BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 05:18 PM

"The army officers refused to support threatened violence from Usltermen in March 1914"

Exactly, on the orders of the British Government the Army moved troops to the six armament depots in the North to safeguard against those arms falling into the hands of the UVF if they decided to take any action. They most definitely were not going to support any threat of violence from the UVF in the North. Now tell us all how they managed to do that in the middle of this mutiny of yours were "half the officers in the Army" were refusing to obey orders, unless of course there wasn't a mutiny at all.

"The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914"

Oh dear Jim, time lines crossed again, nobody was talking about any permanent partition in 1914. You've got your July right but the year is two years out, it was in July 1916 that Carson got Lloyd George's assurance in writing that Ulster would never be forced into a united Ireland - but he {Lloyd George} did not give Carson any guarantee of a permanent partition. Now you tell me what happened in 1916 in Ireland that might have given the Unionists pause for thought and harden their attitudes to a united Ireland (HINT - Have a look at Dublin in April that year).

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 02:13 PM

Joking no - prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 08:04 PM

Right - finished with you pair.
This is the situation you have been given, by all the evidence you have been provided.
The Unionist, armed themselves with smuggled weapons and declared that, under no circumstances they would accept a United Ireland - they were no more than an armed group of traitorous paramilitaries.
The Government were well aware of this, which is why they altered the agreed conditions (Redmond had made it clear he would accept no other) from "six years" to "permanent partition", in doing so, they colluded with armed paramilitaries who had been assembled and egged-on by Carson, Craig and other fanatical nutters while at the same time destroying the Home Rule movement which would possibly have kept Ireland within the control of the Empire.
High ranking officers in the British Army pledged their support to this bunch of fanatical paramilitaries by saying that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland - traitors all, prepared to take part in what amounted to a military coup in the event of part of the British Isles being attacked by self-declared, fanatical nutters (one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).
The Conservatives in the Government backed these the nutty Paramilitaries.
Probably, one of the few good things to come out of W.W.1. was that it dissipated a potentially disastrous Civil War in Britain.
When the Republicans eventually forced Britain to give 26 counties full independence, the fanatical nutters who had brought Britain to the brink of Civil War were put in charge of the six counties, and mounted a nearly half-a-century reign of terror and persecution on one third of the population which lasted to the late 1960s when, after an attempt to gain civil rights was brutally put down by the fanatical nutters, aided and abetted by the R.U.C. - this erupted into 'The Troubles' which spilled over onto mainland Britain.
And the Easter uprising was a "contemptible joke" - sure it was!!
To to top all this - Ireland, who had no right to independence (which one of you have denied claiming) had never really existed as a nation anyway (as claimed by the same feller)
Those who the gods wish to destroy must be first made mad - as the saying goes.
G'night George, g'night Gracie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 10:08 PM

Nice fairy tale Jom but it does not stand up when you put the events in order and apply a time line to them.

I have always said that your attention to detail is almost no-existent and your ability with regard to research is careless and shoddy.

1: "The Unionist, armed themselves with smuggled weapons and declared that, under no circumstances they would accept a United Ireland - they were no more than an armed group of traitorous paramilitaries."

But they didn't did they Jom - here's the actual time line for you:

11th April, 1912 - Asquith introduces the Third Irish Home Rule Bill

28th September, 1912 'Ulster Day' - The day when 447,197 people signed the Ulster Covenant, which bound those 447,197 signatories to resist Home Rule by use of "all means necessary".

13th January, 1913 - The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed to resist any attempts by the British Government to 'impose' Home Rule on Ulster.

25th November 1913 the Irish Volunteer Force created - its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland" (Shall we just ignore/deny the existence of such previous Nationalist groups as the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians, Sinn Féin, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood who for reasons best known to themselves joined the IVF secretly)

December 1913 - British Government ban the import into Ireland of arms.

March 1914 - British Government order troops based in Ireland to deploy to armament depots in the North to safeguard the contents from possible theft by the UVF. By 31st March the troops are in place and the arms depots are secured.

25th April, 1914 - UVF successfully smuggle arms into Ulster - the guns and ammunition having been purchased in Hamburg from a private arms dealer.

21st May, 1914 - A proposed amendment to the Bill that temporarily excludes the whole of Ulster from Government from Dublin for six years is proposed.

8th July, 1914 - Carson and the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed by a Lords' recommendation, supported the government's Amending Bill in the Lords for the "temporary exclusion of Ulster" from the workings of the future Act, but the number of counties (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion was to be temporary or permanent, were all still to be negotiated.

26th July, 1914 - IVF successfully smuggle arms into Howth - the guns and ammunition having been purchased in Germany.

4th August, 1914 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declares war on Germany. UVF members were subsequently to volunteer for service in the British Army. Asquith abandons his Amending Bill.

5th September, 1914 - The Supreme Council of the IRB meet and decide that they will stage an uprising before the war ends and to do this they will secure help from Germany.

18th September, 1914 - The Government of Ireland Act 1914 receives Royal Assent.

Doesn't quite tally with your little one liner does it Jom. The UVF never using the guns it smuggled in and then the UVF almost to a man go off and volunteer to fight the Germans (To be fair quite a number of the Redmond faction of the IVF did the same). The Pearse faction of the IVF just one month after the war starts votes to collude with the enemy in order to turn it's guns on British Troops and Irish Policemen in Dublin on the 24th April, 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:36 AM

"The Government were well aware of this, which is why they altered the agreed conditions (Redmond had made it clear he would accept no other) from "six years" to "permanent partition"

Of course the only problem with this bit of your story Jom is that:

The Third Home Rule Bill put before Parliament in April 1912, received Royal Assent in September 1914 in its original form, Asquith having abandoned his Amending Bill in August 1914 when the country went war with Germany.

So you see the Government altered nothing. As would be plainly obvious if you bothered to read the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - you won't do that I know and you will cling to your MYTH.

Now let us take a look at the alteration of "agreed" conditions and the your next bit of nonsense that can be shown for the misleading claptrap that it is by looking at dates events happened (Referring here to your - "they colluded with armed paramilitaries who had been assembled and egged-on by Carson, Craig and other fanatical nutters while at the same time destroying the Home Rule movement which would possibly have kept Ireland within the control of the Empire.). It comes in two parts:

1914 - Asquith's Amending Bill

21st May, 1914 - A proposed amendment to the Bill that temporarily excludes the whole of Ulster from Government from Dublin for six years is proposed.

8th July, 1914 - Carson and the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed by a Lords' recommendation, supported the government's Amending Bill in the Lords for the "temporary exclusion of Ulster" from the workings of the future Act, but the number of counties (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion was to be temporary or permanent, were all still to be negotiated.

4th August, 1914 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declares war on Germany. UVF members were subsequently to volunteer for service in the British Army. Asquith abandons his Amending Bill.

18th September 1914 - Home Rule Bill becomes a Home Rule Act

Fast forward to 1916

24th April to 29th April 1916 - IVF stage the rising in Dublin

3rd to 12th May 1916 - Leaders executed, the manner in which the British Military authorities in Ireland deals with the aftermath causes previous Home Rule moderates to sympathise with the harder line Independence Republicans.

July 1916 - Asquith attempts to enact the 1914 Home Rule Act and Lloyd George is sent to broker some sort of deal. Redmond is still prepared to accept the temporary six year exclusion for Ulster. Carson, Craig and the pro-unionists for some obscure reason have now backed away from that and want a permanent partition. Lloyd George in attempting to get back to the 1914 agreement assures Carson that Ulster will not be forced into any united Ireland against its will (Nowhere in that correspondence is any permanent partition promised). All negotiations breakdown when Redmond hears of this assurance and the attempt to enact Home Rule for Ireland is abandoned.   

Now in the summer of 1916 who were the armed paramilitaries that the Government were colluding with? In 1914 and 1915 the members of the UVF were volunteering in droves to join the Irish Regiments in the British Army, as to a lesser extent were members of the Redmonite Home Rule faction of the IVF, leaving only the hardline leadership of the Republican Independence Pearse faction of the IVF to plot their rising in secret from their own members between 1915 and Easter 1916.

What hardened the pro-unionist stance - the Easter Rising
Was the Government of Ireland Act 1914 altered in 1916 - no it was not.

Redmond basically went into a sulk and that was that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:47 AM

Jim,
The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914

You are inventing history again Jim.

The Unionists were not "totally opposed," they voted for it!

In July 1914 they agreed a temporary not permanent partition.
There was no suggestion of any permanent partition until after the rising, and because of the rising.

You have all your facts completely wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:56 AM

"To to top all this - Ireland, who had no right to independence (which one of you have denied claiming) had never really existed as a nation anyway (as claimed by the same feller)"

Now then a couple of questions for you about that:

1: When and where did I ever say that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence? (You've been asked for proof of this claim of yours a number of times now and you have rather significantly been unable to come up with it - yet another baseless accusation - more Jim Carroll "made-up-shit")

2: "Ireland never really existed as a nation"? I do not recall saying that. What I did say was: "they" {the Irish} were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms" I think if you study your history of Ireland you will find that that statement is perfectly correct.

Oh and while you are at it, you could answer and back up another of your baseless accusations:

When and where did I ever say that I thought that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 05:38 AM

On to the next bit of complete and utter twaddle:

High ranking officers in the British Army pledged their support to this bunch of fanatical paramilitaries by saying that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland - traitors all, prepared to take part in what amounted to a military coup in the event of part of the British Isles being attacked by self-declared, fanatical nutters (one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).

High ranking officers pledged their support to bunch of fanatical paramilitaries did they? Specifics, where, when and how? The most senior Officer involved in the Curragh Incident was Gough, who when summoned to the War Office on the 22nd March stated quite clearly and unequivocally that he would obey any order given him.

