Celtic - Poppy protest

[RobbieHibs]

Shirley this is just usual Sun propaganda and no such thing will take place.
If it does the minority that take part will be sorted out by the rest of the 'greatest fans in the world'

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article1902396.ece

[howdenthehibby]

i wish the would just ferk off and die the lot of them:yawn:

[Ivan Drago]

i wish the would just ferk off and die the lot of them:yawn:


Or....gone home :duck:

[kennyh]

Everyone has a right to protest but this is ridiculous. If they carry out their threat and walk out of the stadium that would be best all round as we dont want **** like that inside a afootball ground.

Hopefully when the morons leave Parkhead they come face to face with some squaddies and can carry on their debate about the justification of wearing poppies and war criminals.

[hibsbollah]

Im sure it wont happen in any great numbers and those that do it are misguided and wrong...

I agree with them that John Reid is a war criminal though:grr:

[Sprouleflyer]

Daft barstewards!!!

While they may have an issue with Dr John Reid and the ongoing troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the day of remembrance is a time for us to pause and think of the ultimate sacrifice soldiers of many religion's gave.

[Keith_M]

Buying Poppies, to support retired war heroes = Support for British army action in Iraq


Well, it's obvious when you put it like that.


Of course, this has got nothing at all to do with their 'political' views, British=Bad, Irish=Good. It must make life easier to have such a black and white view of the world.

[steakbake]

idiots.

don't agree with the protest and the timing of it - the squaddies never have anything to do with the decision to go to war and those killed should be remembered.

Celtic should tell SF and their allies to tell people to stay away if they don't like it.

Like both sides of the OF, they import their fans and their problems from over the water and show no respect for the people and various views of those who live here.

I would agree though, that Dr Reid is worthy of investigation and an appearance in the Hague along with Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon.

[Antifa Hibs]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Time for Reid and Lawell to condemn sections of their support. Can't see it though. This is nothing short of a disgrace. Generations of brave men fought and died for Scotland and for Great Britain and the Allies. They fought for freedom and in the hope that we wouldn't need to. If you want to protest against that you must either be sick or a terrorist.

[Ivan Drago]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg


Bit hypocritical singing IRA songs then doing this "peacefull" protest then eh no?

Fannies - each and every one of them.

[DaveF]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg

Pretty sure the IRA \ UVF and various other groups did a fair bit of murdering innocent people too - Montages like the one you posted could quite easily feature adults and kids killed in the troubles (by either side) over the last 30 years.

War is ugly and brutal on all sides - not just one.

I agree in that I don't like the poppies brought into the jersey's nor indeed am I that fussed about Soldiers being cheered at the game. I'd far rather prefer to remember the sacrificies made by buying a poppy in my own quiet time.

Media attention means so much to clubs nowadays that it creeps into every area - even remembrance isn't sacred anymore.

[Antifa Hibs]

Bit hypocritical singing IRA songs then doing this "peacefull" protest then eh no?

Fannies - each and every one of them.

Depends. Because it was british imperilaism which resulted in these songs being written!

[Titch]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg
away and bile yer head ya tit

[Antifa Hibs]

away and bile yer head ya tit

Great response.

[degenerated]

away and bile yer head ya tit

can we leave it out the abuse, if you don't agree with the poster, and i am sure most won't, by all means argue with him but personal abuse is agaisnt the rules.

[jacomo]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg

Is this the right time to bring up Republican collaboration with the Nazis?

Antifa, I respect your politics, but I think that boycotting the poppy campaign is a dumb form of protest.

[bighairyfaeleith]

can we leave it out the abuse, if you don't agree with the poster, and i am sure most won't, by all means argue with him but personal abuse is agaisnt the rules.


No now sod off :duck:

[Ivan Drago]

Depends. Because it was british imperilaism which resulted in these songs being written!


And why are they sung in Scotland when we have nothing to do with it?

And it doesnt depend, you cant justify a walkout because of the innocent people killed in NI then say it's ok for the Irish to sing about it because the UK started it. :bye:

[Keith_M]

an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present

Back that statement up with some facts, please!


You're one of the people I mentioned in my previous post, people who have the capacity to see things in black and white. During the 'Troubles' in Ulster, there were more than a few organisations who killed innocent people, one in particular is glorified in song by this bunch, and, I suspect, in the name they chose for the fans organisation.

The British army, for instance, has been rightly reviled for many of the things they've done in their history. They were also remembered with appreciation among some of the older generation of the liberated countries of Europe after WWII.

And before you ask, I detest war and terrorism equally, so have no personal axe to grind.

[degenerated]

No now sod off :duck:

:grr: :greengrin

[Titch]

can we leave it out the abuse, if you don't agree with the poster, and i am sure most won't, by all means argue with him but personal abuse is agaisnt the rules.

i being a soldier am deeply offended by the link posted so have given my views i apologise to anyone i have offended (other than the poster intended)

i can see myself being banned from .net for this tube:grr::grr:

[luxjock]

This has made me feel quite sick.

[RobbieHibs]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg

So will you be taking part in any kind of protest then.

[Titch]

This has made me feel quite sick.

:agree: NEVER thought i'd see this sort of shiote on our beloved web site:boo hoo:

[Ivan Drago]

:agree: NEVER thought i'd see this sort of shiote on our beloved web site:boo hoo:


Don't let fannies upset you mate, the majority are proud of all our soldiers past and present. :agree:

[Expecting Rain]

When the greatest fans in the universe er..... sorry, world make a protest we must sit up and take notice, i`m sure Obama will be following this closely.

[degenerated]

i being a soldier am deeply offended by the link posted so have given my views i apologise to anyone i have offended (other than the poster intended)

i can see myself being banned from .net for this tube:grr::grr:

no need for apologies :agree: just trying to stop this turning into a slagging match that ends in the thread being locked.

if everyone can argue their points of view without resorting to abuse, no matter how abhorrent others find them, then there won't be any bannings on here.

fortunately or unfortunately (which ever way we look at it) that's the beauty of free speech.

[Antifa Hibs]

Is this the right time to bring up Republican collaboration with the Nazis?

Antifa, I respect your politics, but I think that boycotting the poppy campaign is a dumb form of protest.

It all depends on past experiences I suppose. I know (sortof) a guy that is involved in the protest who was born in Derry during the troubles so of course he/they will have different views on the British Army after having first hand experiences with them during the troubles.


Back that statement up with some facts, please!


You're one of the people I mentioned in my previous post, people who have the capacity to see things in black and white. During the 'Troubles' in Ulster, there were more than a few organisations who killed innocent people, one in particular is glorified in song by this bunch, and, I suspect, in the name they chose for the fans organisation.

The British army, for instance, has been rightly reviled for many of the things they've done in their history. They were also remembered with appreciation among some of the older generation of the liberated countries of Europe after WWII.

And before you ask, I detest war and terrorism equally, so have no personal axe to grind.

From the Poppy Appeal website
Poppy Man has launched the 2008 Poppy Appeal among friends in Basra. This year's theme "Serving those who Serve" emphasises the need to help men and women who are serving today, as well as ex-Services and dependants.


Anyway its a halfday today so time for a steak bake a bet and a pint!

[Titch]

It all depends on past experiences I suppose. I know (sortof) a guy that is involved in the protest who was born in Derry during the troubles so of course he/they will have different views on the British Army after having first hand experiences with them during the troubles.



From the Poppy Appeal website
Poppy Man has launched the 2008 Poppy Appeal among friends in Basra. This year's theme "Serving those who Serve" emphasises the need to help men and women who are serving today, as well as ex-Services and dependants.


Anyway its a halfday today so time for a steak bake a bet and a pint!

hope your bet gets beat you pints flat and your steak bakes cold:bye:

[Sandy]

i being a soldier am deeply offended by the link posted so have given my views i apologise to anyone i have offended (other than the poster intended)

i can see myself being banned from .net for this tube:grr::grr:


I am with you on this Titch, Sunday is a time to remember and reflect on those that gave the ultimate sacrifice, so that we can all live the lives we have today.

[surreyhibbie]

Don't let fannies upset you mate, the majority are proud of all our soldiers past and present. :agree:

:applause::agree:

well said Ivan.

[New Corrie]

It all depends on past experiences I suppose. I know (sortof) a guy that is involved in the protest who was born in Derry during the troubles so of course he/they will have different views on the British Army after having first hand experiences with them during the troubles.



From the Poppy Appeal website
Poppy Man has launched the 2008 Poppy Appeal among friends in Basra. This year's theme "Serving those who Serve" emphasises the need to help men and women who are serving today, as well as ex-Services and dependants.


Anyway its a halfday today so time for a steak bake a bet and a pint!

Same diet and habits as your everyday Smellsick fan funnily enough.

These people actually disgust me.

[Hibs Class]

I am with you on this Titch, Sunday is a time to remember and reflect on those that gave the ultimate sacrifice, so that we can all live the lives we have today.

:agree: As am I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people.

[Titch]

anyway lunch over time to go back to WORK AS A BRITISH SOLDIER

Nae rest for the wicked GLORY GLORY

might just come to the game in my combats the morn :devil:

[Darth Hibbie]

i being a soldier am deeply offended by the link posted so have given my views i apologise to anyone i have offended (other than the poster intended)

i can see myself being banned from .net for this tube:grr::grr:


Don't let fannies upset you mate, the majority are proud of all our soldiers past and present. :agree:


:agree: As am I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people.

My upmost respect and thanks to you titch and all our soldiers past and present

Second and third the thoughts of Ivan and 2468

[Jonnyboy]

It all depends on past experiences I suppose. I know (sortof) a guy that is involved in the protest who was born in Derry during the troubles so of course he/they will have different views on the British Army after having first hand experiences with them during the troubles.



From the Poppy Appeal website
Poppy Man has launched the 2008 Poppy Appeal among friends in Basra. This year's theme "Serving those who Serve" emphasises the need to help men and women who are serving today, as well as ex-Services and dependants.


Anyway its a halfday today so time for a steak bake a bet and a pint!

With respect Antifa I believe you have implied that donations to the poppy fund somehow helps fund the current British armed forces but that is NOT what is meant by the section I have highlighted. In fact, what it means is that donations made from today and in future will help provide support to future ex servicemen and their families who have the need for such support.

On a broader note I really do feel that whilst you are correct in saying that innocent people have indeed been maimed and killed by the British Army in Ireland you fail to acknowledge that innocents on the mainland were maimed and killed by the organisation the British Forces in Ireland came up against. If you're going to argue your point fairly then you should surely acknowledge that every coin has two sides

[luxjock]

Anyone offended? Feel free to PM me.

:devil:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

My upmost respect and thanks to you titch and all our soldiers past and present

Second and third the thoughts of Ivan and 2468

I concur! :agree:

[Darth Hibbie]

Anyone offended? Feel free to PM me.

