


It serves a particular purpose - normalising constant warfare - so as long as that purpose remains, this will remain. And we have the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 to come soon. There'll be a torrent of bullshit that year.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


>


Both sides had nukes then.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Both sides had nukes then.


North Vietnam had nukes?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2015)

charlie certainly didn't


 he thinks the NVA were soviet proxies


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It serves a particular purpose - normalising constant warfare - so as long as that purpose remains, this will remain. And we have the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 to come soon. There'll be a torrent of bullshit that year.



There will indeed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> charlie certainly didn't
> 
> 
> he thinks the NVA were soviet proxies


Chinese also.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It serves a particular purpose - normalising constant warfare - so as long as that purpose remains, this will remain. And we have the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 to come soon. There'll be a torrent of bullshit that year.



NEVER AGAIN!

*bombs Syria*


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Chinese also.


What?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2015)

copliker said:


> What?


?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It serves a particular purpose - normalising constant warfare - so as long as that purpose remains, this will remain. And we have the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 to come soon. There'll be a torrent of bullshit that year.


I'm pretty sure some bullshit will be ringed out of the 100th anniversary of the Somme next year too. I think that'll really boil my piss because it's worth remembering, if anything screams 'pointless slaughter' it's that, instead it'll be the usual chest prodding from the very class who ordered those men to take an early morning stroll into machine gun fire [emoji35]


----------



## weltweit (Nov 11, 2015)

11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month!


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 11, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm pretty sure some bullshit will be ringed out of the 100th anniversary of the Somme next year too. I think that'll really boil my piss because it's worth remembering, if anything screams 'pointless slaughter' it's that, instead it'll be the usual chest prodding from the very class who ordered those men to take an early morning stroll into machine gun fire [emoji35]



Similar insanity happened even on Armistice Day itself:

The tale of the last American World War I Battle – That took place for a bath


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That enduring exhortation to wear the poppy "*with pride*"
> 
> FFS. Regret maybe, possibly sorrow...but pride?


Sorrow mainly, but with a degree of pride assuredly, esp those who fought in WW2, Iraq, Afghanistan? Blame The politicians,operation banner? What would your alternative have been?


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and on it goes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There, you may have a point.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2015)

coley said:


> Sorrow mainly, but with a degree of pride assuredly, esp those who fought in WW2, Iraq, Afghanistan? Blame The politicians,operation banner? What would your alternative have been?


Seriously, have a look at the meaning of the word, then see if you really think it appropriate.


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Sorry I'm not up on which death machines are currently in or out of service, either way it's not really appropriate. World wars maybe, just maybe off the table. Instead we have instant vapourisation to look forward to.


Good point, much more attractive then death camps, Burma railways etc the repression of large parts of  Eastern Europe ect.


----------



## coley (Nov 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, have a look at the meaning of the word, then see if you really think it appropriate.


Pride or sorrow?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2015)

coley said:


> Pride or sorrow?


Former.


----------



## coley (Nov 13, 2015)

I think anyone on the allied side in WW2 can feel pride in what they achieved, ditto OP Banner, but As in all wars/conflicts there are the conflicting versions of the winners/losers and afterwards the revisionists versions.
Personally. My opinion is to blame the politicians not the PBI.
And it's always difficult to have a discussion between those who have experienced armed conflict and those who try (with the best of interests) to discuss it in the abstract.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2015)

coley said:


> I think anyone on the allied side in WW2 can feel pride in what they achieved, ditto OP Banner, but As in all wars/conflicts there are the conflicting versions of the winners/losers and afterwards the revisionists versions.
> Personally. My opinion is to blame the politicians not the PBI.
> And it's always difficult to have a discussion between those who have experienced armed conflict and those who try (with the best of interests) to discuss it in the abstract.


For clarity...no, I have no experience of armed conflict, but I thought we were discussing the appropriate attitude to effect when wearing a poppy? The symbolism of remembrance and attitudes to it are essentially abstract notions, so we should be able to discuss these matters as equals? 
My Grandfather fought in WW2, from Sword to Eindhoven, and would never have expressed 'pride' about what he was compelled to undertake. He was certainly never proud that so many of his pals died.


----------



## coley (Nov 13, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


>



Fair point, but if push ever comes to shove? It's one thing to bugger around in localised 'proxy wars' but how many on here personally remember the sphincter tightening days of the Cuban missile crisis?


----------



## coley (Nov 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> For clarity...no, I have no experience of armed conflict, but I thought we were discussing the appropriate attitude to effect when wearing a poppy? The symbolism of remembrance and attitudes to it are essentially abstract notions, so we should be able to discuss these matters as equals?
> My Grandfather fought in WW2, from Sword to Eindhoven, and would never have expressed 'pride' about what he was compelled to undertake. He was certainly never proud that so many of his pals died.



It's late and I appreciate your reasoned response, I am going to have a look at my own grandfathers letters in order to give a valid reply.
However, from memory, One grandfather captured at Dunkirk the other,North African campaign,  Italy and Northern Europe. Mebbes "pride" was the wrong word? But what word would you use in describing your small  part in ridding  humanity  of Hitler and to a large part, fascism in the last 70 years?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2015)

coley said:


> It's late and I appreciate your reasoned response, I am going to have a look at my own grandfathers letters in order to give a valid reply.
> However, from memory, One grandfather captured at Dunkirk the other,North African campaign,  Italy and Northern Europe. Mebbes "pride" was the wrong word? But what word would you use in describing your small  part in ridding  humanity  of Hitler and to a large part, fascism in the last 70 years?


