BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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

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

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

and "tricked by propaganda"

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

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

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

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

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

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

and "tricked by propaganda"

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to consider them fools and idiots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly and the Hairie Bowsies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not that I'm too surprised by your attitude.

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

Jim Carroll - 24 May 16 - 07:00 AM

Maths has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the things I find rather odd about that are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All facts Jim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 16 - 04:36 PM

Of course what they did achieve was partition which id further away now than it was in 1914

1000 up.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 16 - 03:41 PM

"Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?"

Ah you mean like Sir Max Hastings and Tim Pat Coogan - must remember that.

Ruth Dudley Edwards on the other hand:

Education:
University College,Dublin; Girton and Wolfson Colleges Cambridge University.
                
Professional qualifications:        
B.A., M.A., D.Litt(National University of Ireland.
Honorary D.Litt        from Queen's University        Belfast        (2011)

Awards:
National University of Ireland Travelling Studenship Prize 1968
Prize for Irish Historical Research (1978 - For Patrick Pearse)
Tait Black Memorial Prize 1988 - for Victor Gollancz)                                                                                
Employment:
Tutor in History (University College, Dublin)        1964-5;
Lecturer in History and        English        (Further Education institutions        in Cambridge) 1965-67.

She certainly has the tickets punched of the cabal of seven who led 1,800 people to war ensuring that none of them had a clue as to what they were doing, and who were even more clueless as to what they were going to after the event.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 May 16 - 02:18 PM

A few years back, I heard this song about the Rising by Mudcatter Brendan Devereux, and recorded it with his permission. It pays tribute to ancestors of his who fought in the Rising, and recently Brendan had the honor of playing it at the commemoration ceremonies at Liberty Hall.

Liberty Hall

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 01:09 PM

Before this becomes too much of an issue, perhaps it's best to deal with it now.
Pearse's "latent homosexuality" is based on a poem he wrote in 1909, which describing the writer kissing boy.
It's an old controversy which has never been resolved, the arguments being that he was writing in the third person or that it was a misinterpretation from the translated Irish:

"I think someone was fairly on the money when they pointed out that the English language has dealt with so many matters, that it has developed a fair body of innuendo, double-speak and implication over its existence. That's not that same for Irish however, with terms like teaghmháil, which is what Pearse uses and is translated to touch, being a fairly straight forward, non-controversial word, which means physical contact and never intends anything sensual or sexual. Likewise, with the word 'mischief', which has many other connotations than the míghníomh (negative or bad deed) used in original. No one will do this poem justice, unless he can give it due consideration in Irish.
It boils down to how one interprets the poem.The mistranslation of one word can change the entire meaning of the poem.
The word 'i dteagmháil' is often used in irish as something entirely different to 'touching',for example,and can not be put down to 'physical contact',

Quote Originally Posted by Riadach View Post
I think someone was fairly on the money when they pointed out that the English language has dealt with so many matters, that it has developed a fair body of innuendo, double-speak and implication over its existence. That's not that same for Irish however, with terms like teaghmháil, which is what Pearse uses and is translated to touch, being a fairly straight forward, non-controversial word, which means physical contact and never intends anything sensual or sexual. Likewise, with the word 'mischief', which has many other connotations than the míghníomh (negative or bad deed) used in original. No one will do this poem justice, unless he can give it due consideration in Irish.
It boils down to how one interprets the poem.The mistranslation of one word can change the entire meaning of the poem.
The word 'i dteagmháil' is often used in irish as something entirely different to 'touching',for example,and can not be put down to 'physical contact',

Béidh mé ag dul i dteagmháil leat-I'll be having a word with you.

