BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 08:16 PM

""Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?""
They are what they are - occasionally they get their come-uppance, like Andy Coulson.
Ruth Dudley Ellis"
So ******* what?
You rather stupidly wrote off all those I cited (just in cae, a reminder "Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes"....) as merely "opinions", yet you find a bone you think might be chewable when, all of a sudden a tabloid journalist becomes flavour of the month - just like Keith has done in the past.
I have no problem with accepting information from journalists, eye witnesses or amateur researchers, as long as it makes sense and it is presented with some qualification - Ms Edwards hasn't done that - she states an enigma as if it was a fact and has done so at a time when it was calculated to do some damage.
This issue was current back in 2002, shortly after we moved to Ireland - it wasn't resolved then and it hasn't been since, though it was predicted at the time that it would show its ugly head on the 100th anniversary.   
What the **** does the alleged latent sexual proclivities of anybody have to do with what they say - as long as they don't act on them - the world would be a far worse place if it wasn't for some of its heroes who didn't measure up - Michael Angelo, Alan Turin and T E Lawrence...... spring immediately to mind.
Their only significance is their use to people like you when you run out of ideas.
You have tried every stunt to denigrate the Irish, to contradict their history, to deny them not just the right of independence, but to question their validity as a United State.
Keith, in his proclaimed ignorance and disinterest, has dismissed the celebrating of Irish Independence as a glorification of murder and have accused the Irish People of having being gullible in falling for propaganda, and comparing this anniversary to "St Patick's Day" - wonder how the American members of this forum would have reacted to having their Bi-centennial celebrations compared to 'Groundhog day?'
You can take comfort in the fact that you are part of a long tradition and the same dirty-tricks you are using now were used by your fellow-squalids in the past to denigrate Parnell ("The Uncrowned King of Ireland) and the man who blew the whistle on the Belgian atrocities in the Congo, Roger Caasement - well done, both of you.
You really seem to have found your niche.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 02:11 AM

"Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes" - What the **** does what their opinions are (i.e. what they said) have to do with anything - as long as they don't act on them. Only trouble is that out of that lot - the only one that WAS acted on was the Proclamation:

It destroyed the centre of Dublin
Caused the deaths of 485 people
Caused the eclipse of "constitutional" nationalism - which had been successful in improving the lot of the people of Ireland for decades - and set the precedent that violence was acceptable for future generations.
It heightened sectarian tensions and guaranteed the partition of Ireland.

Seven men for THEIR OWN and vastly differing reasons plotted in secret within their own organisation to instigated the events of the 24th - 29th April 1916.

In 1919, nine men acting entirely on their own and working on the principle that violence was acceptable lit the fuse that resulted in the Irish War of Independence - They deliberately set out to kill that day in order to provoke a military response, their only regret was that the explosives were only guarded by two policemen in stead of the six they'd hoped for.

In 1922, one man, Eamon de Valera, who had supposedly fought for the establishment of a Democratic Republic for Ireland proved his commitment to democracy by conveniently ignoring any vote that went against him by urging others to take up the gun to put things to rights according to the way that he saw things and started the Irish Civil War.

Eamon de Valera made controversial speeches at Carrick on Suir, Lismore, Dungarvan and Waterford, saying at one point,

"If the Treaty were accepted, the fight for freedom would still go on, and the Irish people, instead of fighting foreign soldiers, will have to fight the Irish soldiers of an Irish government set up by Irishmen."

At Thurles, several days later, he repeated this imagery and added that the IRA

"would have to wade through the blood of the soldiers of the Irish Government, and perhaps through that of some members of the Irish Government to get their freedom."

To attempt to suggest that they were taking their lead from the Ulster volunteers is ridiculous for the following reasons:

The Ulster Volunteers and their supporters had only ONE red line and that was being forced into a united Ireland against their will, their threat was made against the British Government NOT against the Irish Home Rule Movement. That threat was never acted on.

In 1914 when war was declared they almost to a man volunteered and went to serve in the British Army and fought against the Germans

When the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was enacted and Northern Ireland got its own Home Rule Parliament their one and only red line issue that would have triggered action on their part all but disappeared.

With the signing and subsequent ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921 the conditions that had created that red line were removed entirely on the 7th December when Northern Ireland ceded from the Irish Free State and returned to become part of the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:23 AM

Jim,
Every time you have written that Ireland would have become independent if it hadn't been for the uprising, you have repeated a lie.

Really?
Is it not a fact that the 1914 Bill guaranteed it, that the government and all sides in Ireland agreed it and passed it with a large majority?

Is it not a fact that there was finally unity and consensus?

Then came the rising, which destroyed all that unity and consensus, ensured the Act was never enacted, and set in train generations of bloody violence.

All facts Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:37 AM

but keith you are making an assumption that politicians keep their word, in my experience they do not, and there was no guarantee even though the politicians of the time said it they would guarantee independence.
your argument and jims argument reminds me of so called horse racing experts who say that a horse is a sure thing and then it turns out to be a non runner.
neither you or jim know what would have happened in the event of the easter rising not having occurred.