I think it's entirely normal, understandable and right for folk to engage in acts of remembrance for those killed in war, but my problem with the BL model is the quasi-militarised, nationalistic focus on ex-service personnel. I do think that regret, sorrow and straightforward remembering are feelings one might associate with a display/symbol of remembrance, along with an acceptance that wars kill more civilians than combatants.

It's interesting how VfP(UK) have very visibly re-instated the "Never Again" exhortation previously associated with organised acts of remembrance. It is shameful that such a sentiment no longer has a place in the state's orchestration of national observance.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I think it's entirely normal, understandable and right for folk to engage in acts of remembrance for those killed in war, but my problem with the BL model is the quasi-militarised, nationalistic focus on ex-service personnel. I do think that regret, sorrow and straightforward remembering are feelings one might associate with a display/symbol of remembrance, along with an acceptance that wars kill more civilians than combatants.
> 
> It's interesting how VfP(UK) have very visibly re-instated the "Never Again" exhortation previously associated with organised acts of remembrance. It is shameful that such a sentiment no longer has a place in the state's orchestration of national observance.
> 
> View attachment 79574



 Probably because you can't say it with a straight face


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Probably because you can't say it with a straight face


They not 'you'?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They not 'you'?



Either I grew up with the cold war "Can't have a war it will be the end of the world" just lot and lots of little ones.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Either I grew up with the cold war "Can't have a war it will be the end of the world" just lot and lots of little ones.


'Spoons?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 'Spoons?



What a prophetic post.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2017)

Well I was very lucky in that my dad survived the war and went on to the ripe old age of 86. But he took remembrance day seriously, as did the surviving members of his unit.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 27, 2017)

weltweit said:


> Well I was very lucky in that my dad survived the war and went on to the ripe old age of 86. But he took remembrance day seriously, as did the surviving members of his unit.



Straight back into the fight, the two intervening years were just a brief pause before continuing  with the really important stuff.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Straight back into the fight, the two intervening years were just a brief pause before continuing  with the really important stuff.


 I have no scooby what you are on about !


----------



## J Ed (Oct 27, 2017)

Red, btw. The Peace Pledge Union is fash adjacent.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Red, btw. The Peace Pledge Union is fash adjacent.


 They were either naive or stupid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2017)

dylanredefined said:


> They were either naive or stupid.



Given some of their luminaries, probably both.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 8, 2017)

Oh dear. Get your right-wing ringpiece bingo cards out lads.

http://www.yorkSHITEpost.co.uk/news...uldn-t-force-white-ones-on-children-1-8845598

(Link broken to deny them the clicks they're so desperately courting)



> *‘Sorry snowflakes, I’m proud to wear a red poppy and we shouldn’t force white ones on children’*
> 
> (...)
> In our *rabidly PC culture*, there are a growing number of people who would love to do away with any form of recollection of the two World Wars. They believe in the philosophy of least said soonest mended. They believe any mention of the war is bound to upset the Germans or the Japanese and really, after all this time, isn’t it better for us to forget all about it?
> ...



Did he miss anything out? Bonus points for 'they've banned Christmas'.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

he's got less followers than me on twitter, the no mark


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> he's got less followers than me on twitter, the no mark



Can you have a negative number of followers?


----------



## Badgers (Sep 27, 2020)




----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 27, 2020)

Oooh, poppy-branded facemasks are gonna cause some cognitive dissonance in a few people


----------



## 8ball (Sep 27, 2020)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 231981



Obvious lie.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2020)

8ball said:


> Obvious lie.


Yes, it wasn’t Bobby Davro obviously, it was Bobby Ball.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 27, 2020)

8ball said:


> Obvious lie.


Which part?


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Which part?


I've already said, they got the wrong Bobby!


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2020)

8ball said:


> Obvious lie.


You saw through the wrong Bobby too?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 27, 2020)

A380 said:


> You saw through the wrong Bobby too?



IT WAS BOBBIE CHARLTON!!


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2021)

Royal British Legion Industries Shop | Tommy Lapel Pin (5 Pack)
					

Wear a Tommy Lapel Pin, and show your support for our veterans. A small version of the iconic Tommy silhouette, now available in pin form. This commemorative metal pin measure 2.4cm by 1.2cm and is secured with a butterfly fastening. There are 5 Tommy lapel pins in this pack. Wear the pin to...




					rbli.shop
				




Tasteful. I might get two.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Oct 31, 2021)

I don't bother with any poppies. I did go through a phase of wearing the white one, but to me it represents pacifism and I'm not a pacifist so I stopped wearing it. I'm happy to stay out of the whole thing and to me the poppy represents deference to the ruling class. I see it as a pro-war, pro-capitalist symbol of British militarism and imperialism. I am aware that the poppy appeal was originally called the Haig Fund and was started by Butcher Haig, and that's reason enough for me to not wear it.

Saw an old woman wearing a poppy themed waistcoat yesterday. That kind of thing isn't too uncommon where I am.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 31, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I don't bother with any poppies. I did go through a phase of wearing the white one, but to me it represents pacifism and I'm not a pacifist so I stopped wearing it. I'm happy to stay out of the whole thing.
> 
> Saw an old woman wearing a poppy themed waistcoat yesterday. That kind of thing isn't too uncommon where I am.


Buying and wearing of poppies is sold to us as an act of remembrance but is really a fund raising mechanism for the Royal British Legion.