Whatever the case, there has never been any suggestion that Pearse acted on the 'inclination' if it existed at all.
Not surprisingly, it has re-surfaced during the centenary year and has been grasped by the few dissident voices as proof positive that Pearse fancied boys.
Had there been any truth in the suggestion, the Brits would, no doubt, have used it to denigrate Pearse as they did Casement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:47 AM

Especially after a century.
Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?
I believe the same was suggested of Lewis Carroll.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:42 PM

I'm not really contributing to this thread, but I wonder if someone can tell me how you'd know that someone was a "latent paedophile." Think about it. Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:10 PM

"Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession."
Now you really are joking.
Having dismissed statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes.... as "opinions" you are now defending your use of a self-confessed "revisionist historian" a tabloid journalist cum-thriller writer as some sort of expert - do you know what "revisionist" means?.
This lady described the leader of the Rising as a "Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish".
Look as I might, I can't see a mention of her being qualified in any way as a psychoanalyst, which would be necessary for anybody to make such a statement (apart from a tabloid journalist of course!).
I feel a touch of the Victor Meldrews coming on - "I don't ****** beleeeeeeve it".
At a time when the Easter Week Heroes are being lauded to the skies by the Irish press, media, historians, educationalists... and the Irish people in general, this tabloid journalist has decided (with no corroborating evidence), that the leader was a latent homosexual/pedophile - you may describe her as "respected" - I suggest she if looking for a story - it's called "headline hunting" in the trade.
You are doing exactly what Keith has become noted for - you are making rules as to which piece of information is permissible and which is not, and using whoever you wish to try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It really is not your day, is it?

Back to the real world.

The logic of the Rising
From Ireland's Civil War Carlton Younger (1968)
To call Pearse and his comrades a minority is not quite the truth. They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow. The people wanted change, release from the ubiquitous Dublin Castle and the right to govern themselves, but majorities invariably want change to be gradual, want to keep grasping familiar props with one hand while they reach for the unfamiliar with the other. Tradesmen and shopkeepers like to see new customers on their thresholds before they relinquish their old ones. So the majority of the Irish still believed in Redmond's national¬ism, not seeing that this was outmoded, that Home Rule was obsolescent before it was even implemented, that new young leaders were breaking new ground and seeing ahead of them, far away as yet, and beyond innumerable barriers, a promised land.
The Easter Rising of 1916 was not a matter of impatience, of reluctance to wait until the end of the war for Home Rule. In 1912 even Pearse had thought the Bill acceptable, but the desire for independence had mounted, outstripping the lab¬orious passage of the Bill. Its provisions of a bi-cameral Par¬liament in Dublin with little more power than a County Council no longer went far enough, but it might have been tolerated as a stepping stone to complete independence had the threatened amendment on partition not cracked the stone in two. Even as it stood, Pearse and his friends were sure that England would leave the legislation to moulder rather than engage in fresh struggles with the intransigent Orangemen.
The Rising was a travesty of what it might have been but, perhaps because it was a travesty, triumph flowed from it. Skilled professional revolutionaries would never have won the hearts of the people, and, without their faith, their conviction, there could have been no effective fight for freedom in the subsequent years. It was the ardour, the dedication, the heroism of the young rebels in the face of inevitable disaster, and finally the cold, professional savagery with which they were met, that won them their day. For the people saw at last that all the complexities of past years were meaningless, that the issue was as clear and as substantial as Waterford glass. That was the real consequence of the Rising."
Jim Carroll

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

"If you are going to oppose the army of the greatest power in the world you do."

Ehmmm Jim the year is 1916 - what else was going on that year?

Another fact for you, but I know that you will say that its wrong, in 1914 of all the major combatant powers involved Great Britain had the smallest army in the conflict - one-tenth the size of those of either France or Germany, by 1916 it had been fighting the largest and most powerful army in the world for two years. Maybe that would explain why the troops sent to Dublin were raw untested recruits straight out of training.

Yes this Ruth Dudley Edwards:

Dudley Edwards was born and brought up in Dublin and educated at University College Dublin (UCD), Girton College, Cambridge, and Wolfson College, Cambridge. Her father was the Irish historian Professor Robert Dudley Edwards. Her brother Owen Dudley Edwards is a historian at Edinburgh University. In 1965, she married a fellow UCD graduate, the journalist Patrick Cosgrave.