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

I make no such assumption Dick, but they can only overturn an Act of Parliament by passing another one, and that did not happen until after the rising, and because of the rising.
The 1914 Act was passed and only the rising prevented its enactment.

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

Having just spent 8 days in Ireland even I was surprised by the amount of coverage that has been given to the commemoration of the 1916 Rising.

For example on multi-storey buildings in Dublin the whole side of some had been covered in drapes with the Proclamation displayed. In Athenry the lampposts displayed portraits of the men executed. There were too many to recount them all here.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 04:22 AM

I really can't be arsed with any of this, which has been covered over and over again in full - you have responded to nothing and put up nothing.
Teribus puts up long tracts on drivel - unqualified opinions - which he has already condemned as irrelevant from others
You have not attempted to answer the overall situation I have given - everything linked to researched and identified information and, having attempted a foray into character smearing of one of the rebel leaders (sort of like discussing El Almein by concentration on Montgomery's taste for young boys) you now want to nit pick over well-covered ground again.
Easter Week set the Independence ball rolling and eventually led to a full-scale War for independence - it also helped to bring the Empire edifice down - fair play to it.
The Rebellion took place at a time when Britain was faced with a Civil War promoted by Unionist fanatics - a justification for the uprising even if independence had not been an issue.
If you want your opinions to be discussed - link them to real evidence - your opinions no longer interest me - I could scribble them down on a beer mat in five minutes starting with "the British Empire was wonderful and never did anybody any harm" (thinking about it, that's the sum total of it really)
Keith is back to his Norwegian Blue imitations -not particularly impressive the first time, now a somewhat pathetic repeated joke.
As soon as I'm able (when this ****** good weather breaks) I'll continue with my fully researched and linked efforts to run through the first half of the 20th century's Irish history as I understand it - I've started, so I'll finish.
If you want to add to or subtract from it - fine, if not, fine too - fed up with swimming in stagnant water
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 04:42 AM

GSS, what Keith A states is correct. By July 8th 1914 all parties had reached agreement, later that month as Europe was going into meltdown the IVF landed their weapons at Howth. That action in response to the UVF landing of arms earlier prompted no response at all from the UVF or from the pro-unionists.

The Amending Bill that would have been included in the statute version of the 1914 Government of Ireland Act was abandoned when Great Britain went to war. Home Rule for Ireland was to be the first order of business on conclusion of hostilities - IT WAS, but because the "men of the gun" decided to kill policemen on duty and because of the 1916 Rising Unionist attitudes had hardened - a new Act was required.

Had neither of these things happened and had either the 1914 or even a new 1920 Act been followed then both parties as a Dominion within the Empire they would have had between 6 to 11 years to reach a mutually agreeable compromise and in 1931 under the terms of the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become an independent sovereign united country.

As it stands today the "men of the gun" only succeeded in making that independent united Ireland impossible, they are further away today than they were on the morning of the 24th April 1916 just before those seven men put their idiotic, ludicrously confused and selfish plan into action and destroyed the lot.

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

"Westminster Ireland would have become an independent sovereign united country."
Utter palpable nonsense.
The Treaty Ireland was forced to sign at gunpoint gave The Unionists exactly what they had been demanding under the threat of Civil War - a permanently partitioned six county Protestant state - nothing to do with Easter Week.
That State repressed and persecuted Catholics for over half a century until yet another bloody conflict finally brought the dominant Protestant hierarchy to the Conference Table - leaving behind 3,568 dead, 1,876 of those being civilians.
Casualty figures
That's how prepared the Unionists supported by the British were to negotiate.
It's little wonder you never link your claims to reality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 06:43 AM

"The Treaty Ireland was forced to sign at gunpoint gave The Unionists exactly what they had been demanding under the threat of Civil War - a permanently partitioned six county Protestant state - nothing to do with Easter Week."

Now the things I find rather odd about that are:

1: When were the Irish Plenipotentiaries forced to sign the treaty at gunpoint?
2: If that were so why did the Irish Government then ratify the Treaty or were they forced to sign at gunpoint as well? If so how?
3: Very odd that those same Unionists had agreed to a temporary six year grace period in July 1914 yet by 1919 they were demanding permanent partition - Please tell us what had happened in Ireland that could have forced them to change their minds? (HINT: 1916 Easter Rising & 1919 The Irish War of Independence that they wanted no part of)

That State repressed and persecuted Catholics for over half a century until yet another bloody conflict finally brought the dominant Protestant hierarchy to the Conference Table - leaving behind 3,568 dead, 1,876 of those being civilians.

Since 1921 the Catholic population in Northern Ireland has expanded
Since 1921 the Protestant population in the Republic of Ireland has shrunk from ~13% to ~3% most that is not repression Jim that is ethnic cleansing.