The Royal British Legion carry out activities that the government should be doing. It's a fucking disgrace that they dont. They also lobby the government on behalf of the armed forces to do what they should be doing.

If the government did their job properly (through taxes) there would no need for the RBL, no need for citizens to subsidise the government (absconding responsibilities) through charity and less cost to the environment and economy (caused the need of a third party to exist and manufacture fake flowers).

I'm not participating in this bad system. I tithe direct to other charities from my salary instead.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2021)

Why did Prem football clubs do a remembrance thing before kick off this weekend? Remembrance day is two weeks away


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

Gromit said:


> Buying and wearing of poppies is sold to us as an act of remembrance but is really a fund raising mechanism for the Royal British Legion.
> 
> The Royal British Legion carry out activities that the government should be doing. It's a fucking disgrace that they dont. They also lobby the government on behalf of the armed forces to do what they should be doing.
> 
> ...



What charities? Surely you could argue that they are all doing something the government should do instead?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Why did Prem football clubs do a remembrance thing before kick off this weekend? Remembrance day is two weeks away



It's a movable festival beginning on the last Saturday in October and ending on Remembrance Sunday, which this year is the 14th of November.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 31, 2021)

A380 said:


> Yes, it wasn’t Bobby Davro obviously, it was Bobby Ball.





TopCat said:


> Royal British Legion Industries Shop | Tommy Lapel Pin (5 Pack)
> 
> 
> Wear a Tommy Lapel Pin, and show your support for our veterans. A small version of the iconic Tommy silhouette, now available in pin form. This commemorative metal pin measure 2.4cm by 1.2cm and is secured with a butterfly fastening. There are 5 Tommy lapel pins in this pack. Wear the pin to...
> ...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 31, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Why did Prem football clubs do a remembrance thing before kick off this weekend? Remembrance day is two weeks away



there's no premier league / championship matches over the 13/14 november weekend, as there's international matches on.

many teams that are at home this weekend will be away next weekend, so this weekend is the home match nearest to remembrance day for most teams.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What charities? Surely you could argue that they are all doing something the government should do instead?


Médecins Sans Frontières
UNICEF
Shelter
Cancer Research

I definitely agree the government should be solving homelessness by fixing the house prices and stock availability. But that won't happen as politicians personally profit from an inflated house market and there but for the grace of God goes us.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 31, 2021)

Would be mildly interested to know if the proportions on this thread would've changed at all since the original poll in 2014?


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 31, 2021)

Had to do a bit of digging, but did manage to find the Glasgow black poppies from back in 2014:








						Black Poppy Appeal – Lest We Forget…
					

Last night, on the 6th Nov 2014, counter-militarism activists pasted 16,000 black poppies (1) around the city of Glasgow to appeal to the public to consider what Remembrance Sunday means. Each popp…




					resistmilitarism.wordpress.com


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 1, 2021)

I don't bother with them including the refusenik ones. It's a bit like clapping for the NHS.


----------



## spring-peeper (Nov 1, 2021)

I blocked most of them, but there is a recurring theme that Muslims are offended by the poppy.  So, make sure you wear one.

Dumbasses don't understand that Muslims fought in the wars.

I think it is all based on a twerp named Don Cherry's comments in 2019



> "*You people... you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that*,"



He was canceled, but his fan base think that the offensive part was calling immigrants "You people".

They really don't understand that the offensive bit was after that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 1, 2021)

They're 'offended' by bacon sandwiches and christmas also despite there being zero evidence of that being the case.


----------



## spring-peeper (Nov 1, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They're 'offended' by bacon sandwiches and christmas also despite there being zero evidence of that being the case.




Oh yes, was seeing a lot of those, too!

"Say Merry Christmas , not Happy Holidays".
When polled, the Muslims were not offended.  Most liked the lights and trees.  It gives a bit of colour to a very dull world.

As for bacon sandwiches, a Muslim friend was asked about bacon.  He said that he was taught to treat it as an allergy.  

Underlying theme seems to be very anti-Muslim.
I struggle to understand their fear.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don't bother with them including the refusenik ones. It's a bit like clapping for the NHS.



I have a black poppy knocking about somewhere that I bought a few years ago.  It got picked up by anarchists, mutineer supporters, anti-militarists and those wanting to remember the non-white people who died in the wars so got a bit confusing (though I support all of those things).  I couldn't much be arsed explaining it, didn't want to be attention-seeking (knew a white poppy-wearer who had a lecture down pat and was always eager to launch into it), and just really from wanted to put some money in the tin and support remembering the terrible losses of that part of the last century and support those still around who were affected without being associated with the militaristic associations of the red poppy (I defiantly stuck with the red poppy for a while but the meaning seemed to shift too much for comfort).

So now I just chuck some money in the tin and don't wear one.

As an aside, I once ate a bacon sandwich in front of a Muslim friend and it didn't really occur to me until someone I was with said afterwards that they didn't want to go for the bacon sandwich in case it made them uncomfortable.  Can understand people trying to be sensitive but think I got away with it.


----------



## spring-peeper (Nov 1, 2021)

8ball said:


> I have a black poppy knocking about somewhere that I bought a few years ago.  It got picked up by anarchists, mutineer supporters, anti-militarists and those wanting to remember the non-white people who died in the wars so got a bit confusing.  I couldn't much be arsed explaining it, didn't want to be attention-seeking (knew a white poppy-wearer who had a lecture down pat and was always eager to launch into it), and just really from wanted to put some money in the tin and support remembering the terrible losses of that part of the last century and support those still around who were affeced without being associated with the militaristic associations of the red poppy (I defiantly stuck with the red poppy for a while but the meaning seemed to shift too much for comfort).
> 
> So now I just chuck some money in the tin and don't wear one.