Her Non-Fiction Works:

Her non-fiction books include An Atlas of Irish History, Patrick Pearse (National University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research), James Connolly, Victor Gollancz: A Biography (winner of the James Tait Black Memorial Prize), The Pursuit of Reason: The Economist 1843–1993, The Faithful Tribe: An Intimate Portrait of the Loyal Institutions (shortlisted for Channel 4/The House Politico's Book of the Year) and Newspapermen: Hugh Cudlipp, Cecil King and the glory days of Fleet Street. Her Patrick Pearse: The Triumph of Failure (winner of the National University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research), first published in 1977, was reissued in 2006 by Irish Academic Press. In 2009 she published Aftermath: The Omagh Bombings and the Families' Pursuit of Justice a book about the civil case that was won on 8 June 2009 against the Omagh bombers. The Faithful Tribe was criticised by Ulster Protestant journalist Susan McKay as "sentimental and blinkered",[5] but the New Statesman contributor Stephen Howe described it as "engrossing and illuminating"[6] and Irish Independent journalist John A. Murphy described it as "enormously readable, entertaining and informative".[7] In 2016 she published The Seven: The Lives and Legacies of the Founding Fathers of the Irish Republic (Oneworld), a re-examination of the Easter Rising, addressing the fundamental questions and myths surrounding Ireland's founding fathers."

Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:45 AM

I fecked up the
ROBERT BLAKE
link
yer 'tis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:42 AM

"By the way Jim you do not need guns to drill, you do not need guns to train."
If you are going to oppose the army of the greatest power in the world you do.
You should know that with all your (claimed) military experience
" I'd have thought that "latent" is the key word there
"Ruth Dudley Edwards (born 24 May 1944, in Dublin, Ireland) is an Irish, self professed revisionist historian,[1][2][3] crime novelist, journalist and broadcaster, in both Ireland and the United Kingdom. She is, amongst other positions, a columnist with the Irish Sunday Independent."
In contrast a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blake,_Baron_Blake">Robert Blake
Tell me again about what you told Joe about taking his information from novels?
I ask again - was The Military service act not operable in 1918 when Britain attempted to enforce conscription on Ireland
A reminder
"Mr Bonar Law: How would you justify to the House of Commons delaying conscription? You can say, as the Prime Minister has just said, that time is required for machinery,"
or "Mr Herbert Fisher: Are you definitely satisfied that there is a military advantage in applying conscription to Ireland? I feel absolutely with you as to the bad effect on English public opinion of continuing to exempt Ireland; but we should look at it as a cold military proposition. English public opinion is sound. Our artisans will do their duty. You have to decide whether it is worth your while to enforce conscription in Ireland and thereby perhaps obtain disaffected elements for your army.
Lord Derby: They will be distributed through the army.
The Prime Minister: That is the one consideration that chiefly worried me. Is it worth while in a military sense? You will get 50, 000 at any rate, at a minimum, who will fight. These five divisions will be made up of excellent material, of young men up to twenty-five, at a time when we are taking old men.
Mr Churchill: I have not met one soldier in France who does not think we shall get good fighting material"
or
"Mr Churchill: The two measures should be regarded as independent, and be simultaneously introduced. I do not see the
advantage of delaying the application of the Military Service Act to Ireland. The dual policy should be loyally followed. I would press forward on the two roads. There is a great deal to be said against any delay in action once conscription is announced."

Try (19 May 16 - 12:49 PM)
Tell me why, if conscription was out of the question for Ireland, Britain attempted tyo push it through in 1918?
This is bloody insane.
You've has all this - it's done and dusted - Ireland lived under the threat of enforced conscription throughout the war and if that had happened it would have made the country unviable.
Haven't you learned how stupid it is to quote rulebooks that were persistently ignored whenever the authorities found them inconvenient.
I really don't know what you expect by persisting with this farce - you're already up to your arse in wreckage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:29 AM

Raggytash - 22 May 16 - 10:38 AM

Trust you enjoyed your break.

Ever heard of the Derby Scheme launched in the Autumn of 1915? It was an exercise carried out to see if conscription was necessary.

A National Register was compiled from July 1915

The Military Service Bill introduced in 27th January 1916 became the Military Service Act 2nd March 1916.

Those listed as being conscripts in your table prior to March came from the Derby Scheme those after were conscripts under the Act.

