"Nonsense Jim. Ireland was excluded from conscription before the rising."
Been here-done that Keith.
Britain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription in Ireland in 1918 - what part of that fact do you have a problem with?
Had Ireland not opposed British rule, there would have been no reason whatever that it should have been left out of the bloodbath - why should they have been left out while the rest of British youth was being slaughtered?
"The British parliament passed the act before the rising,"
And altered it in July 1916 to make the partition of the six counties permanent - it was originally intended that these counties (originally the whole of Ulster, but altered when it was realised that this would give the Catholics a majority in the North) would be partitioned until a year after the war ended.
Even the Parliamentary Irish rejected the re-written treaty - Redmond described it as "a betrayal"
The Republicans who took part in the Rising did so because they realised that Britain had no intention of ratifying any treaty that did not meet its own interests.
You have been given all this before, what part of this do you have problems with; if none, why are you raising it again and again and again.....?
Britain was finally forced to concede a form of Independence, at the threat of an alternative of "a signature or war", which lead to immediate Civil War in the 26 Counties, built in financial, political and land-owning injustice, inequality and hardship for the Catholic third of the six counties, and a near-century of unrest and bloodshed.
What problems do you have with any of this?
The Rising did not have the support of those in the immediately vicinity, (I told you this years ago), but there is no indication whatever of how the rest of Ireland felt - they were never asked.
It doesn't matter anyway - within a matter of months the Rebels had the complete support of the Irish people, a support which led to a full-scale war of independence which ended overall rule in Ireland by the wealthiest and most powerful Empire the world has known being kicked out ignominiously by poorly armed irregular fighters.
The Rising has since been considered the turning-point in Irish history by the Irish people as a whole.
You, who have stated you know nothing of Irish history and have never read a book on the subject, have taken onto yourself to describe the Irish people as a whole as gullible and misled in their beliefs and written-off that fully accepted Irish turning point with contempt - what does that make you Keith?
You said earlier that "we can finish this."
Your stated contempt for the Irish people and their knowledge of their own history wil never be "finished" until you withdraw your appalling statement or qualify it - it verges on racism to suggest that an entire nation is gullible enough to have been misled by propaganda on its own history and that you, with your declared ingnorance and disinterest, know more than they do.
If anything, your stated contempt has been written into the history of this forum in your own words.
"Fergie, where and when did Joe Offer ask you to deliver YOUR definitive History of Ireland in just a few paragraphs?"
And where did anybody ask you to sum up a over a millennium of Irish history in a couple of sentences, particularly in your as usual talking-down-to tone?
Your points might just be better made if they weren't delivers in such a contemptuous tone (in the new spirit of not insulting people, which you have regularly complained about)
To compare Henry VIII's forcible re-conquest of Ireland to the tribal movements of the Bronze Age is risible, to say the least.
If it was "legal" it was so because the laws of the day were made by a monarch who believed himself appointed by God and who took it on himself to torture and burn religious opponents in order to have his marriage annulled.
British rule has been maintained in Ireland ever since by force of arms, massacres and open oppression - all perfectly "legal" of course.
Your "naval experience apparently makes you an "expert" on the type of weaponry available in 1916 - sure it does!!
In which case, all the destruction that took place must have been caused by rifle fire - risibility appears to be your 'thing' today!
The Irish did not "collude" with the Germans - they took the weapons that the Germans offered - no collusion - no offer of support for Germany.
The Russian people did exactly the same at the time of their revolution.
If you don't know the facts of the situation, please don't hestate to ask.
Joe's point is far from "absolutely appalling" - many people's knowledge of Ireland come from reading such novels, most people's interests don't even stretch that far - your own arguments don't exactly leave much of an impression of study or understanding of the subject.
I assume that, by your description of those novels as "biased" you have read them yourself - or is this just another plucked-out-of-the-air conclusion?
Uris''s novel (only read the one) is actually fairly balanced as such writings go - he did a similar job on Israel, though there, he tended to be more openly partisan - no harm in that.
Jim Carroll