57 Officers out of 70 in one Brigade stated that they would tender their resignations rather than face dismissal. As events progressed none of these officers resigned, and the orders to deploy North to secure six armament depots were carried out and completed on schedule (31st March, 1914).

Where on earth did you get this from:

High ranking officers in the British Army said that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they{these fanatical paramilitaries presumably} mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland.

Have you any proof at all for this, or is it more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" presented as fact that we all must swallow. But here are a few facts for you:

1: The men were ordered North, those orders were obeyed to the letter.
2: Not only were the British troops in Ireland prepared to act against any armed insurrection, contingencies for six scenarios related to possible UVF activity had been considered and prepared for.
3: Measures were in place to reinforce the troops in Ireland if need be with troops from the Mainland, these measures even took into account the possibility of strike action by railwaymen, dockers and merchant seamen in sympathy with the Ulster Unionists.
4: The Royal Navy's 3rd Battle Squadron was off Lamlash in the Clyde with orders to bombard Belfast if required.

There were no UVF plans to take over the armaments depots, they thought that doing that would be too severe a provocation, they decided to purchase arms abroad instead and the plan to smuggle these arms into Ulster was well underway even before the Curragh Incident happened.

There was no UVF plan to march on Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 05:53 AM

Apologies - I forgot this bit:

(one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).

Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 06:08 AM

The Conservatives in the Government backed these the nutty Paramilitaries.

Only one tiny thing wrong with that - It was a Liberal Government in power from 5 April 1908 – 25th May 1915 and then a Coalition Wartime Government under Asquith's leadership from 25th May 1915 until 5th December 1916. So in the time frame you are attempting to squeeze all this into there were no Conservatives in the Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 10:05 AM

"Probably, one of the few good things to come out of W.W.1. was that it dissipated a potentially disastrous Civil War in Britain."

Oh don't be such a grump Carroll, there were lots of good things that came out of WWI. The one that you mention is a minor one, primarily as it is based entirely on conjecture, it is only your opinion that has converted the possible to the probable. Noted however that you glossed over the fact that after war had been declared the men of the UVF joined the British Army - What did Pearse's 15,000 do? Ah yes they colluded with the enemy and planned a rising and set it up to fail thereby betraying their own men and throwing their lives away.

When the Republicans eventually forced Britain to give 26 counties full independence, the fanatical nutters who had brought Britain to the brink of Civil War were put in charge of the six counties, and mounted a nearly half-a-century reign of terror and persecution on one third of the population which lasted to the late 1960s when, after an attempt to gain civil rights was brutally put down by the fanatical nutters, aided and abetted by the R.U.C. - this erupted into 'The Troubles' which spilled over onto mainland Britain.

First question when exactly did the pro-union UVF bring Britain to the brink of a civil war in Britain? They clearly stated what their red line was (Ulster being forced into a united Ireland governed from Dublin) and at no time from April 1912 to 7th December 1921 did that ever look as though it was ever going to happen.

When the truce was called in June 1921 the war had been fought to a stalemate. In the ensuing negotiations the parties involved agreed to honour and respect the right of self-determination for both Northern and Southern Ireland - on the 6th December 1921 a united and independent Irish Free State came into being and in accordance with the terms of the Treaty that created it on the 7th December 1921 the six counties of the North exercised their right to cede from that State to become a self-governing autonomous part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But I note your bias - the pro-unionists you portray as fanatical nutters who in the period we are talking about did not fire a single shot or kill anyone and who when their country went to war they willingly volunteered to fight the enemy. Those who were put in charge to run the six counties were elected to do so by the electorate of Northern Ireland.

Now what about the fanatical paramilitary nutters of the IVF led by Pearse. SEVEN men plotted a rising that they kept secret from their own IVF Executive and colluded with the enemy in time of war. They lit the blue touch paper and stood back and watched as their actions in Dublin bore fruit. All the destruction wrought was THEIR responsibility. Their actions polarised opinion and ended all hope of a united Ireland as far as the North was concerned. As with those elected to run things in the North those elected in the South were elected to do so by the electorate of the Free State and those elected in the South taking into account the rising, the war of independence and the civil war had a damn sight more blood on their hands.

If you wish to discuss, sectarianism, bigotry and civil rights abuses post 1921 then open a thread about it but if you do then make sure your opening post covers those that occurred in both the North and in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Once again, no links, no proof, just declarations - you've stopped even pretending to link your claims - none of which dispute anything I have put up with verification.
Nothing you offer disproves anything I have put up, mostof it doesn't even realte to it.
I've just about had it with you pair of anachronistic Empire Loyalists – your 'Ireland has no right to claim independence as it isn't really a nation' because of the situation 800 years ago, really was the limit of the time I'm prepared to waste with a pair of hate-filled dinosaurs – I have come to the conclusion that people who advocate the type of fundamentalism expressed by you are really not 'the full shilling', as they say around here.
You've already claimed that Ireland has no right to unity, denied you said it and now you've repeated it
Of course Ireland has every right to be considered a full Nation   - it was a Nation when America was no more than a collection of colonial settlers from all over the world, under British rule, on the one hand, slaughtering the native Americans and robbing their land, on the other, driving off other Empires so they wouldn't have to share the loot.
Ireland was a nation when Australia was a British penal colony, and the when their New Zealand Colonial neighbours were doing the same to the Maoris as was being done to the Native Americans.
It was a nation when England was still fighting its nearest neighbours, Scotland and Wales, destroying their cultures, languages and ways of life and bringing their leaders to heel as faithful servants of the Empire.
You reflect everything that made The British Empire the evil predatory leech that it was, it's arrogance, its hate filled superiority and its contempt for everybody it controlled and everybody who ever opposed its despotic rule.
I was educated into believing that to be foreign was to be inferior, that Britannia still "ruled the waves", that we, as Britons, were "special" and that we had "civilised a world filled with savage barbarians – that was right up to the mid 1950s.
The hangover from that 'brainwashing' remains the cause of many of the crises and sufferings in the world today – the state in which we left the economies, industries and cultures of the countries we enslaved, the still-predatory way we regard and treat the Third World, where we help maintain a form of slavery with our demand for sweat-labour cheaply produced goods and oil – all have fuelled wars, oppression and terrorism.
Nearer to home, the instilled racism of many British people still makes the lives of visitors from abroad and British citizens with the 'misfortune' to have been born elsewhere miserable and dangerous (it is calculated that over 50% of the British population hold and have openly expressed racist views).   
I grew up in Liverpool, a city which prospered, along with other seaport cities like Bristol and Plymouth, from The British Empire's leading involvement in the international slave trade.
The hangover from that evil trade, established in America in States like Virginia under British rule, brought about the vicious American Civil War in the middle of the 19th century and was still being felt in the Southern States right into the 1960s when its Civil Rights movement was popularising the songs and black laments which first enticed me into folk song.
"Great" Britain (doesn't its arrogance resonate in that name?) has little to be proud of; it conquered a large part of the world by military force, enslaved its people and crushed their cultures and religions.
We once recorded interviews with a dear, long-dead friend, Paddy Boyle, from Donegal (father of the superb flute player, Maggie Boyle, who died last year, and uncle of highly-respected actor, Seán McGinley).
Paddy told us how, when he was a child under British rule, he and his Donegal, native-Irish-speaking fellow pupils were given small sticks to wear around their necks on a string; when the master heard one of them speaking Irish, he carved a notch into the stick and at the end of the week, the 'offender' would be given a stroke of the cane for every notch – that epitomised the British Empire's 'respect' for other cultures.   
The arrogance of Empire wrought suffering on the Irish people for at least six centuries, within my grandparent's lifetimes its handling of The Famine robbed Ireland of a third of its people, either through disease and starvation or by enforced emigration.   
That arrogance inspired the paramilitary Ulster Unionists to threaten British democracy with armed resistance and eventually brought about decades of inequality, poverty and violence to the Catholics of the Six Counties, leading to virtual Civil war and attacks on the British mainland.
Attempts to gain independence from Britain were met with military opposition, slaughter and the mass murder of its leaders in the form of rigged, undefended trials and summary executions.
Easter Week helped to put a stop to British rule in most of Ireland and to the eventual collapse of the "Evil Empire" (to borrow a phrase), though I have to admit that the callous butchery of best part of a generation of young men in defence of that Empire helped.
You pair have given us a clear picture of why that Empire was so hated – in your arrogance, in your dismissal of the rights of other nations, in your contempt for them – actually expressed by Keith in his writing off of the respect and the knowledge the Irish have for their history as "a contemptible joke, brought about by propaganda" and putting the demonstration of that respect as "the Irish loving to celebrate" and comparing the recognition of one of the most decisive acts in Irish history to "St Patrick's Day".
Your – "Ireland has no reason to desire independence because it was never really a united nation" is beyond belief as a statement which typifies the hatred and contempt that was passed on to us through the post-Empire education system.
You are the Punch Cartoons, the writings of Charles Kingsley, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson all rolled into a neat bundle of two.
I'm more than happy, anxious even, to continue this discussion with any seriously interested posters who wish to – for the blast of fresh air it would bring, if for nothing else – but I've finished with you two – life really is too short.   
"Jom"
You will never cop on, will you?
Your inability to control your bad mannered contempt for those who disagree with you is proof, if proof were needed, of your ineffectuality in persuading others of your argument and your insecurity of those arguments – if you can't get people to accept them, or if they dare to criticise Britain or, in this case, it's long-dead Empire, or the Establishment, then talk down to them and bully them into silence - it really does typify your archaic Empire Loyalism.
Every time you find yourself in a dilemma, your self-applied straightjacket works loose, your instinctive ill-manners kick in and you revert to what Joe Offer has rightly described as "childish and boring name-calling" - if I can make an effort to clean up my act, you really need to try cleaning up yours, though it really doesn't matter too much to me; if I was into scoring points, which I am not, each time the mask slips is the mark of another 'hit'.
I choose to call myself Jim Carroll, and in case we ever get around to a half-decent exchange of ideas and knowledge I would ask that you use it – all academic anyway – who on earth wants to waste time and energy on such an unpleasant and insecure pair?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 11:18 AM

Jim Carroll - 17 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Once again, no links, no proof, just declarations"

Nope Jom just dates that put things in the right sequence, not the mish-mash, jumble, invention and confusion you normally have to cobble together.