215,000 men enlisted while the scheme was on and another 2,185,000 attested for deferred enlistment. - so numbers seem to match

Call up under the Derby Scheme began: Groups 2 to 5 were called up in the last two weeks of January 1916, and Groups 6 to 13 in February. The last single groups other than the 18 year-olds were called up in March. This last batch were called up in parallel to the first men to be summoned under conscription under the Military Service Act. Attestation under the scheme ceased on 1 March 1916. - Source: Derby Scheme The Long, Long Trail

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:07 AM

Now let me get this right. Anyone who writes a biography writes indisputable fact - your take on the Blake chap who wrote about Bonar Law.

So does that mean that what Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote about Patrick Pearse is indisputable fact? Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish. Are these all indisputable facts Jim? Or are they just her opinions.

Ruth Dudley Edwards - Ireland grows up

The threat of conscription was a factor involving every country under the influence of Britain from August 1914."

Please find and provide a link to the Military Service Act 1914, one must have existed if conscription was a factor. I can direct you to one for Australia which they themselves cobbled together in 1911. But those conscripts could only be called upon to defend Australia itself.

No conscription anywhere in Britain or in the British Empire in 1914
No conscription anywhere in Britain or in the British Empire in 1915
Conscription on the mainland of Great Britain from March 1916, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1916
Conscription in Great Britain in 1917, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1917
Conscription in Great Britain in 1918, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1918

Give me the name of anyone conscripted in Ireland between August 1914 and November 1918.

Had the Easter Rising not happened and the brutish behaviour of Britain sickened the Irish people as a whole compulsory conscription would have been introduced. - Pure speculation on your part - merely your opinion - NOT FACT.

By the way Jim you do not need guns to drill, you do not need guns to train.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 May 16 - 10:38 AM

"1: The Military Service BILL 1916 was introduced to Parliament on the 27th January 1916 it became the Military Service Act 1916 on 2nd March, 1916 and became Law THEN - Not in January _ you see Jim those are the facts of the matter - not your ill-informed ramblings - see here - Military Service Act 1916"

Please account for the recruitment figures below:

                   Volunteers Conscripts Total
January 1916       49,411    16,554    65,965
February 1916       18,738    79,891    98,629
March 1916          15,876    113,617   129,493
April 1916          15,119    91,789    106,908

Can you suggest why, before the act was passed, some 210,000 men had been conscripted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 09:02 AM

"Now who was it that laughed when I pointed out that the Irish Volunteers who fought that Easter were well trained and drilled,"
They were neither trained nor disciplined beyond the level I have described.
The Dublin Police Chief says "gives evidence of better training and discipline than they have been credited with'" but nobody suggests they were any more than I have described - it was his opinion (which you have written off as irrelevant in a previous post regarding Bonar Law's biographer) based on nothing more than a personal impression
The rebels were not trained - they had no arms to have been - there really is no dispute anywhere about this fact.
They certainly were disciplined and they were dedicated and that's about the level of their training.
As I said, onwards and upward.
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 08:52 AM

"or are you going to deny that those things happened?"
Are you goiing to prove they actually happened - not up to me to make your argument for you.
"2nd March, 1916 a"
It was arrived at in January - doesn't matter when it came into law but it was still in force before the Rising so you are splitting hairs again
The threat of conscription was a factor involving every country under the influence of Britain from August 1914.
Did not Military Service Bill cease to exist in 1918, when Britain tried to enforce conscription - odd that!!
You have had copies of the debate attempting to involve Ireland in the war
Had the Easter Rising not happened and the brutish behaviour of Britain sickened the Irish people as a whole compulsory conscription would have been introduced.
We really are done with this it's done and dusted.
You are still attempting to isolate these arguments to ones that have been long settled - if you have any proof to the contrary, put it up.
Thank you for silently confirming your opposition to Ireland gaining Independence - "that'll do nicely", as the credit-card ad puts it.
Onwards and upwards
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 08:36 AM

"Where is your proof they are facts"

You mean apart from the fact that those things actually happened Jim - or are you going to deny that those things happened?

After all you did say that the Home Rule Bill was never passed by the Westminster Parliament didn't you? That it was defeated and thrown out by the Lords and the Tories - those were your facts and they have been conclusively proved wrong.