Over in Canada, we only have one colour.
The red poppies are not only a reminder, but a fundraiser for the Legions.



yes, y'all can google and find some random article about black poppies and poppies for dead service animals.
The Legion's red poppies are what majority wear.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2021)

spring-peeper said:


> Over in Canada, we only have one colour.
> The red poppies are not only a reminder, but a fundraiser for the Legions.
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, same here - almost all red poppies.


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 3, 2021)




----------



## petee (Nov 3, 2021)

spring-peeper said:


> Don Cherry



that piece of shit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 3, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Would be mildly interested to know if the proportions on this thread would've changed at all since the original poll in 2014?



If there were any WW2-era conscripts still alive in 2014 they're surely now dead, and with them any reason to ever wear a poppy.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 3, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> If there were any WW2-era conscripts still alive in 2014 they're surely now dead, and with them any reason to ever wear a poppy.



Surely WW1 troops?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 3, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> If there were any WW2-era conscripts still alive in 2014 they're surely now dead, and with them any reason to ever wear a poppy.


we could ask sas


----------



## two sheds (Nov 3, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Surely WW1 troops?


we could ask sas


----------



## LDC (Nov 3, 2021)

PR1Berske said:


>




Saw this gem on her thread after a comment about a new train line from London to Grimsby.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 3, 2021)

two sheds said:


> we could ask sas



I always assumed he was the last Crimean war vet still on the books tbh.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2021)

The whole of my nearest town (aspires to tweeness at the best of times) has been draped with hand made crochete*d* red poppies, the whole fucking place, they are wound around the post boxes and bollards and draped over shop signs like pustules of self regarding wretchedness.
 I get that it was probably nice for whoever got together to make them and eat biscuits or whatever but there's something about them just encapsulates all the things i hate about england.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2021)

I was in Biggin Hill yesterday and every lamp post on every main road has a poppy on it - its not a tiny place, thats hundreds and hundreds of poppies - big ones too. Cant caputre it on a photo as its the endlessness of it all thats mindboggling


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2021)

i dont really know what its about but am convinced its not about what they say it is.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 3, 2021)

spring-peeper said:


> Over in Canada, we only have one colour.
> The red poppies are not only a reminder, but a fundraiser for the Legions.
> 
> yes, y'all can google and find some random article about black poppies and poppies for dead service animals.
> The Legion's red poppies are what majority wear.


Do you have the weird performative culture about it though? The kind of stuff documented all over this thread? That seems like a particularly British kind of brainrot to me, I could be wrong though.


----------



## LDC (Nov 3, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> ... performative culture ... brainrot


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2021)

this is interesting (just tried to find out what goes on in germany) Volkstrauertag - Wikipedia


----------



## Sue (Nov 3, 2021)

8ball said:


> As an aside, I once ate a bacon sandwich in front of a Muslim friend and it didn't really occur to me until someone I was with said afterwards that they didn't want to go for the bacon sandwich in case it made them uncomfortable.  Can understand people trying to be sensitive but think I got away with it.


I think that's a bit weird -- it really wouldn't be a problem for any of the Muslim people I know. Why not ask them?

I mean would you not eat meat in front of a veggie? I'm veggie and people do it all the time and I'm like 🤷‍♀️.


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 3, 2021)

Bacon is not Kryptonite, you won't turn a Muslim to dust by eating one.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 3, 2021)

The old "muslims are offended by your bacon butty" thing is just made up right wing/far right culture war bollocks. I don't think I've ever met a muslim who would give a toss, and I've worked with literally hundreds of muslims from Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Qatar, and pretty much every country in the so-called "muslim world", as well as UK muslims. The only response I've ever seen over me having me pork pie snap in front of them is a laugh when I said they'll probably not want me to share it with them - oh and the time when I said to someone I met in the street, "I won't shake hands with you fella, I've got bacon butty grease on my hands" was also met with a laugh, a nod but no hand shake. Basically, 99.99999% of muslims (true statistic that ) don't give a flying fuck about what you're eating, just as long as they're not expected to partake as well.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 3, 2021)

ska invita said:


> I was in Biggin Hill yesterday and every lamp post on every main road has a poppy on it - its not a tiny place, thats hundreds and hundreds of poppies - big ones too. Cant caputre it on a photo as its the endlessness of it all thats mindboggling



All straight in the bin and new ones next year no doubt.

Show me someone who is really into this remembrance stuff and who isn't some kind of dodgy nationalist and you win a packet of hob nobs.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 3, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Why did Prem football clubs do a remembrance thing before kick off this weekend? Remembrance day is two weeks away


The home team does it this weekend and next weekend (that way every club does it) cos the weekend that is nearest the 11th November is an international break so there is no Premier league or Championship football that week.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 3, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think that's a bit weird -- it really wouldn't be a problem for any of the Muslim people I know. Why not ask them?
> 
> I mean would you not eat meat in front of a veggie? I'm veggie and people do it all the time and I'm like 🤷‍♀️.



Yeah, I think it's odd too - most of the Muslims I've met are not remotely spiky about anything - it was pointed out to me by a third person that they wouldn't have felt easy about it doing it themselves.  Good to have a sanity check on that when it's something that's only happened once - I've committed plenty of social slips in the past due to not knowing some rule or other.


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> If there were any WW2-era conscripts still alive in 2014 they're surely now dead, and with them any reason to ever wear a poppy.


