BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:42 AM

"Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist!"
Oh well - that makes all the difference!!
"Just give us your strongest piece of evidence for it."
You've had it, if you can't be arsed to read what you're given I can't be arsewed to repeat it.
How about giving us your strongest vidence that the Traty was a done deal and Britain would never have introduced compulsory conscription, instead of denials - or any evidence otherthan denials?
Th3e pair of you are being given evidence and giving SFA in return.
No links, no contrary evidence - just ducking and diving.
Pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:44 AM

"Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?"

A completely ridiculous remark that bears no relation to anything I've said. What have I told you lot about Keith's unreliability?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:46 AM

"That is not how the people felt in 1916. They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels" - Keith A

Then from Raggy we got these points:


1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

Prior to the Easter Rising not even the Executive Committees of either the Irish Republican Brotherhood or the Irish Volunteers favoured an armed uprising - evidence of that has been provided and sources provided.

In the immediate aftermath of the rising the "rebels" had to be protected from the anger of the population of Dublin by British troops.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

After the executions many were, but not at the time of the rising itself. With the advantage of hindsight the British should not have executed the ring-leaders they should have shamed them publicly for the treacherous, lying bastards that they were, I believe it might have been possible for the British to have done that without giving away the fact to the Germans that British Naval Intelligence had broken their codes. Casement landing from a German Submarine, the Aud scuttling herself with German weapons onboard while over 200,000 Irishmen were fighting Germans in France - wouldn't have gone down well. The orders to rise in Dublin that were immediately countermanded for Volunteer Units elsewhere in the country would have demonstrated the degree of betrayal by their own commanders of those fighting in Dublin to all. Also with 20x20 hindsight, if the executions were bound to happen then it would have been better if de Valera had been executed as well - there would have been no Civil War and Ireland would have been a great deal better off.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Hardly relevant as this was three years after the rising and other factors also came into play.

"Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge of Ireland at any point in history. Try reading a few books."

With your self proclaimed lack of knowledge I think that it would be of great benefit to you if you took your own advice. What Keith A has come up with I have found corroboration, what you have come up with has been for the most part unsubstantiated nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:57 AM

Steve,

"Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?"
A completely ridiculous remark that bears no relation to anything I've said.

You said, "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

So quite a reliable comment from me about your only expressed opinion on the rising.
Anything else to say about it Steve?
Anything about it from you Greg?
If not, WTF are you doing in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 11:03 AM

Jim,
"Just give us your strongest piece of evidence for it."
You've had it, if you can't be arsed to read what you're given I can't be arsewed to repeat it.

I can't remember any such evidence. Can anyone else?
That is just a cop out Jim. You can not produce it because it does not exist.

How about giving us your strongest vidence that the Traty was a done deal

Certainly. In 1914 after the third reading, the Home Rule Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent.
That makes it a done deal. But for the Germans invading Belgium it would have been enacted at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 12:15 PM

"I can't remember any such evidence. Can anyone else?"
Calling in the troops again Keith?
Why not give s your evidence that the Irish are all gullible and stupid and have all been misled over their history - I've asked you often enough.
Or your evidence that all the destruction was done by rifle fire?
Or maybe how Britain would never have introduced compulsory call-up (even though they tried)
Or that Home Rule was a done deal?
Or all the other claims you have made here and now are reduced to just repeating without even making an effort to substantiate it?
How about producing evidence that you have answerered all the questions I put up, instead of lying about it - you don't even remember what you have posted, let alone what anybody else has.
Don't you dare suggest I am lying with your track record.
"If not, WTF are you doing in this thread?"
Could ask the same of you, your having boasted that you have never read a book on the subject and are not interested enough in the subject to intend to do so in the future.
WTF are you doing in this thread and why, having admitted that you know SFA and even care less, are you making racist attacks on the Irish?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:09 PM

"Why not give s your evidence that the Irish are all gullible and stupid and have all been misled over their history - I've asked you often enough.

Yes you have asked often enough Jim, but the thing is I cannot for the life of me understand is why, because I do not think that Keith A has ever claimed that "the Irish are all gullible and stupid". Those are your words that you have tried often enough to put into Keith A's mouth. As to be them having been misled over their history, not got a clue about that, all I know is that you are certainly doing your damnedest to do so.

"Or your evidence that all the destruction was done by rifle fire?

Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true. Had there been no Volunteers firing rifles in Dublin that Easter in 1916 there would have been no destruction. If you cannot see that then you must be bone thick.

"Or maybe how Britain would never have introduced compulsory call-up (even though they tried)"

But the fact was they never did try to introduce it did they, thinking about it Jim doesn't count. Conscription was never introduced anywhere other than on the British mainland that is the Fact.

"Or that Home Rule was a done deal?"

I think that it has been explained to you and that you have been given the most impeccable sources in evidence to show clearly what you believe to be the case is impossible - Parliamentary procedures just simply do not allow your version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:23 PM

"For over 700 years that was the situation in Ireland."

"Bullshit. For the vast part of those 700 years Raggy Ireland was at peace. In 1916 that Easter week end and in the two year run up to that Easter week-end less than 10 Irishmen plotted the Rising and they planned and plotted it to ensure failure, thereby lying to their Volunteers the length and breadth of the country"

Terribus, If you not demonstrated your complete ignorance of Irish history before you have certainly demonstrated it now.

Please go and read a least something about the history of the country. You have absolutely no idea. For a start try reading about Richard de Clare (never heard of him have you, no surprise there) try Hugh de Lacy (you've not heard of him either have you) Next you could try learning something of Henry V111's involvement (lovely man that)Then try a bit about Elizabeth 1 and James 11 (V1)

If you can find the time look up Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange.

When, and only when, you get a grip of that part of Irelands history will you be in any way informed enough to offer an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:26 PM

Incidentally your ignorant cohort doesn't have a clue what I'm on about, does he.

Cue some very intensive web- browsing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:54 PM

Oh dear Raggy so Strongbow, de Lacy and Henry II did no more in Ireland as Normans than their predecessors had done in England 100 years before - WOW - get over it - that was the norm throughout Europe in those days. The thing that brought the Normans to Ireland was a dispute between two IRISH Kings. By the time the dust settled all those Irish Kings had sworn an oath of fealty to Henry and acknowledged him as "King of Ireland".

All the others you mention treated the Irish no differently than they treated the Welsh, English or the Scots.

Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous. That greedy, self-serving Irish nobles sought their own advancement by plotting and colluding with foreign powers is undeniable. That their attempts at rebellion failed miserably is another undeniable historical fact, but do not for one second try and promote them as unstinting efforts on behalf of the people of Ireland to win independence - the people of Ireland never entered their thinking for one nano-second.

As previously stated - try doing some reading that is not fiction - you might actually learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 02:12 PM

Jim,
Why not give s your evidence that the Irish are all gullible and stupid and have all been misled over their history - I've asked you often enough.
I do not believe they are.
Or your evidence that all the destruction was done by rifle fire?
it was not.
Or maybe how Britain would never have introduced compulsory call-up
It never happened. Plenty of Irish volunteers. Conscription not needed.
Or that Home Rule was a done deal?
Done that. Here it is again.
In 1914 after the third reading, the Home Rule Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent.
That makes it a done deal in1914. But for the Germans invading Belgium it would have been enacted at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 02:21 PM

""the Irish are all gullible and stupid". "
He described Fergie's arguments, which echoed those being celebrated by the Irish people at the present time "wrong, and based on propaganda not fact".
He described the events that are being celebrated at the present time as "a contemptible joke."
He described those events as "murder" as did you.
I have asked him to confirm this as his view but he simply refused to respond, not even to deny my analysis.
In the past he has described Irish children as having been "brainwashed".
His contempt for Ireland and the Irish is palpable - nuff for me
That, as far as I am concerned is describing the Irish people as gullible and stupid.
The fact that he hasn't even had the bottle to respond to these statements and hgas to rely on your standing up for him makes him what he is - talk about dumb and dumber.
"Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true"
Somewhat bizarre confirmation of my analysis, but thanks anyway.
"Had there been no Volunteers firing rifles in Dublin that Easter in 1916 there would have been no destruction"
Nor would there have been a movement towards independence - that is what has been shown and you have failed totally to contradict - likewise the many thousands of young man who would have been conscripted to fight for the Empire Ireland had spent centuries fighting and eventually managed to bring about its collapse.
"But the fact was they never did try to introduce it did they"
They tried, and would have done much earlier had they not altered the terms of the treaty and lost the support of the Irish Parliamentarians, who might well have backed them otherwise - Redmond's son was actually fighting in Europe, with his father's blessing.
Given the number of young men Britain sent to their deaths without hesitation, there was no reason whatever that young Irish men would have been excluded as cannon-fodder when the powers-that-be thought necessary - can you think of a reason?   
If my granny had had balls she'd have been my uncle.
"If you cannot see that then you must be bone thick."
Still talking down to people, ever after having your arse kicked, I see.
" think that it has been explained to you "
You are doing it again - please don't talk down to people when you're standing in a hole.
"Parliamentary procedures just simply do not allow your version of events"!.
You arrogant little man; you have been given the details of both Lloyd George's behaviour and his and Asquith's meetings attempting to push through Home Rule with permanent partition - you have also been given Redmond's description of Britain's behaviour as a betrayal" - are you claiming this was all made up?.
Given that the Treaty had lost the support of the Redmondites, given the fact that brutish British behaviour led to the Irish starting a war of Independence, given that when the Treaty was finally forced through with alterations at gunpoint six years later it led to Civil War in the new Republic - the Treaty never stood a cat's chance in hell of being accepted.
Even the acquiescent Redmondites wanted no part of it.
"Jom"
Still not stretched your imagination beyond a typo - maybe I can help, let;s see.
You've tried the infantile 'Christmas' and got bored, why not try "Lewis" - used to amuse my junior school mates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 02:26 PM

" Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous"

Would you care to show me where I have tried to portray that.


I'm waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:18 PM

Ah great Raggy so the Irish were no more downtrodden or oppressed by their rulers than were the English, Scots or Welsh - a case of that's the way things were then, pleased that we've got that out of the way. At least under Norman rule the Irish tribal practice of slavery ended.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:42 PM

"At least under Norman rule the Irish tribal practice of slavery ended."
And slavery ended in Britain when exactly?
And 1833 was how much later than Norman rule?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 08:23 PM

"Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?"
A completely ridiculous remark that bears no relation to anything I've said.

You said, "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Yes I did. But do you actually understand plain English, or, and let me put it another way, can you EVER read a single comment on here without twisting it in your mind to fit your own extremely limited agenda? "Not exactly irrelevant" is, to people who understand English, unlike you apparently, an example of understatement. Got that, Keith? It does not mean "almost irrelevant" in anybody's book but yours. It means the precise opposite. OK with that now, are we, Keith? And do you actually realise that "the rights and wrongs of the events" does not mean the same thing as "the events?" Why do you think I added those extra words, Keith? For the good of my bloody health? And as for this gem:

"So quite a reliable comment from me about your only expressed opinion on the rising."

My expressed opinion on the rising, which contains far more then the above, is in at least five posts in this thread. You know, I do keep saying that, but you have ears of cloth, Keith. Either that or you want to be branded a liar. You choose.

"Anything else to say about it Steve?
If not, WTF are you doing in this thread?"

Well, I dare say that the moderator who has done so much to butcher this thread will right now be considering whether to delete this post. Shall we have a little bet that this one will go, whereas this extremely arrogant remark questioning my very presence in this thread will remain?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 09:06 PM

The big issue was independence, and compared to that vision, Home Rule as a still subordinate element of the Kingdom was a poor, even hypocritical, compromise. Some people--particularly the signatories of the declaration--took the difference pretty seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:55 AM

Jim, our discussions always end the same way.
Your arguments fail so you resort to personal attack.
You now claim that I am anti-Irish.

I am not but I am not going to indulge you by arguing about it.
Anything else to say about the rising?

Steve, this thread is about the rights and wrongs of the rising.
Your perspective, "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge."

Not much to discuss there.
Anything else to say about the rising?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:59 AM

Amos, I agree that home rule would have just been the first step in what could have been a peaceful transition to full independence, and possibly even of a united Ireland.
The rising ended such hopes. The fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:40 AM

KAOH posts "Amos, I agree that home rule would have just been the first step in what could have been a peaceful transition to full independence, and possibly even of a united Ireland.

The rising ended such hopes. The fools"

You call a entire nation "fools"

Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter contempt for Ireland and the Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:51 AM

"The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Yes Steve you did state ALL of that. Then when challenged on it you drop most of it don't you and come back with the following:

"Not exactly irrelevant" is, to people who understand English, unlike you apparently, an example of understatement. Got that, Keith? It does not mean "almost irrelevant" in anybody's book but yours. It means the precise opposite."