Dates and events are easily checked - not to you of course - you simply do not bother.

As for the downright lies you employ as gap fillers in your rants, I just shrug them off and have done for a long time, but as an example:

" your 'Ireland has no right to claim independence as it isn't really a nation'"

At no point on any thread on this forum have either Keith or myself ever said anything remotely like that - you know it, we know it - and now having been challenged repeatedly to back your lies up and having demonstrated your reluctance and inability to do so - everyone else on this forum who has read this thread knows it.

As to the rest of your bigoted, rascist, Anglophobic rant - I simply just did not bother to read it - I doubt whether I will ever read another post of yours again - like GregF you have absolutely nothing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 May 16 - 12:01 PM

"Dates and events are easily checked"
Your job to provide backing for your claims - I do.
"At no point on any thread on this forum have either Keith or myself ever said anything remotely like that"
Then what the **** is this about.
"Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous."
or this
"prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth."
You are now falling into Keith's habit of lying about what you have put up.
Why it's not worth continuing this farce with you pair
"The most senior Officer involved in the Curragh Incident was Gough, who when summoned to the War Office on the 22nd March stated quite clearly and unequivocally that he would obey any order given him."
And General Haig or did he resiign because he wanted to put his feet up??
This type of dishonesty is exactly why you never link to your claims.
"Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth."
By whom and where is this proof available.
"So in the time frame you are attempting to squeeze all this into there were no Conservatives in the Government."
You know as well as I do how the British Parliamentary system works - the Governance of the country is down to the controlling majority, the opposition and The House of Lords.
The Tories in opposition and the House of Lords fought tooth and nail to defeat any attempts to Unite Ireland.
The book I quoted from earlier "'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce" is dedicated to the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time
Whatever your "timeline" means the Unionists armed themselves in readiness to oppose any attempts whatever to include a united Irelan - they were the first group of the 20th century to brin arms into Ireland for political purposes and they were backed by the Conservatives in Government and my officers i the British Army - Asquith calculated how many might be involved - including senior officers.
You have been given all this, all with named sources and none of it my opinion, yet you have consistently and dishonestly referred to it as being mine - Keith continues to accuse me of making these facts up - every single of has been taken from the wors of researchers - he has offered nothing - uyou have attempted to bluff from start to finish offering not even the semblence of evidence.
Nor you scream "thread drift" as Keith does when he is in a corner "If you wish to discuss, sectarianism, bigotry and civil rights abuses post 1921 "
Are you seriously suggesting that the ongoing behaviour right up to the present day has nothing to do with this - I seem to remember that you have taken it up to The Good Friday Agreement
Oh yes here it is:
"This was thankfully ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement:"
Thank you for confirming that you pair are not worth the efforty of responding to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 07:19 PM

Pre-Norman Ireland

"Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous."
or this
"prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth."
You are now falling into Keith's habit of lying about what you have put up.

Lies? no I will leave that to you - you are after all very good at it - read the link supplied to find out more - somehow don't think that you will - but rest assured others might.

OK then Jom tell us all what Lt-General Haig had to do with the Curragh Incident. As far as is recorded it was this:

Haig stressed {To Gough's brother} that the army's duty was to keep the peace and urged his officers not to dabble in politics. - WOW.

By the way what post did Haig resign from? Or is this just another example of those totally incorrect claims about Kitchener resignations that you are now infamous for?

"Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth."
By whom and where is this proof available.

Date 27th September 2012 BBC:

Scientific test carried out on the signature by Dr Alastair Ruffell, of Queen's University Belfast, has found no evidence to support the claim.

Dr Ruffell's test used Luminol, which reacts with the iron present in haemoglobin and produces a blue-white glow.

He told the BBC the results carried the possibility of a margin of error because "this material has been uncontrolled for 100 years."

But according to Dr Ruffell, the test is capable of detecting tiny traces even in old samples.

"Some years ago we did a test in the Colorado desert where they put some blood on some rocks and we went back ten years later and we were able to find the blood using the Luminol test", he said.

"The iron in the blood degrades very slowly."

Now tell us Jom what tests did you do that counters the work done by Dr Alastair Ruffell of Queen's University Belfast? My guess is that you didn't do any.

"You know as well as I do how the British Parliamentary system works"

Judging by the crap that you have come out with I know, and have clearly demonstrated that I know, a damned sight better than you how the British Parliamentary system works. What is it that demonstrates this?

1: Your ignorance about the Parliament Act 1911 and how it affects Bills proposed by the House of Commons.
2: Your idiotic assertion that Opposition Parties Govern - quite simply put - They don't.
3: The fact that for long enough you claimed that the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 had been defeated - when of course it hadn't.
4: The fact that you persist in claiming that alterations were made to an Act of Parliament when in fact they hadn't and refusal to accept that that Act of Parliament was repealed, replaced and never enforced.

The book I quoted from earlier "'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce" is dedicated to the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time

And the relevance of that from April 1912 until September 1914 is what exactly? April 1912 Home Rule Bill introduced, September 1914 Home Rule Bill becomes the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Bill having received Royal Assent - But I forgot Jom-the infallible stated that that never happened. Oh dear Jom just one more historical inexactitude of yours to add to your list.

the Unionists armed themselves in readiness to oppose any attempts whatever to include a united Irelan - they were the first group of the 20th century to brin arms into Ireland for political purposes and they were backed by the Conservatives in Government and my officers i the British Army - Asquith calculated how many might be involved - including senior officers

Number of points here that I feel I must draw to your attention:

1: The year is 1914 - THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVES IN GOVERNMENT. - ( JOM deliberate lie and misrepresentation No:1)
2: " my officers i the British Army" Good heavens Jom I didn't know that you had any back there in 1914. Tell me how many did you have? Where did you keep them?
3: Tell us all how Asquith calculated what any group, or professional body in the entire length and breadth of the British Empire might, or might not do in 1914? - absolutely dying to hear what our little Marxist comes out with on this - crystal ball, Ouija Board perhaps? Pure conjecture, no calculation, but pray tell having made these imaginary calculations ( Based on God knows what) what instructions did he as Prime Minister give, if what you say is correct?

You have been given all this, all with named sources

Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest.

Oh and yes I did reference the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as its introduction replaced the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which previously replaced the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - and that Jom the infallible is where we came in wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 04:01 AM

You are still insisting on your arrogant rudeness which underlines why you neither have a case nor are worth discussing with or even listening to - take a pill.
Your 'Norman' argument is utter nonsense - if it was the Unionists would have no case whatever in Ireland.
The religio/political divides in Ulster are the result of settlers being deliberately planted there in the 1600s (how long is that after "The Normans?"and today's situation in The Six Counties is a result of the British Government enforcing a division in the 1920s - the Protestants are 'Blow-in newcomers' in both cases and, by your reckoning, can have no claim to a recognised presence in Ireland - certainly no claim to a Protestant State.
For ***** sake, stop talking down to people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 05:14 AM

I must say, I have tried, but this ahs become like trying to have a serious conversation with a truculent drunk with learning difficulties and someone who constantly accuses you of telling lies - also with learning difficulties.
Between them, they have driven this subject into the ground, as far as I'm concerned - it is neither educational, inspiring or in any way enjoyable.
Pity - it's a subject which interests me and, I suspect, many others and it is far too important to some of us to have to put up with this behaviour.
Perhaps, having learned our lesson, someone might consider opening another - this one has been kicked to death by thugs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Too good to pass up.
The claim of 'blood signing was not an "urban myth" – if it was a false claim, as is 90% probable, it was one started by Unionists, circulated by Unionists and still maintained by some Unionists – a sign of their fanaticism, which was the point I was making in drawing attention to it.
Jim Carroll

"and the other incident was that, among some twenty men who signed the Covenant in Belfast with their own blood, Major Crawford was able to claim that he was following a family tradition, inasmuch as a lineal ancestor had in the same grim fashion emphasised his adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in 1638."
The Claim

The Covenant had two basic parts: The Covenant itself, which was signed by men, and the Declaration, which was signed by women. In total, the Covenant was signed by 237,368 men; the Declaration, by 234,046 women. The most passionate signatories signed in their own blood.
And again

A forensic test determined to recognise the iron content of blood has now returned a 90% confidence that the signature was not in fact made in blood - though some Unionists are still holding onto the 10% uncertainty factor!
hThe ongoing claim by Unionists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 16 - 06:56 AM

So Jom if you haven't lied then you can give everybody on this forum the reference of the post where either Keith A of Hertford or myself said

That Ireland is not entitled to independence.

Simple enough task surely - I mean apart from the fact that no such post exists - But that you know perfectly well - But you still felt free to make accusations that you knew to be 100% false - speaks volumes about you and the lengths your Anglophobia drives you to.

As to where the Normans come into it Jom? It was under THEIR rule that the concept of the Irish being a nation was created. You should have read the link.

Another thing that speaks volumes, on one hand you condemn me for referring back to the Normans (Even although that was in response to a specific question raised by Joe Offer) then you refer to the Protestants in Ireland as 'Blow-In Newcomers' because they arrived in the early 1600s. Any idea why they were "Planted"? Any idea who "Planted" them ?