:devil:

:thumbsup:

[gringojoe]

hope your bet gets beat you pints flat and your steak bakes cold:bye:

and that the steak bake reappears later roasting hot and like a flock of sparrows in your boxers.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I won't get completely involved in this as I'm still not exactly sure where I stand myself, with having hugely conflicted and contrasting attitudes to the whole thing. And I'll try and choose any future words on it carefully due to how sensitive and divisive a topic it can be.

I wonder how Derry-born Patrick McCourt (and his family) will feel about it, however - in the very unlikely scenario in which he actually plays.

I got my White Poppy this morning. :agree:

[sadtom]

I can understand why some folk dont support the 'poppy' campaign.
When many thousands of families of the war dead (from conscripted men) were still alive it seemed a lot more relevant.
The vast majority of the people in receipt of money from the poppy fund now are the families of professional soldiers who joined up knowing the risks, many of whom died fighting in very questionable wars. Wars that a lot of people did not support, and certainly not wars that were defending these shores.
The reality now is that you have a far higher chance of dying working on a building site than in the army (fact). You have to wonder where is the 'poppy day' for those poor souls.
RIP to all the fallen.

[nickwhibs]

From reading all the above posts, I think we can all see that people have different opinions on this and we should respect them. My personal opion on the matter is that people should have right to wear/not wear poppies etc if they wish and I personally will be wearing one as I respect the soldiers themselves - not for what some idiot in number sent them to do. I am also anti war of any kind and am by no means of support of it by wearing a poppy! Just thought I had to say that :agree:

[Joe Baker II]

With respect Antifa I believe you have implied that donations to the poppy fund somehow helps fund the current British armed forces but that is NOT what is meant by the section I have highlighted. In fact, what it means is that donations made from today and in future will help provide support to future ex servicemen and their families who have the need for such support.

On a broader note I really do feel that whilst you are correct in saying that innocent people have indeed been maimed and killed by the British Army in Ireland you fail to acknowledge that innocents on the mainland were maimed and killed by the organisation the British Forces in Ireland came up against. If you're going to argue your point fairly then you should surely acknowledge that every coin has two sides

Good post, I had several (conscripted in many cases) descendants killed in the two world wars and intend to go to the Haymarket commemoration this weekend (partly in protest against its proposed removal) despite the historic crimes of the British Army and the fact remembrance commemorations can come over as Army propaganda. I have also attended Republican commmemorations in Ireland in the past.

However people have right to protest if they see fit, that was a major reason why the second world war was fought. Has to be remembered that the history of armed Irish Nationalism is not just one of unprovoked murder campaigns (although there has been plenty of this) either as some of the above posts seem to be implying, but had Celtic been proposing a commemoration of Republican dead plenty of the bigot/kneejerk Ireland has nothing to do with modern Scotland brigade would have been complaining.

[GodisaHibee]

What happend in Northern Ireland was, in my opine, terrible, but, I don't see how poppy day in any way glorifies this or supports it.

I respect others opinions on this, but to those who feel so strongly against wearing a red poppy, wear a white one! Your point will be made and money will still go to a deserving cause.

Besides this; the poppy fund does not claim to come down on the side of any political colours. It is simply a foundation that helps out ex-service people and their dependents when the going gets tough.

The majority of those that served with distinction should never be brushed with political colours or by those that served in a less honourable way. And they SHOULD be remembered.

A lot had no choice in what they were doing as they were called up, but went on to serve the country. And, debate surrounding relatively recent or indeed bang up to date wars/troubles asides, I really mean that.

I for one am happy I'm not speaking German and trotting down to help out at the local Jew/Gypsy/anyone that didn't fit in burning ovens; that's if there were any left by now.

Get a white poppy, make your point in a dignified manner and help out a worthy cause.

[Keith_M]

With respect Antifa I believe you have implied that donations to the poppy fund somehow helps fund the current British armed forces but that is NOT what is meant by the section I have highlighted. In fact, what it means is that donations made from today and in future will help provide support to future ex servicemen and their families who have the need for such support.

On a broader note I really do feel that whilst you are correct in saying that innocent people have indeed been maimed and killed by the British Army in Ireland you fail to acknowledge that innocents on the mainland were maimed and killed by the organisation the British Forces in Ireland came up against. If you're going to argue your point fairly then you should surely acknowledge that every coin has two sides

Thanks Jonnyboy!

However, I've got a feeling this guy only sees evil where he wants to see it. Maybe he'd be better off at Parkhead, where they have the same blinkered viewpoint.

If you notice, he (innacurately) replied to one part of my post and decided to ignore the rest.

[MyJo]

The vast majority of the people in receipt of money from the poppy fund now are the families of professional soldiers who joined up knowing the risks, many of whom died fighting in very questionable wars. Wars that a lot of people did not support, and certainly not wars that were defending these shores.
.

Professional soldiers who joined up knowing the risks but are still willing to put themselves in extreme danger to defend thier country and us normal citizens who aren't brave enough to put ourselves in warzones.

Dont confuse a soldiers pride in the opportunity to serve thier contry with a politician sitting in a comfy office in london deciding to wage illegal and unjustified warfare for the flimsiest of excuses.

These men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are under orders to fight these "dirty wars" and even if they dont agree with them its either do what your told or be arrested, the fact that soldiers are killed under these circumstances is even worse, the blood is on the hands of those wearing suits in westminster not those in body armour on the streets of basra.

Troops deserve to be supported and applauded, its the warmongering politicians that are the problem.

[Keith_M]

Has to be remembered that the history of armed Irish Nationalism is not just one of unprovoked murder campaigns (although there has been plenty of this) either as some of the above posts seem to be complying, but had Celtic been proposing a commemoration of Republican dead plenty of the bigot/ignorant Ireland has nothing to do with modern Scotland brigade would have been complaining.

And if the people of Ireland decide to sollemnly remember those who they view as their heroes in their own country, then who are we to complain? It would be exactly the same as Poppy Day here, so why the protest?

[GodisaHibee]

I wont hesitate to state that the vast majority of 'Auld Firm' fans have never been directly affected by the troubles in Northern Ireland in anyway what so ever.

So, if it's Rangers fans glorifying what happened in song, or Celtic fans doing this protest, the whole thing just stinks of hypocrisy and jumping on a band wagon.

NO conflict is 'good'.

[1950's hibbie]

I am not sure I am in favour of the teams wearing the poppy on their strips.It seems like in these days of multi cultural teams that some will be wearing something they have no idea what the true representation is. I understand what the controversial post is about, but to suggest that murder and cruelty is a one sided thing in any war is being quite simplistic.

The teams wearing a poppy is a poorly considered action. Protesting a nations recognition of those who sacrificed so much is also a poorly considered action.

[jacomo]

Professional soldiers who joined up knowing the risks but are still willing to put themselves in extreme danger to defend thier country and us normal citizens who aren't brave enough to put ourselves in warzones.

Dont confuse a soldiers pride in the opportunity to serve thier contry with a politician sitting in a comfy office in london deciding to wage illegal and unjustified warfare for the flimsiest of excuses.

These men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are under orders to fight these "dirty wars" and even if they dont agree with them its either do what your told or be arrested, the fact that soldiers are killed under these circumstances is even worse, the blood is on the hands of those wearing suits in westminster not those in body armour on the streets of basra.

Troops deserve to be supported and applauded, its the warmongering politicians that are the problem.

:applause:

Great post MyJo.

[Joe Baker II]

I wont hesitate to state that the vast majority of 'Auld Firm' fans have never been directly affected by the troubles in Northern Ireland in anyway what so ever.
.

Admittedly depends what you mean by directly affected, but can assure you a significant number of Rangers/Celtic and other football fans have been affected.

[Joe Baker II]

And if the people of Ireland decide to sollemnly remember those who they view as their heroes in their own country, then who are we to complain? It would be exactly the same as Poppy Day here, so why the protest?

As ever, depends what one means "by their own country" here.

[GodisaHibee]

Admittedly depends what you mean by directly affected, but can assure you a significant number of Rangers/Celtic and other football fans have been affected.

Even if it was 1, that's not 'insignicant'. Not to those involved.

The argument was, the vast majority haven't. They choose to tie themselves in with the mob.

[Dashing Bob S]

As much as I intensely distrust the motives of those Celtic fans who are staging this protest (and that is putting it mildy), I have to admit to feeling a little nauseated by the way the football authorities are jumping on this griefest. We've had so many debates about all different wars on this board, how they celebrated, oppossed and remembered, that I don't propose to add to it here.

Lets just say that I respect AH's views a lot more than the knee-jerk, predictable deluge of scorn he's faced.

[Titch]

Professional soldiers who joined up knowing the risks but are still willing to put themselves in extreme danger to defend thier country and us normal citizens who aren't brave enough to put ourselves in warzones.

Dont confuse a soldiers pride in the opportunity to serve thier contry with a politician sitting in a comfy office in london deciding to wage illegal and unjustified warfare for the flimsiest of excuses.

These men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are under orders to fight these "dirty wars" and even if they dont agree with them its either do what your told or be arrested, the fact that soldiers are killed under these circumstances is even worse, the blood is on the hands of those wearing suits in westminster not those in body armour on the streets of basra.

Troops deserve to be supported and applauded, its the warmongering politicians that are the problem.


:applause:

Great post MyJo.

:agree:

[Phil MaGlass]

Im pretty surprised at this,there were thousands of Irish who joined up with the British to fight against Hitler in the second world war,and this IS a religous protest anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves,more than a hundred thousand Irish men and women volunteered to serve in the British armed forces during the World War II. These men and women came not only from the six counties of Northern Ireland, but from the twenty-six counties of the South as well, which had become the Irish Free State after 1921.Im sure there will be very many folk in Ireland a wee bit annoyed at the protest.

Hitler's Irish Allies the IRA. The Second World War had begun as did the well-founded rumours of contacts between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the German army.
Emergency laws were declared in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and Éire by which the security forces obtained ample options to arrest, intern and execute members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and affiliated organisations. The Sabotage Campaign ended abruptly in February 1940, most likely due to lack of volunteers and increasing safety measures

http://www.triskelle.eu/history/secondworldwar.php?index=060.160.020
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3101/is_/ai_n29007356

[haagsehibby]

Its nothing to do with religion. It's nothing to do with anyones granda, brother, dad, son or friend who lost their lives in the war(s). It's to do with Celtic raising money and giving puplicity to an appeal that funds all brit soldiers, past and present, the organisation that murdered and injured innocent civilians in Ulster for decades.

It's a peaceful walkout protest. no doubt the media will make this out to be some sectarian thing it isn't.

And Reid and football clubs are *** hypocrits, tell us to leave our political baggage at the turnstiles yet start sewing poppys onto jerseys and marching brit troops around on the pitch.