But you see Steve when you immediately follow "Not exactly irrelevant" with "but they happened and they are water under the bridge" reduces the rights and wrongs of the 1916 events to irrelevance.

The Irish War of Independence was not caused solely by what happened in 1916, there were many other contributing factors. The absolute unwillingness to enter into discussion and to compromise by two groups on Irishmen being the main stumbling block.

Agreed Amos Home Rule would be a pale imitation for those who wanted Independence, but as Keith A stated it would be an important stepping stone towards Independence and one that more or less guarantee a peaceful transition. In 1916 before the rising there is absolutely nothing to suggest or support the view that the majority of those living in Ireland wanted Independence, there is evidence to support the view that there would have been a majority for Home Rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:00 AM

Daniel O'Connell.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:21 AM

Being deliberately obtuse again Jom - pre-Norman Irish tribal practices unknown to you?

"And slavery ended in Britain when exactly?
And 1833 was how much later than Norman rule?"

Different kettle of fish entirely Jom and if it was 1833 for Britain then it must have been 2003 for the Republic of Ireland and "Not yet - still work in progress" for your Travellers according to recent court cases in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:35 AM

"but as Keith A stated it would be an important stepping stone towards Independenc"
It would have been no different than the "stepping stone" that was forced on Ireland in 1922 the brought about civil war and a near century of inequality, Anti-Catholic rioting and eventually open warfare in Ireland and in Britain.
The only difference might have been that, if Easter Week had not happened all these things would have been brought forward a few years and would have entailed Irish youth being sent off to fight for the Empire they had spent centuries trying to be rid of, in the European bloodfest.
Had that happened, Ireland would have been left non-viable as a nation giving the number of youths who were being slaughtered as 'cannon-fodder'.
"Your arguments fail so you resort to personal attack."
No personal attack Keith - your statements are racist, plain and simple, and the fact that you refuse even to acknowledge them, let alone defend them is an indication that you are well aware of that fact
"You now claim that I am anti-Irish."
I've always believed you to be anti-Irish and have said so on numerous occasions - this is just another chapter.
Show where describing the Irish as you have - deluded supporters of murder - doesn't make you anti- Irish - what else is it?
"Anything else to say about the rising?"
Yes - respond to the points I have made - you have yet to, other than to repeat the same misinformation - both of you.
Once again you have launched your two-man-band attack on Ireland - we really have been here before - sectarian marches, The Famine - nothing new under the sun.
And once again, you are involved in yet another Rourke's Drift in defence of the Empire (without the valour and honour, of course).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:41 AM

Ah yes Raggy the emancipator (along with Sir John Peel and the Duke of Wellington - it was they who convinced King George of the need for Catholic Emancipation), the man who abhorred violence and the Daniell O'Connell who campaigned for repeal of the Act of Union, which in 1801 had merged the Parliaments of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. To campaign for repeal, O'Connell set up the Repeal Association. He argued for the re-creation of an independent Kingdom of Ireland to govern itself, with Queen Victoria as the Queen of Ireland.

Now then Raggy that sounds as though he wanted Dominion Status within the British Empire same as Australia and Canada.

In short Raggy he had very little in common with your heroes of 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:46 AM

"He argued for the re-creation of an independent Kingdom of Ireland to govern itself"

Do you have difficulty understanding this. It is part of the paragraph you no doubt copied and pasted from Wiki.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:58 AM

If you ever want clarification for something I've said, Teribus, you would get a far more accurate version by asking me about it instead of "doing a Keith", and twisting it into a version that you can then gleefully knock down. I told you what I meant. If you wish to change the language, we can all sit back and watch you with amusement. And what Jim said in his final sentence above, the two of you, to a tee.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"It would have been no different than the "stepping stone" that was forced on Ireland in 1922 the brought about civil war and a near century of inequality, Anti-Catholic rioting and eventually open warfare in Ireland and in Britain.
The only difference might have been that, if Easter Week had not happened all these things would have been brought forward a few years and would have entailed Irish youth being sent off to fight for the Empire they had spent centuries trying to be rid of, in the European bloodfest.
Had that happened, Ireland would have been left non-viable as a nation giving the number of youths who were being slaughtered as 'cannon-fodder'"

Sorry Carroll that is merely YOUR opinion - please do not present it as fact.

