BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 May 16 - 01:06 PM

"To describe Irish children as brainwashed by the Irish education system is racist"
Jim, I think education systems in every country brainwash children with their own take on history, for example in the UK, Children are brainwashed with the UK version of history, which is English propaganda, sometimes it is more subtle than that, sections of irish history are just not taught in the uk., result many english people remain ignorant of the atrocities performed by the british in ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:18 PM

"I think education systems in every country brainwash children with their own take on history, "
Wiggle - wiggle.
Maybe in the past they did, nowadays our education systems a far more enlightened, far more open to scrutiny and our teachers represent a far more balanced cross section of the population, so much so that the right-wing press often refers to them as "leftie"
Schools are far more answerable to parents response, but in the case of Ireland, you claim they are all brainwashed by propaganda right up to this present moment.
Your claim is that present day Irish children are brainwashed to hate Britain, not in the past but today - that is the hole you have dug for yourself and that's why I describe you as I do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:22 PM

Jim and Rag, the O'Callaghan paper I linked to is quite clear that nothing changed when the Free State became a Republic, that the academic community failed to get things changed in the 30s, and that the abuse persisted until the seventies.
Kinealy says the same.

The quotes I provided are quite unequivocal. The ones that Rag put up to not challenge that in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:35 PM

My quotes are from the same source professor. As I said you probably haven't bothered to read and absorb the full article, you've seen a sentence which you think supports your argument with going to the trouble of understanding the whole picture. That, I'm afraid, is par for the course for you. Many people are used to it, but that doesn't excuse your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:08 PM

"Maybe in the past they did, nowadays our education systems a far more enlightened, far more open to scrutiny and our teachers represent a far more balanced cross section of the population, so much so that the right-wing press often refers to them as "leftie""

But with all that it hasn't affected you in the least Jom.

Still no facts, just the same old myths and the same old emotive crap - one of the world's most experienced victims - whose motto is - IT's ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE's FAULT - you should have it tattooed on your forehead.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:18 PM

"I don't know what you read (I don't count The Daily Mail and the Beano as reading), but",/i>

You have quoted the Daily mail as a reputable source before now Jom - something to do with arms to Syria I believe. WAZZA MATTER Jom your irrefutable source when it suits you but something to be totally dismissed when it doesn't - as far as integrity goes you are utterly bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 May 16 - 05:33 PM

Oh, for crying out loud!, The Daily Mail [which btw I don't read -- I take the Times becoz I like its crosswords best] is only a newspaper, with a particular slant on the news; slightly rightwards, but no more tendentious than is *The Guardian's equally leftward one. Why the Mail is commonly so monsterised by the Professional-Leftie-Brigade is a constant cause of considerable wonderment to many!

≈M≈

*to which I was a regular contributor of theatre, book & folk reviews,as also The Times, for ¼+C... I have probably mentioned here before that, at one Cambridge Folk Festival, Maurice Rosenbaum, a member of the Communist Party but the definitely right-wing Daily Telegraph's longtime folk critic, and I, who was there to review it for far further left The Guardian, once agreed that if there were any sort of sense in the Universe we would swop papers; but that's just not the way things work...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 16 - 05:53 PM

Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE!

First off, is this Kineally guy alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:29 AM

"But with all that it hasn't affected you in the least Jom."
Haven't you got round to the fact that small minded insulting gets threads closed - or perhaps, given the shape of your position, that's what you're trying for.
If you actually have an argument, why not put it (with references, of course)?
You have the facts - you respond with denials.
Lat's see if we can't make it simple for you.
You claim that Britain had no alternative but to execute the rebel leaders because there was a war on.
Here are the facts as I have always understood them.
That has never been put up as a reason for them happening, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.
Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."
(Wiki entry on The Rising).
Now - why not show us, with evidence, that this is wrong - or are you going to stick with "just the same old myths"
"You have quoted the Daily mail as a reputable source before now Jom "
I have never at any time suggested the Daily Mail to be a "reliable source" (pretty much a waste of time asking you to show where I have - you appear not to lower yourself to actually substantiating what you say)
As far as I am concerned, The Daily Mail is a right-wing bum-wipe that has never managed to break with its history of support for Hitler and Fascism).
What I have said is that if The Daily Mail makes a positive statement in favour of anything vaguely to the left of Mein Kampf, it is possibly true - for instance, if they criticise the right-wing establishment, then they must have done something really, really bad.
I'm quite happy to condemn the right wing with the words of their own supporters - it is no indication that I trust the bastards or regard them as in any way reliable.
Oddly enough, I now regard The Times in the same way - from a reliably, informative newspaper to a tablid rad in the hands of Murdoch - I still take it for 'Codeword'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:35 AM