Not for the faint hearted > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/celtbhoy/No.jpg

Oh the irony, a poster who has "anti fascist" in his avatar condemning the poppy appeal, when a large proportion of those it commemorates died saving this country and western Europe from fascism. At least those servicemen and their foes wore a uniform and identified themselves as combatants. Unlike the cowardly PIRA who skulk and hide under balaclavas and murder innocent shoppers etc. Call themselves an army - ma erse !! A rag tag bunch of thieves and protection racketeers. And as for the "brit" nonsense - no one's keeping you here !!

[degenerated]

Good post, I had several (conscripted in many cases) descendants killed in the two world wars and intend to go to the Haymarket commemoration this weekend (partly in protest against its proposed removal) despite the historic crimes of the British Army and the fact remembrance commemorations can come over as Army propaganda. I have also attended Republican commmemorations in Ireland in the past.

However people have right to protest if they see fit, that was a major reason why the second world war was fought. Has to be remembered that the history of armed Irish Nationalism is not just one of unprovoked murder campaigns (although there has been plenty of this) either as some of the above posts seem to be complying, but had Celtic been proposing a commemoration of Republican dead plenty of the bigot/ignorant Ireland has nothing to do with modern Scotland brigade would have been complaining.

:top marks

[GodisaHibee]

As much as I intensely distrust the motives of those Celtic fans who are staging this protest (and that is putting it mildy), I have to admit to feeling a little nauseated by the way the football authorities are jumping on this griefest. We've had so many debates about all different wars on this board, how they celebrated, oppossed and remembered, that I don't propose to add to it here.

Lets just say that I respect AH's views a lot more than the knee-jerk, predictable deluge of scorn he's faced.


I respect your opinion Dashing, however; AH made out this is a political statement. It's not. AH mentioned Northern Ireland and made the debate centre around it.

That is not what it's about.

For the record, My wife is a Catholic Northern Ireland girl born and bred who WAS directly affected by the troubles. She and her family always stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the community to remember those that had fallen. In addition their chapel always held a service for the event.

This is not a knee jerk reaction as you state, but one made from a thought out point of view.

[Wakeyhibee]

Sad day when a rememerance symbol for the 1st world war is devalued in this way. It is after all remembering Armistice day and not any other conflict although I have no problem with WW2 being associated due to the threat to GB and Ireland had Hitler been succesful.

back to the origianl point these poor sods didn't stand a chance or choice. That to me is the point of the poppy and the rememberance, the futitlity of the great war and waste of human life perpetrated on all sides.

[GodisaHibee]

back to the origianl point these poor sods didn't stand a chance or choice. That to me is the point of the poppy and the rememberance, the futitlity of the great war and waste of human life perpetrated on all sides.

Agree.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sad day when a rememerance symbol for the 1st world war is devalued in this way. It is after all remembering Armistice day and not any other conflict although I have no problem with WW2 being associated due to the threat to GB and Irelandhad Hitler been succesful.

back to the origianl point these poor sods didn't stand a chance or choice. That to me is the point of the poppy and the rememberance, the futitlity of the great war and waste of human life perpetrated on all sides.

Not true.

[marinello59]

A lot had no choice in what they were doing as they were called up, but went on to serve the country. And, debate surrounding relatively

Get a white poppy, make your point in a dignified manner and help out a worthy cause.

Off topic a touch, but where does the money from the sale of White Poppies go?:confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Off topic a touch, but where does the money from the sale of White Poppies go?:confused:

The Peace Pledge Union.

[GodisaHibee]

Off topic a touch, but where does the money from the sale of White Poppies go?:confused:

A worthy cause.

[marinello59]

A worthy cause.


:greengrin

Aye, but what is it?

[GodisaHibee]

:greengrin

Aye, but what is it?

The Peace Pledge Union.

I will wear my red one, but it is a better alternative than 'walk out' protests.

[hibsdaft]

can't help feeling this is tit for tat responce to the huns soldier parade thing last weekend.

[marinello59]

The Peace Pledge Union.


The Peace Pledge Union.

I will wear my red one, but it is a better alternative than 'walk out' protests.

Cheers guys.:thumbsup:

[Groathillgrump]

Oh the irony, a poster who has "anti fascist" in his avatar condemning the poppy appeal, when a large proportion of those it commemorates died saving this country and western Europe from fascism. At least those servicemen and their foes wore a uniform and identified themselves as combatants. Unlike the cowardly PIRA who skulk and hide under balaclavas and murder innocent shoppers etc. Call themselves an army - ma erse !! A rag tag bunch of thieves and protection racketeers. And as for the "brit" nonsense - no one's keeping you here !!

Great post, haagsehibby.
:top marks

[hibsdaft]

And as for the "brit" nonsense - no one's keeping you here !!

eh i think you may need to rethink that one :wink:

[sadtom]

Professional soldiers who joined up knowing the risks but are still willing to put themselves in extreme danger to defend thier country and us normal citizens who aren't brave enough to put ourselves in warzones.

Dont confuse a soldiers pride in the opportunity to serve thier contry with a politician sitting in a comfy office in london deciding to wage illegal and unjustified warfare for the flimsiest of excuses.

These men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are under orders to fight these "dirty wars" and even if they dont agree with them its either do what your told or be arrested, the fact that soldiers are killed under these circumstances is even worse, the blood is on the hands of those wearing suits in westminster not those in body armour on the streets of basra.

Troops deserve to be supported and applauded, its the warmongering politicians that are the problem.

I have no problem distinguishing between your average squaddie and those who decide whether we go to war or not.
However those people who sign up, do so in the knowledge of the pay, the conditions and the risks - they are professionals. My point is that there is no such collection for scaffolders, deep sea fishermen, general labourers etc all who, when they start their job, are not informed that they have more chance of being killed than if they joined the army. These are all 'normal citizens' who put themselves in more danger than your average soldier.
It could also be argued that, especially in the current conflicts, those doing hard manual work are serving this country whilst the British army is serving the needs of Haliburton etc.
In my life time the British army have been involved in the Falklands (to get Thatcher reelcted), in Northern Ireland, and in recent times in the middle east at the behest of the US, who are in turn, at the behest of the multinationals.
I was certainly oppossed to our involment in any of these conflicts and i certainly do not feel that the troops were not doing it for my benefit or the country's security.
As for the individual squaddie then it is up to their conscience whether they are going to fight or face arrest. All i can say is if they disagree then they should not fight. The 'i was only obeying orders' argument just does not cut any ice with me.
While happy to observe armistice day and remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice during the world wars and honour their memory with great thanks. I cannot say that i can lend that unswerving support to the professional soldiers, not that i wish them any harm, its just that they knew the score when they signed up and in the main they have been involved in activities and conflicts that i am opposed to.

[Titch]

I have no problem distinguishing between your average squaddie and those who decide whether we go to war or not.
However those people who sign up, do so in the knowledge of the pay, the conditions and the risks - they are professionals. My point is that there is no such collection for scaffolders, deep sea fishermen, general labourers etc all who, when they start their job, are not informed that they have more chance of being killed than if they joined the army. These are all 'normal citizens' who put themselves in more danger than your average soldier.
It could also be argued that, especially in the current conflicts, those doing hard manual work are serving this country whilst the British army is serving the needs of Haliburton etc.
In my life time the British army have been involved in the Falklands (to get Thatcher reelcted), in Northern Ireland, and in recent times in the middle east at the behest of the US, who are in turn, at the behest of the multinationals.
I was certainly oppossed to our involment in any of these conflicts and i certainly do not feel that the troops were not doing it for my benefit or the country's security.
As for the individual squaddie then it is up to their conscience whether they are going to fight or face arrest. All i can say is if they disagree then they should not fight. The 'i was only obeying orders' argument just does not cut any ice with me.While happy to observe armistice day and remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice during the world wars and honour their memory with great thanks. I cannot say that i can lend that unswerving support to the professional soldiers, not that i wish them any harm, its just that they knew the score when they signed up and in the main they have been involved in activities and conflicts that i am opposed to.

aye ok then :blah::blah::asshole::asshole:

[Brizo]

An element of the Celtc support thrive on the opportunity to indulge in displays of rent a cause political posturing .... it often seems like the only liberation organisation theyve failed to back is the peoples front of Judea (monty python smiley). It will be interesting to see how many of the bammers are part of the "protest". While ones one too many id be surprised if its more than a few dozen out the 50 / 60 thousand home crowd.

At their game vs us they had a half time commemoration for the Embra bomb disposal expert who tragically lost his life a few weeks ago in Afghanistan and I went to school with Celtc fans who joined the Army. So for all their crimes against fitba I dont think we can label their whole club based on this sorry episode , however much some folk would like to :wink:

I am wearing my red poppy with pride this week but do have my reservations about the organised grieving culture which has taken hold in fitba of which organised rememberence commemorations are the latest example. People choose to attend specific rememberence events at war memorials ,church services and to wear a poppy ... im not entirely decided but im erring towards thinking that paying your respects is a personal choice and that enforced fitba stadium or for that matter workplace rememberence events dont allow for that choice.That is in no way condoning these Celtc muppets - if they dont like it simple answer - turn up late.

Could I also add my support for the succulent steakbake which I feel has gotten some unnecessary slagging during the course of this thread

[degenerated]

bringing this more to the fore in football does nothing more than provide a platform for those seeking to point score and is as previously mentioned divisive and devalues the whole point of remembrance.
football is too parochial and tribal for this to be treated in a proper and befitting manner, that much has been evident on an increasing scale each year.
on kickback we are treated to (from the few and not the many) :-

- ill informed comments about how when they were winning medals in flanders celtic were winning the medals at home
- cringeworthy and tacky nonsense about having vouchers in season ticket books for the ceremony
- the downright bigoted and nonsensical assumption that hibs were not affected by the great war because of our heritage and are too busy commemorating james connolly to be be paying respects to the fallen of the great war.
- the utter nonsense like its hearts memorial and others can GTF (for the particular clown that posted that please note that hibs officials bothered to attend last year when your own clubs didn't see the need)

on this site the jingoistic nonsense from over by leads to deep mistrust of the intentions of those who seek only to make people aware of the sacrifices of those who gave their lives in conflict as their views are lost in the mire of ill informed guff from the petty point scorers. There is also a disenfranchisement of one half of the city in terms of the interest and remembrance of macraes battalion, which is exactly the opposite of what he no doubt intended.

We then get the polar opposites in Glasgow where one week soldiers are trooped out at half time at ibrox and the following week we get protests about the war crimes of the british army in Ireland.

All of the above tells me that whilst a moments reflection during a minutes silence at a football match could and should be observed, any further remembrance will only be given the proper and befitting treatment it merits away from the tribal, cultural and religious divides of Scottish football clubs.
On the other hand it is only fair that those who wish to air differing views are allowed to do that also, that is their right. But again a football club should not be the backdrop for protests about the British Army and their occupation of Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq on anywhere else people wish to protest about but i would suggest that there are better forums and more appropriate times to be protesting about those perceived injustices.

[GodisaHibee]

What it boils down to:

Ignorant, redneck, bangers who don't have a clue, who think anyone cares about their sad little protest and shouldn't (on reflection) even be taking up this bandwith or even be discussed.

