Sorry folks - I was pleased when others began to join in this melee but now this feller has appeared to have painted it into a corner with his claims that the looters (armed with their flame-throwers, presumably) were the cause of mass destruction of Dublin city centre.
That seems a reasonable argument Sackville Street, Henry Street, Abbey Street and Moore Street were made up of small wooden huts and a box of matches can do a hell of a lot of damage, after all.
This ia a summary of the Weapons used during Easter week so it's fairly obvious that our boys in khaki were really up against it.
Perhaps it's time to move on - this really is treading stagnant water, the actual (not imagined and wishfully invented-on-the spot) facts are all up for grabs and, given the fact that this is the centenary of this event of this historic and world-changing event, lots more new facts are emerging every day, certainly here in Ireland, where every week brings yet another television documentary, another newspaper or radio documentary another newspaper or magazine supplement - and yet another well-researched researched book or lecture or exhibition.
I really don't expect a couple of long-live-the- Empirists to accept this event for what it was, as they've proved in past arguments, it's not their thing.   
I don't think I have ever come across a display of unremitting and persistent hatred against one national group ever before, on this Forum or anywhere, unless you count The Famine, where we saw a similar display by the same two people - says what needs to be said, as far as I'm concerned.
The Famine argument has been dredged up once again with totally false claims, to prove that the Irish hate Britain - surprisingly they don't, considering the history of the relationship.
The fact that the Irish don't hate Britain is beyond question; the only manifestation of hatred in these islands has been between two sections of the British nation - the republic in general standing aside and letting them at it - of course you had some supporting and sympathising - bound to happen seeing someone, somewhere had drawn a line across Ireland.
I find it utterly despicable that someone should invent a hatred that does not exist and they are not prepared to identify (and then, equally dishonestly, claim that they had) - first "I did give examples." then "There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it."
That dishonesty has played a prominent part in this argument - first we were given, Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.",
then
"hate the British" is not a phrase I have used in this discussion.
That dishonesty and invention is are forms of extreme hatred in themselves.
No serious historian has ever suggested that the people of Ireland have been "brainwashed" through their education system to hate Britain - nowhere - that is pure invention.
Keith's witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite, arguing that Irish educationalists bent over backwards to avoid the question of blame because it was politically expedient to do so - she based an entire work on that avoidance.
She argued that Irish history came in three distinct phases: the 'Free State Period which, when, in the fresh atmosphere of freedom, there were just "heroes and villains" and no substance (the Romantic Period).
1932 and the Republican Government brought a change, whereby history became totally uncritical and refused to apportion blame, largely due to the fact that Ireland was reliant on Britain accepting Irish emigrants, so they didn't wish to 'bite the had that fed them', so to speak (The Revisionist Period).
In this period there was little serious discussion on Ireland's long-running dispute over Independence (only one major work on Ireland's greatest disaster - by an Englishwoman).
From 1962 onwards, Irish education began to examine it's history in more depth, but still avoided blame (enlightened revisionism) - She might have added the (new enlightenment period) following the 150th anniversary of The Famine, when historians began to point fingers and apportion real blame - she was one of those who argued that Britain was not only responsible for fatally mishandling the Famine, but that there was a possibility that is was used as a deliberate ploy to solve 'the Irish Question'.
Keith (of course) used her in defence of his argument that Britain was in no way to blame for the depopulation of Ireland - "She says what I say about the dispute".
Now we're back to her supporting his case here, though he has admited that he has read nothing and is not interested in doing so.
No doubt he will continue to do so (quore her and refuse to read anything, that is)
The stark facts of this are - the Irish have not been "brainwashed to hate Britain, though they have every reason to do so - it is patently untrue that "generations of school children have ever been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive" - that is pure invention on Keith's part.
There was certainly reason to hate - firm evidence is now available that Britain did engineer the outcome of the Famine - I think I'd hate an Imperial administration that killed off, evicted and forcibly emigrated millions of my descendants, in fact I do, but I reserve that hatred for those at the top, not the people as a whole
It's about time that this display of race hatred is put a stop to - we really should be able to discuss serious matters without it.
Let's move on
Jim Carroll