Whatever your stance on wearing them, nothing has changed War and it losses didnt stop in 1945


----------



## 8ball (Nov 4, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> Whatever your stance on wearing them, nothing has changed War and it losses didnt stop in 1945



So much for "remembering".


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 7, 2021)




----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 7, 2021)

Where I live theres a poppy appeal gazebo in the high street in front of the local memorial every day. Yesterday they had a bloke dressed up as a first world war soldier standing there. Even had a gun.


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 7, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Where I live theres a poppy appeal gazebo in the high st in front of the local memorial every day. Yesterday they had a bloke dressed up as a first world war soldier standing there. Even had a gun.



Bloody hell.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2021)




----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 7, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Where I live theres a poppy appeal gazebo in the high st in front of the local memorial every day. Yesterday they had a bloke dressed up as a first world war soldier standing there. Even had a gun.



Loads of kids in uniform, cadets I assume, at Liverpool st yesterday.

Grim.


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 7, 2021)




----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2021)

No


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 7, 2021)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 7, 2021)

8ball said:


> Yeah, same here - almost all red poppies.


#notallpoppies


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 7, 2021)

Anyone from outside the UK must be watching all this with the look of scientists examining new diseases.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> No


Good to see you back


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


>


First time as tragedy 100th time as tawdry farce


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 7, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Loads of kids in uniform, cadets I assume, at Liverpool st yesterday.
> 
> Grim.


Yeah it is indeed a grim sight. You see kids in uniform round here sometimes and there's a military school near by.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 7, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


>


Rather phallic


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2021)

Yep, 100 years since the nascent RBL* adopted the American idea of adopting the poppy as the symbol of remembrance.

In a sense the poppy marks the establishment fear of really existing system competition as the creation of the RBL was very much a response to the radical politics of some of the previously existing ex-serviceman's organisations that were subsumed with its creation. Alongside the outsourcing of responsibility of funding the care & rehabilitation of those maimed fighting for the state.

*i think the decision had already been taken by the establishment's immediate precursor to the RBL, the Earl Haig Fund.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Rather phallic


Poppycock


----------



## NoXion (Nov 7, 2021)

The tacky overuse of the poppy iconography is just baffling. Who on Earth thinks that's a good idea? It's like they use the flowers to censor the reality of war - the blood and guts running into the muddy ground, the life-changing and disfiguring injuries, even the soldiers themselves are obscured in a wave of poppies. Anonymised in silhouette, the complexities of the human beings that fought and suffered and died are rendered down into cookie-cutter symbolism. The negligence of the brass in accounting for their losses has been re-enlisted as The Unknown Warrior.

If I were in charge of organising this shit, I would make damn sure that everyone gets an opportunity to appoint themselves with the grim realities of total armed conflict. The people who killed and died weren't unknown to their friends, families and communities, and they need not have been pushed to kill and perish so senselessly.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2021)

There'll be no flowers to mark humanity's passing after the climate crisis.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2021)

Is there such a thing as a green poppy? If not, that would really wind the fuckers up.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2021)

A green poppy and an Easter lilly


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The tacky overuse of the poppy iconography is just baffling. Who on Earth thinks that's a good idea? It's like they use the flowers to censor the reality of war - the blood and guts running into the muddy ground, the life-changing and disfiguring injuries, even the soldiers themselves are obscured in a wave of poppies. Anonymised in silhouette, the complexities of the human beings that fought and suffered and died are rendered down into cookie-cutter symbolism. The negligence of the brass in accounting for their losses has been re-enlisted as The Unknown Warrior.
> 
> If I were in charge of organising this shit, I would make damn sure that everyone gets an opportunity to appoint themselves with the grim realities of total armed conflict. The people who killed and died weren't unknown to their friends, families and communities, and they need not have been pushed to kill and perish so senselessly.


Don't disagree, but when I came across this old image of the (pre RBL) 1920 commemoration of the war dead from my old town of Faversham, it certainly didn't look restrained.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 7, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> There'll be no flowers to mark humanity's passing after the climate crisis.



Because odds are good humanity will still be around. I'm serious, we need to drop this idea that climate change is a threat to our species. Apart from being based on dodgy science, it's demoralising rather than motivating.



brogdale said:


> Don't disagree, but when I came across this old image of the (pre RBL) 1920 commemoration of the war dead from my old town of Faversham, it certainly didn't look restrained.
> 
> View attachment 295853



I suspect that back in 1920 a lot of the people who put the flowers there lost someone they knew personally. That image looks more like an exaggerated version of those sad collections of flowers one sees after a fatal road traffic accident.


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 7, 2021)

ska invita said:


> View attachment 295821


----------



## spitfire (Nov 7, 2021)

We need a bunfight between the 2 competing poppy threads.



spitfire said:


>







			https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/poppy-rage-2019-2021-style.367438/page-21


----------



## quiet guy (Nov 7, 2021)

PR1Berske said:


>



The top one is a concept camouflage design that they didn't take up when invading Afghan poppy fields


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

There is/was a pub in Stockton that is dedicated to remembering the war dead all year round. And naturally it’s a fash magnet. It’s another level. Think it might have moved to Thornaby now.