Couple of typos in there for you to use, if you can't find any arguments - want me to point them out for you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:40 AM

Rag, O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.
Your quotes did not dispute that.
Kinealy said that "nationalist myths" were taught as history.

Neither said that anything changed when Free State morphed in to the Republic.
Jim made that up in desperation to save his own silly face.

Here is another source that supports my view."Catholicism and the Curriculum: The Irish Secondary School Experience, 1922-62"

"This history was "shaped by nationalistic fervour" and a "desire to establish a legitimate continuity for Irish separatism."(16)

The approach to Irish history showed the concurrence of dominant ideologies of Catholicism and conservative nationalism. John Broderick has characterised this as follows:

The idea of history that we got was that we had been oppressed by our neighbours, the British, for seven hundred years; that the Catholic religion in particular had been suppressed and was persecuted; that there had been a great revival in the nineteenth century with Catholic Emancipation through Daniel O'Connell, and that Catholicism thrived under that, but that coming into the twentieth century we were being Englified and we were becoming more and more part of the United Kingdom and that was why 1916 came about; this had to be broken, the Irish people had to be shown what their heritage was. In a capsule this was the history of Ireland.(17)

Educators encouraged the teaching of this perspective on Irish history through study of outstanding individuals and significant incidents. Teachers were informed that the continuity of the separatist idea should be stressed and that pupils should be imbued with the ideals and aspirations of revolutionaries. The other side of this emphasis on Irish language and culture was a bias against Protestant Anglo-Irish culture. This exclusion was blatant with respect to the teaching of English. "

"Only after 1960 were educators to change attitudes towards the curriculum in the interest of meeting social and economic needs, helped by a more open-minded outlook in the wider society--a matter for another study."
Thomas A. O'Donoghue
http://www.edu.uwo.ca/hse/98odonoghue.html

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:49 AM

Jim, what is your opinion of the Irish men shot by the Irish firing squads of the civil war?

"Hardened by the brutalities they had witnessed in France these men (Free State Army)showed no mercy in their dealings with anti-treaty forces. "They were far worse than the Black and Tans" asserts Dan. "They murdered nineteen republican prisoners at Ballyseedy Cross, Countess's Bridge and elsewhere in Kerry in three days. The Tans never did anything as bad as that", he says. "It was
very easy to get killed at that time", remembers Dan."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:58 AM

Last quote,
http://www.irishfreedom.net/Irish%20Republican%20News/Dan%20Keating%20interview.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 10:35 AM

"Jim, what is your opinion of the Irish men shot by the Irish firing squads of the civil war?"
I think the Irish Civil War was an appalling affair caused by the betrayal of the British Government in forcing through a Treaty.
Atrocities happened, as do in any war, but to suggest that what happened was worse than the Tans is partisan nonsense - no rapes, no torture, no mass destruction - just Irishman fighting Irishman
"Jim made that up in desperation to save his own silly face."
I did not I drew those dated from your own link and indicated the timeline.
Nowhere and at not time has anybody ever suggested Irish children weer brainwashed to "hate the British" as you originally suggested - you have never produced an example of anybody saying so, in the past or now.
Please do not accuse me of making things up with your track record.
Perhaps you might help Terrytoon out and answer the question which touches on both your claims - no/ - thought not!
Do you not realise how deep a hole you pair have dug for yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:17 AM

