Jump to content

Island at War


craggy_steve

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Howard said:

I am very supportive of war. I hope we have another world war sometime soon to help reduce the excess population.

That would be contrary to our national economic development strategy. Gov't keeps telling us we need more people on the IoM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 8/20/2018 at 7:50 AM, craggy_steve said:

Is it just me who finds the "Island at War" weekend inappropriate? It seems to be a "celebration" of wartime which people take pleasure in, and I'm struggling to reconcile that with the bombed-out houses, casualties, grieving families who have just received a WD telegram etc. What sort of message does it give to younger people who have not lived through military conflict, lost friends, neighbours, family members etc.? Maybe I'm the one who's out of step, but I'm getting heartily fed up with this annual glorification of wartime. Walked through Port Erin on Sunday and there was a Self-Propelled Gun (looked like an Abbot) parked up on the station platform, quite upset me.

I can understand folks celebrating the culture, engineering, music, fashion etc. of times past, but am I out of tune in finding the island's annual glorification of WWII to be a bit sick?

You could say the same about "Bonfire Night", we celebrate Guy Faulkes who tried to blow up the houses of parliament, if i am correct ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

You could say the same about "Bonfire Night", we celebrate Guy Faulkes who tried to blow up the houses of parliament, if i am correct ?

It's not a celebration of Guy Fawkes, it's a celebration of him getting caught, being hanged, having his genitals cut off and burnt before his eyes (that was the plan but he died before that bit), and his bowels and heart removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

It's not a celebration of Guy Fawkes, it's a celebration of him getting caught, being hanged, having his genitals cut off and burnt before his eyes (that was the plan but he died before that bit), and his bowels and heart removed. 

So he didn`t go to court, and wasn`t sent to prison then ?

That must have been a good deterent, was it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:
On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 5:25 PM, GD4ELI said:

Why all the uniforms then? The Island didn't have it as bad as Liverpool etc.

Or the Channel Islands! It’s not like we were invaded or anything. 

Not invaded by foe , but certainly by friends ever since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, craggy_steve said:

That would be contrary to our national economic development strategy. Gov't keeps telling us we need more people on the IoM.

I disagree. We need less civil servants, which will mean less need for people to pay taxes to sustain them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Or the Channel Islands! It’s not like we were invaded or anything. 

That's a good point but we did have the mass incarceration of thousands of refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom were innocent German Jews who had fled from the Third Reich. The whole thing was massive breach of habeas corpus (paging John Wright) much like the mass incarceration of the Japanese in the United States. What happened and how this was allowed to happen will become increasingly relevant in the 21st century as we face the challenges of global terrorism from certain quarters of society resident in the United Kingdom and other parts of the western world but who utterly despise their host countries and wish them harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Howard said:

No, they were actually rounded up and arrested under a "collar the lot" policy before being sent here by the Prime Minister, Mr Churchill.

It wasn't Winston's decision. It was/is common practice in times of conflict under international law. First instances of internment date back to the 17th century, iirc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, quilp said:

It wasn't Winston's decision. It was common practice in times of conflict under international law. First instances of internment date back to the 17th century, iirc. 

You’ve been warned about introducing  facts before...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...