You also stated categorically as a fact that those responsible for the 1916 Easter Rising never colluded with the Germans - that too has been proven wrong. I could go on but won't apart from this one:

enforced conscription was first introduced in Britain in January 1916 - three months before the Rising - it was inevitable that, should it be deemed necessary, it would be introduced into Ireland

1: The Military Service BILL 1916 was introduced to Parliament on the 27th January 1916 it became the Military Service Act 1916 on 2nd March, 1916 and became Law THEN - Not in January _ you see Jim those are the facts of the matter - not your ill-informed ramblings - see here - Military Service Act 1916

2: From the above Act - who it applied to:

Every British male subject who

- on 15 August 1915 was ordinarily resident in Great Britain*** and who had attained the age of 19 but was not yet 41 and
- on 2 November 1915 was unmarried or a widower without dependent children

unless he met certain exceptions or had met the age of 41 before the appointed date, was deemed to have enlisted for general service with the colours or in the reserve and was forthwith transferred to the reserve. He now came under the controls specified in the Army Act. This was as of Thursday 2 March 1916.

Provision was made under Section 20 of the Reserve Forces Act 1882, for information being obtained from the man with regard to his preference for service in the Navy. The Admiralty had the first right of call on men who expressed this preference.

Men were encouraged to voluntarily enlist under the Group System (Derby Scheme) before the Act came into place.

Schedule of Exceptions (i.e. categories of men who were not deemed to have enlisted)

1. Men ordinarily resident in the Dominions abroad, or resident in Britain only for the purpose of their education or some other special purpose.

2. Existing members of the regular or reserve forces or of the Territorial Force who are liable for foreign service or who are, in the opinion of the Army Council, not suitable for foreign service.

3. Men serving in the Navy or Royal Marines or who are recommended for exception by the Admiralty.

4. Men in Holy Orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination.

5. Men who had served with the military or Navy and been discharged on grounds of ill-health or termination of service.

6. Men who hold a certificate of exemption or who have offered themselves for enlistment since 4 August 1914 but been rejected."

*** - ordinarily resident in Great Britain, i.e. Mainland Britain - NOT Great Britain & Ireland.

3: The decision to mount an armed rising was taken when by the IRB? Here I'll give you a hint:

The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany. - Source: "The Easter Rebellion" by Max Caulfield, page 18

So if they had already decided to rebel on the 5th September 1914 just WTF had the introduction of a Military Service Act that only applied to mainland Britain in 1916 have to do with it? Reasonable question based on Facts.

Jim Carroll - 22 May 16 - 06:47 AM

Now who was it that laughed when I pointed out that the Irish Volunteers who fought that Easter were well trained and drilled, and that the soldiers sent against them had only just finished their basic training - that was you wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:47 AM

You are still trying to divert this argument away from the actual subject on to an argument about argumnets - your stance it to reject documented facts and opinions based on those facts and have us accept your unqualified opinions without makin any effort to peroduce facts to back them up.
Time to move on, I think.