Your behaviour here is beyond belief Keith
You know nothing of Ireland and you have no interest in its history, yet you scratch around the net looking for ways to denigrate the Irish people, their beliefs and their history.
Using a Civil War that Britain forced on the Irish really is scraping the bottom of the barrel to express your hatred.
We have spent thirty odd years recording Irish people about their culture, their traditions and their history, particularly their social history.
One of the things we have never managed to do is get anybody to talk about the Civil war - nearly one hundred years after the event it remains a festering sore.
Shortly after we started recording here we ceased asking about the War out of respect for the people on both sides who have always struck us as kind, welcoming to strangers and generous with their time and information.
While I would hate to see you waste the effort on digging up more garbage in your crusade, can I request that as far as this is concerned you leave this alone.
Britain caused the Civil War by forcing through an agreement that neither the Republicans nor the Free Staters wanted - the former were prepared to fight partition, The Staters believe that the question of partition would eventually resolved with reunification.         
It's more than a little sick for an Empire Loyalist like yourself to use a war Britain brought about against the Irish people
Kindly leaver it out - out of simple hunman respect, if nothing else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:48 AM

So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!
I suppose everything else in the world is.

but to suggest that what happened was worse than the Tans is partisan nonsense

It was said by an IRA man who was there. The "Harry Patch" of the civil war.

I did not I drew those dated from your own link and indicated the timeline.

No you didn't. Nothing in any of my links suggest any change in the curriculum before 1970.
That is why you have not, and can not produce any quote to substantiate such made up tosh.

Nowhere and at not time has anybody ever suggested Irish children weer brainwashed to "hate the British" as you originally suggested
Yes they have.
Kinealy states that they were fed "nationalist myths" as history.
That is brainwashing Jim.
O'Callaghan states that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British" propaganda. "Indoctrinated" is another word for "brainwashing" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:58 AM

"So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!"
Unbelieveable
I have no intentions of feeding this troll and I sincerely hope nobody else does.
This is really ploutering around in the slime.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:16 PM

Tell you what professor, read Tim Pat Coogans book 1916, The Mornings After and I,ll engage in conversation with you again.



That should give me a considerable break.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:16 PM

"So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!"
Unbelieveable

AGREED!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:22 PM

Irish Times.

"1916: The Mornings After review: Tim Pat Coogan's arrogant travesty of Irish history
Ireland's 'best known historical writer' utterly fails in this badly researched 'personal perspective' of the Irish century, says Diarmaid Ferriter

By page 20 of this truly dreadful book Tim Pat Coogan has puffed himself up to the extent that he has an important announcement to make: he is publishing a "hitherto unpublished" letter from Patrick Pearse to the Fenian John Devoy in New York, written in August 1914.
"I consider the document to be so important as to merit being published in full," Coogan declares. The problem is that the text of the letter is not previously unpublished. It is an exact copy of the letter that Pearse sent to Devoy's colleague Joseph McGarrity the same day and that was published in full 35 years ago, in Séamas Ó Buachalla's The Letters of PH Pearse.
On the basis of this example and many others Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. He describes this book as a "strongly personal perspective" on Ireland since 1916. But he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society

There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:02 PM

Far easier to scoop a line from somebody who doesn't like Coogan's book
"A thought-provoking read"
Bestseller
Haven't read the book, but that doesn't stop a man with a mission who hasn't read any book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:03 PM

You claim that Britain had no alternative but to execute the rebel leaders because there was a war on. - See Below

Here are the facts as I have always understood them.

That has never been put up as a reason for them happening - See Below, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.
Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."

Now Jom would like us to believe that the above was all stated in the Wiki Article - but it was not was it Jom.

Now let us see what Wiki has to say about treason laws as applicable in the UK at the time:

United Kingdom

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
"if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";[24][25]
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and
"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".

By virtue of the Treason Act 1708, the law of treason in Scotland is the same as the law in England, save that in Scotland the slaying of the Lords of Session and Lords of Justiciary and counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland remain treason under sections 11 and 12 of the Treason Act 1708 respectively.[26] Treason is a reserved matter about which the Scottish Parliament is prohibited from legislating. Two acts of the former Parliament of Ireland passed in 1537 and 1542 create further treasons which apply in Northern Ireland.

The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act.[27] Before 1998, the death penalty was MANDATORY, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. Since the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1965 an execution for treason was unlikely to have been carried out.

Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish independence.

Counter to what you believe the Military Council who were the only people pushing for this armed rising WERE in contact with the German Government Casement and Plunkett had actually been in Germany trying to convince the Germans to land troops in Ireland. Germany sent guns, ammunition and explosives fortunately they all were lost when the German ship Aud scuttled herself off the Irish port of Cork.

