BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 03:58 AM

"Still struggling to make this into a Famine thread then Jim."
Still avoiding Britain's culpability that brought about this rebellion Terribus - and still using tyops in sead of honest arguments - I never use typos being the poor typist I am.
s I said - the looters fires were never disputed - they were got under control fairly quickly - the entire street was virtually destroyed throughout the week by British artillery a few looters could not possibly have done.
As you can see from THIS , the looter's fires occurred during the first two days
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:01 AM

You have had my description of how Kineally assess Irish history to which you responded "It is shite"

It is shite because we have her own actual words.
What is your "decription" worth compared to the original?
Shite!

I asked for proof that Irish people hate Britain -

I have never claimed that significant numbers do.
You faked quotes to claim that I had.
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:19 AM

"It is shite because we have her own actual words."
Yes we do - and you are ignoring them as I have just quoted them
"Kineally"
"I have never claimed that significant numbers do."
I suggest that "generations" are significant enough.
You said you have produced evidence - you lied - you refused to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:52 AM

I suggest that "generations" are significant enough.

What did I say about generations?
I said that generations of Irish schoolchildren had been subjected to indoctrination in their schools, and substantiated that assertion by quoting three Irish historians who state that to be the case.

You assert that they are all wrong, but can not substantiate it with anything.

"It is shite because we have her own actual words."
Yes we do - and you are ignoring them as I have just quoted them

She says exactly what I quoted her as saying, and in exactly that context.
Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 05:06 AM

"Your time line gives the looters starting fires at the beginning of the week - apparently those 'looters fires' were still blazing away at the end of the week despite being fought by firefighters"

When were those fires fought Jim - Dublin Fire Brigade log book has them being called out at 23:39hrs on the 24th April 1916 for a fire in the Trueform Shoe Company premises in Sackville Street appliances sent but all returned by 00:30hrs on the morning of the 25th April 1916 - they never actually got to the fire.

Dublin Fire Brigade's first call out for a fire came at 3;58pm on the 24th April, 1916 to a fire at the Magazine Fort Phoenix Park. They never made it there and the Fire Appliance returned at 4:06pm because of a barricade at the Church Street Bridge where the Officer in charge of the Irish Volunteers refused to let the Fire Brigade past.

Still missing the point though Jim - you stated that the fires in Sackville Street were started by the British Army using heavy artillery - I have pointed it out to you that according to research carried out by RTE and Boston College and now confirmed by the logbook of the Dublin Fire Brigade that the first fires to be started and reported in Sackville Street could not possibly have been started by the British Army for two very good reasons:

1: No British troops present in Sackville Street at the time the fires were reported.

2: No Artillery at all in Dublin at the time the fires started.

3: No heavy artillery was ever deployed in Dublin in 1916.

Now just to get this cleared up once and for all are you going to retract your statement about the fires in Sackville Street being started by British Artillery? Or are you going to persist in your "myth" - to any sporting types here on Mudcat, my money is on the latter, Jim never lets fact get in the way of a good story.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 06:08 AM

Dublin Fire Brigade's first call out for a fire came at 3;58pm on the 24th April,
I introduced the looters to this discussion, I have never claimed that their fires were started by the artillery – that is a red herring
The looters fires were brought under control on the second day – those cased by artillery and devastated Dublin blazed throughout the week – which was the point of your accusing the fires to have been caused by the looters "not the artillery"
1: No British troops present in Sackville Street at the time the fires were reported.
Who said they were – red herring?

2: No Artillery at all in Dublin at the time the fires started.
Who said they were – red herring?

3: No heavy artillery was ever deployed in Dublin in 1916.
You claim there wasn't (without proof – I am not it the position to prove there was, but eye-witness reports (provided) say there was.
The fires that devastated Dublin were cause by artillery fire –n not by the rebels, as you claimed
As you never attempt to prove your claims, I know who I believe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 07:35 AM

Question for you Teribus. You state there was no artillery in Dublin when the fires started. What do you call the weapon on the ship, what do you call the weapon that was taken off the ship and given to the Sherwood Foresters.

Just asking like, , I,m still up ladder just having a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 09:48 AM

Ah Raggy you cannot be bothered to research stuff and look it up yourself.

From any internet article relating to HMY Helga you will get the following information:

HMY Helga was based out of Dún Laoghaire and on the night of the 25th of April, 1916, the Helga was ordered up the Liffey and to shell Liberty Hall with her 12 pounder gun.

From RTE Chronology of Events:
20.15 – British gun yacht, the HMY Helga has entered the Liffey and fired (2 shells) at Boland's Mills damaging the upper storeys.

The following morning on the 26th April 1916 the same source has HMY Helga shelling Liberty Hall between 08:30hrs and 12:00hrs when 24 shells were fired.

The 12 pounder gun on Helga was then assigned targets in Sackville street at which she fired 14 shells after which Helga played no further part in the proceedings apart from unshipping and landing a 1 pounder gun for use ashore by the Army.

If I remember correctly it was the discrepancy concerning the dates that blew your "Volunteers" artillery duel hogwash to bits.

So unless you can come up with some factual evidence to the contrary I will stand by my statement at the time the first fires were started in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 the British had no artillery in Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 09:50 AM

It was a slingshot, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 11:01 AM

Extracted from the online Irish Times chronology for April 26 (my emphasis):

09.36hrs - Both British troops in the Gresham Hotel in Sackville Street and Volunteers in the GPO have been engaged in a ferocious sniper battle for several hours. Shouts claiming kills have been heard from the windows of both buildings. The huge walls of the majestic buildings lining Dublin's main street resound continuously to rifle-cracks. Gun smoke hangs in the morning air. The crash of artillery is almost constant and echoes thunderously through the streets.

11.23hrs - Sackville Street a fully-fledged warzone! Stephen's Green may be peaceful right now, but Sackville Street is anything but tranquil. It is now a war-zone like any other. From the south side of the river machine guns are raking the street. Incendiary bullets are setting fire to the few remaining unburnt shop canopies while concrete is gouged from walls. Glass is shattering everywhere. Casualties are mounting on both sides from unrelenting sniper fire. The battle is escalating.

14.40hrs - Sackville Street now resembles Western Front! Sackville Street is under artillery fire from D'Olier Street. Kelly's Fishing Tackle Shop on Batchelor's walk is being pummelled with shrapnel shells and Vickers machine gun bullets. The British have set up a heavy machine gun position in Purcell's Shop at the tip of Westmoreland Street's junction with D'Olier Street. Sackville Street is being saturated with bullets. It appears that Sackville Street is being softened up for an assault.