As to the bloody conflict IIRC there were two sides to that and the bulk of those casualties were the responsibility of the Nationalist/?Republican paramilitaries - once again it was they who decided to fight after the "Official" IRA said that they would stay out of it and leave it to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement. Two sides were brought to the Conference Table and as a result we got the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 and the All Ireland Referendum which finally got the ridiculous and confrontational territorial claim withdrawn from the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland - and that robs the "men of the gun" from ever making any claim to them having any mandate from the Irish people.

Only thing now of course is that for Ireland to become a united country first the people of Northern Ireland, and only the people of Northern Ireland, have to decide that they want that, and then secondly the people of the Republic of Ireland have to vote to accept the decision of the people of Northern Ireland should they vote for union. So further away today than they were in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 07:00 AM

"just before those seven men put their idiotic, ludicrously confused and selfish plan into action and destroyed the lot."
My maths was never my strong point but it was 1,600 rebels (facing up to 20,000 British troops) who took part in the rebellion.
Unless you are suggesting that that number were brainwashed (by the French or the Spanish maybe) into taking part, your "seven selfish men" shows a disting weakness in numeracy.
The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.
The French and Spanish certain;y have been busy little bees!!
"sign the treaty at gunpoint?"
"Sign within 3 days or else it's war" - doesn't come any plainer than that.
You seemto find most facts "rather odd".
Jim Carroll

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

"just before those seven men put their idiotic, ludicrously confused and selfish plan into action and destroyed the lot."
My maths was never my strong point but it was 1,600 rebels (facing up to 20,000 British troops) who took part in the rebellion.
Unless you are suggesting that that number were brainwashed (by the French or the Spanish maybe) into taking part, your "seven selfish men" shows a distinct weakness in numeracy.
The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.
The French and Spanish certain;y have been busy little bees!!
"sign the treaty at gunpoint?"
"Sign within 3 days or else it's war" - doesn't come any plainer than that.
You seemto find most facts "rather odd".
Jim Carroll

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

"Had neither of these things happened and had either the 1914 or even a new 1920 Act been followed then both parties as a Dominion within the Empire they would have had between 6 to 11 years to reach a mutually agreeable compromise and in 1931 under the terms of the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become an independent sovereign united country."
you are assuming politicians keep their word, in my experience that is rather like believing in fairy stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 08:09 AM

WE are in total agreement at last Dick.
Teribus once believed this himself higher up the thread: "Oh dear Jom have you just found out that politicians are dishonest? That they will do anything to get a deal? What planet have you been living on?", but now he seems to be back squarely to "we have to put our trust in the men in the suits".
Funny somersaults that have taken place throughout the long life of this thread.
A mildly amused Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:47 AM

Jim Carroll - 24 May 16 - 07:00 AM

Maths has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Irish Volunteers/IRB Supreme Committee consisted of 11 men who had insisted that any rising was only to take place IF it stood some chance of success. Having colluded with the Germans the Supreme Committee were expecting a shipment of arms aboard a German ship called the Aud. The "magnificent seven" formed in secret a group called the Military Council and they planned their "Rising" in such a way as the other four members knew nothing about it - the second they did find out about it the sent out orders to stop it, they reconfirmed that order when they found out that the Aud had failed to land the promised German weapons.

it was 1,600 rebels (facing up to 20,000 British troops) who took part in the rebellion.

Of those who turned up, most thought they were just drilling, the majority of them like those with de Valera in Boland's Mill played little or no part in the fighting at all.

Of the leaders you had vastly differing views, Connelly with his Workers Republic and Pearse expecting the next King of Ireland to be one of the German Crown Princes who of course would have to become fluent in Gaelic (Sort of on the job training)

The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.

Only by those as daft as you Jim. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture that was guaranteed to fail from the outset by a man who sought death and believed in blood sacrifice.

Now let us get onto the last bit of your latest travesty of "fact"

"Sign within 3 days or else it's war" - doesn't come any plainer than that.

Obvious to all - the Irish, well at least nine of them had decided to start a war, and having succeeded in fighting it to a stalemate peace negotiations were arranged and a truce was established in June 1921. Peace negotiations continue until both parties sign them - if that doesn't happen then quite naturally hostilities resume - so the "3 days or else it's war" was not the threat of a declaration of a new war but the resumption of the one the Irish had started.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 16 - 10:00 AM

"The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.

Only by those as daft as you Jim. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture that was guaranteed to fail from the outset by a man who sought death and believed in blood sacrifice"

Then you too are calling almost the entire nation of Ireland idiotic. The commemorations where nationwide and lasted for several weeks.

Not that I'm too surprised by your attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 10:49 AM

you are assuming politicians keep their word, in my experience that is rather like believing in fairy stories."

Ah but GSS you are referring to modern day "professional" politicians, who will do almost anything to cling onto power (Party FIRST, Country or anything else second), not the same thing at all as those back then. And going back even further you had those in power who actually crashed their own governments just to let the electorate decide through the ballot box what was best for the country.