Ever heard of Chief Hugh O'Neill that great "Irish" patriot, who worked tirelessly to make Ireland a colony of Spain's in the hope that he would be Spain's Viceroy. Caused no end of problems towards the end of Queen Elizabeth the First's reign and in the early part of the reign of King James VI of Scotland & I of England. O'Neill's lands were in the North and when he fled to Spain after his defeat at Kinsale James the First of England found what he thought was a perfect solution to two problems. He transplanted the troublesome and infamous "Riding" Families who lived either side of the Anglo-Scottish border who basically had been living in a perpetual state of war for 350 years, and he granted them land in Northern Ireland to fill the vacuum left by O'Neill. If the Irish wanted to fight then they might as well fight people who would be more than prepared to fight back, and King James knew that if he could rely on the borderers to do anything it would be to fight for the land that had been given them. The other thing he could now rely on was that even if the Catholics of Ireland were still prepared to be played with as dupes and pawns of the Spanish and the French, he would always have a safe base and territory that he could rely on in the North, from which he could defeat any rebellion. Now having been there for the best part of 500 years they are as "Irish" as anyone else living there. They have and have always had as much right to self-determination as anyone else and to have that right respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:28 AM

"So Jom"
Your behavior on this thread is very reminiscent of that of the thuggish Unionists 'Billy-Boys' I used to argue with in my youth in Liverpool, bullying and bascally all empty bluster.
Until you clean up your act, I would highly recommend to all that they steer a wide course from you and anybody who chooses to behave like you.
Never mind, you'll find someone to talk to on The Glorious Twelfth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 16 - 02:17 PM

Jim,
The Tories in opposition and the House of Lords fought tooth and nail to defeat any attempts to Unite Ireland.

That is the job of the opposition and is what always happens.
That is how parliament works.

In 1914, the government, Unionists and Nationalists agreed and passed the Home Rule Bill with a large majority, with no suggestion of permanent partition.

Instead we had the rising and years of war and death.
What do you find to celebrate in that?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 02:51 PM

The Shelling of Dublin City Centre
Eye witness account from 'The Scrap' Gene Kerrigan.

The shelling of Dublin city centre continued through Thursday. Unable to do their job, the Dublin Fire Brigade watched helplessly as the flames spread. Around 7.30pm, the outsize DBC building collapsed into Sackville Street - a terrible noise, a vast mass of falling bricks and debris, the impact shaking the whole street. Colossal clouds of dust and smoke rose into the sky. Watching from the Imperial Hotel.
Having consumed the Hibernian Bank, flames continued moving north along the block. Hoyte's, a chemist's premises equipped with barrels of turpentine and methylated spirits, caught fire and the whole building went up. Barrels of chemicals exploded, some of them landing on the roof of the Imperial Hotel.
The immense conflagration at Hoyte's took the fire to the end of that block, with just the narrow lane of Sackville Place separating it from the block dominated by Clerys department store and the Imperial Hotel.
The flames crept along the barricade at the top of Sackville Place - the barricade through which Frank Henderson and his F Company comrades had passed when they arrived in the city centre on Tuesday evening. The fire soon reached the building on the other side of the lane and began to crawl up the window frame. Clerys and the Imperial Hotel would be next.
The British artillery was taking its time about finding the range of the GPO, and its efforts were spraying shells far and wide. Guns in the garden of the Rotunda Hospital were lobbing shells over buildings to drop into the Sackville Street area. Some hit the roof of the Imperial. A water tank attached to a side wall, under the roof, took a direct hit and shattered. The water fell straight down into an annex where a number of Volunteers were resting – it hit them like a wave and washed them along the floor.
Besides drenching the Volunteers, the direct hit on the water tank had deprived the Imperial garrison of water to fight fires.
A shell hit the roof of the Metropole Hotel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 16 - 03:40 PM

Keith,

In 1914, the government, Unionists and Nationalists agreed and passed the Home Rule Bill with a large majority, with no suggestion of permanent partition.

Had there been no Easter Rising and had the Nationalists kept faith with John Redmond Ireland would have got Home Rule in 1919, probably with the previously agreed temporary arrangement. Both parties then would have six years to arrive at some sort of working compromise or some alternative solution and Ireland would have gained its independence in 1931 under the Statute of Westminster and not one drop of blood would have been shed.

RTE - Chronology of the Easter Rising

Fires in Sackville Street:
Monday 24th April, 1916
15:30 Looting starts
20:30 Looting continues in Sackville Street, and fires also begin breaking out in premises on the street.

No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings.

Tuesday 25th April, 1916
Reserve Artillery arrive during the morning from Athlone
15:00 British 18-pounder artillery based at Grangegorman Asylum opens fire on rebel positions in the Phibsboro area.
20:15 British gun yacht, the HMY Helga has entered the Liffey and fired at Boland's Mills damaging the upper storeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 07:53 PM

Compulsory conscription sorted.
Jim Carroll

From Ireland's Civil War, pp 68 and 69, Carleton Younger (1968)   
The alternative was adopted but Lloyd George was adamant that a Home Rule Bill must be introduced also, otherwise "it would be stated, and rightly so, that the pledges given on this subject had not been redeemed". Government supporters, the whole of the Labour Party, the American people and he. himself, would not accept one measure without the other.
Brushing aside Bonar Law's objection that if there were not substantial agreement in the Convention, the pledge that Ulster would not be coerced might be difficult to sustain, the Prime Minister stated his intention to carry through a bill based on the Convention's recommendations if possible, and, if not, then based on the original letter to Sir Horace Plunkett.
Only in the event of Irish Members of all sections opposing the Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons would Lloyd George concede conscription without Home Rule. Barnes went further and declined to be party to the application of conscription in Ireland unless Home Rule went through. 8
On April 6th, the Prime Minister sombrely reported to the Cabinet that great numbers of men had been lost in France and that hundreds of thousands more would be needed. He had now received the Report of the Convention, but his determination of the day before not to introduce one measure without the other had wilted. The calamitous situation in France had impelled him to come to a decision that legislation should be passed providing for conscription in Ireland. There would be trouble, perhaps bloodshed, he acknowledged, but this he now believed had to be accepted.
He then stated the considerations which had weighed with him.
"Even if Home Rule were carried tomorrow, the army and navy would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament.
The claim has never been put forward by any Irish party that the army and navy and the defence of the Realm are local matters. In the second place, I do not believe it possible in this country to tear industry about, to break up single businesses, to take fathers of forty-five and upwards from their homes to fight the battles of a Catholic nationality on the Continent without deep resentment at the spectacle of sturdy young Catholics in Ireland spending their time in increasing the difficulties of this country by drilling and by compelling us to keep troops in Ireland. I do not know any grounds of justice or equity on which conscription could not be applied to Ireland. "
The Government had shown indulgence to Ireland, "wise and reasonable indulgence", he thought, in the hope that she would become "reconciled to her Imperial association". But they could not "go to the House of Commons and ask our people to make sacrifices, sacrifices which the Irish in America are making, and leave the Irish at home out. I think we ought to accord to Ireland the same rights as Irishmen are enjoying in America. "

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM

"No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings."
Too good to pass up again!

Evidence of "no artillery!!!!"
The Irish Times article actually says:
"The naval bombardment of Liberty Hall has effectively destroyed the building. The HMY Helga has now turned its guns on targets on Sackville Street."
" Artillery attacks on rebel positions on Sackville Street continue, as do the exchanges of sniper fire around St Stephen's Green and at Marrowbone Lane."
And
"The British begin throwing hand grenades into Clanwilliam House. Fires start burning in the building. "
And
"British begin to shell Sackville Street area. An 18-pound shell hits the Irish Times building and ignites rolls of newsprint."
And
British infantry attack on Sackville Street has stalled. Fires in the area are intensifying and spreading from building to building on Lower Abbey Street.
And
"The fires in and around Sackville Street have taken hold, and are burning freely, and the shelling of the area continues unabated."
And
"The combination of the fires and the heavy shelling means that rebel held buildings such as the Imperial Hotel and Clery's will have to be abandoned."
And
"The inferno on Sackville Street, coupled with the British advances during the day, means that some of the smaller outposts held by the rebels are being evacuated and they are moving back to the GPO."
And
"Fire out of control in Sackville Street and the Dublin Fire Brigade is stood down due to danger of small arms fire in the area."
And
"Shelling resumes targeting the GPO."
And
"The fires on Sackville Street have taken hold in most buildings along the street."
And
"The artillery attack on the Sackville Street area, particularly the GPO, shows no sign of slowing down. Much of the area is destroyed and the fires still burn intensely."
And
"The walls of the GPO, damaged by flames and artillery fire, have begun to collapse.
Just thought I'd mention it - it must have been "the looters" who had all the artillery
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:14 AM

Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 07:53 PM
No time lines - That is the trouble with people who post great swathes of text that they have scanned and forget to clearly indicate the date the events described took place. For example the post detailed clearly relates to a time AFTER the rising had been put down, as Lloyd George is clearly the man driving things and America has obviously joined the war. The poster also omits to inform everyone that no Irishman was ever conscripted. But thanks for the "cut-n-paste"

He then stated the considerations which had weighed with him.

1: "Even if Home Rule were carried tomorrow, the army and navy would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament.

The claim has never been put forward by any Irish party that the army and navy and the defence of the Realm are local matters.

2: In the second place, I do not believe it possible in this country to tear industry about, to break up single businesses, to take fathers of forty-five and upwards from their homes to fight the battles of a Catholic nationality on the Continent without deep resentment at the spectacle of sturdy young Catholics in Ireland spending their time in increasing the difficulties of this country by drilling and by compelling us to keep troops in Ireland. I do not know any grounds of justice or equity on which conscription could not be applied to Ireland. "

The Government had shown indulgence to Ireland, "wise and reasonable indulgence", he thought, in the hope that she would become "reconciled to her Imperial association".

3: But they could not "go to the House of Commons and ask our people to make sacrifices, sacrifices which the Irish in America are making, and leave the Irish at home out. I think we ought to accord to Ireland the same rights as Irishmen are enjoying in America. "

Personally I think that Lloyd George makes three very valid points there, none of them are important however as conscription was never applied in Ireland. But I wonder what John Redmond's take would have been had subsequent to being given Home Rule an enemy invaded Ireland would he have been content to see the armed forces of Great Britain stand aside and watch from the side-lines? Somehow don't think so.

Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM

Again a list of events with no time line. The link I posted has fires being started in Sackville Street around 20:30hrs on the 24th April and at that time no artillery had been brought up. The Army's reserve artillery battery arrived some time in the morning of the 25th April and opened fire that afternoon at 15:00 at targets (barricades) in direct line of sight in the Philsborough area of the city. Naval gunfire from the armed yacht Helga commenced at 20:15 that evening when two rounds were fired into the upper part of Boland's Mill.

It is however clear from the post that the rebels had clearly fortified positions on Sackville Street and were fighting from them - which rather makes them legitimate targets doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:42 AM

One obvious question though. Had those seven men not gone ahead with their "Sacrifice in Blood" Rising, would there have been any looting, would unarmed policemen have been gunned down, would any building have been set on fire or shelled? The answer of course would be NO. The responsibility for what happened in Dublin and to Dublin during the Easter Rising lies with those who planned and initiated the Rising.

Seen from the perspective of the pro-unionist North the events of Easter week would be viewed as a traitorous attack by a minority republican nationalist group, who it would appear would stop at nothing to gain independence. So what prospect would there be of expecting any compromise to find a middle-road from this element? Little wonder that their attitude to partition hardened after the rising. The actions and behaviour of the Irish Parliament set up after the 1918 general elections would also have a negative effect in the North, but what really put the cap on it and killed any chance of a union between North and South was what happened when leading Irish political leaders failed to honour and respect their own democratic process during the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 which resulted in a civil war breaking out in the South between two nationalist groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 04:39 AM

"The link I posted has fires being started in Sackville Street around 20:30hrs on the 24th April and at that time no artillery had been brought up"
Every single example of "no artillery" was directly taken from the link you posted - nowhere else.
I didn't "forget to mentioning" that conscription was never enacted - it's common knowledge and has been mentioned several times
It was a permanent threat, as the posting shows and was suggested right up to 1918; it was even considered by Lloyd George as a solution to 'The Irish Problem", pretty much as the Famine was by Trevelyan, this time by forcibly conscripting the imprisoned rebels to fight in Europe.
Think these two problems are put to bed safely, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 04:51 AM

Irish conscription was not an issue in April 1916.
It had been vetoed earlier that year.
It was not even mentioned as remotely an issue by the rebels.
It is just another of your inventions to justify the unjustifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 06:09 AM

Good point Keith - but Carroll's arguments always jumble up events in order to as you say justify the unjustifiable.

The fires in Sackville Street were started on the 24th April, those fires were not and could not have been started by artillery as there was no artillery in Dublin at that time - I will keep reminding people of this until the factual reality of that sinks in.

All targets thereafter engaged by the Government Forces were occupied by the rebels making them legitimate targets and I will keep reminding people about that too.

The claims and hysteria are now getting farcical:

"forcibly conscripting the imprisoned rebels to fight in Europe"

Now just consider that for a moment, using logic and reason, how on earth could that ever possibly work, you'd have to be a complete and utter idiot even to suggest it. But there again maybe the poster believes that it would be possible by lining up special squads of military policemen to gun them down if they didn't get out of the trench quick enough - but even that wouldn't work would it because all these forcibly conscripted armed former rebels would have to do would be to shoot the special squads of military policemen down.

Conscription in 1918? Again looking at it logically and applying reason. Starting in January 1918 the following would have to be done:

Compile the registers of those eligible;
Set up the Conscription boards for hearings;
Medical screening of conscripts;
Basic military training;
Specialist military training;
Deployment;
Theatre training whilst being held in reserve;
Deployment into the line.

Take the example of an English conscript Harry Patch who was trained as an infantryman, his specialisation was as part of a Lewis Gun team. He was conscripted in October 1916 and deployed to France having completed his basic and specialist training in June 1917 and sent into action (deployed to the line)some time in August or September 1917 as part of the Third Battle of Ypres - Now that spans a period of 10 to 11 months to complete this process. IIRC the proposed date of the suggested introduction of conscription in Ireland was AFTER the start of the German Spring Offensive (March 1918) so the earliest it could be put into practice would be April 1918. Now anybody conscripted in Ireland in April 1918 would be deployed to the line following the Harry Patch model in January or February 1919 - three months after hostilities had ended.

Another rather odd thing can be gleaned from studying the pattern of volunteering in Ireland during the First World War - In the North there was a massive rush to join in 1914 and in 1915. In the South it was a bit more gradual, but there was a surge in 1918, I think a few Irishmen in the South had seen how things were going and read the situation exactly as I have outlined above - (Free lodging, clothes, three squares a day and regular pay - for doing nowt).

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:01 AM

"Irish conscription was not an issue in April 1916."
It was an issue immediately the war broke out and opponents launched an fierce anti-recruitment campaign in all of the major cities.
It was a permanent point of discussion around the implementation of the Home Rule Treaty, both in the Unionist counties and throughout the rest of Ireland.
The fact that it had to be vetoed is evidence enough that it was an ongoing threat.
It was a permanent Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Irish people - it would have been introduced right away had it not been for the reluctance of the Redmondites to make it compulsory - he was actually a supporter of the war, his son enlisted, yet he was fully aware that the Irish people as a whole - the War itself was described by Irish historians as "highly unpopular" and "an English, not an Irish war" - you've had the quote and you've been given a list of all the many and various reasons why those who enlisted did.
"It is just another of your inventions to justify the unjustifiable."
Teribus appears to be making an effort to make this discussion viable - you obviously haven't got round to that yet.
I have invented nothing - I don't.
I'm happy to continue to responding to reasonably put points - if you are incapable of doing so, please leave now.
Personally, I'm quite happy to continue selecting from the yard or so of books on Irish history - doing so has apparently rattled enough cages to bring the exchange of ideas to this level - continue in a reasoable manner or wreck it - your choice.
"The fires in Sackville Street were started on the 24th April, those fires were not and could not have been started by artillery as there was no artillery in Dublin at that time"
The fires in started by looters were not of the extent that they could possibly have cause the damage they did to the whole of Sackville (now O'Connell) Street and nowhere has anbody ever claimed they did.
In the main, the looters looted (unless you are suggesting that they supported the Rebels) - they looted because they were poor, not because they were malicious vandals, and they went back again and again into the shops to take as much as they could - hardly likely to kill the golden goose by deliberately setting it on fire.
The looting was curtailed largely by the Rebels mounting a campaign against it as it degraded their cause.
The extensive fire damage was solely the cause of military bombardment which set buildings on fire, blew up fuel containers in premises and made it impossible for the fire-fighters to do their jobs
The first mention of fires in your timeline is at 10-30 Monday night, there is no mantion that they were major ones and the fire department was able to cope with them.
The next mention of fires is at 10-15 on Wednesday caused by hand grenades thrown into Fitzwilliam house by British troops.
The intensification of the fires is noted as happening on Thursday afternoon at 3.PM and is directly connected to artillery fire and by five o'clock artillery fire has caused them to burn out of control – that is the first mention of them being uncontrollable.
The last time looting is mentioned is on Wednesday – at no time other than Monday has it ever been identifies as the cause of any widespread fires – that, throughout the article, has been put down to British action – not the looters, not the rebels - no descriptions of the events have ever linked the damage done by fires to the looters or the rebels - nowhere.
"I will keep reminding people about that too"
And I will keep asking you to prove it - you have been given to descriptions of indiscriminate firing by the British
Eye witness account.
"The British artillery was taking its time about finding the range of the GPO, and its efforts were spraying shells far and wide. Guns in the garden of the Rotunda Hospital were lobbing shells over buildings to drop into the Sackville Street area. Some hit the roof of the Imperial. A water tank attached to a side wall, under the roof, took a direct hit and shattered. The water fell straight down into an annex where a number of Volunteers were resting – it hit them like a wave and washed them along the floor."
The same techniques of lobbing shells was used by The Helga - indiscriminate.
Conscription is a done deal here - you have the full account of it as reported by referenced British Cabinet Papers researched by Englishman, Carlton Younger.
Your speculation of what would/should have been done is as immaterial as your earlier similar claims on executions, dealing with military insubordination, the rigged trial of Tom Hayes (not to mention the deliberate murder od Francis Sheehy Skeffington).
THe facts override the rulebook every time.
Harry Patch!!!!!
More immaterial smoke and mirrors.
The war was identified as being very unpopular - if there was a "surge" it was to get it over with - at no time did it become a cause for the Irish people, especially after the murder of the Rebel Leaders.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:37 AM

" but Carroll's arguments always jumble up events in order to as you say justify the unjustifiable."
I didn't notice this
You know my name and I don't jumble up anything to justify anything - I provide concise links to what I asy, whereas you have yet to get round to it.
What I said to Keith goes for you.
I don't have to continue with this - it's hardly educational; the subject interests me - no other reason.
I'm always happy for an excuse to revisit books I haven't read for some time, and am happy to continue doing so without the help of you pair - and will continue to put up anything relevant whenever I come across it.
Neither of you show any foreknowledge of this subject and appear only to be here to justify the behaviour of our Glorious Empire - Keith has boasted he isn't even interested so, as far as I'm concerned he's as significant as a spare.... I'm sure you know the saying!
You want to continue with, curb your manners - you really don't know enough to do anything else to command my attention.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:53 AM

It {conscription} was an issue immediately the war broke out

Hardly possible as in August 1914 it didn't exist as far as the British were concerned - they only introduced it themselves in 1916!!

I have invented nothing - I don't.

Then respond to the request for you to show the post where either Keith A or myself have ever stated "that Ireland was not entitled to independence".