Had the Courts Martial been held "in Public" the fact that British Naval intelligence had broken German Naval codes might have been exposed and in April 1916 that may well have had a significant effect on the war as less than two months later the German High Seas Fleet set sail and the Battle of Jutland was fought.

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

"a Civil War that Britain forced on the Irish"

WOW I am absolutely dying to hear what convoluted logic has to be applied to make that argument.

By the by Jom you never did come back to me on that question:

Which would have been worse and which would have lasted longest - A Civil War fought between 15,000 IRA men and 55,000 Men of the Irish Army OR A Civil War fought between 70,000 men backing an Independent Ireland and almost 500,000 men and women totally committed to the Unionist cause. Logic and reason would seem to favour the answer that the latter would be far worse.

The Irish Civil War was the fault of Eamon de Valera and the IRA not accepting the deal that gave Ireland it's independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:19 PM

"Now let us see what Wiki has to say about treason laws as applicable in the UK at the time:
"
Where doers that in any way contradict Wiki's statement on the Executions
Are you claiming that Maxwell didn't order the executions (some of the victims of which were picked at random)?
Are you suggesting that the manner of the kangaroo cout trials weren't against the rules of a fair trial?
If the Government was responsible for these executions why weren't the breaches of law commented on.
Where has anybody ever suggested that the reason these executions took place was because they were duty bound to carry them out?
Your argument appears to be that the reason they happened was that the laww book says they had to - where is your evidence for anybody ever claiming this?
The rule book says that the army wasn't allowed to execute non-combatants - yet it happened on several occasions -ncluding the murders carried out by Capt. Colthurst.
C'mon - if they were compulsory somebody would have put that up as a defence for such a monumental cock-up.
They were acts of revenge decided on illegally by people who should not by law have had a say in the matter.
WEven you can do better than wave a rule book -where has hat ever been documented as a reason?
Ireland was not committed to the war so the rules of that war do not apply - those executed were not British citizens, as you have been at pains to point out about all Irishmen in the past.
A feeeee-ble attept at an excuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:44 PM

"Your argument appears to be that the reason they happened was that the laww book says they had to - where is your evidence for anybody ever claiming this?"

The Treason Act as in force at that time:

1: They had colluded with the enemy in time of war
2: They had taken up arms against the Crown in time of War
3: "Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and supported by her exiled children in America and BY GALLANT ALLIES IN EUROPE [GERMANY], but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory."

The penalty for treason at the time was death - that sentence was not discretionary it was MANDATORY - Do you know what that means???

The bit about "kangaroo courts" didn't come from Wiki did it Jom - your opinion - NOT FACT.

Those who signed the Proclamation were undoubtedly guilty of Treason, Sir Roger Casement was undoubtedly guilty of Treason and they suffered the penalty required by law for that crime.

As for the "she strikes in full confidence of victory." - now that was a downright lie wasn't it Jom as those making that declaration had already sent out the orders for the IRB and IVF throughout Ireland to stand down, thereby condemning the Rising to certain defeat and failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:06 PM

Once again Terricola your state 500,000 people in Ulster would have taken up arms. Once again I ask you justify those figures.



I'll wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:10 PM

professor, have you ever considered reading the book yourself.

Have you ever considered forming your own opinion.


Read the book and then, if you disagree with the contents, formulate your own argument with the research in it.







I'll not hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:12 PM

"Those who signed the Proclamation were undoubtedly guilty of Treason"
If they had been executed for treason, the law and natural justice demands that they be tried for such - they weren't
It would have been a insisted that the be allowed to offer a defence to speak on their behalf - they weren't
The would have been allowed to speak in their own defence - they weren't
Every individual who took part in the rising would have been liable to be tried for treason - they weren't - they weren't even questioned The were selected by British officers who had seen them during the fighting - illegal by any standards.   
Where in your rule book does it say that traitors during wartime can be pardoned on the whim of an officer, without consultating a higher authority?
"your opinion - NOT FACT".
None of these things happened = it was a kangaroo court, not a trial for treason and nobody has ever claimed it was - apart from you.
If you haven't made just made this up, where's your evidence.
You don't have to serve time washing up in a galley to recognise either a kangaroo court or an act of revenge
Who has ever mentioned "treason" in connection to these murders - a century-old secret perhaps?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:15 PM

wiggle wiggle, wot the feck does that mean, jim?
THE DAILY MAIL, a paper that barks out patriotism while its owner that patriotic viscount rothermere is a tax exile "patrotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Dr Johnson,
he was of course referring to false patriots such as the owner of the daily wail