Raggytash at these commemorations for Easter Week were all participants who died part of the commemoration - or only those from the Nationalist/Republican side remembered? If memory serves correctly you have a thing about jingoistic commemorations don't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:02 AM

So they brainwashed all the others into joining them rather thna catching the mood that had i=existed in Ireland for centuries and acted when the time was right.
It really didn't take too long to turn the country around once the rising had happened
A bit difficult to understand if you are against Irish independence, I should imagine.
Those Frenchies and Spaniards do have a lot to answer for, don't they
One more tome - one of the summaries I habve already ypput up whch you have studiously avoided:

"To call Pearse and his comrades a minority is not quite the truth. They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow. The people wanted change, release from the ubiquitous Dublin Castle and the right to govern themselves, but majorities invariably want change to be gradual, want to keep grasping familiar props with one hand while they reach for the unfamiliar with the other. Tradesmen and shopkeepers like to see new customers on their thresholds before they relinquish their old ones. So the majority of the Irish still believed in Redmond's national¬ism, not seeing that this was outmoded, that Home Rule was obsolescent before it was even implemented, that new young leaders were breaking new ground and seeing ahead of them, far away as yet, and beyond innumerable barriers, a promised land.
The Easter Rising of 1916 was not a matter of impatience, of reluctance to wait until the end of the war for Home Rule. In 1912 even Pearse had thought the Bill acceptable, but the desire for independence had mounted, outstripping the lab¬orious passage of the Bill. Its provisions of a bi-cameral Parliament in Dublin with little more power than a County Council no longer went far enough, but it might have been tolerated as a stepping stone to complete independence had the threatened amendment on partition not cracked the stone in two. Even as it stood, Pearse and his friends were sure that England would leave the legislation to moulder rather than engage in fresh struggles with the intransigent Orangemen."
"Only by those as daft as you Jim. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture"
As I said to Keith, it is arrogance in the extreme to dismiss what amounts to the entire Irish nation, with few exceptions, in this way - but arrogance seems to be what you are best at.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:05 AM

Raggy's post seems to sum up perfectly what those "as daft as me are doing at the present time
Jim Carroll

"Having just spent 8 days in Ireland even I was surprised by the amount of coverage that has been given to the commemoration of the 1916 Rising.
For example on multi-storey buildings in Dublin the whole side of some had been covered in drapes with the Proclamation displayed. In Athenry the lampposts displayed portraits of the men executed. There were too many to recount them all here."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 12:58 PM

"They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow." - What??? You mean not even out of a sense of the mildest curiosity?? Were they really that poor?

Against independence for anyone never, but not at the cot of forcing your views on others without consultation or consent.

Law for the Goose same law for the Gander. If you call for the right of self-determination then that right is extended to all without exception.

By the bye which would it have been? Connelly's Workers Republic or Pearse's Gaelic speaking Nirvana with a German Crown Prince as a King? And irrespective of which side got the vote would it have then been considered perfectly acceptable for the other side to take up arms and through violence force their own agenda?

Another question Jim do you consider Ding Dong Denny's "The Craic we had the day we died for Ireland" a folksong that will pass into "The Tradition"?

Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly and the Hairie Bowsies

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

"at??? You mean not even out of a sense of the mildest curiosity"
I didn'ty mean anything - I quoted it - you obviously don't read what is put in front of you.
I know what the man means and the skid marks of changing opinion following the slaughter of the Rebels as the Irish united for independence backs up the point perfectly.
Don't take my opinions from folk (sic) songs - bit to near taking them from novels - something else you have condemned but are now putting forward as an argument.
Weirder and weirder, but at least you have now found the link mecahnism - next step - why not use it to put up some proof?
"By the bye which would it have been? "
Would have been whatever the Irish chose it to be once the grip of teh British Empire had been broken - that was the whole point of the exercise.
Jim Carroll

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

Clown - "They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow." - Is about as damning a statement as could ever be made and implies absolutely no support at all for their enterprise - now tell us who it is that you are quoting as I think I heard it before on one of the Prime Time Debates on RTE.

The British made one hell of a mistake in doing as they did once they had put down the rebellion. As I have stated previously I would have paraded the "magnificent seven" through every city, town, village, parish and school hall in Ireland and exposed them for the lying, treacherous (To their own men and to their own organisation), murderous fools that they were. It could have been done but isn't 20x20 hindsight a marvellous thing and also as previously stated other factors at the time had to be taken into consideration. They'd have killed off violent Republicanism at a stroke, 1,800 men rose for Pearse's pointless blood sacrifice and collusion with the enemy while 210,000 Irishmen fought that very same enemy over in France. I say pointless because what Pearse's rising won was less than what was already on offer in July 1914.

You think they won you an independent state? Twice now Ireland has said NO to the EU and what happened - they rephrased the question and then got the answer that they originally wanted - isn't independence a wonderful thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 16 - 02:13 PM

You may disagree with much that I post here Teribus but I have never felt the need, or wish, to denigrated an entire nation for commemorating something that is obviously central to their national consciousness.