The fires started by the looters on the evening of the 24th April were left to burn and they were not contained in any way, rebels had fired on unarmed policemen and driven them from the area - the Dublin Fire Brigade took the hint. The looters, looted in Dublin in 1914 for exactly the same reason they looted in London not so long ago - they looted because they thought that they could get away with it. The looting stopped because Martial Law was declared on the 25th April 1916 and a curfew came into force whereby anybody abroad on the streets at night between 19:00 and 05:00 was likely to be shot.

Buildings were shelled primarily because they were fighting positions occupied by the rebels, as previously stated, that made them legitimate targets. The rebels themselves set fire to buildings to hinder the troops arrayed against them.

Indiscriminate fire for what? Five days in the middle of a capital city with a population of roughly 305,000, a city enmeshed in the violence of a rebellion that resulted in less than 500 deaths all told, I would say that that fire could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as anything even approaching indiscriminate.

And all this destruction because seven men decided to highjack an organisation and railroad their agenda through irrespective of the wishes of the executive committee of that organisation. Had those seven men just sat on their hands that Easter Ireland would have been a united independent country by 1931. It would not have seen the destruction wrought in 1916, it would not have had to endure the war of independence or the damage caused by the IRA in the dying throws of the civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM

Oh come on - this has been dealt with over and over again - you have had the researched evidence, you have offered none.
"that Ireland was not entitled to independence".
Independence for the Irish has never been anything than as a complete entity, even to the extent of fighting a Civil War when partition was forced on it and constant conflict between the two communities in the six counties has been a fact of liofe and is ongoing since partition. Ireland is Ireland - one country for at least 800 years and that it is inconceivable to the vast majority of Irish people that -
You put forward that that Ireland was only a united nation up to Norman times, which, as far as I am concerned, directly calls into question its validity as a nation - you decline to respond to the fact that the Six Counties were the invention of a foreign power and have only been in existence for less than a century.
Great Britain only became a unified sovereign state in 1707. around six-and-a-half centuries after the Norman invasion - does that invalidate Britain as a unified entity - of course it doesn't it it is crass to suggest otherwise.
Doesn't invalidate any of the units to claim independence, but that has sfa to do whith when it was united.
You have questioned Ireland as a united nation therefore you have suggested that it is not entitled to full independence - that has been your argument all along.
Irland has always been culturally united, no matter what political divisions have taken place.
The Irish in the six counties are every but as culturally Irish as are those on the rest of the island, and you only have to travell around the place to realise that.
Any divisions there might be are deliberately enforced by arms, political ones, based on religion.
Catholics suffered severely since partition, despite your differences, that has never been the case in the 26 counties - the Irish are Irish and only deliberate British interference has ever changed that.   
Independence is full independence, not just for Ireland but for any nation - that's what the word means - free from restraints and interference of any other nation - and that is what both of you have consistently opposed.
If you are incapable of understanding this perhaps you shouldn't
be here until you have some substance top back your claims - you are still producing none - none whatever.
Do note ever accuse me of "inventing" anything ever again - I don't do that, I don't see the point in doing that, I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm not even a nationalist.
It's you pair who continually manipulate or ignore facts, take them out of context or, as now, never bother with them anyway and just proclaim your opinions.
As I said - we've been through the rest dozens of times - if you have any contrary evidence put it forward - not rule books, not what should and should not happen in Parliament, not what the manual says should happen - all of which are the nearest thing you pair ever come to.
By the way; enforeced or inveigled, or brought about by necessity conscription of one form or another is always a possiblity in wartime - that was the situaltion from August 1914 onwards - the threat of having to die on the battlfield was always a threat for Irish youth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 10:21 AM

Jim,
It was an issue immediately the war broke out and opponents launched an fierce anti-recruitment campaign in all of the major cities.

Yes, and it was a total failure because Irishmen VOLUNTEERED in their tens of thousands because they supported the war and had no quarrel with Britain.
Home rule was in the bag.
There was no fear of conscription, and no need to fear. It was never imposed.
The rebels had nothing to offer, but blood and death for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:38 AM

"Yes, and it was a total failure because Irishmen VOLUNTEERED"
Some did and for different reasons as did the volunteers of Britain
"Home rule was in the bag."
Until Lloyd George moved the goalposts.
As it happens, it was always and only the Unionists who offered opposition to Home Rule - from the very outset in the 19th century, even to the point of threatening Civil War - you have the evidence, but here's a little more.
This is what Winston Churchill had to say on the Unionists continuing opposition to the Home Rule bill just as World War One broke out and after The Bill had been agreed on in principle only by those attending the Buckingham Palace Conference:
"According to Winston Churchill, the conference 'toiled round the muddy byways of Fermanagh and Tyrone', but there was no spirit of generous compromise, and the talks broke down. Sir Edward Carson certainly thought that civil war was unavoidable: 'I see no hopes of peace. I see nothing at present but darkness and shadows.... We shall have once more to assert the manhood of our race.'
A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes (Jonathan Bardon, 2008)
"There was no fear of conscription, and no need to fear. It was never imposed."
It was never opposed because compulsory involvement in the war was totally opposed from the beginning, even by the Irish Parliamentarians who supported remaining in the Empire (for six years, if you repeat this again I will have no alternative to dredge up every shred of evidence I have put up and anything else I can find - is that what you really want
"The rebels had nothing to offer, but blood and death for nothing".
Melodramatic, Post Imperialist jingoistic sloganising that could have come from an early 20th century poster.
Please try to reach some degree of maturity in your arguments and inject a little reality into this Keith
I remind you that you have yet to produce one single scrap of documented evidence of your case from the beginning of this - what you have to say is all personally opinion and we have all been aware where that stems from for a long, long time - certainly not from an interest or a modicum of knowledge of Ireland or her history - you've told us that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:44 AM

By the way - the 'Churchill' piece went on to say that the only reason that the Buckingham Palace Conference reached its theoretical conclusions was because of the outbreak of the War and, if that had not happened the Unionists would have reverted to Civil War to prevent any form of Independence.
That how much "in the bag" it was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 12:49 PM

Keith
These are the details in full of the Cabinet meeting discussing the enforcing of conscription on Ireland.
They are interesting for a number of reasons.
They show how close Ireland came to conscription.
They show that Lloyd George intended to introduce conscription, no matter what the cabinet decided.
They show that they were fully aware of the link between the future of conscription and The Home Rule Bill.
And they also show that the British were first prepared to introduce Home Rule and then apply enforced conscription when that had taken place, committing Ireland to any war Britain deemed necessary.
I've put the full debate in (from Cabinet Meeting Papers researched by Carlton Younger) Truth to tell, I'm only bothering my arse about this because it turns me on to see you deny the same things over and over again - must be getting kinky in my old age!!
Now, for the last time
Jim Carroll

