BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel O'Connell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rising ended such hopes. The fools"

You call a entire nation "fools"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'm waiting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cue some very intensive web- browsing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Or that Home Rule was a done deal?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve,

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

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

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

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

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

Then from Raggy we got these points:


1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:38 AM

You bet Professor. All the historians say so, right? Ooops- I mean the live ones & etc.

By the way, "journalists and novelists" were plenty good enough for YOU when you were wittering on about World War I .......

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

Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist!

Keith - you have been swamped with evidence -

None at all that substantiates your wild claim, "The Brits were shelling unarmed non combatants - including women and children - "

Just give us your strongest piece of evidence for it.

Raggy,
1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

The rebels were reviled by Dubliners. Do you deny that they did?
I quoted the historian Catrionna Pennel who researched the mood of Irish people after the invasion of Belgium, and I pointed out that over 200 000 Irishmen volunteered for the British Army.

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

Yes. But not during the rising or in its aftermath. Only after the executions.

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

Some certainly. But for the rising it would not have happened, and probably not the Civil War either. (Plenty of firing squad executions during the civil war Jim. Is it only murder if Brits do it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:15 AM

"If you are a oppressed, persecuted and tyrannised people it is not "treason" to seek to overthrow those who hold power over you.


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

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

"For an hour the Helga showered shells inland from a 12-pounder.
Because of the terrain, including the railway bridge curving past the union hall, the Helga couldn't fire directly at the building; instead, it adopted the technique of 'dropping fire' - lobbing shells into the air, above the obstacles, hopefully to drop on its target."

Which of the two occasions the Helga fired are you referring to Jim? It would appear to be the shelling of Liberty Hall and as for "showering shells on anything" over the course of three-and-a-half hours 24 shells were fired ( One shell every 8 minutes 45 seconds - Roughly the same as the PIRA's Bloody Friday bombing campaign in 1972 - Only difference Helga was laying down targeted fire on an enemy position while the PIRA were deliberately and indiscriminately targeting civilian shoppers). "Dropping Fire" is a standard tactic for NGFS so nothing new there, and "hopefully" didn't enter into it the target was destroyed by 24 shells and abandoned by the enemy.

"The Volunteers in the Sackville Street area cheered at this own goal."

Well Jim they had to cheer at something, they also had to make stuff up, after all come the 29th April they had S.F.A. to laugh at at all did they?

The Mendicity Institute, that the "Volunteers" occupied contained the poorest and the most vulnerable in the city. What did the Volunteers do with them Jim? They simply turned them out to fend for themselves while they "gallantly" blazed away.

The Mendicity Institute "One of Dublin's oldest charities, established in 1818, Captain Seam Heuston of Commandant Daly's 1st Battalion was deployed here — operating under orders from James Connolly — about a half-mile to the west of the Four Courts on the south side of the Liffey at Usher's Island. His task was to control the route between the nearby Royal Barracks (now the National Museum of Ireland at Collins Barracks) and the Four Courts.

Upon taking the building, Heuston expelled the down-and-outs occupying it. Despite just being required to hold the position for a couple of hours, allowing other Volunteers to 'settle in' to their positions nearby, Heuston's force of just 13 kept it until Wednesday when they were surrounded and Heuston surrendered to save lives." - Source: easter1916.ie website

The lives Heuston was most concerned with saving of course were those of his own men - the innocents he had turned out could go to blazes as far as he was concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 09:35 AM

Whoops - forgot to add this
Jim Carroll

For an hour the Helga showered shells inland from a 12-pounder.
Because of the terrain, including the railway bridge curving past the union hall, the Helga couldn't fire directly at the building; instead, it adopted the technique of 'dropping fire' - lobbing shells into the air, above the obstacles, hopefully to drop on its target.
The artillery bombardment and the constant rattle of machine guns poured an immense amount of lethal firepower into a crowded urban area. The Irish Times reported that this 'caused intense excitement in the district, where there is a large population of the poorer class of residents'.
As a synonym for rampant terror and the slaughter of the innocent, 'intense excitement' somewhat understated the matter.
For an hour it showered shells inland from a 12-pounder.

Because of the terrain, including the railway bridge curving past the union hall, the Helga couldn't fire directly at the building; instead, it adopted the technique of 'dropping fire' - lobbing shells into the air, above the obstacles, hopefully to drop on its target.
The artillery bombardment and the constant rattle of machine guns poured an immense amount of lethal firepower into a crowded urban area. The Irish Times reported that this 'caused intense excitement in the district, where there is a large population of the poorer class of residents'.
As a synonym for rampant terror and the slaughter of the innocent, 'intense excitement' somewhat understated the matter.
bullets, whether or not there were visible targets. The aim seemed to be to immobilize the rebels by making the streets unusable.
There were snipers at Trinity College and elsewhere.
And anything living that entered those fields of fire was a trigger-touch away from death.

Meanwhile, fires were starting; the buildings along Eden Quay. Artillery in Trinity College pounded Bachelors Walk.
A shell aimed at the GPO exploded in the offices of the Freeman's Journal, a newspaper that backed John Redmond and his Parliamentary Party. The Volunteers in the Sackville Street area cheered at this own goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 08:44 AM

Keith - you have been swamped with evidence - your response is to ignore it, trawl through the net and offer opinions as facts
I could furnish you with a few more who possibly agree with you, but they are no more than opinions, as are yours.
Patsy McGarry is a religious journalist for the Irish Times and no more qualified to express an opinion on the Rising than anybody else.
You are doing what you always do - presenting your own bigotetd opinion then scraping around for supporters.
Address the facts that have been put before you - or better still - go read a book.
Your arrogance in declaring that you have never read a book on Ireland and are not interested enough in the subject ever to do so, then to dismiss the Irish population as ignorant and gullible supporters of murder is beyond belief.
Terrytoon
Some idea of what exactly was happening - from an eye witness account to be found in 'The Scrap' by Gene Kerigan, based on the experiences of Republican, Charlie Saurin.
You can throw as many of these as you like and they will be matched one hundredfold by what was being done by the well-armed and well trained Brits.
Give us a break and address the documented facts, not your version of them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 08:05 AM

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

1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 07:55 AM

Jim, it is not just T and I who hold these views.
Irish journalist Patsy McGarry has written that the 1916 Rising was "an immoral and anti-democratic act organised by a minority within a minority who, looking into their own souls, saw there what they deemed was right for the Irish people".
See my Indy link below.

Irish Times,
"Mr Dodd said the horrific death toll among civilians adds to our understanding of why Pádraig Pearse decided to call off the rebellion. About 45 were killed on the last day of the Rising, the highest number of the week."
"It also explains the furious reaction to the rebellion among Dublin civilians in the immediate aftermath of surrender."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/easter-rising-glasnevin-researchers-reach-definitive-death-toll-1.2165878

The Independent,
"The Irish "Few" were reviled by Church and people, cursed in Irish newspapers, blamed for the mass looting by the tens of thousands of Dublin poor who thronged the streets under fire to take those luxuries – new shoes, jackets, heaps of coal, sweets, even pianos – that they could never otherwise hope to possess. Only the brutality with which the Crown executed the leaders of 1916 – shot after secret (and thus illegal) courts-martial – turned public scorn at the rebels into outrage against the British."

"If its creators had not declared for Germany, the British might have been able to brush the Rising aside as a violent but hot-headed local rebellion. But for a British government facing the German onslaught in 1916, this was an act of gross treachery, "

"But in the Republic itself, as long ago as 1966 – on the 50th anniversary of the Rising, when it was still a very Church-bound Catholic nation – young men and women were already sickened by the clerical and republican political fawning over the untouchable heroes of 1916. On a visit to Dublin in the late Seventies, the brother of a journalist friend of mine dumped his school books on my lap one evening with the imperishable command: "Look at what the gob-shites made us read!" Sure enough, each of his "history" books would end in 1921 – with the victory of the War of Independence against Britain, thus deleting the 1922-23 civil war – and treated Pearse as a saint-in-waiting. Could the Irish have been so gullible? Sure enough, I took out one of the man's old schoolbooks again and there was James Carty's A Junior History of Ireland (1959), in which Pearse is "one of the noblest characters in Irish history"."

"An estimated 3,500 Irish soldiers were killed on the Somme, 2,000 from what is now Northern Ireland, 1,200 from what is now the Republic. In the Rising, only 485 were killed, more than half of them civilian men, women and children, and a mere 48 Irish rebels – a figure that did not appear in those Irish school history books I was handed with such derision all those years ago."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/irelands-easter-rising-and-how-history-is-being-twisted-in-celebrating-the-struggle-for-independence-a6820141.html

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 07:16 AM

Jim,
The Brits were shelling unarmed non combatants - including women and children - you might describe that as murder.

I think that is just propaganda. A lie.
The murders T refers to are undisputed facts. They could easily have been overpowered, but they had to die.

"Home Rule WAS a done deal"
Again - you hasve been given the evidence and the quotes and contiinue to pronounce rather than provide your own.

It was a done deal. The Act was passed when Britain had no intention of joining any war between Germany and France.
Had Germany not invaded Belgium, you would have had home rule in 1914.

Rag,
If you are a oppressed, persecuted and tyrannised people it is not "treason" to seek to overthrow those who hold power over you.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 07:11 AM

Conveniently found insane, shipped of to Canada, released and given a full military pension.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 06:27 AM

It can only be seen as "treason" by the dominant power.

If you are a oppressed, persecuted and tyrannised people it is not "treason" to seek to overthrow those who hold power over you.


For over 700 years that was the situation in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 06:22 AM

24th April Jom:

" a small team of Volunteers and Fianna Éireann members swiftly captured the Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park and disarmed the guards. The goal was to seize weapons and blow up the ammunition store to signal that the Rising had begun. They seized weapons and planted explosives, but the blast was not big enough to be heard across the city.[64] The 23-year-old son of the fort's commander was fatally shot when he ran to raise the alarm.[65]

That is unarmed civilian Number 1 shot by your "Freedom Fighters" Jom - don't know about you but I'd call it murder.

"A contingent under Seán Connolly occupied Dublin City Hall and adjacent buildings.[66] They attempted to seize neighbouring Dublin Castle, the heart of British rule in Ireland. As they approached the gate a lone police sentry, James O'Brien, attempted to stop them and was shot dead by Connolly."

That is yet another instance of an unarmed man being gunned down - don't know about you Jom but I'd call it murder.

The difference of course is that the British Army pursued charges against the person you mention - he was found to be insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

Raggytash - 30 Apr 16 - 05:27 AM

Again Raggy you miss the point, it is immaterial whether or not help was actually sent - it was sought, or offered - the fact that in most cases it never materialised was down to the foreign powers inability to get it past English/British naval blockade. But just entering into discussions with an enemy power in time of war is considered to be treason.

See that you have sidestepped the fact that Carroll denies that such discussions ever took place between September 1914 and April 1916.

No remarks at all about the self-appointed Military Council (SEVEN MEN - the "blood sacrifice" believers) forcing the Rising on the two nationalist organisations against the wishes of their respective executive bodies. The Rising was set up to fail by those who led it. The destruction of the centre of Dublin and ALL loss of life was THEIR responsibility as it all came about as a direct consequence of THEIR actions. They did stay true to form later in the dying stages of the Civil War, hardline "nationalist" supporters carried out wanton destruction of property, infrastructure and state assets in their "dog-in-a-manger" dying throws when they knew the game was up. Their actions hindered the economic advancement of the fledgling Irish Republic which took decades to recover.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:58 AM

I've searched the web and the only reference I can find to "murder" are those concerning the illegal killings by British troops during the Rising, formost being the at least five carried out in cold blood by C Bowen Colthurst
The accusation of "murder" sums up this pair's entire argument - jingooistic Britain didn't do it" (yet again) claptrap.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:32 AM

I should add the Italian and Spanish defenders at Dun an Oir surrendered ................. THEN they were massacred on the orders of Authur Grey, Lord Deputy of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:27 AM

I think you will find the support the Irish were promised over the centuries never really materialised.

As examples the Italian and Spanish were massacred by the British at Dun An Oir in 1580. There were just 500 of them. The French failed to land at Bantry in 1796. The Germans failed to land any sizable amount of guns 1915 etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:26 AM

"Impossible according to the Suspensory Act of 1914"
That was not my claim - it was a direct quote from the Wiki entry of home rule - the dates are given
You continue to pronounce without evidence - who says it is impossible other than you?
"Home Rule WAS a done deal"
Again - you hasve been given the evidence and the quotes and contiinue to pronounce rather than provide your own.
The Redmodites described the July 1016 efforts as a "betrayal (True or false) and they were hardly known as revolutionaries
"What else would you call gunning down unarmed men Jom?"
An article in this mornings paper announces that the relatives of the rebels are seeking an apology for the at least five cold blooded murders carried out by the killer of Francis Skeffington Sheehy, Captain J. C. Bowen-Colthurst.
Colthurst's name is the only one ever connected with "murder" - the accusation that the rebels were "murders" is yours alone
They were executed for their part in the Rising - as revolutionaries, not as "murderers"
This is a squalid invention of yours and Keith's
The Brits were shelling unarmed non combatants - including women and children - you might describe that as murder.
Where is your evidence that rebels ever deliberately gunned down unarmed women and children - who else makes such a claim?
You are a pair of anachronistic jingoistic making it up as you go along - nobody is putting up these claims apart from yourselves.
This is little more than a rerun of your Irish Famine Holocaust denial - this time with the racist mask taken off - the Irish deluded people as a whole ignorant of their own history and supporting murder - how else would you describe that other than racist?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:12 AM

Raggytash - 30 Apr 16 - 05:00 AM

That is not the point in dispute - Jom the infallible denies that it ever happened - I am merely pointing out that it did and that there is ample evidence to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:09 AM

Oops, Sorry my mistake !

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:05 AM

I thought you said the Germans called the Irish "Gallant Allies" not the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:00 AM

"No surprises there the same was true of damn near every single rebellion in Ireland since the time of Elizabeth the First"

What do you really expect a subjugated nation to do. They have been invaded by a powerful neighbour, they do not have the wherewithal to defeat that neighbour so they look for support.

I think you will find Europe did the same in both WW1 and WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:59 AM

despicable accusation that the rebels were allies of the Germans

The rebels themselves claimed the Germans as "allies!"
"Gallant allies" actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:52 AM

Jim,
The Home Rule Bill was opposed vehemently by the Tories

Very silly Jim.
Obviously most Acts Of Parliament are opposed by the opposition. So what? That is their job!

and blocked by the House of Lords; it was eventually got through by Royal assent.

Nonsense Jim!
It was passed by a majority vote in the House Of Commons.
The unelected Lords were not allowed to prevent the will of the people as expressed by Parliament. In such situations they can be, and were, ignored.
Royal Assent is just a rubber stamp. Acts have to get it if they are passed by Parliament, never if they are not.
The rest of your post is a paste job from Wiki!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:40 AM

Steve,
Yes there is good information in this thread, but there is also misinformation,

Will you finally support one of your assertions and give an example of some misinformation.
Were you referring to Jim's claim that the Home Rule Act had not been passed? That was very misleading.
His claims about heavy artillery being deployed in Dublin?
Also misleading.
Anything else Steve?

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