[surreyhibbie]

Oh the irony, a poster who has "anti fascist" in his avatar condemning the poppy appeal, when a large proportion of those it commemorates died saving this country and western Europe from fascism. At least those servicemen and their foes wore a uniform and identified themselves as combatants. Unlike the cowardly PIRA who skulk and hide under balaclavas and murder innocent shoppers etc. Call themselves an army - ma erse !! A rag tag bunch of thieves and protection racketeers. And as for the "brit" nonsense - no one's keeping you here !!

Excellent post mate.:agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

Oh the irony, a poster who has "anti fascist" in his avatar condemning the poppy appeal, when a large proportion of those it commemorates died saving this country and western Europe from fascism. At least those servicemen and their foes wore a uniform and identified themselves as combatants. Unlike the cowardly PIRA who skulk and hide under balaclavas and murder innocent shoppers etc. Call themselves an army - ma erse !! A rag tag bunch of thieves and protection racketeers. And as for the "brit" nonsense - no one's keeping you here !!

Good post but would just like to point out that the UDA were a bunch of chicken **** cowards behind balaclavas too and AH is probably the biggest fascist I've seen around these parts.

[sadtom]

aye ok then :blah::blah::asshole::asshole:

What exactly did i say that makes it ok for you to insult me?
Is there no situation that you could possibly face that you would disobey an order, no matter how much you disagreed with it?

[Titch]

What exactly did i say that makes it ok for you to insult me?
Is there no situation that you could possibly face that you would disobey an order, no matter how much you disagreed with it?

an unlawful order yes

[LiverpoolHibs]

an unlawful order yes

I trust you didn't serve in Iraq then!

:wink:

[Titch]

I trust you didn't serve in Iraq then!

:wink:

nothing unlawful about what i or any of MY collegues did in iraq mate:wink:

[sadtom]

an unlawful order yes

So my original point stands. There are circumstances where your own personal morals or judgement would allow you to refuse and face the consequences. So no need for the offensive smileys.
Do you not think that unlawful orders would go hand in hand with fighting an illegal, unjust and unlawful war?

[LiverpoolHibs]

nothing unlawful about what i or any of MY collegues did in iraq mate:wink:

Meh, I beg to differ. But that's going way off-topic.

[haagsehibby]

Good post but would just like to point out that the UDA were a bunch of chicken **** cowards behind balaclavas too and AH is probably the biggest fascist I've seen around these parts.

Absolutely !! Both lots were a bunch of cowards, however at least the UDA didn't have the temerity to put the word army in their name.

[Titch]

meh, i beg to differ. But that's going way off-topic.

explain!!!!!!!!

[PeeKay]

Beating a hotel clerk to death perhaps :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

explain!!!!!!!!

By being there at all...

[Titch]

By being there at all...

aye good answer :duck:

[Titch]

anyway i've had it with this thread enjoy your DEBATE


GLORY GLORY

[LiverpoolHibs]

aye good answer :duck:

I thought so.

[sadtom]

anyway i've had it with this thread enjoy your DEBATE


GLORY GLORY

So your not going to answer my question then? Or apologise for being an nippy sweetie for no good reason?

[alex plode]

Maybe it was you comment on the Falkland war being a vehicle to get Thatcher re-elected that put him off.

[hibsbollah]

I had a quick lurk on a Celtc messageboard an hour or two ago, and the vast majority are embarrassed about the proposed protest. Its important to remember its just a minority:agree:

[sadtom]

Maybe it was you comment on the Falkland war being a vehicle to get Thatcher re-elected that put him off.

So you dont think it was?
If the truth hurts...

3 months before Argentina invaded she was warned that it would happen, a small number of ships sent at the time would have prevented it. Thatcher stated that she was not going to send a force to the south atlantic every time the agentinians started "sabre rattling".
She new it would happen, her advisers told her it would happen and she let it happen. Which meant ordinary squaddies would lose there lives in order to reclaim the islands allowing her to have the desired effect of being a 'victorious wartime leader', transforming her from the most unpopular PM in history to being re-elected a mere year later. You go figure it out...

[marinello59]

I had a quick lurk on a Celtc messageboard an hour or two ago, and the vast majority are embarrassed about the proposed protest. Its important to remember its just a minority:agree:

:agree: That doesn't sell papers though. Sadly.

[marinello59]

So you dont think it was?
If the truth hurts...

3 months before Argentina invaded she was warned that it would happen, a small number of ships sent at the time would have prevented it. Thatcher stated that she was not going to send a force to the south atlantic every time the agentinians started "sabre rattling".
She new it would happen, her advisers told her it would happen and she let it happen. Which meant ordinary squaddies would lose there lives in order to reclaim the islands allowing her to have the desired effect of being a 'victorious wartime leader', transforming her from the most unpopular PM in history to being re-elected a mere year later. You go figure it out...

Source?:greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

My take on this is, regardless of your views on the rights and wrongs of war or on the actions of the British Armed Forces throughout the years, if you can't stay silent for one minute so that people can remember the many millions of people who lost their lives fighting for their country then it's a little sad.

If you feel that strongly about it then why not deliberately stand outside the stadium until after the minute's silence instead of possibly causing widespread offence to those people who do wish to pay their respects to family members and/or fellow soldiers who have died whilst on duty?

[alex plode]

So you dont think it was?
If the truth hurts...

3 months before Argentina invaded she was warned that it would happen, a small number of ships sent at the time would have prevented it. Thatcher stated that she was not going to send a force to the south atlantic every time the agentinians started "sabre rattling".
She new it would happen, her advisers told her it would happen and she let it happen. Which meant ordinary squaddies would lose there lives in order to reclaim the islands allowing her to have the desired effect of being a 'victorious wartime leader', transforming her from the most unpopular PM in history to being re-elected a mere year later. You go figure it out...

The Falklands war could have been handled differently and it undoubtedly got her re-elected, but to think Thatcher manipulated the whole thing for her own personal gain, is frankly ridiculous.

To get back on topic...I can see why a minority of Celtic fans get upset about anything relating to the British army, just like a minority of Irelands population during the wars decided not to remain neutral, or side with Britain.
IMHO....religious and military rememberance should be kept out of football games. If I want to pay respects or reverance to the military or dead religious leaders, I'll do it in my own time; not at a football match.

[Betty Boop]

I won't get completely involved in this as I'm still not exactly sure where I stand myself, with having hugely conflicted and contrasting attitudes to the whole thing. And I'll try and choose any future words on it carefully due to how sensitive and divisive a topic it can be.

I wonder how Derry-born Patrick McCourt (and his family) will feel about it, however - in the very unlikely scenario in which he actually plays.

I got my White Poppy this morning. :agree: Me too, I feel more comfortable with that as a symbol of peace.:agree:

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

I thought so.


In the Utopian existance we'd all get along.

But in the 2008. In reality, what would happen to Britain, if we did not have an armed force LiverpoolHibs?

Other than placating those uber pacifists amongst us?

[Brando7]

I had a quick lurk on a Celtc messageboard an hour or two ago, and the vast majority are embarrassed about the proposed protest. Its important to remember its just a minority:agree:

:agree:

After reading all these posts it the 60,000 fans be walking out which it wont be.

Typical anti celtic strikes again :yawn:

[LiverpoolHibs]

In the Utopian existance we'd all get along.

But in the 2008. In reality, what would happen to Britain, if we did not have an armed force LiverpoolHibs?

Other than placating those uber pacifists amongst us?

Here we go again...

That's not the point at all, is it?

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

Here we go again...

That's not the point at all, is it?

May I beg to differ?

If we had no Armed Forces we'd have nothing for you and sadtom to discuss here.

[SlickShoes]

Same diet and habits as your everyday Smellsick fan funnily enough.

These people actually disgust me.

Whats that? People with opinions? How very dare they!

[LiverpoolHibs]

May I beg to differ?

If we had no Armed Forces we'd have nothing for you and sadtom to discuss here.

Yes, but you haven't. You've just repeated the same point which has no bearing on what is acually being discussed.

This little vendetta of yours is getting a tad out of hand...

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes, but you haven't. You've just repeated the same point which has no bearing on what is acually being discussed.

This little vendetta of yours is getting a tad out of hand...

:agree: Since the Haymarket clock thread I think.

This is now a couple of threads since then where HibbiesandtheBaddies has seemed more interested in challenging LH regardless of how off-topic it is.

Play the ball, not the man.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

:agree: Since the Haymarket clock thread I think.

This is now a couple of threads since then where HibbiesandtheBaddies has seemed more interested in challenging LH regardless of how off-topic it is.

Play the ball, not the man.


fair play.



Play the ball, not the man
Nice analogy :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

fair play.


Play the ball, not the man
Nice analogy :greengrin

:thumbsup:

[AndyP]

So my original point stands. There are circumstances where your own personal morals or judgement would allow you to refuse and face the consequences. So no need for the offensive smileys.
Do you not think that unlawful orders would go hand in hand with fighting an illegal, unjust and unlawful war?


The Nurenburg<sp> defence states that individual soldiers cannot and will not be held responsible for the decisions of their government in intiating a state of war. What they are responsible for however is their own conduct and that of their subordinates during that time, an illegal order is clearly defined under the terms of the four Geneva Conventions and the three expansion protocols to these conventions, suggest you read it some time before trying to blindside someone

[Phil MaGlass]

Minutes silence impeccable at Celtic game.

[Sumner]

Anyone prepared to protest against Poppy Day - simply "Smeltic class" of low-life

[Betty Boop]

Minutes silence impeccable at Celtic game. :agree: Too much hype by the gutter press.

[Tazio]

Celtic actually had a minutes applause. The only ground in Britain to do so. Surely a tacit acknowledgment that silence would have been disrupted.

[PeeKay]

Minutes silence impeccable at Celtic game.

Utter garbage! I am told that BBC radio went to ER for the minutes silence - which was impeccably observed and it came over as hugely poignant on the radio. They then switched over to Parkhead for the end of the minutes applause, which in contrast to ER came over as crass and totally inappropriate. So what were you listening to?

I was at ER and so didn't hear this on the radio, but I have it on the word of my Celtic-supporting PP that this is what happened.

[sKipper]

Utter garbage! I am told that BBC radio went to ER for the minutes silence - which was impeccably observed and it came over as hugely poignant on the radio. They then switched over to Parkhead for the end of the minutes applause, which in contrast to ER came over as crass and totally inappropriate. So what were you listening to?

I was at ER and so didn't hear this on the radio, but I have it on the word of my Celtic-supporting PP that this is what happened.

You were told wrong. They were at Parkhead throughout on Radio Scotland.

It was an appluase not silence and seemed to be well observed. Hard to tell of course.

As an aside I have never seen so few poppies worn in my life as this year. Been in Glasgow and Edinburgh this week and there seemed to be about 1 in 50 wearing them. Changed days from a few years ago when practically everybody wore them.