How the Risinfg was conducted.
From The Making of Ireland James Lydon
"Far from being a military shambles and the misconceived plot of poets and idealists intent on a blood-sacrifice, the organization of the rising in Dublin was praised subsequently by the British. The Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police said that the military articles published in The Irish Volunteer before the rising were worthy of praise and that the conduct of the rising itself was 'all done very well'. No less a person than General Maxwell reported to the war office in London that 'the fighting qualities so far displayed by the rebels gives evidence of better training and discipline than they have been credited with'. A member of the royal commission set up to investigate the rising, Sir Mackenzie Chalmers, was convinced by the evidence that it was 'exceedingly well arranged'; and Sir Mathew Nathan, a former soldier who became Under Secretary for Ireland, told the commission that 'the conduct of the insurrection showed greater organizing power and more military skill than had been attributed to the Volunteers'.
The original plans had been carefully worked out, but had to be modified when the German arms failed to be delivered and when MacNeill's influence caused most of the intending participants to withdraw, so that only about 1,800 in all came out in Dublin. By the time that Pearse, Connolly and the other leaders occupied their carefully chosen garrisons in Dublin, the most they could hope for was to hold out for a week or so and forcibly bring the notion of a sovereign Irish republic before the eyes of the world. Their strategy was original, unlike that normally practised by revolutionaries. Wimborne, the lord lieutenant, commented afterwards: 'There was no conflict in the streets. The ordinary tactics of revolutionaries, which I imagine to be barricades and so on, were not resorted to ... at the very start they took to the houses and house-tops'.
Even had larger numbers of Volunteers joined in, the lack of arms would have been a disaster. On St Patrick's Day, when a grand Volunteer parade was held, the police carefully counted all those on parade, which came to 4,555; but only 1,817 of these were armed, half with old rifles and the rest with shot¬guns. Outside Dublin the rising took place only in a few scattered places in counties Galway, Wexford and Dublin, and there, too, the lack of arms was a disaster. In Galway, for example, where Liam Mellows had been promised 3,000 German rifles from the Aud, the 1,400 Volunteers who joined the rising (more than fought in Dublin) had, according to a police report, only seven rifles, 86 shotguns and seven revolvers. No wonder Liam Mellows said later: 'I had to send many of them home. I never knew the blackness of despair until then'.
Under those circumstances, then, what was achieved was beyond what poets and academics might be expected to achieve. There is no doubt that Patrick Pearse was consumed with the notion of being a new Cu Chulainn, prepared to sacrifice himself for Ireland. But he was also the author of The Murder Machine, an important work on education, and the founder of St Enda's, a school under lay management, where his theories were put into practice. He was not just a visionary, but a capable editor, teacher and organizer who gave the British government a fright and nearly caused a crisis in the middle of the war."
Some "shambles", some "contemptible joke"

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"And nearly all of them are writers expressing their OPINIONS -
One again , a total distortion of what I have put up,
The overwhenlming number are either direct quotes or linked to statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, The Proclomation and cabinet notes.... and others involved at the time.
In return you have offered totally zero - the nearest t you cone to a piece of documented evidence is a vague wave (with identification) of a manual or law book - about as valid as "everybody believes...."
Your dishonesty is now palpable.
The OPINION of Robert Blake
Who was Bonar Law's biographer - are you suggesting he made it up - without having read it even? You're getting better even than Keith at this style of arguing.
That is one singlle quote from a larger selection of many such
selections.
"here are examples of FACTS"
Where is your proof they are facts - have you linked us to your sources - NO YOU HAVEN'T - you never do
Have you responded to requests to do so - NO YOU HAVEN'T - you never do
Where is your evidence that all of these are not just conjured up out of your head?
Your no 7 piece of nonsense is typical of the crassness of your argument
Conscription was always an issue in Ireland - enforced conscription was first introduced in Britain in January 1916 - three months before the Rising - it was inevitable that, should it be deemed necessary, it would be introduced into Ireland - the possibility of Conscription threatened the existence of Ireland as a nation - you have been given the facts surrounding bringing in conscription - including the cabinet debate.
This piece of knitting seems to have become completely unravelled - I can't remember an argument we have had that has ever reached such a stage of completion as this one.
I assume that you haven't responded to your Spain, France, Norman allegations we have to conclude that, despite your protests, you believe that not only is Ireland not entitled to independence but she has never really wanted and has been conned by foreigners into asking fr it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 05:08 AM

"Every single statement I have put up I have taken from accredited and identified sources"

And nearly all of them are writers expressing their OPINIONS - not necessarily quoting or detailing facts:

They have created for the first time in history' protested Joe Devlin, leader of the Ulster Nationalists, 'two Irelands. Providence arranged the geography of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr Lloyd George) has changed it. - Joe Devlin's Opinion.