15.20hrs - Lower Sackville Street is still under unrelenting fire from both artillery and machine gun. The sniper fire from the southern quays and Trinity College is lethal. Sparks are flying from the O'Connell monument. It appears that sharpshooters may be using the monument to range their guns. The Hibernian Bank at Lower Abbey Street's junction is under vicious fire from the Ballast Office on Aston Quay.

Also the gunboat HMY Helga mounted a 12 pounder gun which fired into Dublin. A one pounder was dismounted from the boat, mounted on a cart, and used as a mobile artillery piece. There is one online report that the Helga and the one pounder engaged in and artillery duel between themselves.

Briefly, the Cartridge S.A.Tracer SPK .303 inch Mark VII.T, which was formally approved in June, 1916, carried a tracer "light" for about 800 yards. Whether or not the cartridges were available on an emergency basis to the troops heading for Dublin I haven't been able to determine, but I suspect that they were given plenty of whatever was available.

Speaking from personal experience as a combat Infantryman, I can assure everyone that bullets and bits of hot, flying, metal of any sort can act in manners of which the manufacturer or the military would hardly approve. These things do not care where they go, whether or not they perform to specifications, or where, when, or in whom they land. Fires can also start by sparks caused by any number of sources, including escaping gas.

I don't think the causes of the fires that swept parts of Dublin can be definitely lain at the feet of any one group. There are now, a century later, still too many variables and there always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 02:20 PM

Thanks Rapparee, interesting article, none of which alters a single thing that I have said - the fires started in Sackville Street on the 24th April, 1916 {Emphasis my own} were not started as the result of British artillery fire.

"Also the gunboat HMY Helga mounted a 12 pounder gun which fired into Dublin. A one pounder was dismounted from the boat, mounted on a cart, and used as a mobile artillery piece. There is one online report that the Helga and the one pounder engaged in and artillery duel between themselves."

The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread. If that appears in the Irish Times Chronology then that alone would cast doubts on the rest of it.

the fact that the rebels took up positions in Sackville Street makes it a legitimate target and one that must accept the reality of urban warfare - which is the attacker will not put their troops needlessly in harms way and if that means massive support fire to reduce that risk then that is what will happen - you as an ex-combat infantryman should know that.

I don't think the causes of the fires that swept parts of Dublin can be definitely lain at the feet of any one group.

Those fires that started on the evening of the 24th April most certainly can be attributed to the activities on one group. And if you wish to strip away all the dressing and posturing there was only one group responsible for the destruction of the centre of Dublin and for all the deaths - that was a very small group of unelected men, who represented nobody, who decided to take up the gun on the 4th September 1914. What they were supposed to be fighting for was a united independent Ireland, because of their efforts and because of their example, they are further away from that goal today than they were the day before they took their decision 102 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:20 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:30 AM

"The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread."
Where and by whom - you have denied it and produced nothing to back up that delian - so it is an invention of your, certainly not "explosive" proof, and it is an ongoing sign of your arrogance that you should claim it to be.
That the looters set fire has never been denied - you have claim the looters and the rebels to have caused the destruction - not true and not possible
The fires that destroyed Dublin were the result of artillery fire - that is undeniable
Stop creating smokescreens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:31 AM

"The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread."
Where and by whom - you have denied it and produced nothing to back up that claim - so it is an invention of your, certainly not "explosive" proof, and it is an ongoing sign of your arrogance that you should claim it to be.
That the looters set fire has never been denied - you have claim the looters and the rebels to have caused the destruction - not true and not possible
The fires that destroyed Dublin were the result of artillery fire - that is undeniable
Stop creating smokescreens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:53 AM

Tracer rounds from a machine gun are a spectacular site, and in April 1916 no-one would ever have seen such a thing before.

They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used.

Jim, the "artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail.
Helga's log reported no incoming fire.
The one pound shells fired over the buildings would land far beyond the Liffey.
One pound shells could not raise fountains of spray that "drenched the crew."
And much else.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

""artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail. "
No it wasn't - if so, where was it?
It has been denied by Teribus certainly - he has denied every fact that doesn't fit his and your jingoist agenda.
He hasn't produced proof - made up military statistics aren't proof.
If you want to "debunk" it, produce evidence, not denials.
Dublin City was destroyed by the British troops using artillery among other things - they were the only ones who were equipped to carry out such destruction.
The Helga is a smokescreen - it lobbed shells indiscriminately over buildings in order to help subdue the uprising - that's what it was there for.
It helped destroy the area surrounding Sackville/O'Connell Street, no matter what it's claimed restrictions - it is not a feature here - you are attempting to set it up as yet another 'straw man' - it was the artillery that did the major damage - there is no dispute of that fact.
I see yo have adopted your mate's arrogant little habit of presenting personal opinions as undisputed facts
I take it we're now finished with you hate-filled "brainwashing" nonsense (for the time being anyway)
No doubt it will raise its ugly head again when the oportunity arises for you to do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 09:16 AM

and in April 1916 no-one would ever have seen such a thing before.

HUNH??

They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used.

HUNH ??

Would have, cound have, might have, should have & etc.- from the steel-trap mind of out professional Mudcat Historian, The Professor.

Gimmie shelter.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:11 AM

"They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used."
I noticed from Thursday there were many tracer bullets used by the British and a constant shower of such bullets hit the Nelson Pillar. The front or the G.P.O. received very little rifle fire. From the time that the buildings on the opposite side of O'Connell Street went on fire we ceased to fear any frontal attack.
STATEMENT BY WITNESS DOCUMENT NO. W.S. 242
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 12:22 PM

As an Infantryman I greatly appreciate my artillery support and will use it whenever needed. I do not appreciate yours, so just stop doing that!

Explosives used in any urban setting cause destruction, whether they are 12 pounder or 175mm shells, hand grenades, mortars, or anything else.

.303 tracer was in use by the British since 1914 and given the number of Irish who had already served in The War it's unlikely it would have been considered remarkable; I'm certain that troops at the front would have mentioned it in letters home. Besides (and trust me on this!) you really don't notice too much what sort of bullets are coming at you when YOU are the target and you're not under cover.

Frankly, I don't really give a hoot who set the fires. They existed, and this business of assigning blame a century later ranks with Daesh never forgetting how Richard massacred the Saracens at Acre in 1191.

Learn from the Past and get on with life!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 02:34 PM

.303 tracer was in use by the British since 1914

No it was not.
"The British invented tracer
bullets—bullets which gave off small amounts of flammable material that left a
phosphorescent trail. The first attempt, in 1915, wasn't actually that useful,
as the trail was not straight and limited to 100 meters, but the second tracer
model developed in 1916, emitted a regular bright"
https://infogr.am/harashvivek_1393537750

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Jim Carroll - 08 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

"artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail."