[Sir David Gray]

:confused: Celtic had a minute's applause this afternoon.

To be honest I find it shocking that, yet again, one half of the Old Firm has pandered to extremists within their support who are intent on causing trouble.

There were apparently people outside Parkhead before the match today, handing out leaflets to other fans asking them to join in with a protest against the tribute.

Celtic and their fans need to decide whether or not they want religious and political issues to be brought into football grounds.

Week after week they spout chants and songs about the IRA and their fight against United Kingdom rule in Ireland and people have to sit and listen to that whether they want to or not.

I am also of the belief (but if anyone wishes to argue that point then I'm willing to be proved wrong) that Celtic approached the SFA in 2005 to ask if they could have a minute's silence before their Scottish Cup game against Hearts to mark the passing of Pope John Paul II.

Now i've nothing against the Pope and whilst i'm quite sure Roman Catholics wanted to pay tribute to the man, I don't understand what relevance he had to Scottish football. However we had the minute's silence anyway and people should respect it.

But things like this go two ways. You can't possibly expect people, who perhaps don't share your views on politics or religion, to respect your beliefs if you are not willing to respect other people's views.

A lot of people in this country are proud of our Armed Forces and the work that they do and have done throughout history, but some aren't and they are entitled to that view, I have no problem with that at all. But what really gets me is when people are so attached to their views, they cannot tolerate any opinions that contradict theirs.

You cannot pick and choose what political/religious issues can/cannot be discussed within a football stadium. There has to be either a widespread ban on it or any issues are fair game and not just the ones that suit your personal agendas.

I realise the people responsible for organising this protest are in the minority and well done to those many Celtic fans who stood up to applaud those that have died whilst serving their country. However, despite the fact that a minute's applause has been the done thing in recent times to remember individuals who have passed away, in my opinion, applause is not the appropriate tribute for remembering those who have lost their lives whilst at war and I am annoyed that the people in charge at Celtic have allowed the extreme views of the minority rule how everyone else is to act.

As I said yesterday, if you feel so strongly about the tribute and feel you can't sit in silence for 60 seconds, wait outside the stadium until the minute is over before going to your seat.

There's one more point I would like to make. What's going to happen when the Queen eventually passes away? There will HAVE to be a tribute at every football stadium in the country before the games that immediately follow her death and you can be rest assured that a minute's applause will not be accepted. What will Celtic do then, I wonder.

[sadtom]

The Nurenburg<sp> defence states that individual soldiers cannot and will not be held responsible for the decisions of their government in intiating a state of war. What they are responsible for however is their own conduct and that of their subordinates during that time, an illegal order is clearly defined under the terms of the four Geneva Conventions and the three expansion protocols to these conventions, suggest you read it some time before trying to blindside someone

WTF are you on about? I get told i'm an a$$hole by smiley for daring to have an opinion (that was not in the least insulting) and ask a question that does not get answered.
As for the point you made, i'm aware of the 'rules' however, whats more important to me is how you behave as a human being and how you square your actions with your conscience. If you strongly disagree with something it shows far more courage and moral fortitude to make a stand against it (even if it means facing the wrath of your peers or the 'majority opinion' and ultimately punishment) than merely behaving as a 'yes man'.

[sadtom]

The Falklands war could have been handled differently and it undoubtedly got her re-elected, but to think Thatcher manipulated the whole thing for her own personal gain, is frankly ridiculous.


You think? The words sabre rattling were in quotation marks for a reason (you can check Hansard if you like), there is no doubt in my mind she new exactly what she was doing.
I think it would be a serious mistake to under estimate what a nasty, evil, self serving **** she was/is.

[Antifa Hibs]

:confused: Celtic had a minute's applause this afternoon.

To be honest I find it shocking that, yet again, one half of the Old Firm has pandered to extremists within their support who are intent on causing trouble.

There were apparently people outside Parkhead before the match today, handing out leaflets to other fans asking them to join in with a protest against the tribute.

Celtic and their fans need to decide whether or not they want religious and political issues to be brought into football grounds.

Week after week they spout chants and songs about the IRA and their fight against United Kingdom rule in Ireland and people have to sit and listen to that whether they want to or not.

I am also of the belief (but if anyone wishes to argue that point then I'm willing to be proved wrong) that Celtic approached the SFA in 2005 to ask if they could have a minute's silence before their Scottish Cup game against Hearts to mark the passing of Pope John Paul II.

Now i've nothing against the Pope and whilst i'm quite sure Roman Catholics wanted to pay tribute to the man, I don't understand what relevance he had to Scottish football. However we had the minute's silence anyway and people should respect it.

But things like this go two ways. You can't possibly expect people, who perhaps don't share your views on politics or religion, to respect your beliefs if you are not willing to respect other people's views.

A lot of people in this country are proud of our Armed Forces and the work that they do and have done throughout history, but some aren't and they are entitled to that view, I have no problem with that at all. But what really gets me is when people are so attached to their views, they cannot tolerate any opinions that contradict theirs.

You cannot pick and choose what political/religious issues can/cannot be discussed within a football stadium. There has to be either a widespread ban on it or any issues are fair game and not just the ones that suit your personal agendas.

I realise the people responsible for organising this protest are in the minority and well done to those many Celtic fans who stood up to applaud those that have died whilst serving their country. However, despite the fact that a minute's applause has been the done thing in recent times to remember individuals who have passed away, in my opinion, applause is not the appropriate tribute for remembering those who have lost their lives whilst at war and I am annoyed that the people in charge at Celtic have allowed the extreme views of the minority rule how everyone else is to act.

As I said yesterday, if you feel so strongly about the tribute and feel you can't sit in silence for 60 seconds, wait outside the stadium until the minute is over before going to your seat.

There's one more point I would like to make. What's going to happen when the Queen eventually passes away? There will HAVE to be a tribute at every football stadium in the country before the games that immediately follow her death and you can be rest assured that a minute's applause will not be accepted. What will Celtic do then, I wonder.

It wasn't the tribute and poppys they were against, it was their board, hence the banner they had 'Celtic board = Hypocrits'. Celtic issuing threatening letters to supporters telling them to leave their political baggage at home on a Saturday, they then go and do this, forcing all players to wear a poppy, Irish, ulster and German players who never had a choice while Celtic also raising money for british soldiers. They weren't against any minutes silence, they weren't against indivuals wearing poppys.

Regarding the queens minutes silence (which there shouldn't be) it will probably be the same as her maws, minutes silence that got cut short. IMO there should only be minutes silences at football grounds for football related things, i.e deaths of a player, management, owners etc (And Armistice Day i'll give you that one). You wouldn't get a minutes silence at the dug racing or a gig when the queen dies so why at a football ground?

[alex plode]

You think? The words sabre rattling were in quotation marks for a reason (you can check Hansard if you like), there is no doubt in my mind she new exactly what she was doing.
I think it would be a serious mistake to under estimate what a nasty, evil, self serving **** she was/is.

She may have known exactly what she was doing, and she may even be nasty and evil, but as far as I'm aware; she didn't invade the Malvinas nor encourage the Argentinians to do so !

[sadtom]

She may have known exactly what she was doing, and she may even be nasty and evil, but as far as I'm aware; she didn't invade the Malvinas nor encourage the Argentinians to do so !

At a time when the military junta in argentina were making noises about reclaiming the islands and desperately looking to take the pressure of themselves at home. Thatcher recalled some of the protection vessels from the region months before the invasion. If this wasn't 'encouragement' for the military junta, it was certainly giving the impression that it the Falklands islands were not a priority.

[marinello59]

At a time when the military junta in argentina were making noises about reclaiming the islands and desperately looking to take the pressure of themselves at home. Thatcher recalled some of the protection vessels from the region months before the invasion. If this wasn't 'encouragement' for the military junta, it was certainly giving the impression that it the Falklands islands were not a priority.

The intelligence relating to Argentina's intentionswas not interpreted correctly at the time . As much as I dislike what that woman did to the country, deliberately encouraging war was not one of her crimes. Look at the logistics involved in fighting down there and initially it was far from certain that the war could be won.

[sadtom]

The intelligence relating to Argentina's intentionswas not interpreted correctly at the time . As much as I dislike what that woman did to the country, deliberately encouraging war was not one of her crimes. Look at the logistics involved in fighting down there and initially it was far from certain that the war could be won.


Totally disagree. The intellegence proved to be exactly correct and interpreted correctly by many politicians and commentators at the time.
It was a certainty that our professional army with far superior fire power would way to much for a conscripted, poorly equiped army who in the main despised their military rulers.
In short, she left the front door unlocked knowing that the argentinians would try to take advantage. Then sent hundreds to die in a war she new we would win, all for her own personal gain.

[Sir David Gray]

It wasn't the tribute and poppys they were against, it was their board, hence the banner they had 'Celtic board = Hypocrits'. Celtic issuing threatening letters to supporters telling them to leave their political baggage at home on a Saturday, they then go and do this, forcing all players to wear a poppy, Irish, ulster and German players who never had a choice while Celtic also raising money for british soldiers. They weren't against any minutes silence, they weren't against indivuals wearing poppys.

Regarding the queens minutes silence (which there shouldn't be) it will probably be the same as her maws, minutes silence that got cut short. IMO there should only be minutes silences at football grounds for football related things, i.e deaths of a player, management, owners etc (And Armistice Day i'll give you that one). You wouldn't get a minutes silence at the dug racing or a gig when the queen dies so why at a football ground?

I actually agree with you that only football related deaths should be met with a minute's silence at football games (although I do think Remembrance Day is an exception) but there WILL be a minute's silence (not applause) at every football ground in the UK when the queen dies and I just wondered what Celtic will do for this occasion as I am quite sure that some of their fans will not be happy observing a minute's silence for the queen.

If I misunderstood the point of yesterday's protest then fair enough. However, the point still stands that Celtic have allowed the minority within their support who are intent on causing problems, to alter the plans by all SPL clubs to have a minute's silence prior to this weekend's games.

Celtic were obviously scared that some of their fans would disrupt the silence and therefore chose to have a minute's applause instead which, as I have already said, in my opinion is not appropriate for remembering war dead.

As for their fans being unhappy at the club for forcing their players to wear poppies. I'm not aware of any Celtic players being unhappy at wearing a poppy on their shirt. It was an SPL initiative and Celtic, being part of the SPL, were naturally part of that initiative.

Players of every SPL club wore poppies this weekend, regardless of their nationality, and I am not aware of any individuals being unhappy or unwilling to wear a poppy on their shirt.

At the end of the day, whether some people like it or not, Celtic are a Scottish club. Since Scotland is part of the UK then it is only natural that British service men and women who have died at war are honoured by the people in this country and one of the things we do in this country at this time of year in order to remember those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country is to wear a poppy.