A Civil War in Ireland was a foregone conclusion as ace tooth-sucker Eamon de Valera threw his toys out of the pram because the delegation sent to England didn't get all that HE wanted. Just as well because (And this is MY opinion Carroll) had independence and separation from the UK been forced on Ulster then the Civil War that Ireland would have seen would have been much much worse - reason for believing that Jim? In the Civil War THAT DID OCCUR the protagonists were a National Army (Free State) of ~55,000 men fighting a "Nationalist Force" (The IRA) of ~15,000 men. That war lasted 10 months, 3 weeks and 5 days in which ~4,000 combatants were killed and even today the number of civilians who died is unknown (~250 in Dublin alone is the estimate). Now had de Valera got all he wanted those ~70,000 men in the South would have had to face ~500,000 armed pro-Union supporters firmly established in the North - you tell me Jim how long would that have lasted and what would the extent of the carnage have been?

By the way who was going to send those Irish youths off to die? All Irishmen who did join up did so as Volunteers. There was no conscription in Ireland - that Jim is a fact - against which your opinions are complete and utter twaddle.

Worth noting Jim that out of more than 8 million who fought during the First World War for the British, Empire and Commonwealth armed forces NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN CAME BACK ALIVE - now that could not be said for those who fought for any of the other 1914 combatant nations - another cold hard FACT for you Jim.

As to "them" having fought against England/Britain for centuries very few of them did for very few years down through those centuries - again that is fact.

As with most of your postings, your last is an example of poorly researched emotional twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:11 AM

As you very rarely ever say anything Shaw I find little or no reason to seek clarification from you on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:15 AM

And so is the other bit Raggy, the bit where he also campaigned for that independent Ireland with Queen Victoria as the Queen of Ireland.

Don't be so disingenuous when shoving forward your candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:21 AM

Oh Shaw, I forgot this bit:

"And what Jim said in his final sentence above, the two of you, to a tee."

In that I take it you were referring to this absolute gem of Jim the infallible's:

"once again, you are involved in yet another Rourke's Drift in defence of the Empire"

Hate to have to point this out to you both but the defence of Rourke's Drift was successful - it was a victory.

Yet another "own goal" - Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:27 AM

"In short Raggy he had very little in common with your heroes of 1916."
Utter rubbish - again.
When O'Connell advocated non-violence the Irish Holocaust had not taken place and the Irish population had not been either starved to death or driven into exile (1 million deaths and 1.5 million forced emigrations.
When this happened, his party split, large sections of them advocating violent opposition to British rule.
Two years into the Famine, O'Connell set off for Rome, but died in Geneva.
Had he survived to witness the mass evictions, the full granaries and the closed workhouses (and read the Trevelyan letter), there is no doubt that O'Connell would have supported Home Rule by any means, as most of his party did at the time of his death.
The Famine, the deliberate depopulation of Ireland and the Land Wars removed all possibility of a peaceful transition to Independence.
O'Connell was, by nature, a pacifist - Christ knows what he would have made of the killing fields of W.W.1.
O'Connell one of yours - you cannot be serious.Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:53 AM

Who's making up "FACTS" now:

"70,000 men in the South would have had to face ~500,000 armed pro-Union supporters firmly established in the North"

Are you seriously suggesting that every protestant man, woman and child would have taken up arms. What are the babies going to do, hit someone over the head with their rattle.

"NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN CAME BACK ALIVE"

Care to give us the real figures for the number of Irish who survived. They don't make very good reading do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:55 AM

Rag,
You call a entire nation "fools"

No. I call the rebel leadership fools. Practically the entire nation was against them.
They called them worse than fools on the streets of Dublin.

Jim,
No personal attack Keith - your statements are racist, plain and simple

You lie. You can not put up any such statement from me.
You resort to personal attack because your arguments have all been knocked down and you ignorance of the actual history exposed.

The Famine, the deliberate ...

We are not discussing the famine here, but when we did I pointed out that not all historians blame Britain, and it emerged that only a minority do or ever have.

This thread is about the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Squirm as much as you want Keith, we all know what you meant. If you had meant the leaders you would have said the leaders. You didn't and everyone can see it in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:03 AM

Care to give us the real figures for the number of Irish who survived.

30 000 killed out of over 20 000.
That is better than 8.5 out of ten surviving. No significant difference to overall survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:05 AM

The leaders instigated the rising, the Irish people opposed it.
The fools were the instigators, not those who like me thought them fools or worse than fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:08 AM

"Practically the entire nation was against them" It's not the first time you made this statement I have asked for your evidence you have no provided it.