No it wasn't - if so, where was it?

It most certainly was Jim Carroll, but I will go through the process again if you like:

This supposed "artillery duel" witnessed by some unnamed "volunteer" who somehow managed to see both guns and gun crews and the fall of shot stated that this took place on the 27th April 1916.

Now considering that the man was probably under fire and doing what he was supposed to be doing to free Ireland from 7/800 years of English/British oppression the above would be impossible to do in the centre of a city. Raggytash put this up previously from the joemulveney website.

The only other thing that tends to throw a spanner in the works for taking this at face value is the recorded fact that HMY Helga entered the Liffey on the evening of the 25th April 1916 and at 20:15 that evening put two shells into the upper floors of Boland's Mill. The following morning (26th April 1916) HMY Helga opened fire on direct line of sight and fired 24 Shells into Liberty Hall starting at 08:30hrs. The bombardment finished at around mid-day. HMY Helga was then assigned targets in Sackville Street and she fired 14 shells at those. Thereafter she did not fire another shot.

So if Helga did not fire after the 26th April 1916 - care to tell us all how she could have possibly taken part in an artillery duel on the 27th??? Just asking like.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:40 PM

"No it wasn't - if so, where was it?"
Was it what - Keith said it was debiunked - I said it was one of your ususal unqualified makkie ups - how do you prove a negative - you prove it wqsn't made up.
"but I will go through the process again if you like:
"
Not with unqualified statements you won't - you make up things all the time and expect us to take them at face value.
As far as I'm concerned, with yor track record you'd have to produce evidence if you told us it was Tuesday
You link nothing because you invent everything - was never impressed but you've really blown it with your behaviuour here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:12 PM

Must remember in future to just agree with everything Rapparee says.

Of course it is important to correct inaccurate and misleading information. According to some contributing to this thread the fires were started by British Artillery fire - plain fact of the matter was that they weren't - Why can I say that with absolute certainty? There was no British Artillery in Dublin at the time the fires were started and there were no British troops in Sackville Street at the time the fires started. But please do ignore evidence if you like, if you prefer to believe "myths" rather than the truth dig out.

One other thing from the Irish Times witness account - take a good look at pictures of Sackville Street pre-1916 - identify any buildings made of concrete.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:54 PM

"Must remember in future to just agree with everything Rapparee says"
Why not youi expect the rest of us to agree with everything you say?
You mut think we're all as big gobshites as you?
"Of course it is important to correct inaccurate and misleading information."
Or as pompous
"But please do ignore evidence if you like, "
You've dismissed every piece of verified and documented evidence as "Irrelevant" or "made up Carroll shite".
You really are up your own arse a long way, aren't you?
s I said, why the **** should we believe anything you say - you arse arrogant enough never to corroborate anything
Sheesh!!!
"! identify any buildings made of concrete."
Wha....!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:01 PM

Incidentally
The favourite form of Victorian architecture throughout Dublin for large buildings was concrete-rendered pseudo-Grecian; the Rotunda, the GPO, several theatres and hospitals - Dublin was, and still is, full of them
Are you completely mad to expect us to accept your denial and reject The Irish Times?
Did you have to widen the doors of your house when you moved in?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:28 PM

You really are astoundingly arrogant
Throughout this argument you have offered not a shred of proof of anything you say - nothing.
You reject documented and identified evidence fro historians, from journalists, from some of the massive amount of research that is being carried out at present, from contemporary eye-witness accounts.... if it disagrees with your claims it is automatically wrong.
Now you are claiming something that anybody who is the slightest familiar with Dublin knows to be wrong.
And you expect people who have been subjected to your barrage of arrogance to still accept your claims over published information
What are you on and who's your dealer - we could all do with some of that!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 06:32 PM

"Throughout this argument you have offered not a shred of proof of anything you say - nothing."

Shall I list the proof that I have submitted:

1: Curragh Incident - The text of the telegram sent by Sir Arthur Paget to the War Office on the 20th March 1914 - detailed the extent of resignations from the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade. That evidence to counter your claims that:
(a) The Army would refuse orders to move against the UVF
(b) That half the Army threatened to resign
(c) That the Army could not be relied upon

In actual fact all orders given were obey and carried out to the letter without so much as one seconds delay.

2: You stated that the Home Rule Bill 1914 was kicked out and defeated by the Tories and the House of Lords - I posted direct links to the actual Government of Ireland Act 1914 that detailed far from having been defeated it received Royal Assent and passed into Law on the 18th September 1914.

3: You claimed that the Government of Ireland Act 1914 was altered after it had received Royal Assent. I posted direct links to the actual Government of Ireland Act 1914 that showed that at no time at all after receiving Royal Assent was the Act amended in any way between 1914 and 1920 when the Act was repealed and replaced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

4: You claimed that the IRB did not collude with the Germans in order to mount their armed insurrection. I posted links and detailed sources from websites detailing the history of the IRB and Irish Volunteers that showed the opposite.

5: You claimed that the Irish Volunteers did not split - yet the link you provided STATEMENT BY WITNESS DOCUMENT NO. W.S. 242 clearly states that it did - to the extent that out of a Company of 130 men when given the choice which faction to side with (Redmond-ite Constitutional Nationalists or Pearse-ite Republican Nationalists only 7 men turned out for the Republican Nationalist muster. that was representative right across the board for the Irish Volunteer Force that numbered roughly 180,000 men (92.5% of them backed Redmond - only 7.5% of them backed Pearse). To support this I quoted and provided sources from the History of the Irish Volunteers.

6: You claimed that the armed rising was backed by the people of Ireland - Both Keith A and myself supplied links, quotations and sources that showed your contention to be complete and utter nonsense. So massive was the popular support for this armed rising that the seven men who planned it kept it secret from the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers and from the Supreme Council of the IRB - It was kept secret because those plotting this armed uprising knew that their own leaders would have stopped it in its tracks, which is what they did their utmost to do. So great was the support that only 0.04% of the population turned out for it - 1,500 out of a population of 3.1 million.

7: Artillery being the cause of the fires in Sackville Street - I think that we have conclusively shown that fires were started in Sackville Street at least 40 hours before artillery engaged any target in Sackville Street

8: Who was responsible for the destruction and loss of life? You do not have to be a genius to work out that had there not been an armed rising then none of what happened would have occurred.