Nobody was asking Celtic fans or their players to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen or the monarchy, they weren't even asked to sing God Save The Queen whilst saluting the Union Flag. They were simply wearing a poppy on their shirts for 90 minutes.

Celtic's board were not asking their players to do anything that wasn't being asked of the players of every other SPL club.

Anyway, I'm sure they'll remind us all as to where their allegiances really lie when they come to Easter Road next month.

[marinello59]

Totally disagree. The intellegence proved to be exactly correct and interpreted correctly by many politicians and commentators at the time.
It was a certainty that our professional army with far superior fire power would way to much for a conscripted, poorly equiped army who in the main despised their military rulers.
In short, she left the front door unlocked knowing that the argentinians would try to take advantage. Then sent hundreds to die in a war she new we would win, all for her own personal gain.

Not true. The Argentinian Airforce was more than up to the task and there were genuine concerns that trying to maintain a beach head so far from the UK would prove impossible. You are using the benefit of hindsight to make your case.

[AndyP]

Totally disagree. The intellegence proved to be exactly correct and interpreted correctly by many politicians and commentators at the time.
It was a certainty that our professional army with far superior fire power would way to much for a conscripted, poorly equiped army who in the main despised their military rulers.
In short, she left the front door unlocked knowing that the argentinians would try to take advantage. Then sent hundreds to die in a war she new we would win, all for her own personal gain.

What makes you think that the Argentinians were poorly equipped because they certainly had better personal equipment than their British counterparts, their Navy had more destroyers and fast boats at their disposal than the RN could muster. Their airforce had just taken delivery of the Super Etenda (sp) and their AA equipment was better/mpre reliable than British so a maintenance of Air Superiority was certainly within their capabilities.

The only downfall would have been their officer class and the non conscription NCOs who apparently treated the soldiers under the command pretty poorly.

[Hibs Class]

Not true. The Argentinian Airforce was more than up to the task and there were genuine concerns that trying to maintain a beach head so far from the UK would prove impossible. You are using the benefit of hindsight to make your case.

:agree: Completely agree. Additionally, had the exocet that sank the Atlantic conveyor hit either Hermes or Invincible the result could well have gone the other way. Could also have been different had the Argentine navy (Belgrano excepted) put in an appearance.

[sadtom]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I do agree that the use of exocet missiles proved to be the biggest threat though they had limited numbers.
As for the warships the British navy in the main was able to sit outside the range of the argentine ships and shell the ***** out them.
With reference to the soldiers themselves - there is an old adage that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men.
I'm no expert in military hardware though it was always my belief that our aircraft and large weaponry was more than a match for anything the Argentinians had, though if you say otherwise i bow to your superior knowledge.
If (and its a big if IMHO) that the outcome was ever in doubt it was certainly a risk that thatcher was prepared to take, cause without emerging as a victorious leader there is no doubt she would have been out on her erchie.

[sadtom]

Not true. The Argentinian Airforce was more than up to the task and there were genuine concerns that trying to maintain a beach head so far from the UK would prove impossible. You are using the benefit of hindsight to make your case.

A genuine question
If the Argentinian Airforce were up to the taks why didn't they win?
You say I am using hindsight to make my case, is it not possible that the threat posed has been over egged in order to make the victory more impressive?
Also didn't thatcher have an agreement with fellow dodgy ******** Pinnochet regarding use of their airspace and seas for refueling etc.

[BEEJ]

:confused: Celtic had a minute's applause this afternoon.

I realise the people responsible for organising this protest are in the minority and well done to those many Celtic fans who stood up to applaud those that have died whilst serving their country.

However, despite the fact that a minute's applause has been the done thing in recent times to remember individuals who have passed away, in my opinion, applause is not the appropriate tribute for remembering those who have lost their lives whilst at war and I am annoyed that the people in charge at Celtic have allowed the extreme views of the minority rule how everyone else is to act.

As I said yesterday, if you feel so strongly about the tribute and feel you can't sit in silence for 60 seconds, wait outside the stadium until the minute is over before going to your seat.

There's one more point I would like to make. What's going to happen when the Queen eventually passes away? There will HAVE to be a tribute at every football stadium in the country before the games that immediately follow her death and you can be rest assured that a minute's applause will not be accepted. What will Celtic do then, I wonder.
Agree entirely. :agree:

The argument emerging is that a minute of applause is the way they now do things at Parkhead. Sorry?! :bitchy:

You cannot compare the remembrance of someone like the late Jimmy Johnstone, someone who lived a relatively long life and got to fulfil his talent and was an entertainer, with the millions who, in sacrifice - in their teens, twenties and thirties - either lost their lives or spent the rest of their lives physically or mentally scarred, in order to pay for the freedom that we now take for granted. Just no comparison.

Applause only trivialises the heavy price they paid.

Never mind the Queen. What will they do at Parkhead when the current Pope shuffles off this mortal coil. Will they applaud then?

[AndyP]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I do agree that the use of exocet missiles proved to be the biggest threat though they had limited numbers.
As for the warships the British navy in the main was able to sit outside the range of the argentine ships and shell the ***** out them.
With reference to the soldiers themselves - there is an old adage that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men.
I'm no expert in military hardware though it was always my belief that our aircraft and large weaponry was more than a match for anything the Argentinians had, though if you say otherwise i bow to your superior knowledge.
If (and its a big if IMHO) that the outcome was ever in doubt it was certainly a risk that thatcher was prepared to take, cause without emerging as a victorious leader there is no doubt she would have been out on her erchie.

But we didn't take LARGE weaponary most of it belonged to 3 Commando Brigade and they are a light brigade who didn't have great squadrons of tracked vehicles or heavy ranging artillery.

If you look at the various Orders of Battle then you'll see just what a difficult job it was against an opponent who had time to prepare a vast defensive position not to mention outnumber by about 3 to 1. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor really put the decision into doubt as there were a great number of logistical capability that went down with it, you know unimportant stuff like rations, weapon spares, ammunition, support helicopters.

[AndyP]

A genuine question
If the Argentinian Airforce were up to the taks why didn't they win?
You say I am using hindsight to make my case, is it not possible that the threat posed has been over egged in order to make the victory more impressive?
Also didn't thatcher have an agreement with fellow dodgy ******** Pinnochet regarding use of their airspace and seas for refueling etc.

Ask any of the veterens when they stopped getting Air Red messages, it was pretty late in the war, AFAIR, when the British gained air superiority

[marinello59]

A genuine question
If the Argentinian Airforce were up to the taks why didn't they win?
You say I am using hindsight to make my case, is it not possible that the threat posed has been over egged in order to make the victory more impressive?
Also didn't thatcher have an agreement with fellow dodgy ******** Pinnochet regarding use of their airspace and seas for refueling etc.

You said that the British forces were far superior to the Argentinian forces. I merely pointed out that in at least one respect the Argentinians had the upper hand. I didn't say that would guarentee them victory did I? However your whole case would rest on Britain being guarenteed victory in that particular conflict. It wasn't.
It is of course possible that the threat posed could be over egged. My opinion is that it wasn't, you don't agree. I don't think there is any chance that we will convince each other differently.:greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

Agree entirely. :agree:

The argument emerging is that a minute of applause is the way they now do things at Parkhead. Sorry?! :bitchy:

You cannot compare the remembrance of someone like the late Jimmy Johnstone, someone who lived a relatively long life and got to fulfil his talent and was an entertainer, with the millions who, in sacrifice - in their teens, twenties and thirties - either lost their lives or spent the rest of their lives physically or mentally scarred, in order to pay for the freedom that we now take for granted. Just no comparison.

Applause only trivialises the heavy price they paid.

Never mind the Queen. What will they do at Parkhead when the current Pope shuffles off this mortal coil. Will they applaud then?

Spot on. I personally still prefer the minute's silence as it is more reflective and people have a chance to have a moment to themselves to remember that person.

However I understand why the applause was brought in as it takes away the possibility of people spoiling it or latecomers arriving who aren't aware of the silence who start singing songs unintentionally.

But regardless of all that, I will never accept that a minute's applause is appropriate when remembering victims of war.

[barcahibs]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I do agree that the use of exocet missiles proved to be the biggest threat though they had limited numbers.
As for the warships the British navy in the main was able to sit outside the range of the argentine ships and shell the ***** out them.
With reference to the soldiers themselves - there is an old adage that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men.
I'm no expert in military hardware though it was always my belief that our aircraft and large weaponry was more than a match for anything the Argentinians had, though if you say otherwise i bow to your superior knowledge.
If (and its a big if IMHO) that the outcome was ever in doubt it was certainly a risk that thatcher was prepared to take, cause without emerging as a victorious leader there is no doubt she would have been out on her erchie.


The Navy didn't sit out of range of anything, it sat in San Carlos water and had the crap bombed out of it with an air defence consisting mainly of individual soldiers firing machine guns randomly into the air at attackers they didn't have time to see, because the Navy's missile systems were either obsolete (sea slug) in short supply (sea wolf) or just plain didn't work yet (sea dart). If the Argentinians had worked out the fusing problems on their bombs many more ships could have been lost. The carriers themselves were nearly hit twice, the loss of either would have meant the loss of the war.

Meanwhile the air war was conducted with about two dozen untested, daylight only, subsonic fighters against the 200 or so reasonably modern Argentinian planes, including supersonic fighters.

The Argentinians had equivalent, possibly even superior, rifles, more night vision equipment and I believe more artillery and helicopters. I know we nicked the anti-aircraft guns they left behind because we didn't have any of our own. Maybe one volunteer is worth more than ten pressed men but a 7.62mm bullet doesn't give a damm either way.

The Argentinians didn't win, partly because of poor tactics (they should have gone for the fighters from the start, plus the bomb fusing problem), partly because of bad luck (the exocet and torpedo missing the carriers) and partly just due to the mathematics of war. The British were prepared to take more than the Argentinians were prepared to give.

It was a very chancy affair and victory was a long, long way from certain. Thatcher may be guilty of many things but starting this war isn't one of them IMO.

As for Iraq, the orders given to the soldiers there were and are perfectly legal, some may find the war immoral, or unjust, but that doesn't make it illegal.

I bought and wore a poppy with pride today and there was certainly no shortage of people wearing them out and about. In a way I'm glad celtc went down the applause route and I'm glad the majority seems to have supported it, this is a day for rememberance not point scoring.

[(((Fergus)))]

The problem with remembrance is that only one side is ever remembered, the inference being that the other side was "the baddies". We tend to forget that many of the young men who fell in battle for Britain did so after robbing other families of their young men - or even after killing entire families, men women and children.

11 November could and should be an opportunity to consider the folly of war and resolve never to resort to it again (wishful thinking, I know, but the principle is valid). That way, everyone - including Irish republicans, Germans, Japanese, Argentinians, Iraqis, etc.,etc. - can participate in a shared moment of reflection.