Yesterday I posted:
"That is not how the people felt in 1916. They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels"

1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Are you going to answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:24 AM

Statistics

Now if 30,000 of the 134,000 recorded enlistments were killed that equates to over 22% of Irish were killed not the one in 10 that Terricola is suggesting.

Hmm the Irish were twice as likely to be killed I wonder why that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:36 AM

"You lie. You can not put up any such statement from me."
You have described the events that are being celebrated at the present time in Ireland as a "contemptible joke" and have described those who support these events as being "based on propaganda not fact."
Did you not write this?
That pretty well sums up what is happening in Ireland at the present time.
You have described the events as "the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels"
Did you not write this?
In the past, you have described Irish children as having been "brainwashed into hating Britain".
Did you not write this?
Whoever wrote them, these are racist slurs on the Irish people.
I have carefully avoided making this personal - I have responded to what you wrote each time.
your arguments have all been knocked down "
"I win" again
You have answered nothing, you have merely repeated the same jingoistic misinformation.
"We are not discussing the famine here,"
We are not discussing Daniel O'Connell either, but some people
The Famine had an enormous relevance to what happened in 1916, as has W.W.1., the Curragh Mutiny, The Land Wars.... and all other related subjects which you have been happy to participate in
regard it as part of this discussion.
Please stop attempting to suppress what people believe is relevant because it doesn't fit your particular agenda - you have been asked not to on previous threads and have denied doing so - now you're at it again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:42 AM

Should read; "We are not discussing Daniel O'Connell either, but some people believe it to be relevant and you have said nothing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 06:52 AM

Jim Carroll - 01 May 16 - 04:27 AM - more ill-informed opinion and emotive twaddle presented as fact.

The Irish Holocaust -start a thread so that we can hammer over the same old ground with the same old facts - dig out, I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Throughout your rant you constantly contradict yourself - Your history is based on pure conjecture, but I see your pals on this forum let you get away with it unchallenged, fortunately for the sake of honest discussion and debate neither Keith, myself and a few others do not.

You have no right whatsoever to say what anybody else would do, say or think, restrict those statements for the only person you can speak for - YOURSELF.

But please answer the question a Free State V IRA civil war, or a Independence V Unionist civil war - which would have been worse for Ireland as a whole.

Figures Raggy come from the Covenant, many of the signatures written in blood, signed in the North in 1913 (452,252 in 1913 is close enough to ~500,000 in 1919 for me). Any civil war between North and South would have been bitter, protracted and bloody in the extreme and that was the point I was making. By the way no children signed the Covenant and women can pull triggers and throw bombs just as well as men. If you are going to quote the right of self-determination as justification for one group then it must be quoted for all - True?

The plain truth is that Daniell O'Connell sought Dominion Status for a United Ireland with the British Sovereign serving as Head of State.
It worked for Australia and for Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:03 AM

Over 210,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the First World War - your 134,000 figure details those enlisted IN IRELAND - not the same thing at all, but good try.

As to proportions and percentage casualty/fatalities that will vary if you detail branch of service wouldn't it.

Percentage fatalities amongst those who served as infantrymen will be higher than those who served as Engineers, Signallers or artillerymen.

None-the-less of the 8 million plus who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, the Empire and the Commonwealth 888,000+ died - Which means that my statement is true nine out every ten came home alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:10 AM

And just how many of that 452,000 would have been prepared to take up arms. 10%......... 20% give it a rest and as for the preposterous suggestion that someone signed it in blood, give us a break.

Frederick Crawford reckoned he signed it in blood. Utter tosh. It's a pity for gullible buggers like you that modern science has put paid to that little myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:12 AM