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:24 PM

patriotism is like the barking of village dogs...H G Wells.
Viscount Rothermere is one such dog mad with rabies and frothing at the mouth with xenophopobic jingoism, whilst being a tax exile

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:40 PM

The charges were laid according to a formula: "You are charged with having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops, and you are further charged with conspiracy with His Majesty's enemies." - Source: Irish Times Article

Taking up arms, firing on British Troops and conspiring with the enemy - In other words TREASON.

Raggy yer tis:

"The Ulster Covenant, also known as Ulster's Solemn League and Covenant, was signed by just under half a million men and women from Ulster, on and before 28 September 1912, in protest against the Third Home Rule Bill, introduced by the British Government in that same year."

The names and numbers are simple matter of historical record. That Covenant included these words:

"we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:55 PM

"Taking up arms, firing on British Troops and conspiring with the enemy "
You can't condemn people to death for "in other words" - your rule book and the British law says to have to be specifically charged - have your charges read out and be allowed to enter a defence and produce witnesses - source British and military law (not to mention natural justice.
Any capital crime has to adhere to the rule of law - this kangaroo court breached its own laws - no defence, no witnesses, judged by those involved in the fighting.
I ask again, where anywhere has this act of revenge ever been referred to as a "Treason Trial" - surely it went town in the reacords as "treason"?
You and your "in other words" are making it up as you always do.
treason is a matter of law, not a matter of making things up to try to win arguments
The accuse is assused of "in other words" - how do you plead (whoops sorry, you have no right to reply to that"
You're a bit ofa joke really - who did you serve under during your fantasy tiume in the forces - Bilko??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:02 PM

Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin. His book A Nation and Not a Rabble: The Irish Revolution 1913-23 is published in paperback by Profile Books

He really knows Irish history.
Why would anyone read a book that he says is "an arrogant travesty of Irish history?"
Certainly not to learn anything.

"this truly dreadful book"

" Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history."

"scant regard for evidence."

"There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, "

"Nor is there much accuracy about dates. Contrary to his assertions, Arthur Griffith did not found Sinn Féin in 1904 (it was 1905); the Ulster Volunteer Force was not established in 1912 (it was 1913); Erskine Childers did not organise the smuggling of arms to Ireland "in the summer of 1916" (it was 1914); and King George V did not open the Northern Ireland parliament on June 7th, 1921 (it was June 22nd)."

"Coogan is also a master of sweeping, inaccurate generalisations. "

"There are many other varieties of codswallop: "Fianna Fáil cumainn became IRA flying columns by night". Strange, then, that the IRA was declared an illegal organisation by a Fianna Fáil government in 1936."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:07 PM

"Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin."
Another "real historian" -my, my, my
Made my day Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:16 PM

Terriblossom, the fact that the convenient was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 543,000 were prepared to take up arms.

I am sure if this statement is not FACTUALLY correct you will point out where I am wrong.

If you COULD provide a figure of the percentage of that 543,000 who were prepared to take up arms I'm sure we'd all love to see it, and of course, your supporting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:22 PM

Yes Jim.
A genuine expert on Irish history who found the the history in Coogans book was a "travesty."

You linked to two reviews.
The Indy one was by a non-historian who would not have known that what he was reading was inaccurate. Wrong.

The other review said nothing about the book apart from its sales.
8000 copies.
Hardly "a best seller" as you claimed Jim and certainly not claimed as such by the reviewer!
"One thing that is clear from the Nielsen figures for 2015 is that the ­enthusiasm of Irish publishers in bringing out so many 1916-related books was not matched by ­interest among the book-buying public. ­Despite the huge success of Joe Duffy's book, in general the sales of 1916-­related books have been disappointing."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:23 PM

professor have you read the book ................ no

Will you ever read the book ................. no

Are you interested in the subject .............no

Do you know anything about the subject (apart from cut and pastes).. no

Do you have anything valid to say ........... no

Go and read the book, come to think of it, go and read any book about the subject.