You seem to consider them fools and idiots.

Perhaps if you took the trouble to at least read a little about Irish history from sources other than Billy Bunters guide to English history you may start to understand.

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

Your rant is a sign that you have run out of excuses - you should have ended it with "so there!!!" and stuck your tongue out - that's about the level of it.
"You seem to consider them fools and idiots."
He has described them as such throughout, "up until then it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt, in 1798" being a classic example.
Keith at least had the bottle to call the entire Irish nation "gullible" and "tricked by propaganda" as he had previously described Irish children as being "brainwashed to hate Britain".
This feller just says one thing "How dare you write a post based upon attributing me with holding the view that Ireland was not entitled to independence" then goes on to prove he means the opposite.
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 May 16 - 06:41 PM

we shall never know the answer to the question what would have happened in ireland if the easter rising had not taken place. so prhaps it is time to go to bed

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:40 AM

Keith at least had the bottle to call the entire Irish nation "gullible"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.

and "tricked by propaganda"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.


as he had previously described Irish children as being "brainwashed to hate Britain".

Kinealy said that the Irish school system presented "nationalist myths" as facts, and O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:42 AM

Keith at least had the bottle to call the entire Irish nation "gullible"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.

and "tricked by propaganda"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.

as he had previously described Irish children as being "brainwashed to hate Britain".

Kinealy said that the Irish school system presented "nationalist myths" as facts, and O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:46 AM

you are assuming politicians keep their word, in my experience that is rather like believing in fairy stories.

No. The 1914 Act became law.
It did not rely on anyone keeping their word.
The rising destroyed the unity that had been achieved, and the rising alone prevented the Bill from being enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:16 AM

No Raggytash the fools and idiots were those who were responsible for masterminding the rising. The Republic has every right to commemorate the events in any way they wish, the rising in 1916, was an important and extremely significant step on the path to independence selected by an unrepresentative and unelected few that has resulted in the partition of their island. A partition which after nearly 100 years looks as though will remain a permanent feature.

By the way you never said at the commemoration events that you witnessed if all who died were remembered? Or was the same one sided format they have used for their memorials?

As far as history and the teaching of it goes. The historian Ruth Dudley Edwards who was born and educated in the Republic said that according to what she learned in school the Irish Civil War just didn't happen. Not a single thing was taught about it - wonder why that was? The guiding hand of Eamon de Valera perhaps? I suspect by what he said to his son ten years after the event that he must have been downright ashamed of himself for having instigated it. Do you think that they will have centennial commemorations of that as well? Or will they carry on with "tradition" and halt the process and just mark the end of their War of Independence and just pretend that the civil war didn't happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:38 AM

So Jim the following was just simply not the case:

In the Nine Years War Chief Hugh O'Neill did not seek the help of Spain

In 1794 Wolfe Tone did not report to French agents that Ireland was ripe for revolution. In 1796 he did no seek the help of France in the form of weapons and troops.

And of course we know from your own statements that in 1914 the IRB did not seek assistance from Germany even though in 1916 attempts were made to land German arms and the Germans were described as "Gallant Allies" in the Proclamation.

All just my imagination? Hardly there exists masses of evidence in Ireland, Great Britain, Spain, France and in Germany to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:41 AM

"A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again."
"Gullible", "brainwashed", "misled by propaganda" - did somebody else use your name two refer to the Irish people?
Do not call me a liar please - I don't see the point of telling lies on a discussion forum - something else we disagree about.
"A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again."
"I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact." IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?
And please don't make the excuse that this was addressed to Fegie - he was saying exactly what has been filling our screens and publications for the last five months and is being celebrated by the Irish people in schools, in lecture, in concerts....... throughout Ireland.
If you claim this is being brainwashed then you are claiming that the Irish people as a nation is being brainwashed on a scale comparable to Stalinism at its worst - IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? - PLEASE ANSWER.   
Your garbage on Kineally has long been blown out of the water and is immaterial anyway - anybody who believes Irish children are brainwashed to hate British - which is what you suggested, is a racist - it doesn't matter if they are prominent historians or just flag-wagging jingoists - it is a racist statement, pure and simple, and in this case, aimed at children
"No. The 1914 Act became law."
The Act wsas passed on to te statute books on the understanding that it would not be enacted on until the matter of partition had been resolved - as the Government ascertained that no agreement could ever be reached by deciding on the matter of partition arbitrarily without consultation, the law became null and void and the whole Home Rule issue died a death (even Teribus has attributed this to crooked politicians).
None of this has anything to do with Easter Week and nobody but you pair has ever attempted to link it to Easter Week.
Your feeble-minded repetition of your claim and your refusal to respond to any of the actual facts that have been put up is the only dishonesty here.
Now - please respond to the points I have just made with something more than mindless repetition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:47 AM

"In the Nine Years War Chief Hugh O'Neill did not seek the help of Spain"
Of course it's true - seeking help for a cause is somewhat different to conned into demanding what was rightfully theirs.
Has not Britain or any nation sought the help of allies in times of need.
Please don't be more stupid than you already have been - it debaes the topic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:20 AM