Chief among them stands the Canadian, Andrew Bonar Law. He declared that until War came in 1914 he had cared for only two things in politics, Ulster and Tariff Reform. 'Over Ulster', writes his biographer Robert Blake, 'his success was indisputable, and her survival as an autonomous province wholly independent of the Irish Republic is in no small measure the achievement of Bonar Law/ Blake recognises the greater popular appeal of Carson's theatrical leadership, and Craig's contribution in building up a solid backbone of indigenous resistance, but he nonetheless concludes that without the uncompromising support of Bonar Law, without his much criticized decision to pledge the whole of the English Conservative Party the Ulster cause, it is very unlikely that Ulster would stand where ut stands today". - The OPINION of Robert Blake

Those are examples of OPINIONS here are examples of FACTS

1: The Irish Volunteers split into two groups in 1914 a Redmondite Faction and a pro-IRB Pearse Faction. The split was roughly 92.5% Redmondites and only about 7.5% supporting Pearce - It was this latter group who were responsible for planning and carrying out the Easter Rising of 1916.

2: In September 1914 the Supreme Council of the IRB decided that they would mount an armed insurrection in Ireland during the course of the Great Britain's war with Germany and that they would seek German assistance to do it.

3: It is a fact that the Third Irish Home Rule Bill was passed by the Westminster Parliament and that it was passed without any Amending Clauses. For it to have done that it is a fact that there had to have been agreement on it.

4: It is a fact that Connelly and Pearse set up the Military Council of the Irish Volunteers to isolate the Executive Council of that organisation and its Leaders.

5: It is a fact that this Military Council plotted their rising in secret and deliberately mislead the rest of the membership of the Irish Volunteers and its leaders - When the Executive heard of the rising on or about the 21st/22nd April they immediately countermanded the orders given.

6: After the rising had been suppressed an attempt was made to enact the Third Irish Home Rule Act - negotiations came to nothing because in the wake of the rising pro-unionist views had hardened. Nothing apart from the rising had happened in Ireland between 8th July 1914 when there was reluctant agreement to a temporary arrangement and July 1916 when Lloyd George entered into discussions with both John Redmond and Sir Edward Carson - this time Carson sought firm assurance that Ulster could not be forced into all Ireland Government against the wishes of the people of Ulster.

7: The decision by the IRB/Pearse faction of the Irish Volunteers to resort to armed struggle was taken in September 1914 therefore conscription (March 1916 which excluded conscription in Irleand) or even the prospect of conscription (April 1918) could not in any way, shape, or form be a relevant reason for, or cause of the events that occurred in Dublin that Easter week-end in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:45 AM

"Jim, if I am repeating things that are untrue, identify one."
Now you really do have to be joking
Every time you have written that Ireland would have become independent if it hadn't been for the uprising, you have repeated a lie.
You have been given masses of evidence that this was not the case, you have not countered that with anything whatever of your own, yet you have continued to repeat it as if you were saying it for the first tome
It is not true, it has been proven to be false with accredited facts, you have totally failed to come up with an accredited fact - not one singe "real historian", yet you continue to repeat it.
That is just one of many of your 'cracked record impressions'.
If thete are no responses from this pair, I will continue with my assesment of the period, moving on to the enforced Treaty and probably finishing with the effect that that Treaty had on the Catholic minority of the six counties - that shoul;d sort out the rest of the week.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"Joe, we keep telling you that we support independence but not the rising."
And we keep telling you that The British destroyed ny chance of Independence by its support of an aggressive armed group of extremists which succeeded in turning the wished of the Irish people to a demand for Irish Independence.
Your continuing ignoring of that fact is not only an insult to the wishes of the Irish people then, but an indication that you both have no interest in Ireland gaining freedom unless it was that demanded by a long-dead Empire.

"More Jim Carroll Made-Up-Shit""
"As to the various "Irish Rebellions" down through those 800 years if you look into them you will find that they were mainly instigated either by Spain or France who promised much but delivered little"
"For the catalogue of how France and Spain cynically used disaffected elements in both Scotland and Ireland"
"it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt,"
Don't you think it rather stupid to describe as "made up shit" something that is readily available on this thread - in multiple examples?
Every single statement I have put up I have taken from accredited and identified sources, everything you have claimed has been concocted with no attempt to identify, using your, "Let's Re-write Irish History' manual.
If nothing else, your refusal to invalidate anything - anything at all - you have claimed is indicative that it is pure invention on your part.
This has now become an exercise in moving away from the actual facts of the argument and arguing about arguments.
"As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL"
Political lip-service when it is contradicted by everything you say, sort of like "Some of my best friends are black....."
Respond toi what YOU have said, not what you claim to believe.
You have questioned the validity of Ireland as a united nation by travelling back thought time to the Normans, you have suggested that Ireland has been conned by France and Spain into demanding Independence in the first place, you have suggested that the Uprising which was followed by a War of Independence was not supported by the Irish people, and your friend has suggested that the present celebrations talking place in Ireland is down to the Ish love of celebration, respective of the cause.
Keith's actual pearls of wisdom - "I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate."   
You have about as much respect for national Insependence as did your Empire before you.
Back up your case with facts - not empty rhetoric.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:53 AM