Then and ONLY then will you have any positive contribution to this discussion.

Until you do so I, and many others, will continue to think of you as an annoying and lazy cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 05:07 PM

"the fact that the convenient was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 543,000 were prepared to take up arms."

Maybe that should read:

"the fact that the convenant was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 453,000 were prepared to take up arms."

That would be the same 453,00 presumably who had just sworn to

hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland

Don't know about you Raggy but that would serve as a good enough indication of intent and sign of commitment to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 05:27 PM

Ehmm NO Jom but you can condemn and execute men guilty of firing on British troops and conspiring with the enemy in time of war.

Martial Law was declared in on the 25th of April 1916 in an attempt to maintain order on the streets of Dublin. This was later extended to the whole country.

Under Martial Law individuals were tried without a defence council, without a jury and the trials took place in private chambers. Members of the public and members of the press were not allowed to be present at the trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 16 - 06:14 PM

Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin.

But is he alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:15 PM

"Ehmm NO Jom but you can condemn and execute men guilty of firing on British troops and conspiring with the enemy in time of war."
Which is not what they were executed for.
In order for them to have been executed for treason they would have to have been British
They were not executed for treason - which you seem now to be backing away from.
They were not executed for murder - as you have suggested.
They were executed for taking part in a rebellion.
The fact that there was a war on was totally immaterial - Ireland was not part of that war - the Irishmen who fought did so volunteered to do so and when Britain attempted to forcibly conscript them in 1918 the Irish turned them down - it was never Ireland's war.
Nowhere does the word treason appear in connection with the rising as you have obviously found in your desperate scrabbling.
The court was a kangaroo Court because it met neither legal or military standards - it was rigged by allowing men who had been part of the fighting to take part in the decision when to execute and not to execute.
The decision on who was to be executed or not to be executed was taken arbitrarily by the prisoners being lined up in the yard of the prison and officers who had been in action walking along the lines with informers and pointing them out.
The accused were given no right to legal representation and were not allowed to speak in their own defence.
The examinations (there were no proper 'trials' of the accused took no more than a half hour each, some lasted less than half that time.
The proceedings were condemned as illegal by British legal officials
The prisoners were publicly humiliated and beaten by their captors - Tom Clarke, who had been chosen to be President and Commander-in-chief of the new Republic had the rising been successful, a frail man in poor health due to his earlier treatment in British prisons, was stripped naked on the parade ground in front of his fellow rebels and jeering British troops and beaten with soaked knotted towels.
Not only were the executions illegal and brutal but so was the treatment of many of the prisoners.
The trial was a travesty of justice by any standards not even reaching the standard British soldiers captured in Germany during WW2.
All this is a matter of record - it was a ****** kangaroo Court.
One more time THE REBELS WERE NOT CHARGED WITH TREASON - LIVE WITH IT
Are you suggesting that it was not necessary to charge the men with what they were executed for – is that how British justice works?
If you wish to keep this up - link us to some facts rather than just your unproven statements.
Happy to keep this up as long as you want - each time you do I will endeavour to add a few more details of the inhuman treatment of the captors.
You really can't get your head around the fact that your arrogant talking-down-to tone makes you look all the more stupid when you make a balls-up, as you are doing here
"A genuine expert on Irish history who found the the history in Coogans book was a "travesty."
Back to the "real historians" again Keith - have you no self-respect.
"He really knows Irish history."
As you have never read a book on the subject and are not interested in doing so - how the **** would you know what he knows?
Just to clear up a point, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if Ferriter is such a great historian, I'm not sure where that leaves your argument about The rising being a "contemptible joke".
As do virtually all Irish historians, he supports the rising and at no time questions its validity - so what on earth are you doing challenging a "real historian" and calling him gullible and fooled by propaganda?.
The Coogan book that he challenges is not about Easter Week as such (he wrote a book on the rising some years ago which Ferriter has never commented on)
The only arguments Ferriter has on what Coogan had to say on the Irish revolutionary period was to challenge three dates (he claims two were a year out and one two years out.)
Ferriter's argument was with Coogan's analysis of what has happened to Ireland since and whether the ideals of the rising were lived up to - Coogan claims they weren't as do many thousands of other historians, experts and interested people, particularly in relation to the Party that has been in Government up to the last election.
These are not a matter of historical fact but arguments based on politics.
Coogan describes his book as a personal take on the state of Ireland, which is how he tends to write and what Ferriter challenges is that personal take which he describes as "arrogant".
If Ferriter has any qualms about The Rising he keeps them to himself - he certainly has never described them as a contemptible joke.
He challenges how the freedoms brought about by the rising were described then and have been interpreted since but he at no time challenges its validity - it seems that. like Kineally, you have backed another loser.
This type of humiliation would be totally unnecessary if you bothered to read the articles you take your one-liners from.
Even if he had been opposed to the Rising he would be one historian (very much in the minority) out of many hundreds writing, lecturing, researching, setting up exhibitions, making radio and television programmes... and all the other work going into an event you have described as a "contemptible joke".
The one thing about this centenary is the unanimity of the people involved, with virtually no critical opposition - but I'm sure you know that as your desperate searches have managed to unearth a priest living in America and a journalist - Ferriter, who you thought might be an ally, has blown up in your face, as did Kineally.
G'night George - G'night Gracie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: ollaimh
Date: 04 May 16 - 10:17 PM