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There is/was a pub in Stockton that is dedicated to remembering the war dead all year round. And naturally it’s a fash magnet. It’s another level. Think it might have moved to Thornaby now.
> 
> View attachment 295867


A lorry driving past would surely cause mass stabbings.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 7, 2021)

Thing is, I remember doing the remembrance day parade stuff with the scouts thirty odd years ago, it was always solemn and dignified. The names read out from the memorial included surnames of families still in the village, Stenners, Bucks, Sharps, you’d look around at the faces, people remembering fathers, brothers, uncles. Many living still had a connection to the loss, would have been there, would have got that telegram. It had meaning.

Now there’s barely anyone even with that close a connection to those lost in WW2, now 76 years past. It just seems performative pro-war patriotism with no personal connection to the blood and horror, virtue-signalling nonsense. Not what it was.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

PR1Berske said:


> A lorry driving past would surely cause mass stabbings.





Spoiler



Let’s not attract them. She whinged loudly about being labelled ‘fascist’ but the news report here doesn’t mention her working with Infidels. 









						'We're not racist': War memorial bar to hold open day to battle rumours
					

'We need to end these rumours that we’re something that we’re not' says owner Julie Cooper




					www.google.co.uk


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 7, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Thing is, I remember doing the remembrance day parade stuff with the scouts thirty odd years ago, it was always solemn and dignified. The names read out from the memorial included surnames of families still in the village, Stenners, Bucks, Sharps, you’d look around at the faces, people remembering fathers, brothers, uncles. Many living still had a connection to the loss, would have been there, would have got that telegram. It had meaning.
> 
> Now there’s barely anyone even with that close a connection to those lost in WW2, now 76 years past. It just seems performative pro-war patriotism with no personal connection to the blood and horror, virtue-signalling nonsense. Not what it was.


It's theatre. A country without an empire, without industry, demanding we all participate in a scripted performance for the approval of the establishment.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 7, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Thing is, I remember doing the remembrance day parade stuff with the scouts thirty odd years ago, it was always solemn and dignified. The names read out from the memorial included surnames of families still in the village, Stenners, Bucks, Sharps, you’d look around at the faces, people remembering fathers, brothers, uncles. Many living still had a connection to the loss, would have been there, would have got that telegram. It had meaning.
> 
> Now there’s barely anyone even with that close a connection to those lost in WW2, now 76 years past. It just seems performative pro-war patriotism with no personal connection to the blood and horror, virtue-signalling nonsense. Not what it was.




It is not what it was but is not really virtue signalling either. My mum and dad are still with us and they remember their fathers, RAF and Royal Navy respectively. They came through unscathed but a number of their mates didn’t, their kids will still be knocking around in their 70’s and 80’s. I remember my grandfathers. I am so very grateful to live in a  time where I am not asked to do what they had to do. Or worse, what my great uncle had to to, his name is on the Menin Gate. Of course I never knew him nor did my mum, but the connection is there, these young men and some women left our leafy, safe town and put themselves out there for what was thought to be a greater good and they never came home. Their families suffered a lifetime of pain as a result. That pain decends the generations. Anything more than a simple poppy in a lapel and 30 minutes stood outside in November is fucking bobbins though.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 8, 2021)

The darts.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Nov 8, 2021)

Has this been posted yet?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> i dont really know what its about but am convinced its not about what they say it is.











						Banal nationalism - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2021)

Made the mistake of mentioning to someone i don't know that well that i do not love the local town's rash of crocheted poppies and they were truly horrified by me. That was interesting, it was as if i'd done a big transgression to say anything even slightly mocking or negative about the decorations. Won't be doing that again in a hurry.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> Made the mistake of mentioning to someone i don't know that well that i do not love the local town's rash of crocheted poppies and they were truly horrified by me. That was interesting, it was as if i'd done a big transgression to say anything even slightly mocking or negative about the decorations. Won't be doing that again in a hurry.



Did you at least get the opportunity to explain why you felt like that? Because I don't think I could have held that kind of thing back, myself. 

If the subject ever comes up IRL, I'm definitely giving voice to my unease concerning the excessive and erasing iconography, as well as the mawkish sentimentality that seems to have inappropriately crept in on an occasion that, in my unabashed opinion, should actually be kept a little bit grim in order to properly remind us.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 8, 2021)

In my home town Square yesterday there were a gaggle of old and young dressed in uniform or war-time fashion with war-time usic blaring out. 

One of the gallant youngsters stopped me and said 'Can see you have not got your poppy yet, lets fix that'  

Asked her how her own family were affected by the wars and she didn't even know.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> Made the mistake of mentioning to someone i don't know that well that i do not love the local town's rash of crocheted poppies and they were truly horrified by me. That was interesting, it was as if i'd done a big transgression to say anything even slightly mocking or negative about the decorations. Won't be doing that again in a hurry.



Yeah it seems to me that a big part of this stuff is the licence it gives people to have a go at anyone not going along with it. Ironically because it's 'not political.'


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Did you at least get the opportunity to explain why you felt like that? Because I don't think I could have held that kind of thing back, myself.
> 
> If the subject ever comes up IRL, I'm definitely giving voice to my unease concerning the excessive and erasing iconography, as well as the mawkish sentimentality that seems to have inappropriately crept in on an occasion that, in my unabashed opinion, should actually be kept a little bit grim in order to properly remind us.


Thinking about it now, it was like mentioning this feeling just confirmed for them that i'm not Not One Of Us / Not Properly British, in their eyes, maybe i'm imagining it but they know me well enough to know i'm a jew and my parents foreigners and it felt like the way they looked at me was kind of oh of course you wouldn't understand. maybe i'm imagaining that idk, but like i don't have a license to disparage the great national remembrancing or something. It was like i'd taken a shit on the queen, their faces. Very weird.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> Made the mistake of mentioning to someone i don't know that well that i do not love the local town's rash of crocheted poppies and they were truly horrified by me. That was interesting, it was as if i'd done a big transgression to say anything even slightly mocking or negative about the decorations. Won't be doing that again in a hurry.