[sadtom]

You said that the British forces were far superior to the Argentinian forces. I merely pointed out that in at least one respect the Argentinians had the upper hand. I didn't say that would guarentee them victory did I? However your whole case would rest on Britain being guarenteed victory in that particular conflict. It wasn't.
It is of course possible that the threat posed could be over egged. My opinion is that it wasn't, you don't agree. I don't think there is any chance that we will convince each other differently.:greengrin

I accept that it was wrong of of me to suggest that victory was assured, though i do think we were favourites. I certainly dont wish to decry the efforts of those who put themselves in a position of grave danger.

As for the bit in bold, i dont think that my agruement stands or falls on that one point. The chance of Britain winning the war was far more likely than thatcher being re-elected without the victory. If we had lost she would have been emptied, had it not taken place, she would have been emptied, of that there is no doubt.
I believe it is absolutely the case that thatcher engineered the situation by leaving the 'door open' to give Galtieri the green light to invade. Gambling on the fact that we would win and she would see the dramatic (and realised) turnaround in her and her parties fortunes.
She did have opportunities to prevent the invasion and activley resisted. Instead she was happy to play with the lives of thousands for her own personal gain. Of that i am 100% convinced.
Please remember the crux of my point was that she allowed/encouraged it to happen - not that we were guaranteed victory.
As you say though perhaps you, I, and Andy P and others will just have to disagree.

[sadtom]

Came across this article
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html
some interesting info. It certainly doesn't seem that we were at a disadvantage with regards to firepower and weaponry, numbers yes but certainly not capabilty.

AndyP (i appreciate you were talking about ground forces) but i would have thought Vulcan bombers and 3 nuclear submarines would count as LARGE weaponry.:greengrin
The presence of the subs and the longer range of the british navys guns surely negated any threat from the Argentinian fleet.:dunno:

[marinello59]

I accept that it was wrong of of me to suggest that victory was assured, though i do think we were favourites. I certainly dont wish to decry the efforts of those who put themselves in a position of grave danger.

As for the bit in bold, i dont think that my agruement stands or falls on that one point. The chance of Britain winning the war was far more likely than thatcher being re-elected without the victory. If we had lost she would have been emptied, had it not taken place, she would have been emptied, of that there is no doubt.
I believe it is absolutely the case that thatcher engineered the situation by leaving the 'door open' to give Galtieri the green light to invade. Gambling on the fact that we would win and she would see the dramatic (and realised) turnaround in her and her parties fortunes.
She did have opportunities to prevent the invasion and activley resisted. Instead she was happy to play with the lives of thousands for her own personal gain. Of that i am 100% convinced.
Please remember the crux of my point was that she allowed/encouraged it to happen - not that we were guaranteed victory.
As you say though perhaps you, I, and Andy P and others will just have to disagree.

Perhaps we can agree on this then. If you are right, and of course I disagree, then she was taking one hell of a gamble.


Came across this article
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html
some interesting info. It certainly doesn't seem that we were at a disadvantage with regards to firepower and weaponry, numbers yes but certainly not capabilty.

AndyP (i appreciate you were talking about ground forces) but i would have thought Vulcan bombers and 3 nuclear submarines would count as LARGE weaponry.:greengrin
The presence of the subs and the longer range of the british navys guns surely negated any threat from the Argentinian fleet.:dunno:

And as I intend to bow out of this one I will resist the temptation to point out that this article benefits from hindsight. Damn, I couldn't resist it.:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

The problem with remembrance is that only one side is ever remembered, the inference being that the other side was "the baddies". We tend to forget that many of the young men who fell in battle for Britain did so after robbing other families of their young men - or even after killing entire families, men women and children.

11 November could and should be an opportunity to consider the folly of war and resolve never to resort to it again (wishful thinking, I know, but the principle is valid). That way, everyone - including Irish republicans, Germans, Japanese, Argentinians, Iraqis, etc.,etc. - can participate in a shared moment of reflection. :applause: Agree 100% !

[AndyP]

Came across this article
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html
some interesting info. It certainly doesn't seem that we were at a disadvantage with regards to firepower and weaponry, numbers yes but certainly not capabilty.

AndyP (i appreciate you were talking about ground forces) but i would have thought Vulcan bombers and 3 nuclear submarines would count as LARGE weaponry.:greengrin
The presence of the subs and the longer range of the british navys guns surely negated any threat from the Argentinian fleet.:dunno:

They aren't weapons they are assets a totally different Boulabaise which you might have understood if you had ever served

[marinello59]

The problem with remembrance is that only one side is ever remembered, the inference being that the other side was "the baddies". We tend to forget that many of the young men who fell in battle for Britain did so after robbing other families of their young men - or even after killing entire families, men women and children.

11 November could and should be an opportunity to consider the folly of war and resolve never to resort to it again (wishful thinking, I know, but the principle is valid). That way, everyone - including Irish republicans, Germans, Japanese, Argentinians, Iraqis, etc.,etc. - can participate in a shared moment of reflection.

I am not sure if that is true. I am sure there have been many instances of "enemy" troops being invited to remembrance ceremonies. Speak to any veterans of armed conflict and they are well aware of the consequences of their actions and as a result are probably the most likely to stand shoulder to shoulder with their former adversaries in remembrance.
On a personal level I always assumed that the act of remembrance was a personal thing, two minutes to reflect on the folly of war, no matter who the casualties were.

[BEEJ]

I am not sure if that is true. I am sure there have been many instances of "enemy" troops being invited to remembrance ceremonies. Speak to any veterans of armed conflict and they are well aware of the consequences of their actions and as a result are probably the most likely to stand shoulder to shoulder with their former adversaries in remembrance.
On a personal level I always assumed that the act of remembrance was a personal thing, two minutes to reflect on the folly of war, no matter who the casualties were.
:agree:

[alex plode]

At a time when the military junta in argentina were making noises about reclaiming the islands and desperately looking to take the pressure of themselves at home. Thatcher recalled some of the protection vessels from the region months before the invasion. If this wasn't 'encouragement' for the military junta, it was certainly giving the impression that it the Falklands islands were not a priority.

The crux of your argument is, as you state, Thatcher allowed -or encouraged - the Falklands war to happen. Where's the evidence ?

You say she withdrew "some of the protection vessels" in the knowledge invasion was iminent ...it was John Knott who withdrew ONE vessel two years prior to invasion (an adapted Danish trading ship) as a defence cost cutting measure !!
Some conspiracy theorists interpret this as an open invitation to invade - two years later - despite the Royal Marine presence on the island and a UK-inclined population :confused:...

[barcahibs]

Came across this article
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html
some interesting info. It certainly doesn't seem that we were at a disadvantage with regards to firepower and weaponry, numbers yes but certainly not capabilty.

AndyP (i appreciate you were talking about ground forces) but i would have thought Vulcan bombers and 3 nuclear submarines would count as LARGE weaponry.:greengrin
The presence of the subs and the longer range of the british navys guns surely negated any threat from the Argentinian fleet.:dunno:

Interesting article but it uses a lot of hindsight and (IMO) greatly overeggs the British pudding in regards to the capabilities of the Harriers and the fleets air defence systems - most of which were obsolete, untested, or just plain didn't work.

As for the Vulcans, they were ancient, obsolete aircraft that were in the process of being decomissioned. The RAF had to literally scour scrapyards and museums all over the world in order to find enough spare parts to get three Vulcans airborne for the initial raid. Of these only one made it as far as the Falklands and it managed to drop precisely one "dumb" unguided bomb, aimed by eyeball, paper map and stopwatch, on target. If that plane had been detected on approach it had no way to defend itself. The Vulcans were a bluff, luckily for the British, a bluff the Argentinians bought.

[AndyP]

WTF are you on about? I get told i'm an a$$hole by smiley for daring to have an opinion (that was not in the least insulting) and ask a question that does not get answered.
As for the point you made, i'm aware of the 'rules' however, whats more important to me is how you behave as a human being and how you square your actions with your conscience. If you strongly disagree with something it shows far more courage and moral fortitude to make a stand against it (even if it means facing the wrath of your peers or the 'majority opinion' and ultimately punishment) than merely behaving as a 'yes man'.


Do you not think that unlawful orders would go hand in hand with fighting an illegal, unjust and unlawful war?

That was a direct answer to this question you asked, so if you are so aware of the rules you wouldn't have needed to frame the question would you ?

We don't act as yes men, we do tend to know when an order is morally wrong and when we need to show some humanity in a battle despite the overwhelming desire to do otherwise.

Perhaps you might not understand how it can be done but if you do then I doubt you've ever had the misforune to experience conflict at the sharp end.

[Betty Boop]

Interesting comments by Jon Snow on "poppy fascism" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6134906.stm

[sadtom]

They aren't weapons they are assets a totally different Boulabaise which you might have understood if you had ever served

Ah! now i know how the yanks (and us) ****** up in Iraq. We should have been looking for 'Assets of mass destruction.':greengrin

[sadtom]

Interesting article but it uses a lot of hindsight and (IMO) greatly overeggs the British pudding in regards to the capabilities of the Harriers and the fleets air defence systems - most of which were obsolete, untested, or just plain didn't work.

As for the Vulcans, they were ancient, obsolete aircraft that were in the process of being decomissioned. The RAF had to literally scour scrapyards and museums all over the world in order to find enough spare parts to get three Vulcans airborne for the initial raid. Of these only one made it as far as the Falklands and it managed to drop precisely one "dumb" unguided bomb, aimed by eyeball, paper map and stopwatch, on target. If that plane had been detected on approach it had no way to defend itself. The Vulcans were a bluff, luckily for the British, a bluff the Argentinians bought.

Its obvious you have an increase in the conflict. However i would be more inclined to accept the info in the article than your interpretation, given that you were 5 at the time.

[sadtom]

The crux of your argument is, as you state, Thatcher allowed -or encouraged - the Falklands war to happen. Where's the evidence ?

You say she withdrew "some of the protection vessels" in the knowledge invasion was iminent ...it was John Knott who withdrew ONE vessel two years prior to invasion (an adapted Danish trading ship) as a defence cost cutting measure !!
Some conspiracy theorists interpret this as an open invitation to invade - two years later - despite the Royal Marine presence on the island and a UK-inclined population :confused:...

The 'evidence' is that on several occasions (and these are documented) is that thatcher was urge to bolster the garrison and send warships to the region MONTHS before the invasion, as it looked increasingly likey that they were going to invade. If you dont think this is true, how did the people who asked these questions suspect that it was about to happen?
Thatcher point black refused on several occasion, most famously with the "sabre rattling" quote.

[hibsbollah]

The 'evidence' is that on several occasions (and these are documented) is that thatcher was urge to bolster the garrison and send warships to the region MONTHS before the invasion, as it looked increasingly likey that they were going to invade. If you dont think this is true, how did the people who asked these questions suspect that it was about to happen?
Thatcher point black refused on several occasion, most famously with the "sabre rattling" quote.

As a card-carrying 'leftie' myself, I always have difficulty with this 'Thatcher invited the Argentinians to invade the Falklands' argument. I heard Tony Benn make this case recently and despite agreeing with him on most things, I just wasnt convinced by what seemed like a flimsy conspiracy about a couple of British boats departing the scene a few months previously.

Its tempting as a left-winger to have sympathy for the Argentinian position because they were somehow 'up against Thatcher'; But the fascist Argentinian junta were doing far worse things to their own people than Thatcher did to us in the 1970s, our enemy's enemy isnt necessarily our friend.

[sadtom]

As a card-carrying 'leftie' myself, I always have difficulty with this 'Thatcher invited the Argentinians to invade the Falklands' argument. I heard Tony Benn make this case recently and despite agreeing with him on most things, I just wasnt convinced by what seemed like a flimsy conspiracy about a couple of British boats departing the scene a few months previously.

Its tempting as a left-winger to have sympathy for the Argentinian position because they were somehow 'up against Thatcher'; But the fascist Argentinian junta were doing far worse things to their own people than Thatcher did to us in the 1970s, our enemy's enemy isnt necessarily our friend.

Dont agree with your first paragraph, but you would get no arguement from me about the 2nd. The military junta were despicable sc*m.

The fact that a few boats left the area is in itself not an invite, but taken into context as to the other info and intellegence that existed, then it does play a factor.
If the old bill came to your house and informed you that you that a team of housebreakers were operating in the area and that they had information that your house was their next target and advised you that your security was inadequate.
You then ignore this info, go out, leave the door ajar and put a big sign up at the front of the house announcing this...only to appear shocked when you get home to a burgled house.
I know what the insurance company would tell you.

[barcahibs]

Its obvious you have an increase in the conflict. However i would be more inclined to accept the info in the article than your interpretation, given that you were 5 at the time.

:greengrin

Yes because everyone who was over 18 at the time of the conflict was sent an information pack in the post swearing them to secrecy and giving them the full story.

"How I made the Argies invade the Malvi... Falklands." By Margaret H Thatcher aged 56 and 3/4.

I'm glad you've pointed this out actually, I was just about to start a book on the Reformation and having done some quick calculations on the back of a fag packet I reckon the author can't have been alive at all in 1350! What a swizz!

:greengrin

Seriously though, you're right I wasn't there at the time, though I have taken a great interest in it and I have spoken to people who were. Still no substitute for those who made the journey there (on both sides) knowing they might not come back.
You're also very right that you should take the word of a referenced source over some random stranger on the internet - or some politico with an axe to grind. It is a decent article, it just has its own agenda (as do I obviously) and you need to be aware of that while reading it. It actually backs up much of what I and others have been saying.

Anyway I really, honestly, have no desire to get in an argument with a fellow Hibby about something like this. I thought we were just having a friendly discussion I apologise if it comes across otherwise.

[sadtom]

:greengrin

Yes because everyone who was over 18 at the time of the conflict was sent an information pack in the post swearing them to secrecy and giving them the full story.

"How I made the Argies invade the Malvi... Falklands." By Margaret H Thatcher aged 56 and 3/4.

I'm glad you've pointed this out actually, I was just about to start a book on the Reformation and having done some quick calculations on the back of a fag packet I reckon the author can't have been alive at all in 1350! What a swizz!

:greengrin

Seriously though, you're right I wasn't there at the time, though I have taken a great interest in it and I have spoken to people who were. Still no substitute for those who made the journey there (on both sides) knowing they might not come back.
You're also very right that you should take the word of a referenced source over some random stranger on the internet - or some politico with an axe to grind. It is a decent article, it just has its own agenda (as do I obviously) and you need to be aware of that while reading it. It actually backs up much of what I and others have been saying.

Anyway I really, honestly, have no desire to get in an argument with a fellow Hibby about something like this. I thought we were just having a friendly discussion I apologise if it comes across otherwise.

No probs at all bud.
I wasn't trying to say you weren't allowed an opinion due to your age, i've got plenty opinions about things that happened way before i popped out.
It was more that the article did seem fairly detailed in its content. i'm not sure that it does have an agenda though, it seems to come from a 'neutral(ish)' source. if it does have an agend i'm not sure what it is!:greengrin

As i said earlier the real crux of my arguement isn't that we were certain to win (as i retracted that comment) but more that war could have been prevented if the will had existed. Its my conclusion that the reasons it wasn't was that it was a deliberate ploy by the thatcher govt, though i'm aware its not conclusive and everyone is entitled to come to their own decision.
Anyway enjoyed discussing it its good to have different opinions and ideas cause it seems everyone is AGREEING (shock horror) on the main board that Mixu has to go, something i've thought for a good while now.:greengrin
GGTTH

[alex plode]

The 'evidence' is that on several occasions (and these are documented) is that thatcher was urge to bolster the garrison and send warships to the region MONTHS before the invasion, as it looked increasingly likey that they were going to invade. If you dont think this is true, how did the people who asked these questions suspect that it was about to happen?
Thatcher point black refused on several occasion, most famously with the "sabre rattling" quote.

The people who were allegedly sounding warning signals were the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, the CIA and Nicholas Barker of HMS Enudance however the official investigation into the failure of the government to anticipate invasion (The Franks Report) stated these alleged warnings were never sent !

Two people I'm aware of warned of invasion, firstly the British Defence Attache in Buenos Aires, who predicted a possible invasion 5 months AFTER it happened and secondly; the captain of Endurance, who was considered to be alarmist in order to save his ship - soon to be withdrawn.
Allegedly this manouvre acted as a sign to Argentina to invade when in reality Endurance was know to provide little security to the Falklands (at very high cost).
If somone has to be blamed for the war, it's those responsible for breakdown of diplomatic negotiations over decades preceding 1982; and in particular, the failure of the lease-back agreement.
To think Thatcher manipulated the whole affair to ensure war was the only outcome, is conspiracy theory gone mad, and insulting to the 900 servicemen who lost their lives.

[sadtom]

The people who were allegedly sounding warning signals were the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, the CIA and Nicholas Barker of HMS Enudance however the official investigation into the failure of the government to anticipate invasion (The Franks Report) stated these alleged warnings were never sent !

Two people I'm aware of warned of invasion, firstly the British Defence Attache in Buenos Aires, who predicted a possible invasion 5 months AFTER it happened and secondly; the captain of Endurance, who was considered to be alarmist in order to save his ship - soon to be withdrawn.
Allegedly this manouvre acted as a sign to Argentina to invade when in reality Endurance was know to provide little security to the Falklands (at very high cost).
If somone has to be blamed for the war, it's those responsible for breakdown of diplomatic negotiations over decades preceding 1982; and in particular, the failure of the lease-back agreement.
To think Thatcher manipulated the whole affair to ensure war was the only outcome, is conspiracy theory gone mad, and insulting to the 900 servicemen who lost their lives.


Firstly can you explain why, if no one knew or suspected it was about to happen, why questions were asked in parliament, months before the invasion, urging her to send ships/troops to the region?

As for the bit in bold, that is complete bollox.
I suspect its more to do with the fact that some servicemen (unsurprisingly) would hate to think that that is the real reason they had to make the sacrifice was for her benefit and entirely avoidable.
What is truly insulting (to the entire country) is that that bitch was never taken to task over it.
Perhaps it is more comforting to the casualties and their families to believe that their sacrifice was unavoidable and purely in the interst of the nation but i do not believe that was the case.

[alex plode]

Firstly can you explain why, if no one knew or suspected it was about to happen, why questions were asked in parliament, months before the invasion, urging her to send ships/troops to the region?

As for the bit in bold, that is complete bollox.
I suspect its more to do with the fact that some servicemen (unsurprisingly) would hate to think that that is the real reason they had to make the sacrifice was for her benefit and entirely avoidable.
What is truly insulting (to the entire country) is that that bitch was never taken to task over it.
Perhaps it is more comforting to the casualties and their families to believe that their sacrifice was unavoidable and purely in the interst of the nation but i do not believe that was the case.

ALL war is avoidable Tom - to blame Thatcher for instigating the Falklands is ridiculous.

The reasons questions on invasion were asked a few months before actual invasion were lease-back talks had come to a standstill and Galtieri had just come to power and was keen to make a name for himself !
If you have to blame one person for the Falklands, why not him ?

[sadtom]

ALL war is avoidable Tom - to blame Thatcher for instigating the Falklands is ridiculous.

The reasons questions on invasion were asked a few months before actual invasion were lease-back talks had come to a standstill and Galtieri had just come to power and was keen to make a name for himself !
If you have to blame one person for the Falklands, why not him ?

The reason people asked questions was because they could see it coming. Is there going to be a similar rewriting of history 20 or so years from now? Are people going to say that Iraq was invaded because everyone believed Saddam had WMD's. When the truth is thousands if not millions knew that he didn't and that it was a merely a convenient excuse.

I've never accused Thatcher of starting the war. I have accused her of ignoring the advice she was given and for allowing the war to happen to further her own end. There is a massive difference.

[Hibrandenburg]

The reason people asked questions was because they could see it coming. Is there going to be a similar rewriting of history 20 or so years from now? Are people going to say that Iraq was invaded because everyone believed Saddam had WMD's. When the truth is thousands if not millions knew that he didn't and that it was a merely a convenient excuse.

I've never accused Thatcher of starting the war. I have accused her of ignoring the advice she was given and for allowing the war to happen to further her own end. There is a massive difference.

Same could be said about Chamberlain allowing Hitler to rebuild his army using your logic on the Gulf War. Hindsight is an amazing thing.

[hibsdaft]

update on this: apparently 30 of those who took part in this demonstration were ejected from Celtc Park on Tuesday night and had their season books taken off them.

i wear a poppy and think this protest was idiotic (it seems that the intention of the demonstration has actually been widely misreported/ misinterpreted, but that just goes to show how dodgy it was to do what they did imo) but i think its shocking that they are being punished in this way for what was a peaceful, if stupid, protest against John Reid who incidentally, will be the one who has now decided to ban them from Celtc Park, their own football club.

i also suspect he's just set in motion a big ugly conflict amongst their support over this.

have to say, i am very glad we don't have this sort of pish at ER.

[Phil D. Rolls]

update on this: apparently 30 of those who took part in this demonstration were ejected from Celtc Park on Tuesday night and had their season books taken off them.

i wear a poppy and think this protest was idiotic (it seems that the intention of the demonstration has actually been widely misreported/ misinterpreted, but that just goes to show how dodgy it was to do what they did imo) but i think its shocking that they are being punished in this way for what was a peaceful, if stupid, protest against John Reid who incidentally, will be the one who has now decided to ban them from Celtc Park, their own football club.

i also suspect he's just set in motion a big ugly conflict amongst their support over this.

have to say, i am very glad we don't have this sort of pish at ER.

Don't agree with what they were protesting about. I actually think banning these f*nnies is just what they were after and they will now be able to lap up the attention that they wouldn't have got if he'd just ignored them.