" I'm not going to waste my time on it."
'Course your not after the last fiasco
"Throughout your rant you constantly contradict yourself"
Where exactly - more unqualifies pronouncements - smoke and mirrors.
Contradiction didn't you write this "Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true"?
"You have no right whatsoever to say what anybody else would do, say or think"
Where have I ever done that - I've just stopped Keith from doing it - perhaps you're confusing us (hope not!)
"But please answer the question a Free State - V IRA civil war"
Beyind me how you dae to demand answers when you constantly sprint away when you are asked a question, but it doesnmt matter anyway, I'm mre than happy to answer.
One was the result of a treaty forced through at gunpoint and by blackmail, conniving and other dirty tricks by Britain, the other would have been brought about by Britain's appeasing Unionism as they were doing - Hobson's Choice beyond the control of the Irish people anyway.
Had Britain made the same demands on the Unionists and insisted that the Catholic/Protestant had the same voting, property and employment rights as part of the Treaty, there need have been no war, just as, if Britain had stuck to the signed agreement that partition would be temporary, instead of altering it in mid-steam, there would have been no Civil war.
Britain not only succumbed to the threats of the mutineers but was happy to see six counties in 'a safe pair of hands'      
What's on earth's your point?
To date, I have responded to all your questions - you have responded to none of mine.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:13 AM

Rag, I answered those questions you posted yesterday.
How could you have missed it?
See my post 30 Apr 16 - 10:29 AM

Jim,
You have described the events that are being celebrated at the present time in Ireland as a "contemptible joke"

I have indeed described the rising thus, and many Irish would agree. I have quoted a couple.
The Irish need little excuse to celebrate though.

and have described those who support these events as being "based on propaganda not fact."

No I did not. That is what I said about one of YOUR wild claims.

You have described the events as "the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels"

No I did not. I did say they committed some and that is a fact.
I acknowledge that the rebels fought bravely, but some despicable, unjustifiable acts also were committed by some of them.
(The first man to die in the Easter rebellion was an unarmed Constable James O'Brien, from Kilfergus, Co Limerick.)

In the past, you have described Irish children as having been "brainwashed into hating Britain".

That referred to Kineally's observation that the Irish school system forced a biased version of history to be taught. The Indy article I linked to quoted and Irishman making the same complaint.

No "racist slurs" from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:14 AM

Why Irishmen joined up - Queens Uni, Belfast.

The standard, public reason for joining up was the moral purpose of the war. At the time it was widely seen as a kind of crusade against 'Prussian militarism'. Tom Kettle, an Irish nationalist who had actually been in Belgium buying guns for the nationalist paramilitary Irish Volunteers, argued that men went because the cause was a just one. It was, said Kettle, the cause of small nations threatened by large ones, of Belgium and Serbia, which Germany and Austria had outraged, and Britain and her allies had taken up. This made it right for Ireland to fight on England's side, especially since England had (at last) granted Home Rule for Ireland. Kettle himself joined up and died on the Somme in September 1916.

Home Rule had been the aspiration of Irish nationalists for fifty years and, finally, in 1914 it appeared that the deed was done. On 18 September 1914 the third Irish Home Rule Bill became law, although its operation was suspended for the duration of the war. No-one (at least on the nationalist side) thought that this would be for very long, but the passage of the legislation was crucial for John Redmond, the leader of the Irish nationalist movement. On 20 September he made a celebrated speech at Woodenbridge, county Wicklow, in which he said that 'the interests of Ireland, of the whole of Ireland, are at stake in this war'. He drew out the high moral purpose of the struggle against the Germans and Prussian militarism: 'This war is undertaken in defence of the highest interests of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country, a reproach to her manhood, and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland [note the allusion here to 1848 and the traditions of Irish nationalism] confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which have distinguished their race all through its history'. Stirring words indeed, and words which clearly found a response among many young Irishmen.

But high patriotic duty was not the only possible reason why men might join up. Another factor was a simply desire for adventure. For many at home the war offered excitement and the chance of glorious opportunity. Tom Barry, later to become a leader of the IRA in Cork, enlisted in June 1915. Seventeen years old, he said he 'had decided to see what this Great War was like … I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man'. This was nearly a year after the war had started, and provides some evidence that the recruiting rush of the early days does not tell the whole story.

And if Irish nationalists were responding to their 'patriotic duty' as articulated by John Redmond, so Irish unionists, too, in Ulster and elsewhere, also joined up for patriotic reasons. Having pledged their loyalty to the Crown and the link with Great Britain, they could hardly stand back when the 'Mother Country' was in its hour of need. 'We do not seek to purchase terms by selling our patriotism', said Carson. 'England's difficulty is our difficulty.'