thank you jim carrol that says it all.

i want to add that the plain fact that sein fein won a landslide election as soon as they got the chance shows the irish people supported the rebellion. this is a plain fact. the writers now depended on to show a lack of support were part of the old quisling ruling elite or their toadies.

but the anglos have a quible, a hair to split! so starvstion doesn't count, a quible a hari to split so torture, invasion and every form of brutality doesn't count, it's not like the torture starvation and murder by the paras, done by the bad people like quadaffi, because they have a quible and a hair ti split.and of course if the british hadn't been brutal to the rebels there would have been no election win and no popular support--WHEN WERE THE BRITSH EVER ANYTHING BUT BRUTAL? in keyna? whoops there they did all the troture hanging and concentration camp thing, in bengal? opps there they let millions starve, in america, where they made war on women children and food supplies to get rid of the native(as oft quoted at the tine "nits make lice") on and on brutality after brutality.

it's hang wringingly awfull that the rebellion was more destructive than necessary, so awfull. what about the hundreds of years of british destruction, but that isn't a quible.

what the general deniers are saying is two fold. first there is no connection between events.   things aren't related . just because the same poeple and state that conquered ireland,(or india or canada) was the one torturing or murdering, doesn't mean there is any mental connection between those who conquered and those who tortured(see the residential schools for the very worst), no connection between events and peolple. and secend they believe that the fact that the anglos got an econimikc benefit from smashing irish culture and people has no evidential value that any anglos meant any malice or even had any awareness of the abuses. it's a lot like nazi holocoust deniers, dimminish deflect and deny and you have to prove prove prove all over again.

well thankfully they aren't as powerfull as they once were, but now americans are taking up the sword of empire. godess help us if trump gets elected.

what it shows clear as day isthat anglo culture is racist and militaristic to the core, abd isn't likely to change soon. these bigots will buy any quibble and any jingoistic lie if it flatters their endless pride and coddles their hate

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 02:16 AM

where is your evidence that 453,000 people would have taken up arms Terri. In fact how are the 453,000 people going to be provided with arms. Collusion with the British forces perhaps.

Once again you are presenting your "facts" as "truth" neither of which is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:19 AM

"In order for them to have been executed for treason they would have to have been British"

Ehmm Jom - Act of UNION 1801 meant that the country that declared war on Germany on august 4th 1914 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND IRELAND

Taking up arms against the Crown and conspiring with enemies of the Crown IS TREASON - That is what those men did.

"The fact that there was a war on was totally immaterial - Ireland was not part of that war - the Irishmen who fought did so volunteered to do so and when Britain attempted to forcibly conscript them in 1918 the Irish turned them down - it was never Ireland's war."