The Act wsas passed on to te statute books on the understanding that it would not be enacted on until the matter of partition had been resolved - as the Government ascertained that no agreement could ever be reached by deciding on the matter of partition arbitrarily without consultation, the law became null and void and the whole Home Rule issue died a death

The Act went onto the statute books on a number of understandings

1: Conclusion of hostilities was the primary one
2: It would be the Westminster Parliaments first order of business once the war had ended
3: That the question of temporary partition would be addressed as the previous agreement and amending bill had been abandoned when Great Britain declared war on the 4th August 1914

The 1914 Act died a death when nine men decided that what the country needed was a war of independence in 1919, the 1914 Act was repealed and the 1920 Act was passed to replace it. The Unionists in the North accepted it, and Sinn Fein in the South rejected it, even in the 1920 Act partition was only temporary. The War of Independence ended up in stalemate in June 1921 when a truce came into effect and peace negotiations were entered into. This resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of the 6th December 1921, the following day the Parliament of Northern Ireland created by the 1920 Act seceded from the Irish Free State in accordance with their rights guaranteed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:41 AM

"The 1914 Act died a death when nine men decided that what the country needed was a war of independence in 1919,"
No - the act was invalidated and the Home Rule movement collapsed because the government over-rode the promised discussion on how partition should be implemented by unilaterally making it permanent.
No suggestion has ever been made that Easter Week played any part in the collapse of The Home Rule Bill and it's a waste of my time to ask you to verify that claim with anything that resembles actual documented proof because you don't do that sort of thing.
This is all your own work - yet again.
WE appear to have finished with Ireland being conned by foreign powers t claim independence and that it had no claim to be a united nation because of The Normans, so I think we're finished here.
Weather permitting, I'll sum up where we've reached so far and push on to the War of Independence, the Treaty and how the Catholics fared under Unionist rule - if that's all right with you.
You are every bit as boringly predictable as your mate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:54 AM

seeking help for a cause is somewhat different to conned into demanding what was rightfully theirs.

What "cause" was that Jim? The cause of the self-aggrandisement of Hugh O'Neill? Having spent much of his life fighting his way to the top he'd been fighting and killing Irish people right, left and centre for years - he couldn't care less about the "Irish People" or Irish Nation. His "pitch" to curry favour in Spain was to claim he was fighting for the Roman Catholic faith (Strange thing to claim for a practicing Anglican). His goal was to make Ireland a colony of Spain in which he hoped that he would be Spain's Viceroy - Not merely my opinion - that is what his letters to the Spanish show. All of these shenanigans taking place against the backdrop of the Anglo-Spanish War.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:00 AM

A significant bit of back-pedalling going on there Teribus what you posted was

"The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.

ONLY THOSE AS DAFT AS JIM. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture that was guaranteed to fail from the outset by a man who sought death and believed in blood sacrifice"

Almost the entire nation of Ireland were commemorating the events in the past few weeks so they must be as daft as Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:07 AM

the act was invalidated and the Home Rule movement collapsed because the government over-rode the promised discussion on how partition should be implemented by unilaterally making it permanent.

When did that happen Jim? Lloyd George's discussions and correspondence with both Redmond and Carson took place in mid-to-late summer 1916 didn't they? And the Rising took place when?

When did they {The British Government} unilaterally make partition permanent? You incorrectly stated that Lloyd George wrote to Carson guaranteeing permanent partition, but he did no such thing did he - The letter written to Carson assured Carson any agreement reached would not put Ulster in the position that it could be forced into any union against its will - different thing entirely.

Also if the British Government had unilaterally made partition permanent in July 1916 could you explain why the 1920 Government of Ireland Act still mentions temporary partition?

Furthermore if the British Government had unilaterally made partition permanent in July 1916 could you explain why the clause relating to Northern Ireland was required in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921?

It could of course all be down to fact that you are talking a complete and utter load of bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:10 AM

Almost the entire nation of Ireland were commemorating the events in the past few weeks so they must be as daft as Jim.

If you say so Raggytash - If you say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:28 AM

Not me Teribus, you are the one who considers them daft, well you and the other jingoist.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:30 AM

No links, no qualified response to what I have written - no discussion
I'll do what I said when I get time - you pair are just a waste of space - orr, at best, a perfect example of what Ireland always fought against - rule by a racist, predatory Empire.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:42 AM

What links do I need to ask you questions about what you have written?