9: You stated that the unionists were guaranteed permanent partition in July 1916 by Lloyd George - I supplied sources and quotations that detail that what was guaranteed was that Ulster Unionists would not be forced into any union against their will and links were provided to the Abandoned Amending Bill of 1914 which mentioned the time limited temporary exclusion for Ulster for a six year period and the Unionists agreement to this and also the details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that offered the same time limited temporary exclusion - That proves that at no time at all did the British Government offer the Unionists permanent partition - you were asked to provide evidence that they had - you failed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:21 AM

A few more:

10: You stated that the threat of conscription played a significant role in the rising. Yet it was pointed out to you:

(a) That the decision to mount a rising was taken by the IRB at a meeting held on the 4th September 1914 (Source: History of the IRB)

(b) That when Great Britain declared war on Germany in August 1914 conscription did not exist.

(c) That when conscription was considered it specifically excluded all males who did not reside in Great Britain (Source: Military Service Act 1916) from which the relevant passages were quoted and reference made to the Act itself, all of which you could have checked. The Military Service Bill was introduced in the Commons in January 1916 and passed into Law to become the Military Service Act 1916 on 1st March 1916. As planning for the rising had already been in train since the 4th September 1914 conscription could have played no part at all in it. The Derby Scheme that was used to test if conscription was necessary did not extend to Ireland so any rational thought process would have indicated that neither would conscription when the Derby Scheme showed that conscription was necessary.

What happened AFTER the rising can have no bearing at all on what excuses were used to justify the material destruction and loss of life in Dublin that Easter.

11: You stated that those Court Martialled and executed were not guilty of treason, and that they were not charged with treason. I provided links to the Treason Act and pointed out to you, providing direct quotes from the text, that they were charged with offences under the provisions of the Treason Act.

12: You claimed that the Courts Martial were illegal - I pointed out that under Martial Law declared on the 25th April 1916 they were perfectly legal in accordance with the Army Act 1914, Military Law and under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act 1914.

The contention that in time of war you can form armed companies of uniformed men, declare yourselves to be an Army of an independent State and declare yourselves to be allied to an enemy state and at war with Great Britain then when it all crumbles and fails plead that you should tried as ordinary citizens before civilian criminal courts is bizarre to say the least. Waging war is not a game, it never has been. 3,509 people were arrested in the aftermath of the rising, around 1,800 were imprisoned, 90 were sentenced to death of whom 15 were executed and 75 had their sentences commuted to penal servitude for five years, all being released after about a year under a general amnesty.

Mistakes made? Yes instead of executing the leaders they should have been publicly disgraced, their disloyalty to their own men should have been demonstrated, their deceit exposed. Those imprisoned should have been held until after conclusion of hostilities with Germany.

13: You claimed that the rising had no effect on Unionist views. Both Keith A and myself provided links, sources and quotations that showed when agreement in principle was reached by both Unionists under Carson and Nationalists under Redmond was reached - we even gave you the date (8th July, 1914). Links and quotations supplied by yourself, combined with the above (You cannot just shrug and pretend it didn't happen because it did, it is a matter of record, the 1914 Home Rule Bill could not have been passed without it happening) demonstrate the following:

(a) Agreement in principle reached 8th July 1914 regarding a six year temporary exclusion from direct rule from Dublin for Ulster.

(b) Easter Rising 24th to 29th April, 1916

(c) "Crucial Meeting" of the Ulster Unionist Movement in May or June 1916 which resulted in

(d) Demand for permanent partition on 19th July 1916.

There was only ONE THING that happened of any consequence in Ireland between the 8th July 1914 and the 19th July 1916 that could in any way have influenced a shift in attitude between Unionist and Nationalist camps - the Rising - to state anything else would be ludicrous. The rising undoubtedly hardened attitudes on both sides and more or less guaranteed that Ireland would be partitioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:36 AM

Been there
You have proved nothing, you have offered nothing in dispute on any of these things other than your own uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements and you have attempted to create smokescreens and set up 'straw dogs' to act as a diversion to you having to respond to the real facts..
A typical example is your clinging on to your 'artillery' lifebelt - nobody has disputed that the looters' fires were started before the artillery was used - you didn't "prove conclusively" when the fires were started - I, in fact, introduced the question of the looting and I went on to point out that these fires were brought under control and that the main confligration that followed was caused by the artillery and it was this which devastated Sackvill Street and Dublin City Centre.
All this was brought about by your claim that it was rebel action that brought about the destruction and not that of the troops - those are the facts that you have attempted to cover with your smokescreen.
To claim that you "have provided links" to anything is utterly ludicrous - one of the most distinguishing features of your entire contribution is that you never provide links to anything you have said and have consistently and often pointedly ignored requests to do so
I had a quick shufti through some of our past clashes before I settled down in front of Lewis last night - this has been your practice with all your contributions to this forum, almost without exception, as has been your arrogantly talking down to those who disagree with you.
You grab a handful of 'facts' and statistics out of the air, present them as gospel and arrogantly expect them to be accepted without question - you seldom, if ever produce links to what you say.
Fair play to Keith - he is noted for his scrabbling around to find something to fit his preconceived notions, inaccurate, out of context and invariably misunderstood as they usually are.
You, somewhat lazily, rely on your bluff and bullshit being accepted at face value.
You have dismissed out of hand as "nonsense" or "made up Carroll shite" or "irrelevant", documented and linked information from clearly identified serious works of history and have offered nothing resembling serious research in return - nothing!
I don't think I have ever experienced such an unpleasant crusade by two people who appear to be living in a world of flying Union Jacks and glorious battles that was created in the heads of writers like A. G. Henty, Alfred Lord Tennyson and Charles Mackay - a sort of 'Teribus in Keith's Adventures in Imperial-Land'.
Your ignorance of Ireland, its history, its people has often proved spectacular - your latest "no mortar in Sackville Street" was classic - Dublin was full or mortar-rendered buildings at the time.
You have attempted to present a picture of a rebellion that was unnecessary - it wasn't, and the political machinations of British politicians in forcing through a partition which created a repressively sectarian state has proved that beyond a shadow of doubt.
You claim the men who gave their lives to set in motion the cause of Irish freedom from Empire were selfish and dishonest - they were neither - no group of revolutionaries widely announce their plans in advance - they confine them to 'need-to know'.
As for selfish - their aims were as noble as it comes - not for personal gain but for nationhood after centuries of oppressive rule by a power that had excelled itself a little over half a century earlier by depopulating Ireland and carrying out what nowadays would be recognised and mass-genocide - still referred to as Ireland's Holocaust.
You gloated that the rebellion was a failure - it most certainly wasn't - it turned the apathy of the Irish people into a revolutionary fervour which eventually set the dominoes falling through the entire Empire.
Britain's legacy to Ireland was a divided nation, permanent emigration and an economy that only began to right itself at the end of the 20th century - like many of Britain's former subjects, Ireland is still feeling the evil effects of Imperial rule.
One of the features of your squalid behaviour here has been to attempt to smear revolutions as German Spies and sexual perverts - the age-old sick dirty-tricks method of defusing and denigrating opposition to despotism.
Keith has mounted a campaign to prove the Irish a bitter, hate-filled people, when, as anybody knows who has had anything to do with them, they are exactly the opposite - even if you had never met an Irishman, Keith's dishonest refusal to provide one single shred of evidence of that hatred ,(having claimed several times that he had and actually having refused to do so) speaks for itself
You have both set out to show that Irish people as gullibly-stupid, "brainwashed by propaganda" and ignorant of their own history - as far from the truth as you could possibly get.
Neither of you have made anything that resembles a case yet you, in your ignorance and arrogance have dragged this into yet another epic - just as you did with the Famine, and Homs and the W.W.1. bloodbath - a behavioural pattern or what!!
I don't think I have ever met a case of anybody being so obviously, dishonestly wrong about anything, and proven to be so by factual evidence - an achievement of sorts, I suppose.
Breakfast calls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:25 AM