Did you not say, "It's not an extra halloween party, it's not an Xmas fairly lights competition between neighbours, it's supposed to be the solemn rememberance of a catastrophic tragedy that killed millions. Instead, we get poppy cakes, poppy knitting and all sorts of celebratory nationalistic shite"?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> Thinking about it now, it was like mentioning this feeling just confirmed for them that i'm not Not One Of Us / Not Properly British, in their eyes, maybe i'm imagining it but they know me well enough to know i'm a jew and my parents foreigners and it felt like the way they looked at me was kind of oh of course you wouldn't understand. maybe i'm imagaining that idk, but like i don't have a license to disparage the great national remembrancing or something. It was like i'd taken a shit on the queen, their faces. Very weird.


I know exactly what you mean. C.f. when I was asked about what I was doing to celebrate the queen’s jubilee and I simply said nothing and when pushed, I then just said, “I’m not a fan of the monarchy” and the result was that the woman I was speaking to told lots of people how much I had offended her. True story, exactly as straightforward as I have just reported it. Merely not obeying the groupthink is enough to be a heretic, let alone actually _doing_ anything outside the prescribed parameters.  And I also don’t have a British background.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 8, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The tacky overuse of the poppy iconography is just baffling. Who on Earth thinks that's a good idea? It's like they use the flowers to censor the reality of war - the blood and guts running into the muddy ground, the life-changing and disfiguring injuries, even the soldiers themselves are obscured in a wave of poppies. Anonymised in silhouette, the complexities of the human beings that fought and suffered and died are rendered down into cookie-cutter symbolism. The negligence of the brass in accounting for their losses has been re-enlisted as The Unknown Warrior.
> 
> If I were in charge of organising this shit, I would make damn sure that everyone gets an opportunity to appoint themselves with the grim realities of total armed conflict. The people who killed and died weren't unknown to their friends, families and communities, and they need not have been pushed to kill and perish so senselessly.


I'm not the greatest expert on WWI poetry, but I always find it fascinating how the WWI poets seem to have predicted this, or it feels like they wouldn't be surprised by it.
_The boys came back. Bands played and flags were flying,   
 And Yellow-Pressmen thronged the sunlit street   
To cheer the soldiers who’d refrained from dying,   
 And hear the music of returning feet.   
‘Of all the thrills and ardours War has brought,
This moment is the finest.’ (So they thought.) _
And so on.


Magnus McGinty said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"war pub to battle rumours" is a great choice of words.


DownwardDog said:


> The darts.
> 
> View attachment 295912


This one is fantastic.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2021)

This is an account of one NFDDSS event that spooked the authorities into the creation of the establishment vehicle for ex-servicemen/rememberance:



The whole Chapter "THE RADICAL EX-SERVICEMEN OF 1918 PAUL BURNHAM" is worth a read in the PDF link above.


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 8, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I'm not the greatest expert on WWI poetry, but I always find it fascinating how the WWI poets seem to have predicted this, or it feels like they wouldn't be surprised by it.
> _The boys came back. Bands played and flags were flying,   _
> _And Yellow-Pressmen thronged the sunlit street
> To cheer the soldiers who’d refrained from dying,   _
> ...


Which has reminded me of.....


----------



## NoXion (Nov 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> Thinking about it now, it was like mentioning this feeling just confirmed for them that i'm not Not One Of Us / Not Properly British, in their eyes, maybe i'm imagining it but they know me well enough to know i'm a jew and my parents foreigners and it felt like the way they looked at me was kind of oh of course you wouldn't understand. maybe i'm imagaining that idk, but like i don't have a license to disparage the great national remembrancing or something. It was like i'd taken a shit on the queen, their faces. Very weird.



Fair point, I can understand why you might not want to pursue the matter. I think I would get a much different reaction, although I also get the impression that the Colonel Blimp types are also a bit thicker on the ground in your area.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 8, 2021)

Found this extract from book on remembrance.









						The Politics of War Commemoration in the UK and Russia
					

This book analyses contemporary war commemoration in Britain and Russia. Focusing on the political aspects of remembrance, it explores the instrumentalisation of memory for managing civil-military relations and garnering public support for conflicts. It explains the nexus between remembrance...



					books.google.co.uk
				




Just the few pages I read have put me off buying a poppy.

I grew up in 60s/70s in naval Town. But can't remember remembrance day being like it is now. The book says in 70s there was decline in support for military. Not being against it but lack of interest in it.

Iraq and Afghanistan changed that as well as New Labour under Blair and Brown trying to forge a new patriotism.

Brown gave speech to Fabisn society in 2006. Saying that Remembrance day is equivalent to Bastille day or July fourth. Unites the nation around what he said were British values of liberty, fairness and responsibility.

This fed into the new Citizenship classes. Gradually this has seen the militarization of citizenship.

Cameron continued this view of common British identity around remembrance.

Iraq war was a problem for New Labour. Millions opposed it. The government / military were afraid things could turn back to the seventies with widening gap between the military/ establishment and public.

The Royal British Legion have stepped into this in two ways to reduce the gap.

Supplying teaching materials to schools to be used in citizenship classes. These include ideas like encouraging children to learn to wear a poppy and respect military personnel sacrifices. This is part of becoming a good citizen. So get them young and drill it into them.