……as Home Rule had been carried in Parliament. It would be a mistake not to take the necessary powers until after the Home Rule Bill was through as the Irish might resist Home Rule. "We must not give them that incentive," he said. And, with less of his earlier forthrightness, he declined also to undertake categorically to postpone the application of conscription until the Home Rule Bill was through. Here was the usual Lloyd George loophole; having stated his intention, he reserved the right to change his mind. It would take time to put conscription into force, he explained; they would have to improvise a register with the aid of the police. In the meantime, borrowed American troops would fill the gaps in the British Army, then British drafts would have to be drawn upon. Clearly, it was in his mind that, from then, only Ireland would remain as a source of manpower. His colleagues took up the argument, and the debate in the Cabinet that day is revealing.
Lord Curzon: We must stand or fall by both (measures).
Mr Bonar Law: How would you justify to the House of Commons delaying conscription? You can say, as the Prime Minister has just said, that time is required for machinery, but it must be made plain that the two Bills are not contingent.
Lord Robert Cecil: You will have to say the postponement is in connection with Home Rule.
The Prime Minister: I would say it will take time, and that time we mean to use to put through the Home Rule Bill.
Lord Robert Cecil: You will have to indicate that both will have to be worked together.
Lord Milner: It is our intention to proceed with conscription even if the Home Rule Bill is generally opposed.
Dr Addison: We can say, "You are getting the right of self-government, you must do your share to defend your liberties."
Mr Bonar Law: Suppose we start with trying to force both Bills through, and then find that Members of all kinds are opposed to the Home Rule Bill, how can you possibly carry if through?
Answering, the Prime Minister said it was "absurd to decide what we can do before the crisis arises. "
Mr Churchill: The two measures should be regarded as independent, and be simultaneously introduced. I do not see the
advantage of delaying the application of the Military Service Act to Ireland. The dual policy should be loyally followed. I would press forward on the two roads. There is a great deal to be said against any delay in action once conscription is announced.
Mr G. N. Barnes: You have in the Bill a clause which would deal with the Sinn Feiners who are now drilling. That can be applied at once. I cannot assent to apply conscription willy-nilly without any guarantee of Home Rule. I shall have to reserve the right to reconsider the position later.
Lord Robert Cecil: I do not know what the Cabinet's scheme of Home Rule is. Many of my Unionist colleagues are in the same position. I am anxious to get conscription through in Ireland, and am prepared to pay a high price to get men in this emergency.
The Prime Minister: I can only say, in a general way, that our scheme will proceed on the lines of the Cabinet letter, with safeguards for Ulster in the shape of an Ulster Committee.
Mr Bonar Law: You do not ask your colleagues to commit
themselves today to the form of the Home Rule Bill.
The Prime Minister: That would be hardly fair.
Mr Herbert Fisher: Has not the Government given a pledge to proceed if there was substantial agreement at the Convention?
The Prime Minister: I do not think you can say that 44 to 29 is substantial agreement. We are now going on the other line: that, failing substantial agreement, the Government will produce a Bill, and in that Bill we must make provision for Ulster.
Mr Bonar Law: It is absurd to ask Ministers to commit themselves now.
Mr Churchill: That is a hard saying. The enforcing of conscription on Ireland is a rupturing of political associations and involves a complete new orientation of antagonisms, and therefore it is folly not to see how grave that decision is. I could not agree to that unless our Unionist friends come with us on the other measure, which profoundly affects opinion here, in Ireland, and in the United States. It is hard that we should commit ourselves to conscription unless we can count on cordial agreement among our Unionist colleagues that they will go forward in support of Home Rule with equal energy. Dr Addison concurred.
The Prime Minister: That is the policy of the Government. The Cabinet have agreed to a definite plan.
Mr Bonar Law: But the letter gives no definite plan.
The Prime Minister: Unless we follow the lines of the Cabinet letter and the Cabinet agreement, then I cannot put forward conscription for Ireland on Tuesday.
Mr Bonar Law: It depends upon the form in which the principles of the letter are put in the Bill.
Lord Curzon: We have accepted the broad principles of the letter, and our colleagues are entitled to see the letter.
Mr Bonar Law: It must depend on whether the Bill carries out the principles of the letter.
The Prime Minister: That is a different matter.
Lord Milner: I am prepared to accept such a Home Rule Bill as conforms generally to the proposals put forward in the Prime Minister's letter to the Convention. It is very hard for us to support such a Bill if Ulster opposes it, but I am prepared to do that and to put forward every effort in support of the Home Rule Bill but I am not prepared to abandon conscription even if we completely fail with the Home Rule Bill. Mr Barnes: Why not put both in one basket? I am voting for conscription because I am thereby hoping to get Home Rule. If not, I shall have to reconsider my position.
Lord Robert Cecil: If I vote for Home Rule it is because I hope thereby to get conscription.
Mr Barnes: If we fail we can go to the country.
The Prime Minister: We could not do that. The Government can go if we fail.
Lord Derby: We must stake our existence on passing both Bills.
Mr Herbert Fisher: Are you definitely satisfied that there is a military advantage in applying conscription to Ireland? I feel absolutely with you as to the bad effect on English public opinion of continuing to exempt Ireland; but we should look at it as a cold military proposition. English public opinion is sound. Our artisans will do their duty. You have to decide whether it is worth your while to enforce conscription in Ireland and thereby perhaps obtain disaffected elements for your army.
Lord Derby: They will be distributed through the army.
The Prime Minister: That is the one consideration that chiefly worried me. Is it worth while in a military sense? You will get 50, 000 at any rate, at a minimum, who will fight. These five divisions will be made up of excellent material, of young men up to twenty-five, at a time when we are taking old men.
Mr Churchill: I have not met one soldier in France who does not think we shall get good fighting material from Ireland. I think the decision of the War Cabinet is a battlefield decision but a wise one.4
The new Military Service Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on April 10th. On the same day a telegram from Duke warned the Government that de Valera was urging on the Sinn Fein executive that it would suit their policy if conscription came, for they could then take systematic and violent opposition to its enforcement. According to the Chief Secretary, de Valera was advocating a policy of the stoppage of all transport work and the shooting of the recruiting authorities whether Army or Royal Irish Constabulary.5
In the Commons the Bill was vehemently opposed by the Irish Parliamentary Party, led by Dillon since the death of the brokenhearted John Redmond in March, and in protest they marched out of the House. There were misgivings still in the Cabinet.6 Barnes said he had "always understood that the policy of the War Cabinet was, firstly, to stand or fall by the two Bills", and "secondly, that military service was only to be applied in Ireland after an interval during which a measure of Home Rule could be passed." He was particularly concerned that the Home Secretary's speech had been "in favour of compulsory military service pure and simple."
Lloyd George answered that in his own speech, he believed, he had made the position clear, but he had thought it inadvisable to make too many references to Home Rule. But Barnes "could not forget the evidence which had been given before the War Cabinet by responsible men to the effect that conscription without Home Rule was out of the question." The Cabinet decided that the Home Rule Bill should be immediately prepared. Their thoughts turned now to the possibility of enlisting volunteers in Ireland "to meet the critical situation." Any approach to the Nationalist Party by the War Cabinet would be useless, but representations by the Labour Party might possibly produce results.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:30 PM

"Home rule was in the bag."
Until Lloyd George moved the goalposts.

Nothing was changed until the rising, and then because of the rising.

As it happens, it was always and only the Unionists who offered opposition to Home Rule

They agreed the 1914 Bill.

Conscription.
Irish were excluded before the rising, but a German victory would have been catastrophic for Britain including Ireland.
If that became a real possibility then it would be necessary to think the unthinkable.
In early 1918 that was briefly the situation, but it quickly passed.

Only the prospect of imminent defeat made the contingency briefly necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 02:31 PM

Finished with you Keith
Now you are just repeating what has been sent crashing in flames.
If your mate starts up the same - it's back to the pile of books.
Like trying to teach trigonometry to infants
You don't even have the courtesy to respond to what's been put up.
You're a waste of time - both of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:18 PM

Jim Carroll - 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM

How dare you write a post based upon attributing me with holding the view that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

Although you have accused me of holding such a view - I have never ever said anything like that and you have now been asked God knows how many times now to come up with the post in which I stated any such view - To date you haven't - because you can't - be honest enough to simply admit it. If you cannot admit it then you are in fact guilty of "inventing stuff".

You have questioned Ireland as a united nation therefore you have suggested that it is not entitled to full independence

The above is a perfect example of someone putting words into someone else's mouth.

You put forward that that Ireland was only a united nation up to Norman times

No I most certainly did not!! Exactly the reverse in fact - Ideas and any concept of a national identity only started to form AFTER the Normans arrived, prior to that, Ireland had consisted of a number of small kingdoms, a collection of tribal groups with no concept of nationality at all.

Six Counties were the invention of a foreign power and have only been in existence for less than a century.

Northern Ireland was the invention of those who lived there, it came into being because those who lived there freely exercised their right to self-determination.

Great Britain only became a unified sovereign state in 1707. around six-and-a-half centuries after the Norman invasion - does that invalidate Britain as a unified entity - of course it doesn't it it is crass to suggest otherwise.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being with the ACTS of Union in 1707, in forming that Union neither England or Scotland lost their sovereignty, national identity or their laws. From that date an additional sense of being British was born.

Independence is full independence, not just for Ireland but for any nation - that's what the word means - free from restraints and interference of any other nation - and that is what both of you have consistently opposed.

So on 6th December 1921 the Irish got their independence as a single 32 county nation, free from the restraints and interference of any other nation. Also in 1921 on 7th December the six northern counties that formed part of Ulster exercised their right and seceded from that independent Ireland. If you demand and support the right of self-determination then you must support and defend that right for all. The Easter Rising, the War of Independence and the Civil War all ensured that the Unionists in the North would never come into the fold of a united independent Ireland.

By the way; enforeced or inveigled, or brought about by necessity conscription of one form or another is always a possiblity in wartime - that was the situaltion from August 1914 onwards

Conscription, as we are talking about here is relatively new and came from the "levee en masse" introduced by the French during the French Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic War. Other countries in Europe copied the French but the British did not. The first time Britain reluctantly introduced conscription was in 1916, the practice ended in 1920. Conscription was re-introduced in 1939, what was called wartime service remained until 1948 and then continued until 1960 with what was known as National Service.

Your idiotic statement about it being an issue immediately war broke out is laughable.

Jim Carroll - 19 May 16 - 12:49 PM

Two simple questions:

When was ANY Conscription or Military Service Act EVER enforced in Ireland or anywhere else for that matter outside of mainland UK?

How many Irishmen were conscripted in Ireland for service in the British Armed Forces?

As for the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - it was never enacted. It was repealed, abandoned and replaced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, an Act that called for the creation of two Home Rule States, Northern and Southern Ireland. To attempt to imply that conscription played any part in the decision to instigate the rising in Dublin it is not the minutes of a 1918 Cabinet meeting we want to see - its the minutes of the IRB meeting held in September 1914 where they resolved to rebel while Britain was at war with Germany and to seek German help to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:32 PM

"How dare you write a post based upon attributing me with holding the view that Ireland was not entitled to independence."
How dare you suggest you don't - I've given you my reasons for doing so and you have choose to respond with denial only.
You still offer no substantiation to your claims, and you still have not responded to any of the masses of documented evidence I have put up other than to describe it as "Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest."
Keith has reduced his virtually non-existent contribution to 'cracked record imitations.
Fine - here's what I intend to do.
If I do decide to continue with this (haven't decided yet), I will sum up each argument we have had and will link you to my responses and request a reply - I will also continue to add to the masses of information I have already supplied (which has apparently got right up your nose) - there really is a wealth of it to be had.
I will not respond to any of the type of evasive question questions you are now putting up such as "How many Irishmen were conscripted in Ireland for service in the British Armed Forces"
You've already had masses of response to that, specifically in the form of cabinet notes from the period.
If you are unwilling or unable to give honest responses to these, I will move on until I get bored.
You are offering no facts, documented or otherwise - all you are offering is what you would like to have happened to fit your own preconceptions.
I won't be bothering with Keith any more - shouldn't have in the first place, as he has admitted hi has no knowledge and no interest in acquiring any.
You appear to have an interest, but no knowledge - as Billy Connolly once said "sad but saveable".   
You want to swap Ideas - fine, I'm happy to to do that; you want to reapeat the same thing over and over again; talk to Keith - that appears to be all he wants out of these discussions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 02:54 AM

So is this all to do with your "pecking order" Jim? You get to tell people what they think and irrespective of the truth of the matter you get to tell them what they said? And you have got the brass-neck to witter on about bully boys.

You came out on this thread with a very clear statement that both Keith A and myself had said that we thought "that Ireland was not entitled to Independence".

If that is true then show us the post where either of us has stated anything even remotely like that.

"I've given you my reasons for doing so" - Unfortunately the reasons you have given do not meet the criteria of being anything even remote like saying that we thought "that Ireland was not entitled to Independence".

