Muslim protesters: Remembrance Day.

DeletedUser

Guest
MetallicPhantom said:
I find that comment wrong as that would lend our sympathy to the German soldiers, and I for one refuse to do that.

Burning the poppy is an attempt to mock our memories. I get your point that it is just paper and plastic, but we as people vest our emotions into items in order to keep ahold of them. By this, people attacking these attempts leaves us feeling like it's a direct attack on us.
Click to expand...

The German soldiers should get just as much respect as the allied soldiers. They were pawns in the game of nations, they were not the evil ones.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think they didn't really have a huge choice. They could hardly ask for an empire as Britain was still a great power and had powerful allies. And it was likely if they'd given in they'd have still been blamed for the war.

I'm sure had the Germans won, we'd be discussing why britain didn't look for a peaceful way out and how they'd been cruel and violent in their pursuit for an empire.

I agree that the Nazi's would probably be a little too far to feel sympathy for, I'm sure there were innocent soldiers but many others committed horrific atrocities
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Olis750 said:
The German soldiers should get just as much respect as the allied soldiers. They were pawns in the game of nations, they were not the evil ones.
Click to expand...

They were told to fight and they did so willingly. Hitler was indeed a smart man, but those soldiers could have done the same as many other genres of workers and fled.

doomdealer666 said:
I think they didn't really have a huge choice. They could hardly ask for an empire as Britain was still a great power and had powerful allies. And it was likely if they'd given in they'd have still been blamed for the war. Austria-Hungray was a country in devestation, there was a merge opportunity. They had more than one option. Before WW1, they had their overseas colonies etc.

I'm sure had the Germans won, we'd be discussing why britain didn't look for a peaceful way out and how they'd been cruel and violent in their pursuit for an empire. At that period Britain was sustaining it's empire, hardly adding to it. I'm sure if the Germans had won, most of us wouldn't have been here to talk about it.

I agree that the Nazi's would probably be a little too far to feel sympathy for, I'm sure there were innocent soldiers but many others committed horrific atrocities
Click to expand...

They had their ways out. There were Generals who had contacted Britain before the war and given them information about what was happening at that period. The soldiers could have easily ran, moved to another country.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
And? Britain had aquired it's power when every other major world power had. It was expand or be conquered.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Germany attempted the same thing, just so happened they were a bit late :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
They came in trying to take over a develope world, that had began to enter a time of world 'peace'. People were more civilised. Germany had its own 'mini-empire' with their overseas colonies.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would hardly say it was a time of peace, tensions in Europe were very high.

There isn't a set time an empire can choose to expand, at varying points in history a great power has decided to expand and take from its neighbours.

And although people may have seemed more civilised, there was still huge wars filled with pointless death, nuclear weapons and the holocause just around the corner
 

DeletedUser

Guest
doomdealer666 said:
I would hardly say it was a time of peace, tensions in Europe were very high. Tensions, most feared to act because of the international peace keeper at the time, the British Empire.

There isn't a set time an empire can choose to expand, at varying points in history a great power has decided to expand and take from its neighbours. When new nations are discovered, e.g. the 'New World', every established power races to grab it's land.

And although people may have seemed more civilised, there was still huge wars filled with pointless death, nuclear weapons and the holocause just around the corner
Click to expand...

The killing of Jews by Hitler, a person who got into power by backdoor trickery, propaganda and fear campaigns and being voted in. The race of nuclear power happened quicker than expected because the allies realised how fast Germany was doing it, so the special relationship between the UK & the USA developed the nuke together.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Sweetdeath20 said:
[gfx]I say ignore it- the more we react to it, the more successful they have been.[/gfx]
Click to expand...
Absolutely, nothing to add to that really. Except to say that Nick Griffin is probably the greatest beneficiary of their actions.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Mmmm tough moral conundrum, the role of armed forces in protecting people's freedoms (at least the people in their home countries such as Uk or USA) is overplayed in the media and glorified for PR matters. Whereas in reality, those freedoms were never threatened in the first place and the soldiers in question (although I understand they play no role in the decision making apparatus and just do what their told by civilian leadership as best they can) usually just serve as enforcers of an agenda that is not made with the general public in mind and in the case of the war on terror is devised by corrupt and/or misguided regimes to serve the purposes of small interest groups.

Therefore, all the chest beating about how you wouldn't have your freedom without their sacrifice (they being soldiers who died in recent wars), truth is you would still have our freedoms, those were never under threat. I don't think anyone can deny that US military agenda is largely set by lobby groups and military-industrial complex, and that the UK millitary agenda is pretty much set by the US. So did the soldiers die for an honourable cause ? Debatable.
Should they be respected for risking their lives when they didn't need to for what they believed was the safety of their people ? Yeah, they probably should.
Nobody should be permitted to take out their frustration at bad political decisions on soldiers who had nothing to do with those decisions. If those banners stated "British Politicians burn in hell", then maybe I'd agree.

But the issue of a war memorial really brings me back to something that happened here. There was a memorial graveyard in a place called Comilla near my city where graves of British Soldiers who died in WWII were located and tended. Now this caused friction, because for one thing, we don't remember the British fondly, and for another all the graves were of white British soldiers whereas they weren't the only ones who died defending this front against the Japanese. So it was a travesty, elevating the remembrance of certain heroes over other heroes.

So what did we do ? We dug it up and built a golf course over it. :)
When you describe the war dead as heroes, you should consider who they are heroes to.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Peter: Ground zero. So this is where the first guy got AIDS.
Brian: No, Peter, this is the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks!
Peter: Oh, so Saddam Hussein did this?
Brian: No.
Peter: The Iraqi army?
Brian: No.
Peter: Some guys from Iraq?
Brian: No.
Peter: That one lady who visited Iraq that one time?
Brian: NO! Peter, Iraq had nothing to do with this. It was a bunch of Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Egyptians financed by a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan and sheltered by Pakistanis.
Peter: So...you're saying we need to invade Iran?



that sums it up not all wars are for proper reasoning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top