Joe, we keep telling you that we support independence but not the rising.
What is there not to understand about that??

Jim, if I am repeating things that are untrue, identify one.

Also Jim,
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 -

No. They have teams of historians, and you will find no historian who claims anything but a minority support for the rising.
Sinn Fein campaigned for full independence but got few votes and went broke for lack of support.
All the elected leaders supported the 1914 Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:40 AM

Taking this as the subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
Here is how much of this post is relevant
From: Jim Carroll - 21 May 16 - 12:26 PM

One of the benefits of long-running arguments like this for me has always been that they force you to check things you think you know and have always taken for granted and bring them together into one big whole.

You mean irrelevant factoids such as you were wrong about the Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 being defeated and thrown out – When in actual fact it passed as an Act in 1914 When it received Royal Assent - Not thrown out or defeated at all.

You mean irrelevant factoids such as the Home Rule Act was never altered.

You mean irrelevant factoids like conscription never existed in 1914 – therefore it could never, ever have been a consideration with regard to what directed the IRB to mount an armed rebellion and collude with the enemy as they undoubtedly did - both decisions taken in September 1914, so what happened after that is irrelevant the decision had already been taken to collude with the enemy and resort to violence - an undemocratic decision taken by seven men.

You mean irrelevant factoids like the Military Council set up by Connelly and Pearse to purposely by-pass and highjack the Irish Volunteers deliberately keeping the Executive Council and leaders of that organisation in the dark.

You mean irrelevant factoids like seven men who had absolutely no mandate at all completely and deliberately set out to destroyed any chance of any peaceful resolution of differences between the North and the South and in so doing destroyed any chance of a united independent Ireland. They are further away from that today than they were on August 4th 1914.

None of this, of course, makes me 'right', or an expert, but it has given be a personal reason to take an interest, a 'ringside seat', sort of.

of that subjective twaddle is relevant but it does explain you biased, bigoted views and explains your rampant anglophobia.
"Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you."
True statement if you examine facts – then compare them to the Jim Carroll version and presentation of events.
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 - But OK for you to do that as self-appointed spokesperson for the Irish People of 1916.
What is beyond any doubt is the fact that, shortly after the rising, when Britain's behaviour in secretly inserting permanent partition finally scuppered the move towards Home Rule, the overall mood became one of demanding full independence.

Only problem with that Jim was the 1920 Act mentioned a temporary not a permanent partition. Fact look it up – As you wouldn't believe me if I said so.

The call for full independence had certainly gone into a bit of a rest period prior to The Rising, but had not gone away, as many of the quotes I have put up have shown

Gone into a bit of a rest because the bulk of the people were content with Home Rule first independence later, the rising kicked that into touch.

the demand for full independence was supported - By a tiny minority

What " led to the Civil War was de Valera not accepting and following the democratic process – ten years later he admitted that the Free Staters in 1922 had been right – another inconvenient irrelevant factoid.

"you will see that Teribus has been asked on several occasions to explain how his 'before the Normans' doesn't show he is opposed to independence for Ireland - he hasn't responded to requests for an explanation and I doubt if he will explain how his 'Ireland had been conned by Spain and France into demanding independence' doesn't show the same thing – I have little doubt that this is his belief."

So pure supposition on your part Nothing factual about it at all.

Teribus's contradictory "how dare you accuse me of suggesting that Ireland has no right to Independence" leading to "they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?"

OK then Joe when have I ever said that – OR this:

""They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place"

More Jim Carroll Made-Up-Shit"