Second thing RBL did was support idea of Military Covenent. Promote it. Idea that there is quasi spiritual relationship between the British people and military. This was response to the massive marches against Iraq war and realisation by Joe Public that it had been started on false premise. Like what brogdale said about WW1 it was realised if nothing was done Joe public might be lost to the establishment. So something had to be done. RBL played important role in this. 

So far from being a neutral charity helping ex servicemen the RBL sees itself as supporting the military itself. With a political role to prop up the establishment. 

Though as previous poster has said "banal patriotism" can hide this.

What is interesting is that both Cameron and Gordon Brown thought that Rememberance could unify the nation and bring people together.

As posts here show this particular form of citizenship/national identity meant to unite people has done the opposite.

Its been formed since late 1990s to now. Partly to deal with opposition to unpopular wars.

Imo their is something dangerous about it. As posters have pointed out any discussion about it and one is regarded as odd for not believing in this modern patriotism.

Its like all the opposition to Iraq has been purposefully put aside.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 9, 2021)

Just to show how successful RBL have been Labour controlled Lambeth have own version of the military covenant.





__





						Armed forces community covenant | Lambeth Council
					

If you have an example where this covenant is not being respected, you can [contact your local councillor](http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1), or our [armed forces champion, Cllr Danny Adilypour](http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8911).




					www.lambeth.gov.uk
				




The Community covenant is local version of national one.

One thing I noticed is that he encourages integration of military into civilian society. Part of militarisation of society.

It takes for granted what it says is moral obligation between Nation, government and armed forces. Which national covenant says is enduring. So part and parcel of this country. It presents itself as beyond left/right everyday politics. As something which unites the nation. 

Complete unquestioned acceptance of role of military by a Labour Council.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Found this extract from book on remembrance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One thing — banal nationalism doesn’t hide this: it’s very much part of what you are describing. Banal nationalism is nation building via the normalisation of the signs and symbols of patriotism taken to be everyday parts of the backdrop.  Every time a news reader quietly wears a poppy whilst reading the news, that’s sending a message about it being normal to view the military in a particular, nation-building way.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 9, 2021)

J Ed said:


> Red, btw. The Peace Pledge Union is fash adjacent.


Why ofcourse. Non-violence and anti-militarism, those well known core tenets of fascist ideology.


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 9, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


>


New Despicable Me sequel


----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 10, 2021)




----------



## PR1Berske (Nov 11, 2021)




----------



## Riklet (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The tacky overuse of the poppy iconography is just baffling. Who on Earth thinks that's a good idea? It's like they use the flowers to censor the reality of war - the blood and guts running into the muddy ground, the life-changing and disfiguring injuries, even the soldiers themselves are obscured in a wave of poppies. Anonymised in silhouette, the complexities of the human beings that fought and suffered and died are rendered down into cookie-cutter symbolism. The negligence of the brass in accounting for their losses has been re-enlisted as The Unknown Warrior.
> 
> If I were in charge of organising this shit, I would make damn sure that everyone gets an opportunity to appoint themselves with the grim realities of total armed conflict. The people who killed and died weren't unknown to their friends, families and communities, and they need not have been pushed to kill and perish so senselessly.



This is a great post. 

I put 20p in a poppy appeal thing in a chip shop and I picked up a poppy left on the floor at work cos it felt sad to leave it in the dirt. But really this is what I feel. And I'm not rushing to wear a poppy. And ofc, members of my family died in WW1 and WW2 like most families tbh. And it is v powerful when you see the memorial by a church in a village and see how many fucking people were killed even from small places....


----------



## teqniq (Nov 17, 2021)




----------



## spitfire (Nov 17, 2021)

teqniq said:


>




This comment says it all, arrogant prick.

"A Facebook comment from Fearn last night told how he had also worked alongside the team "to make good the damage I have caused."

He commented: "Repair work is now almost completed and actually looks better than before it was knocked down."


----------



## Badgers (Nov 17, 2021)

I didn't see this but a security guard told me yesterday... 

There is a big cast iron rememberence bench in the local shopping centre. Early morning yesterday the security guy spotted a guy shooting up on it.


----------



## rekil (Nov 17, 2021)

Badgers said:


> I didn't see this but a security guard told me yesterday...
> 
> There is a big cast iron rememberence bench in the local shopping centre. Early morning yesterday the security guy spotted a guy shooting up on it.


A sombre mark of #respect for the injured and maimed and how their treatment with morphine resulted in addiction.



> As journalist Anne Brigaudeau writes about the novel, "the 14-18 butchery sometimes overshadowed the postwar period, where the dead hero was preferred to the battered survivor. Today in France the French have forgotten that the worship of the fallen soldier generated lucrative profits, from the war memorials to the military cemeteries."







__





						Pierre Lemaître's The Great Swindle: A Prize-Winning WWI Novel Hits the Screen During France's Great War Centennial  - World War I Centennial
					

Site of the United States WWI Centennial Commission, and the Doughboy Foundation, building the National WWI Memorial in Washington, D.C.




					www.worldwar1centennial.org
				












						See You Up There (2017) - IMDb
					

See You Up There: Directed by Albert Dupontel. With Nahuel Pérez Biscayart, Albert Dupontel, Laurent Lafitte, Niels Arestrup. In November 1919, two soldiers--a disfigured but brilliant artist and an ex-accountant--start a memorial con. But in Roaring Twenties France, their adventures soon turn...




					www.imdb.com


----------