There were also economic motives for joining up, as there always had been. Service in the army, after all, was a steady job, and one with a pension at the end. Even in wartime, with the heightened risks of military service, many men were undoubtedly attracted by the rates of pay which the military offered (and the family allowances which accompanied them). The August 1914 rush to the colours was also boosted by the fact that across Ulster many factories laid men off, or put them on short time, when war broke out because of uncertainties in the economic situation. Irish linen mills specialised in the quality end of the market—fine table and bed-linen, high quality shirting and so on—just the sort of products which people might stop buying (as they did) because there 'was a war on'. Export markets in continental Europe and the USA were disrupted. Thus, just at the moment when there was a stirring and insistent call for troops, many workers were put out of a job, evidently making enlistment more attractive than might otherwise have been the case.

Nor were these the only possible motives for joining up. Some men enlisted through family tradition, for others it was merely a kind of emigration, though one which was not necessarily so permanent as going to America. Looking especially at big urban centres like Belfast, it is also evident that many men joined up in groups, with 'peer pressure' carrying them into the army with friends and work mates. By one account, Francis Ledwidge, the poet from Slane (and a socialist and nationalist), enlisted 'on the rebound' from being rejected by a sweetheart. Whether true or not, it adds another possibility to the wide range of motivations to joining up.

Looking at the recruiting figures, and taking into account the many possible reasons behind enlistment, it is impossible facilely or glibly to generalise about these fellows, about who they were or why they joined up. No single or simple explanation will do, and in many cases it must have been a combination of factors. Patriotic feeling might have been significant but not in itself sufficient to impel a man to enlist. Yet combine it with uncertain prospects at work and the urging of a next-door neighbour—'Come on, John, it'll be great crack'—and the lure might be irresistible. What, in any case, we can say about these men—who were both 'ordinary' and extraordinary at the same time— is that they became victims of circumstances well beyond their control.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/IrelandandtheFirstWorldWar/

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 11:18 AM

" I have quoted a couple."
You have quoted a novelist and an American Jesuit - overwhelming
Neither described the Irish as ignorant of their own history - perhaps you might give an example of what you mean by "many" and who they are, and more to the point, how you know?
No - didn't think so.
"No I did not. That is what I said about one of YOUR wild claims."
"Fergie, I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact."
Someone posting in your name again - you were referring to a statement by Fergie.
Please stop making things up.
"No I did not. I did say they committed some and that is a fact."
I accused you of saying that those commemorating the Uprising were celebrating murder, which is exactly what you have claimed - I have never suggested a few incidents didn't happen, nor will I, but they measure small to the killing that took place though artillery fire and the at least five executions of non-combatants by Capt. Bowen Colthurst - not to mention the mindless butchering of the leaders
(The first man to die in the Easter rebellion was an unarmed Constable James O'Brien, from Kilfergus, Co Limerick.)
The greeated
s number of cold -blooded murdere were carried out by the British - five were by the serial killer Colthurst - not worth a mention by you.
"That referred to Kineally's observation that the Irish school system forced a biased version of history to be taught"
No - it was your deliberate misinterpretation of what she said.
What she actually said that the "revisionists" who avoided placing direct blame for the Famine on anybody taught that to children , and that ended in the 1930s.
Your reference was to today's Irish hating the British because they had been brainwashed to do so - nothing could be further from the truth and it is racist to suggest otherwise - the Irish do not hate the British, nor anybody particularly.
You did as you always do - grab a quote out of context and distort it to make a point.
Kineally in fact blew up in your face - it is she who blames the British for the outcome of the Famine and that has come from her researches in the late 1990s
Are we to assume that you and your mate are going to continue to ignore the points put up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 11:49 AM

What percentage Raggy - just taking the men 48%

But while you are on about percentages that would take up arms - here's the percentages for the Nationalists:

Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%
Irish War of Independence - 15,000 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.5%
Irish Civil War - 70,000 out of a population of about 2.1 million = 3.33%

So as far as winning Irelands freedom by force of arms the best effort the nationalists ever mustered was when they were fighting one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 12:21 PM

"Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%"
Which led immediately to a war of Independence which ended up forcing Britain to the negotiating table and eventually to the collapse of the entire British Empire - not bad for 1,250 rebels.
It's not bad for so few inexperienced and poorly-armed freedom -fighters to have held at bay the army of the most powerful Empire at arms-length for a week either - real Vietcong stuff eh.
A nice example of British justice occurred flowing the rising
" About 3,500 people were taken prisoner by the British, many of whom had played no part in the Rising, and 1,800 (how many did you say took part? of them were sent to internment camps or prisons in Britain."
Jim Carroll