But it is rather revealing that you always evade and refuse to answer questions that show your claims to be woefully ill-informed and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 08:35 AM

What has been established so far:
Ireland has sought independence from Britain for centuries; in the latter half of the 19th century the idea of Home Rule was embarked upon,
Over the course of its existence the movement incorporated different concepts of home rule, from a self-governing Ireland still within the UK, to a fully independent republic, finally settling on a limited self-government for Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
Two attempts at introducing Home Rule bills were crushed by The House of Lords.
From 1912 to 1914, attempts were made to introduce a Third Irish Home Rule Bill, it was passed under the Parliament Act after House of Lords defeats, with Royal Assent as the Government of Ireland Act 1914 but never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I, when it was agreed that the remaining hurdle would be debated and sorted out when the war ended; it was decided that the major stubling block, that of partition would be debated and settled then.
This was scuppered when Lloyd George, on behalf of the Government, connived separately with the Unionists and the Republicans, promising one (by phone) that partition would be established for a period of six years only, at the end of which, Ireland would become fully united.
At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent.
From the beginning, the Ulster Unionists had opposed any form of Independence for Ireland even to the point of arming itself and threatening Civil War if any attempts were made to give Ireland independence from Britain.
They were supported in their threats by officers of the British Army in the Curragh, who said they would not take part in any intervention, were they ordered to intervene.
On Lloyd Georges dishonest intervention, the Home Rule Movement collapsed entirely and Ireland entered into War for full Independence.
At no time has the question of Easter Week been cited as the cause for the collapse of Home Rule, in fact, John Redmond, head of the Parliamentary Republicans made this quite clear when he condemned the Lloyd George's proposal as "treachery"
All this has been linked above – no linked information as ever been put forward to contradict it in any way, in fact, requests for such information have been either ignored or refused.
More later
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 09:09 AM

"At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent."

Any proof of that?

"From the beginning, the Ulster Unionists had opposed any form of Independence for Ireland even to the point of arming itself and threatening Civil War if any attempts were made to give Ireland independence from Britain."

Wrong they opposed any form of independence for an Ireland that automatically included them against their will.

Why so coy about the date of Lloyd George's "dishonest intervention"? Could it be that you want to mislead people into thinking it happened before the Easter Rising?

You also haven't explained why partition being a temporary is mentioned in the 1920 Act if permanent partition was already a done deal? Why there was a clause giving Northern Ireland the option to opt out of an independent Ireland in the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 if permanent partition was already a done deal? Doesn't quite square with your version of events - bit inconvenient that Eh Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 09:54 AM

Alarmed by the changed and volatile situation in Ireland the Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, following prolonged discussions, announced on 25 May 1916 {i.e. One month AFTER the rising} to the House of Commons that he had agreed to undertake negotiations to bring about a permanent Home Rule settlement in Ireland. Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, was then sent to Dublin to offer this to the leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party, John Redmond and John Dillon. The scheme revolved around partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader Carson a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced in

With regard to the letter written to Carson refer to Patrick Maume's book, "The long Gestation, Irish Nationalist Life 1891–1918", Chapter 7 'The Price of War' pages 182–83, published by Gill & Macmillan (1999) ISBN 978-0-7171-2744-3

So at what point was the letter guaranteeing permanent partition written, because that is not what was on offer in the letter referred to above.

If Asquith was alarmed by recent events in Ireland {i.e. The Rising} how do you think the Unionists viewed it? Would it make them more or less amenable to an independent Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 10:59 AM

"Any proof of that?"
You've been given it - any confirmation to the contrary?
"Wrong they opposed any form of independence for an Ireland that automatically included them against their will"
Civil War then - they were part of a united Ireland under Britain
I have said exactly when it happened and it has been reitrterated over and over again
What's Your point - I have said specifically that the Easter Rising took place due to the fact that Britain was not to be trusted throughout the Home Rule negations - not because of Lloyd George's dishonesty - you bloody well know this as you accepted it by describing it as 'dishonesty by politicians"
Claiming otherwise is proof of your own dishonesty.
Nothing was decided on partition in any shape or form - the promis made was that partition would be agreed on before the bill was enacted and that if no agreement was reached, the enactment of the bill wouldld be put back a year, then another year, then another years.... until agreement was reached.
You've had all this, now you are just wriggling.
Moe sill, later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 11:24 AM

"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader Carson a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced in "
Which is what I said - what's your point?
The question of partition was a deciding factor on the Parliamentary Republicans taking part in any negotiations - Redmond had stated clearly that permanent partition of any form was an anathema to him and his party - had it been agreed that Ulster would not have to accept Independence after six years, they would have had no part and Britain would have been negotiating Ireland's future with a nine minority of of Unionist fanatics and ignoring the wishes of Ireland as a whole - a classic Imperial ploy - put the dissentig colony into safe hands (fir the Empire, that is).
The Rebels were vindicated in their actions, Britain was traitorously dealing with armed fanatics - what better reason could you possibly need for taking up arms?
The number of those killed during Easter Week measures tiny against those who would have died in the case of a civil war with Unionists backed by Britain - a veritable bloodbath.
"What did you say about seven selfish men"!!!!
Do not request proof of anything until you are prepared to give som of your own.
Who do you think you are - either of you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 11:35 AM

Jim,
IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?

No. The two quotes were fake. I id not write that.