Keith has mounted a campaign to prove the Irish a bitter, hate-filled people, ...Keith's dishonest refusal to provide one single shred of evidence of that hatred

I never claimed that there was any significant hatred.
You faked quotes to claim that I had.
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:44 AM

You have proved nothing, you have offered nothing in dispute on any of these things other than your own uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements and you have attempted to create smokescreens and set up 'straw dogs' to act as a diversion to you having to respond to the real facts..

Good heavens Jim, I'd no idea that prior to my birth that I had written the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and got it through Parliament and had it enacted into law.

Similarly with the following pieces of legislation passed by Parliament:

Parliament Act 1911
Army Act 1914
Defence of the Realm Act 1914
Military Service Act 1916
Government of Ireland Act 1920
Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921

So the above and the stated provisions therein are just "uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements"!!!

A question Jim do you EVER preview your posts and read the complete and utter crap that you write?

Had there been no rising there would have been no destruction or loss of life - that statement is true and blindingly obvious - the rising was brought about by SEVEN MEN who didn't even have the backing of their own organisations and who represented nobody but themselves. They couldn't even agree amongst themselves what form their united independent Ireland would take their views being so disparate.

You grab a handful of 'facts' and statistics out of the air, present them as gospel and arrogantly expect them to be accepted without question - you seldom, if ever produce links to what you say.
Fair play to Keith - he is noted for his scrabbling around to find something to fit his preconceived notions, inaccurate, out of context and invariably misunderstood as they usually are.

The facts are generally facts as are the statistics, not once have you been able to refute them.

They and the arguments I present are not presented as gospel, but are presented to refute ludicrous statements made by yourself and your pals and they are presented for you to refute by countering with what you think are the correct facts and statistics.

Keith A by and large does the same and guess what Jim, to date not one single example have you been able to come up with that disputes what either of us has said.

"your latest "no mortar in Sackville Street" was classic"

Yes Jim it is "classic" yet another example of more Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - I think that if you scroll down to my post you will find that what I asked Rapparee to show me was where the CONCRETE was as that was the word used in the Irish Times witness statement he quoted.

Logic, reasoning, common sense and attention to detail are all sadly lacking in your posts, what they are heavily laced with is emotive claptrap founded on ill-informed, biased fiction and a totally subjective view on history.

On the 6th December 1922 The Irish Free State Constitution Act enacted by the British Government brought into being a 32 county United Independent Ireland.

On the 7th December 1922 six counties of that United Independent Ireland exercised their right of self-determination and opted out, deciding themselves to remain as part of the United Kingdom to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Their right to self-determination having been accepted and acknowledged by all signatories to the Anglo-Irish Treaty. So pray tell how did Great Britain who handed over 32 counties force through Partition. But of course you do not believe in right of self-determination for all do you? You believe that people should be coerced into political and economic unions against their will by force of arms.

C'mon Jim tell us all about how the UK forced the Republic of Ireland to drop its illegal constitutional territorial claim to Northern Ireland in 1998. Oh hang about that came to pass because of the result of a referendum where the actual wishes and desires of the Irish people were established - does that register Mr Carroll? The will of the people not the wishes of some little clique within a clique of a clique of delusional Republicans whose answer to the clearly stated desire of the Irish people was the Omagh bombing - just what on earth do you think they were thinking of, wouldn't your magnificent seven have been so proud of the way they'd followed in their footsteps.

"Evidence" you don't know the meaning of the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:24 AM

"I never claimed that there was any significant hatred."
Sigh........
Yes you did Keith you have claimed generations of schoolchildren have been brainwashed to hate us
Your exact words - yet again
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
The key words in your statement are "brainwashed", "generations" and "keep hate alive"
That may not be significant to you - it obviously isn't, but it is a disgusting racist smear to the people I respect
"You faked quotes to claim that I had."
Have I faked that?
I have faked nothing - and such an accusation is outrageous coming from somebody who has deliberately lied about what they said, has been caught out in that lie and is now attempting to wriggle out of what they actually said.
You really need to pay attention to the basic rules of bog-snorkeling - when you find yourself up to your neck in shit, keep your mouth shut and stop wriggling.
I do not lie - I do not make things up - as I have said, with you pair, I don't have to, you do my work for me.
Your contempt for the Irish, their knowledge of their own history, their independence and the ability to think for themselves is palpable in your claims of their having been tricked and brainwashed into fighting for independence.
Your willingness to lie and distort to substantiate those claims has now spread over at least three, long, ungainly threads.
You have picked 'historians' who have claimed the opposite, you have distorted facts and you have insultingly dismissed the arguments of Irish people who have had the temerity to disagree with by describing their arguments as having been "based on propaganda not fact."
Who do you people think you are - you're certainly not scholars - you have admitted being neither knowledgeable nor interested - who are you intellectual supermen?
You leave a sour taste in the mouth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:29 AM

More lies by teh way Keith
"I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
Your statement was that it had kept hate alive - "keeping hate alive." - once again, exact words.
You are totally inacpable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, even when it's in front of you in black and white.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 08:31 AM

I never claimed that there was any significant hatred.
You faked quotes to claim that I had. ("hate the British"and "to hate us British"
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."
You have found nothing anywhere that contradicts those views.

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
Why else would they be "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda" and "nationalist myths?"
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:53 AM

Finished with this Keith - you have nailed your own bigoted colours to your mast far too often to make it necessary.
Rearrange this into a well--known phrase or saying - "ON HUNG MY PETARD OWN"
Gone - for now - try the 'Bog Snorkelling rule book.
Jim Carroll
By the way – no historian anywhere has ever used the term "brainwashing" or have claimed that there was any attempt to make children hate Britain, nor have they ever claimed that what was taught in schools was historically incorrect.
Kineally suggested in her attacks on revisionism that what was taught in schools was incomplete and unbalanced in order not to implicate Britain or to upset the emigrant's applecart at a time when many thousands f the m were crossing the Irish Sea – the diametric opposite to your own claims.
Of course, you have ben given this in her own words and choose to ignore it in order to save face, which is what this is now about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:10 AM

Well Jim I don't know about schoolchildren but it sure as hell worked with you as you sat there reading fictional accounts of Oirish history and seethed with anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:56 AM

"reading fictional accounts of Oirish history and seethed with anger."
Got me there Teribus - you arguments and evidence have totally overwhelmed me!!
Pathetic even for you
KEITH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:09 AM

By the way – no historian anywhere has ever used the term "brainwashing" or have claimed that there was any attempt to make children hate Britain, nor have they ever claimed that what was taught in schools was historically incorrect.

Yes they have.
Indoctrinating is synonymous with brainwashing.
O'Callaghan stated that children were "indoctrinated" with"anti-British propaganda."
Kineally stated that "nationalist myths" were taught.
Myths are not "historically correct" Jim.

Indoctrinating children to believe that Britain was to blame for much of Ireland's problems will tend to make them dislike Britain.
It did with Prof. Richardson.

You are a good example of someone who believes all those nationalist myths and anti-British propaganda. (Not from your own schooling, but maybe passed on from family members.)
We all know that you hate Britain, but not all Britons.
Only those of us who point out that your beliefs are myths and propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:48 PM

Two threads you are lying on simultaneously now
Where is there any ebvidence of "brainwashing" - indoctrination certainly does not mean the same - definition "to teach a person or group to accept ideas uncritically - all education does that.
Where is there any indication that what is being taught is wrong or untrue - nowhere.
As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to pre-1932 education that out mythical romanticism - not to hate.
Show anybody who claims that education was slanted at brainwashing kids to hate Britain.
"You are a good example of someone who believes all those nationalist myths and anti-British propaganda."'I've proved every single point I made on te famine thread - you proved nothing and you have been given those dteails above
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM
All of those statements are now fully accepted facts - every one.
You have totally disgraced yourself here and proved nothing.
Now - which facts of mine are nationalist myths exactly - take your time?
I have produces full documented proof of what I claimn - you have yet to produce any
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:52 PM

And for the record
I received my education in an English Secondary Modern Protestant school
Stupid boy!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 02:33 PM

Jim, I said it did not come from your schooling.

Where is there any ebvidence of "brainwashing" - indoctrination certainly does not mean the same

This thesaurus gives them as synonyms, which is also my view but if you prefer, withdraw "brainwashed" and insert "indoctrinated."
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/indoctrinate

As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to pre-1932 education that out mythical romanticism - not to hate.

Not true. You have only asserted it, not shown it.

As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to post-1932 education as involving the teaching nationalists myths as history.

Show anybody who claims that education was slanted at brainwashing kids to hate Britain.

I did show somebody, the eminent Irish historian O'Callaghan, who stated that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."
What effect might that have on impressionable young minds Jim?
It made Prof. Richardson want to join IRA until she learned the truth.

'I've proved every single point I made on te famine thread

I proved the only point I made on the famine thread.
That historians disagreed on Britain being to blame, and most did not believe Britain to be culpable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Where has any of your historians ever said that lies were told to school children?
None ever have.
Kineally specified what she means by myths - making heroes of John Mitchel and Wolfe Tone without putongt their actions into context - they are her 'myths'
Wat was taught in school was fact - Kineally criticises it for not apportioning blame - which she now does as the critic of her review pointed out.
Kineally is one who blames Britain for the famine and devotes an entire chapter to whether it was a deliberate act.
"It made Prof. Richardson want to join IRA until she learned the truth."
Richardson says no such thing - she said she nearly joind the IRA afetr she ws taught - she never said that what was taught was a lie.
Nowhere is there any claim that what was being taught was untrue - another thing you have made up - the critiscism was that the reasons for what happened wee avoided for political reasons.
This is all totally a product of your sick mind
You said that Irish peole were taught to hate - that is not true
You claim that Irish people hate Britain - that is not true
You have now desperately backpeddaled - first claiming that I made it up, now claiming that generations doesn't mean a significant number.
The only "eminent historian I can find named O'Callahan is an Irish blogger – but there again, anybody who appears to back your claims are "eminent" - you're gong to have to enlighten me on that one
If anything incited the Irish to hate Britain it is the 600 years on British rule, not indoctrination
If I was taught about Cromwell's massacres or Dunlavin Green or the massacre of the camp followers after Vinegar Hill or the genocide of the famine or two two 'Bloody Sunday massacres (Croke Park and Derry) or the mass murder of the Easter Week leaders, or the lies about Home Rule or the attempts to involve Ireland in an Imperial War or the half-century ill treatment of the Catholics of the six counties afer rigged elections, or the beating up of Civil Rights Marchers or internment without trial or the death of ten hunger strikers.... and all the other atrocities committed against Ireland, I would hate Britain -
None of these are lies or exaggerations and they are still being revealed.
It transpires that, when the British Courts locked up the Birmingham Six for seventeen years, the judiciary were fully aware of who did the bombings - English MP, Chis Mullen exposed him in his book 'Error of Judgement' or the Diplock Courts or the rigged enquiry into Derry's Bloody Sunnday.
Now, it transpires, the police were aware of the bombings in advance and could have stopped them
This week it has been announced that an investigation is taking place into the murder of six Catholics watching a football match in a bar in Northern Ireland by two Protestant terrorist gunmen - it is claimed that British security forces were involved - they knew the killers and they knew they were armed and did nothing.
I'll be honest with you, I am not a violent man by any means - I pride myself on that, but if you said some of the things you have claimed on threads like this to my face, I would be very likely to punch you - people like you inspire hatred.
I'm surprised that the Irish don't hare people like you
Yu have behan]ved towards Muslims in exactly the same way as you have the Irish - I really can't see why you have been allows to remain a member of this forum, behaving the way you do.
Now - where has anybody ever said that the Irish education system produced hatred in Irish children by telling lies?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:22 PM

Jim Carroll - 09 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Start taking more water with whatever you are drinking Jim.

Otherwise, typical Carroll incoherent rant.

"It made Prof. Richardson say she wanted to join IRA until she learned the truth." - is a more correct way of putting what Professor Richardson said.

Richardson says no such thing - she said she nearly joind the IRA afetr she was taught - she never said that what was taught was a lie.

Jim I think the hint that it was a lie is that bit where she said "until she learned the truth".

Kinealy (Still can't get the name of this favourite Irish Historian of yours right JOM) makes many errors of omission, she details correctly that the bulk of the population drop came about through emigration then makes the mistake of lumping together 1 million dead and makes no attempt to differentiate between those who died from diseases that at the time were incurable (And would remain so for another thirty years) and those who died from lack of food. He history is flawed in as much as she concentrates of what should have been done and not what actually happened at Government level. She does not concern herself with detail, unfortunately those actually dealing with the disaster had to Kinealy simply skips over it and so have you Jim.

Drop in population during Woodham Smiths "Great Hunger" from 8.5 million down to about just over 6 million (Drop of about 31.5%) Drop in population in the previous Great Famine in 1740-41 was 38% - that was the one where they say everyone was saved and disaster averted because they banned the shipment of grain out of Ireland (Another "myth") Here is what actually was banned:

"A government official, the Duke of Devonshire, in an unprecedented move on 19 January 1740, prohibited export of grain out of Ireland to any destination except Britain".

But in 1845 to 1849 it was only the potato harvest that failed not once but three times.

In 1740 to 1741 it was the potato harvest and cereal crops that failed simultaneously in conjunction with an extremely severe winter

In both cases disease was the main cause of death, NOT starvation. And the problems that presented themselves in both was the same - lack of infrastructure to transport, store and distribute food to where those who needed it were - Kinealy doesn't even touch on it. You see those are practical problems, the detail below Government level and Kinealy isn't very good on detail.

But Jim mentioned Cromwell, but of course it wasn't just Cromwell was it and it was during this period that the population dropped by not 31.5%, not 38% but by 41% this percentage caused by war, famine and disease where both sides employed scorched earth tactics to deny their respective enemies food, forage and support. But all this was par for the course in these times as demonstrated by what was happening over in Europe the Thirty years War was coming to an end. An event "classified as the last of the European wars of religion. It was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in European history, resulting in 8 million civilian deaths from famine and disease.

Critics of Kinealy's work say her forte is in the policy of handling disasters yet even with all the machinery, equipment, communications, support and awareness in 1985 in Ethiopia ~500,000 died the world in 1983-1985 could not save them, in the mid-1600s, mid-1700s and mid-1800s it all must have been that bit more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:52 AM

You quoted from one of O'Callaghan's books yourself Jim.
Kineally said that in the 30s, academics tried and failed to get true history taught in Irish schools.
Richardson said her views changed when she learned true history at university, and said that many without that opportunity went on to join IRA as she had wanted to.

Off line for a few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

"the mass murder of the Easter Week leaders"

Really Jim? Don't really know about the others but Patrick Pearse, Tom Clarke, Thomas MacDonagh and James Connelly knew they were dead the second they decided to go ahead with the rising - they set it up to fail, and they lied to their men and deliberately put them into the field to die - the other leaders knew they were dead the second their names went on that Proclamation.

The leaders of the Easter Week Rising charged under the provisions of the Treason Act had absolutely no defence in law because they undoubtedly had taken up arms against the King and waged war against him in time of war. And all reference to perceived ills and aspirations as viewed by those men you could list till the cows came home, all that is just window dressing, it would not alter the fact that they had indisputably done what they had done and that was what they were charged with and no-one in their right mind was going to allow them to be given a soap box to air their views in a country that was engaged in a life and death struggle against an extremely powerful foe that these man had colluded with. If you scream and shout about Great Britain being an evil Imperial power then you have no right at all to complain or be surprised when she acts in what you perceive to be an evil imperial manner.

3,509 Arrested, about half of whom were released almost immediately;
1,836 Were imprisoned, all released after a year by general amnesty;
90 Convicted and sentenced to death, 75 of them have their sentences commuted to penal servitude and they became part of the 1,836 detailed above;
15 men executed;
66 Volunteers killed in action.

So out of 1,836 who took up arms against the King just under 5% died - That could have been a lot worse.

The population of Dublin was something in the order of about 310,000 people in 1916 and the death toll was 485. Of that number 260 were civilians who the Leaders of the rising deliberately put at risk by staging their armed insurrection in the middle of their city. That means that between the dates given in the thread title 0.08% of the civilian population of Dublin were killed and something like 0.7% were wounded - That too could have been a great deal worse, indeed should have been if all those claims of indiscriminate artillery and machine gun fire are to be given any credence. I wonder how many of them were the 1,000+ inmates of the Mendicity Institute who ranked as the weakest and most vulnerable in the city, who Sean Heuston just turfed out to fend for themselves, or the 3,000+ civilians, patients and charity cases, nurses and doctors who found themselves trapped inside the South Dublin Union when everything kicked off with no opportunity to get clear. Then there were the civilian residents of Moore Street who the Volunteers gave no chance to flee before they entered their homes and took up positions for their last ditch action.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

""It made Prof. Richardson say she wanted to join IRA until she learned the truth." "
Professor Richardson is one person out of - how many - her politics is hardly one you would steer a boat by - she wishes to give Islamists an opportunity to put their case in Britain - is that somebody you would by a used car from?
You have taken one statement from this person that suits your case to prove something that does not exist.
The claim is that Irish children were taught to hate Britain through feeding children lies - no serious researcher has ever suggested that this was ever the case,
Keith's other star witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite, that Irish history was manipulated to avoid blaming Britain because it was politically expedient for Ireland to do so at a time of continuing emigration.
Neither of you have ventured to suggest exactly what "lies" were told - Keith has absolved himself from doing so by saying he knows nothing of Irish schools - would you like to give it a try - I very much doubt it?
Keith first constructed his argument around Kineally "someone who knows more than the rest of us put together" or some such words, on his basic misunderstanding of the term "revisionist" - now he is reduced to a deliberate misinterpretation of one single phrase.
As well as being an expert on the Famine, her field covers how history was taught - she based an entire book on the subject.
Keith works on soundbites - you don't even bother with that, you rely on people believing your own pronouncements, which nobody ever has really - you have always been an oddball with little support on this forum - your aggressive contempt for those you argue with has made sure of that, as has your extremist right-wing point of view. "Start taking more water with whatever you are drinking Jim." "Otherwise, typical Carroll" incoherent rant."do you really believe that's how an adult should behave - how old are you?
I joked about "pecking order" but it seems it was near enough to the truth to hit a raw spot - whatever you might know on these subjects is wiped out by your aggressive unpleasant manner of talking down to people - your latest offering has reverted you right back to your old insecure insulting behaviour.
Keith's other argument has been that the teaching of Irish history has led the Irish people to hate Britain - he has been forced to frantically back-pedal from that as he has been totally unable to identify any hatred, so he now - all of a sudden - never said that the Irish people hate Britain - a somewhat stupid claim in the face of his own statement.
Keith's now serial dishonesty which has now gone viral, rules him out of any discussion as far as I|'m concerned.
You're own behavior, particularly your refusal to back up your opinion with documented and identified facts, more or less rules you out and your sneery, insecure manner makes any contact extremely unpleasant.
Your ignorance of Irish history is, to say the least, spectacular, and your contempt for the Irish and their understanding and respect for their culture and history is distasteful - your level of argument on this matter is that of a B.N.P. ignoramous.
You want to continue arguing - fine - the subject interests me, but you are going to have to start behaving like an adult if you want to discuss with me - otherwise - go and talk to Keith - you're pretty well matched.
I have no intention of reopening The Famine farce again with you - you refused to address the salient points of the subject last time and I doubt if you want to relive that embarrassment again, so all we can look forward to would be more blustering and abusive haranguing - not interested.
The fact, as I understand them, can be found here 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM - you want to discuss them then do so with documented and identified facts of your own and if you manage do do so without the accompanied abusive arrogance, then maybe we'll discuss it - otherwise, take your unpleasant abuse elsewhere.
I've read what Kineally says and I know what her critics say - I also know that the last twenty years has brought a landslide of fresh study and information which has placed her at the forefront of the subject - that's the type of information you pick up from actually reading the subject rather than carefully selecting convenient snippets from the net.
You entire argument here has been reminiscent of Conservative Unionism - aggressive, bully-boy bluster, which would have given the Irish every reason to hate Britain, had they been inclined.
Let's see if you can manage to put a lid on it and produce some real, verified facts instead of insulting invective.
Give it a try - Keith's out, as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting that you should start contradicting Kineally though - do you want to be struck down by one of Keith's lightning-bolts?Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 05:00 AM

"The claim is that Irish children were taught to hate Britain through feeding children lies"

No Jim that is not "The claim" as you put it, that is the claim as you perceive it. Go back and look at what was actually said.

"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."

Culture of "blame" - "heroes" and "villains" - it most certainly does keep hatred alive - worked for you didn't it Jim. Had you looked at that documentary about the IRA's border campaign of 1956 to 1962 you would have heard the reasons what brought the "volunteers" to join the IRA - you'll soon find out that Louise Richardson was not alone.

There again you never did get back on whether or not it can be considered acceptable for a government to dictate what history is taught and what slant to put on it. But that is what the government did in Irish schools after independence.

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

Keith's other argument has been that the teaching of Irish history has led the Irish people to hate Britain

Nope that was your take on what has been said. Certainly it probably contributed to causing some Irish people to hate Britain enough to plant bombs that killed innocent Irish and British civilians - or are you going to try and tell us that that never happened - just like you tried to tell us that there were no cross border campaigns?

Tell us all what you thought was going through the minds of those who planted the Omagh Bomb - a free united Ireland? - unfortunately the cost the "men of the gun" demand comes at far too high a price. But I forgot Jim you are all for coercing people by force of arms.

I have no intention of reopening The Famine farce again with you

Care to explain then why you continually make reference to it and try to drift the thread? There is a very good reason that you don't want to open a Famine thread of your own - your ignorance and lack of knowledge there would be demonstrated as clearly as it has been here and on numerous WWI threads.

As for facts and statistics and detail nobody, not even you, has to-date countered them or corrected them. Wonder why not? I mean if they were just "invented" proving them false would be easy wouldn't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:27 AM

"No Jim that is not ""
Yes it is.
My family were brought up under the Irish education system so I know from personal experience exactly how it worked
There is no evidence that the Irish hate Britain - Keith has failed to come up with any.
Any hatred comes from British citizens and is based around how the Six Counties administration behaved, nothing to do with education.
Kineally accused the system of ignoring the question of blame - she specifically blames Britain for he famine outcome and goes   - the "Heroes and villians" refers to the limitations of Irish education in teaching events rather than why those events occurred.
It's utterly ridicullous to claim that Irish education deliberately caused anybody to consider join the IRA.
All Irish schools until relatively recently, were largely owned and run by the Catholic Church who opposed Easter Week, opposed the IRA and excommunicated Catholics who were active members
Lets face it, unless you can show otherwise by disputing my list, Britain was culpable for the outcome of the Famine - the only question is whether British policy was deliberately adopted to solve 'The Irish Question' which now appears likely.
If teaching that in schools generates hatred, so be it - it would be wrong not to do so.
I was taught about the Nazi Holocaust in schools - I have no doubt that it generated some hatred against the German people - we have sit-coms to prove it did.
Wsa teaching that subject brainwashing British children to keep hatred alive through the generations - or was it just teaching history?
Up to 1995 no blame was ever apportioned in Irelan - Kineally's point - that is why the Famine has been virtually ignored as a subject for over a century, latterly in order to keep the road to Britain freely open to Irish emigrants.
Immediately after independence Irish schools taught the unvarnished facts, without explanation, just "heroes and villains" - the facts were never altered, but up to 1932, no attempt was made to explain them.
Following the setting up of The Irish Republican State, Irish history was manipulated in favour of Britain, apportioning no blame whatever.
That lasted to the early 60s when more meat began to be put on the skeleton.
The total change, where the Famine was examined minutely, didn't happen until 1997 - that was when the finger was pointed.
If the Irish education system distorted what was taught to kids - how was it distorted and why did it not produce wholesale hatred for Britain throughout Ireland - there is no evidence that it ever did - all the violence came from British Ireland
The Border camopaign is a total red-herring - that is traceble back to the growing unrest in the North - it was at that time that my uncle, aunt and their family were burned out of Derry and forced to flee to Dublin because of the increasing Unionist bigotry - the period is excellently documented in the Thames Television history of 'The Troubles'.
It is never acceptable for any Government to dictate the teaching of history - having been educated in the post Empire era in Britain, I know what an effect it can have on the understanding off the subject, where we were brought up to salute the flag, stand for the Queen and believe that the Empire was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You have, as far as I can see, an accurate account of how Irish histort was taught in Irish schools (can't remember it ever being taiught in English schools) and the reasons for why it was manipulated, certainly not to engender hatred, in fact the opposite.
If yo have any different account, please give it rather pointing at undigested facts and the words of a somewhat eccentric academic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:40 AM

"Certainly it probably contributed to causing some Irish"
Nope - his claim was that it engendered hatred for generations and he did not backtrack on it until I insisted that he produced proof of that hatred
Don;t go spoiling your efforts to get your act together - leave Keith's serial dishonest out of it.
" facts and statistics"
Not sure what " facts and statistics" yoiu are talking about - I've given you the reaso why The Famine was never properly examined - the same applies to Easter Week, which was similarly neglected for political reasons
Jim Carroll