Oh I don't know Jom I think that the country being at war would aggravate the charge and cause it to be dealt with to the utmost extent of the law. Ireland was as much a part of that war as the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (See Above, and over 210,000 native born Irishmen thought so - how many turned out for your rebellion Jom? 1,250 - 1,500? You've mentioned this attempt at forcing conscription in Ireland in 1918 can you give us all a date upon which that happened, because I've looked and I cannot find it. Can you give us a date when the idea of conscription was put before the Irish and the date they rejected it? You see I don't think that you can because it never happened.

Under Martial Law ALL civil rights are suspended and the military authorities can make, apply and enforce whatever laws they deem necessary. Martial Law was declared on 25th April 1916.

I know very well what those executed were charged with - I actually posted it on this very thread - what you are charged with normally tends to describe what you actually did - now then Jom show me the:

Armed Rebellion Act of Great Britain and Ireland in force and on the statute books in 1916.

Show me the Conspiring with Enemies of the State Act of Great Britain and Ireland in force and on the statute books in 1916.

You'll have a bit of trouble doing that as neither exists or ever has existed - HOWEVER both those offences are detailed in the Treason Act which has been on the statute books since 1351 I posted that on this thread as well highlighting the relevant parts of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:38 AM

Raggy 453,000 or thereabouts solemnly swore that they would do whatever was necessary to prevent Home Rule and Independence. The Larne Gun Smuggling scandal and the formation of the UVF caused the formation of the IVF so the Nationalists certainly took them seriously and at face value at the time. In the rebellion of 1916 only 0.05% of the Irish population could be arsed to take part. In the Irish War of Independence only 0.5% of the Irish population could be arsed to take part. And so enraged by the treaty settlement were they that in the Civil War that de Valera fanned into flames in 1921 and which lasted for almost eleven months only 3.33% of the population of Southern Ireland could be arsed to take part. In the North around 48% of the population were arsed to sign a Covenant stating in the clearest terms possible what they would do to remain as part of the United Kingdom - tell me of any similar document signed in the South to back your rebels Raggy.

As to arms and ammunition Raggy I believe that the UVF managed to get arms into Ireland far more successfully than either the IVF or the IRB.

All moot of course at it never happened but, and this is just my opinion, had independence been forced on the North then the civil war would have been far, far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:39 AM

"Ehmm Jom"
You really do need to do something about that sore throat
" Act of UNION 1801"
The Rebels were not charged with treason - did Britain add not properly charging the men they shot to the other breaches of British law in this brutally inept affair?
Perhaps you'd like to give us the details of what the rule book says about trying people before sentencing them to death?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:51 AM

It is exactly that Terri ............... your opinion. You have no facts to back up your statement which you purport to be truths.

If it is merely your opinion that's fine. I disagree with your opinion but that is just my opinion. But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:58 AM

Jim,
"The Proclamation itself outlined who was responsible for igniting the rising and referenced the Irish Republic's potential ally of Germany. These details of the proclamation, considered to be treason, ensured certain death by firing squad for the leaders of the Irish Republic if independence was not obtained."
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/50-facts-about-the-Easter-Rising-which-began-99-years-ago-today-PHOTOS.html

Rag,
Have you been able to quote any historian in support of yours or Jim's case........NO

Have you spotted any gap in my knowledge of the history of the rising................NO.

Have you spotted any errors in the history I have produced to support my case...NO.

Anything to suggest my knowledge of history is inadequate.......NO

Do I need to read a book that is a travesty of history...............NO

Does anyone seeking the true version of events........................NO

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:04 AM

But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not.

He never has Rag.
No-one can state as a fact any alternative history that did not happen, and no-one has.
Of course it is opinion and it does not need explaining, except to you obviously Rag.
Opinions are worth nothing if not informed by facts, which T's always are.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"Do I need to read a book that is a travesty of history...............NO

Does anyone seeking the true version of events........................NO"

Not having read the book you are not in a position to say it is a travesty. You have merely cited the opinion of another author who again you have not read.

So, let me get this straight in my head. You say Author A is wrong because Author B says so. You have not read Author B so cannot know whether his writings are accurate. You have not read Author A so you cannot say his writings are inaccurate.

Where in that muddle do you form the opinion that Author A's writings are a travesty. You don't know and more to the point you will never know because you are too lazy and too disinterested to read him.

As I have said before your "argument" has no validity.