Do not call me a liar please

Then do not attribute quotes to me that I have not written.
You put them in quotes. They were fake.

you are claiming that the Irish people as a nation is being brainwashed on a scale comparable to Stalinism at its worst - IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? - PLEASE ANSWER.   

I made no comparisons. You lie again.

I quoted two historians, Kinealy who you have admired and quoted, and O'Callaghan who both you and Rag have quoted.

Kinealy said that the Irish school system presented "nationalist myths" as history, and O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 01:21 PM

"I have said specifically that the Easter Rising took place due to the fact that Britain was not to be trusted throughout the Home Rule negations"

And what facts were there as of 18th September 1914 or onward until the 23rd April 1916 that would lead anybody to believe that Britain was not to be trusted throughout the Home Rule negations

By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.

Asquith conceded to the Lords' demand to have the Home Rule Act 1914, which had passed all stages in the Commons, amended to temporarily exclude the six counties of Northern Ireland, which for a period would continue to be governed by London, not Dublin, and to later make some special provision for them. A Buckingham Palace Conference failed to resolve the entangled situation. Strongly opposed to the partition of Ireland in any form, Redmond and his party reluctantly agreed to what they understood would be a trial exclusion of now six years; under Redmond's aspiration that "Ulster will have to follow", he was belatedly prepared to concede a large measure of autonomy to it to come in.

After the 18th September 1914 Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising. The Supreme Council of the IRB had a meeting too in September 1914 didn't they? That was the one where they decided to stage their rising while the British were fighting the Germans and that German assistance was to be sought. One possible reason for that could have been that the IRB were greatly afraid of the British Parliament coming through and granting Home Rule to Ireland which is what the majority of people in Ireland and in the Irish Volunteers wanted - if that happened the IRB would have been consigned to history - they needed a rising to save themselves - they needed Pearse's "Blood Sacrifice".

"Nothing was decided on partition in any shape or form"

So no guarantee of permanent partition then. Your statement above is incorrect on the 8th July 1914 the proposal that Ulster be excluded on a temporary basis for a period of six years had been agreed to by all parties.

"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader Carson a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced in "

Which is what I said - what's your point?

But that is NOT what you said was it?

You stated that:

"At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent." - Jim Carroll - 25 May 16 - 08:35 AM

NOT the same thing at all.

John Redmond led the Irish Parliamentary Party where on earth did you get the idea that the party he led were the "Parliamentary Republicans"? Irish Nationalist John Redmond undoubtedly was Irish Republican most certainly NOT.

Tell us Jim who but seven selfish men instigated the Easter Rising? Did they have the full support of the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers? The answer to the first question is nobody and the answer to the second is no.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:04 PM

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.
"
Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising."
It was never "discussede" after the Rising - Lloyd George had gone ahead with making partition permanent - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement
Redmond had made it cleared from the beginning that permanent partition was not on the table as far as his party was concerned - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"So no guarantee of permanent partition then"
Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?   
"NOT the same thing at all."
Certainly not the same he had told the Unionists if that's what you mean, though I'm sure you don't - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
""Parliamentary Republicans""
They are referred to as both - including in the documents you have been given - stop trying to be clever - that's the last thing you are.
Tell us Jim who but seven selfish men instigated the Easter Rising?
A rising of sorts was on the cards throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century
Tell me who but the sectarian thugs in the north armed themselves in order to end any chance of Ireland becoming independent?
Now - unless you are prepared to debate honestly - this is finished
You are the most reactionary arrogant and ignorant individual I have ever come across.
You won't provide evidence or respond to points yet you demand that I do.
You make up claims based on thin air and expect to be believed
You make statements that nobody has and are taking a stance that nobody else is.
You denigrate the Irish as a nation because of something you claim did or didn't happen back in Norman times, using it to show Ireland has no claim to unity then lie about it.
You accuse the Irish of being duped by foreign powers into demanding freedom from The Empire, then lie about it.
What are you on - I'd have a word with my dealer if I were you.
Now, unless there's anything else..... shut the door as you go out.
Thank you for confirming my "pecking order" joke - I wasn't serious, but I am now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:07 PM

"From 1912 to 1914, attempts were made to introduce a Third Irish Home Rule Bill, it was passed under the Parliament Act after House of Lords defeats, with Royal Assent as the Government of Ireland Act 1914 but never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I, when it was agreed that the remaining hurdle would be debated and sorted out when the war ended; it was decided that the major stubling block, that of partition would be debated and settled then.
This was scuppered when Lloyd George, on behalf of the Government, connived separately with the Unionists and the Republicans, promising one (by phone) that partition would be established for a period of six years only, at the end of which, Ireland would become fully united.
At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent.
From the beginning, the Ulster Unionists had opposed any form of Independence for Ireland even to the point of arming itself and threatening Civil War if any attempts were made to give Ireland independence from Britain.
They were supported in their threats by officers of the British Army in the Curragh, who said they would not take part in any intervention, were they ordered to intervene."
Jims post underlines my point that politicians [even then] were not to be trusted