"You still offer no substantiation to your claims"

Now let me see what my "claims" were:

1: That the Home Rule Bill of 1912 was passed by Parliament to become the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - You on the other hand had stated that it hadn't because it had been defeated by Tories and the House of Lords - The only substantiation I require for this is that the Bill became an Act, and anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can look that up.

2: That there was no Mutiny at the Curragh in March 1914 - you claimed that it was "The first Act of Military aggression" - Substantiation that no mutiny had occurred was provided in the link you yourself supplied.

3: That the Rising did not have the support of the people - hell it didn't even have the support of the Leadership of the movement that carried it out. You on the other hand claimed that it had the support of "the people of Ireland" your substantiation being Sinn Fein election victory in 1918 - sorry but what happened in 1918 does not in any way serve as an indicator of how the population felt on March 23rd 1916. The Irish Volunteers in 1914 numbered ~180,000 to ~200,000 as a generous estimate, when war came this organisation was split into the Redmondite Faction (92.5%) and the Pearse Faction (7.5%). The Redmondites supported the British War effort the Pearse faction did not instead they wanted an armed rising supported by Germany. All that is a matter of record

4: The Leaders of the rising and signatories of the Proclamation colluded with the enemy in time of war. Your idiotic response to that was that they had only asked Germany for weapons, your substantiation a photograph showing a propaganda banner.

What substantiates my claim:
- The IRB meeting in September 1914 to stage an armed rising while Great Britain was engaged in a war with Germany and that assistance from Germany should be sought:
- The German declaration of November 1914
- The Ireland Report submitted to German High Command by Sir Roger Casement in 1915 requesting that German Officers be made available to act as advisors and for German troops to be landed on the west coast of Ireland
- The capture and arrest of Sir Roger Casement on 21st April 1916 after he had landed from a German submarine off Banna Strand.
- The capture of the Captain and crew of the Aud a German ship transporting German arms in time of war to the rebels. The arms never arrived as the crew scuttled the ship to avoid capture by the Royal Navy.
- The reference in the Proclamation to Germany as "Gallant Allies in Europe".

All the above are all matters of record and established fact.

5: You claimed that the Government of Ireland Act 1914 had been altered - All the evidence indicates that it had not - Asquith abandoned his Amending Bill on the 4th August 1914 (Something else had come up)

6: You claimed that the Unionists had forced the condition of permanent partition into the Amendment Bill Asquith was working on - They hadn't they had accepted a temporary agreement for six years on the 8th July 1914. Again all a matter of record.

7: You claimed that conscription was a significant factor "immediately the war broke out" - It couldn't have been as conscription did not exist as far as the British Armed forces were concerned, it was not introduced until 1916 and expressly excluded Ireland.

8: You claimed that Dublin was bombarded by British Heavy Artillery - it wasn't, no heavy artillery was deployed in Ireland and you were supplied a link that clearly established that fact.

9: You claimed that the fires that started in Dublin were caused by British artillery fire - I pointed out to you that looters started the fires on Sackville Street on the 24th April, 1916 and that British artillery did not arrive in Dublin until the day after, to substantiate my claim I provided a link to a joint RTE and Boston College Chronology of the Easter Rising. At no time at all has anybody ever claimed that artillery fire did not start fires, but they were not the sole cause of the fires as you claimed.

10: You claimed that Lloyd George has written a letter to Carson guaranteeing permanent partition - No proof ever given of this by you. All accounts on the other hand indicate that what assurance that Lloyd George give Carson was that the Unionists would not be forced into an Ireland ruled from Dublin against their will.

11:You claim that conscription was used as a threat or a bargaining chip in relation to the enactment of the Home Rule Act of 1914 - all immaterial as conscription was never enforced in Ireland and after the Easter Rising in 1916 as far as the Unionists were concerned the 1914 Act was a dead duck , this turned out to be the case and it was repealed and replaced by the 1920 Act which was enacted and accepted by the Unionists in the North and rejected by Sinn Fein.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:06 AM

Wait! Wait! Wait!

Teribus, if you were NOT saying that Ireland was not entitled to independence, what is the point that you are trying to make? You complain about people putting words in your mouth, but it seems crystal-clear that the point you were making over and over again, was that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

If that's not what you were saying, what are you trying to say? Say it clearly and simply, and don't clutter it up with irrelevant sidetracks. What is it that you think about all this?

Thanks.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:23 AM

"You get to tell people what they think and irrespective of the truth of the matter you get to tell them what they said? And you have got the brass-neck to witter on about bully boys."
You have dragged this thread on interminably; you have insulted anybody who disagrees with you, you have either ignored or insulted what they put up without responding to it ("Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest"), and now you are repeating the same old, same old without any reference to anything that has been said beforehand -(eg- "that Ireland was not entitled to Independence" - If that is true then show us the post where either of us has stated anything even remotely like that". how many times have I responded to that at length" - try (Date: 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM) - and around and around we go.........!!!
I'm not telling you how to make your contributions - I'm saying what I intend to do.
We don't have to talk to each other, but if we do, I expect a little more than have my contributions described as irrelevant twaddle - they are neither - they are all directly addressed to the topic in hand and they all come from accredited, researched and identified sources.
You want to debate - do so with facts and, given your track record, I would prefer them to be accredited, as mine have been and not unqualified pronouncements.
You don't want to debate, fine by me too, then I'll do what I said I'd do (or not do) as the mood takes me.
I have covered every single point you have just made over and over again, and as many as I can manage of the rest of your points - I have avoided nothing - you simple repeat the same points as if they hadbeen ignored; now you want to argue about the arguments - life is far too short and, as far as I'm concerned, this subject is far too interesting.
Up to you (as far as I'm concerned, Keith's out of it unless he lifts the needle out of the groove.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:30 AM

I did not and would not have stated that Ireland was not entitled to independence.
I believe in the right of people to self determination.
My case has been that the rising was not just irrelevant to the gaining of independence, but set it back years, destroyed any prospect of a united independent Ireland, and led to years of war and death.

This discussion is about the rising, not the legitimate struggle for self determination.
The rising had no mandate. Just the undemocratic power of the gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 05:05 AM

Joe Offer - 20 May 16 - 04:06 AM

1: I have never ever stated that I thought or in any way believed that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

2: But Jim Carroll clearly stated in one of his posts that that is what I had said.

3: I have been requesting Jim Carroll to direct me to the post in which I said that I believed that Ireland was not entitled to independence. He has steadfastly refused to do this.

(As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL).

4: The point I am trying make should be fairly obvious I did not and have never ever stated that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence and I want a clear statement from Carroll that acknowledges that fact.

Whenever I have been shown to be in error, I have apologised and admitted my error - I have done so to you and to Raggytash on this very thread.

but it seems crystal-clear that the point you were making over and over again, was that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

When Joe? please give me an example, one should be pretty easy to come up with if what you say is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 05:39 AM

Jim Carroll directs to a post that is supposed to illustrate that I said that Ireland was not entitled to Independence – It is actually one of his own posts - Here it is:

"that Ireland was not entitled to independence". {A statement I have never made}

Ireland is Ireland - one country for at least 800 years and that it is inconceivable to the vast majority of Irish people that - You put forward that that Ireland was only a united nation up to Norman times {I SAID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, which, as far as I am concerned, directly calls into question its validity as a nation - you decline to respond to the fact that the Six Counties were the invention of a foreign power and have only been in existence for less than a century.

By the way here is what I did say:

"they were never a united nation PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE NORMANS, they were a collection of small kingdoms

That you read and your amazing skill when it comes comprehension of the English language got it 180 degrees out, I take it that you are aware that "prior to" means BEFORE. You yourself stated that Ireland had been Ireland for 800 years, so that would take us back to 1216 and the Normans arrived in Ireland in 1169 - close enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 05:45 AM

What have the Normans got to do with anything then?
The actual exchange - reference to Redmond's objection to the partition of Ireland.
If a country is split in two with one part under foreign jurisdiction it cannot be claimed in any way to be independent - you used the Normans toi justify partition - ir really doesn't get any more simple than that.
Jim Carroll

John Redmond in 1914: "Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."
Your response
"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 06:55 AM

you used the Normans toi justify partition

Nope.

The whole Norman thing and any reference to it comes from me answering a specific question that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Easter Rising. The question came from a couple of people, Joe Offer being one of them. He asked what the British were doing in Ireland I merely pointed out to them:

1: That the Normans had been invited over to Ireland by a minor Irish King who had been deposed by the High King and he sought assistance from Henry II of England in reclaiming his land.

2: That Ireland was not a unified country at that time being a collection of small kingdoms based on tribal groups - i.e. BEFORE the Normans landed there was no notion of any national identity.

Purpose of the post was to dispel any quaint notion that any country such as Ireland existed BEFORE the Normans got there.

The exchange had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.

John Redmond in 1914:
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."

I think in reading that it is perfectly obvious to all and sundry that John Redmond is speaking for "Irish nationalists" - he was most definitely NOT speaking for the entire nation.



Your response
"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 07:12 AM

Apologies pressed the submit button too early:

John Redmond in 1914:
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."

1: I think in reading that it is perfectly obvious to all and sundry that John Redmond is speaking for "Irish nationalists" - he was most definitely NOT speaking for the entire nation.

2: Speaking as he was in 1914 John Redmond would be painfully aware of the fact that rather a large minority of Irishmen and Irishwomen wanted absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an Independent united Ireland. While a two nation "theory" (Note the use of that word "Theory") might be an abomination and a blasphemy to an Irish Nationalist it would not be to an Irish Unionist.

Any argument with any of that?

Am I the only one to note the incongruity of the nationalists demanding their right to self-determination while at the same time denying that self-same right to the Unionists?

My response:

"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."

A simple observation and a plain statement of fact that you Jim Carroll seem to agree with judging by what you stated Date: 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM.