1916 celebration

clonycavanman

Thank you, Luckat. That is a glorious quote which I had not encountered before.

LordSutch

Looks like this 1916 thread gould go on and on for ever, and whats really interesting is the uncertainty so many contributers to this thread have about celebrating the events of Easter 1916..............
This uncertainty is also very evident in the Irish media and indeed amongst a sizeable number of Politicians & academics here in the South.

In France "Bastille Day" is openly celibrated and is not contentuious/
In the USA "Independence Day" is also openly celibrated and is not contentious, but judging by this thread & local Irish media reports, any celebrations or parades of the 1916 rising will be contentious and divisive!

klash

Can i ask the people against 1916 to answer just a few questions just to get a clear picture on this ?

1. Do you think the men in 1916 were terrorists ?

2. Do you think that the IRA (Irish Volunteers) during the war of Independence were terrorists ?

3. If you think 2 were terrorists but 1 weren't, please explain why ?

4. If 1916 had being succesful and led to a countrywide rebellion would they still be terrorists in your mind ?

Sand

1. Do you think the men in 1916 were terrorists ?

Yes, no mandate - going specifically against the views of Irelands elected representitives. Murder of unarmed policemen. Taking a civillian center as a fortress instead of attacking military targets, inviting the carnage that followed.

Seriously, by your standards any fruit loop running into the GPO today and shooting Gardai whilst demanding a 32 county Republic is an Irish hero.

2. Do you think that the IRA (Irish Volunteers) during the war of Independence were terrorists ?

Yes. Far too many incidents to go into but the murder of unarmed non-combatants and the campaign of terrorism directed against Protestant communities certainly demonstrates the nature of their campaign.

3. If you think 2 were terrorists but 1 weren't, please explain why ?

Doesnt really apply, but Id put it down to the Irish education system. It practically indoctrinates violent republicanism. Its hard enough for people to maybe get realistic about 1916, but theres still the desire to see the WoI as brave young patriots from Connemara skipping through the valleys, and tune out why the Protestant population of the 26 counties collapsed.

4. If 1916 had being succesful and led to a countrywide rebellion would they still be terrorists in your mind ?

Trick question? If the Iraqi insurgency is successful and leads to the collapse of the Shia dominated government, would that make bombings of Shia religious festivals not terrorism?

Zombrex

ArthurF wrote:

In France "Bastille Day" is openly celibrated and is not contentuious/
In the USA "Independence Day" is also openly celibrated and is not contentious, but judging by this thread & local Irish media reports, any celebrations or parades of the 1916 rising will be contentious and divisive!

*sigh*

Please read the thread before commenting, this has been discussed to death.

"Bastille Day" is the English, incorrect, name for the French holiday. The french don't celebrate the storming of the bastille (probably because they don't think it is a good idea to celebrate a day of carrnage and death ... silly french people)

The 4th July was the signing of the declaration of independence, a day as far as I know, no one got shot to death. If anyone in Ireland wants to celebrate the signing of our independence (there are a good few days to choose from), I would be all for that.

Zombrex

klash wrote:

1. Do you think the men in 1916 were terrorists ?

You tell me ... did the Rising members have any hope of winning a legitmate military battle against the British forces? Nope. So what was their purpose?

Just because they were on "our" side doesn't mean they couldn't commit acts that by todays standards we would call war crimes.

klash wrote:

2. Do you think that the IRA (Irish Volunteers) during the war of Independence were terrorists ?

The ones that went running around shooting unarmed police officers were.

klash wrote:

4. If 1916 had being succesful and led to a countrywide rebellion would they still be terrorists in your mind ?

It is the actions that make a terrorists, not the propaganda of history.

Just because you agree with what they were fighting for doesn't mean how they faught was acceptable.

Take WW2 for example. It was right surely for the British to launch D-Day, to take back France and stop Nazi crimes against humanity. Yes, of course it was, everyone can agree on that.

Does that mean it was right of allied soliders to shoot unarmed German soldiers trying to surrender? No, of course not. Does that fact the the Allies were justifed in their war and eventually won mean it was more right? No, of course not.

The rightousness of your cause cannot excuse the crimes of your actions.

Starting a bloody and pointless uprising in the centre of Dublin, which was doomed to failure and in which it would be impossible not to lose a large number of civilians lives, the civilians they claimed to fight for, was not a justifed action.

Simply say "But the reason they did it was a good one" does not change that fact.

Flex

Sand wrote:

Yes, no mandate - going specifically against the views of Irelands elected representitives. Murder of unarmed policemen. Taking a civillian center as a fortress instead of attacking military targets, inviting the carnage that followed.

Oh AGAIN with the mandate non sense. What about the Poles who took part in te Warsaw Uprising during World War 2, for example? Would you consider them as lowly as you consider the Volunteers

Yes. Far too many incidents to go into but the murder of unarmed non-combatants and the campaign of terrorism directed against Protestant communities certainly demonstrates the nature of their campaign.

Please tell us about the sectarian campaing the IRA carried out in the War of Independence.

Doesnt really apply, but Id put it down to the Irish education system. It practically indoctrinates violent republicanism. Its hard enough for people to maybe get realistic about 1916, but theres still the desire to see the WoI as brave young patriots from Connemara skipping through the valleys, and tune out why the Protestant population of the 26 counties collapsed.

Yes, our schools are chunrning out new volunteers for the IRA every year, must be why the whole country supported the PIRA, oh wait it didnt :rolleyes:

And most people are realistic about 1916. 1916 was a clear defeat for the rebels, people died, they were jeered and imprisoned.... but their blood sacrifice inspired the country and made the people of Ireland stand up and assert their right to self determination and an end of foreign occupation. You just want it to be seen as nothing but bad-bad-bad.

And the Protestant population of the 26 counties had been 'collapsing', as ya put it, for decades before the Free State came into existence, and the main factor after 1910 or so by far was the Ne Temerre (sp) which is the reason guys like me are Catholic instead of Presbyterian

Flex

Wicknight wrote:

It is the actions that make a terrorists, not the propaganda of history.

Just because you agree with what they were fighting for doesn't mean how they faught was acceptable.

The rightousness of your cause cannot excuse the crimes of your actions.

But going by that, it would be perfectly reasonable to call the British army a terrorist organisation for how they behaved during Bloody Sunday in Derry.

Flex

Flex wrote:

But going by that, it would be perfectly reasonable to call the British army a terrorist organisation for how they behaved during Bloody Sunday in Derry.

So?

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

But going by that, it would be perfectly reasonable to call the British army a terrorist organisation for how they behaved during Bloody Sunday in Derry.

Please quote the post where I said Bloody Sunday was an acceptable military action??

Jesus christ one says "I'm not happy about celebrating Easter 1916" and you are labelled a unpatriotic west-brit British army supporter.

This is ridiculious.

Diorraing

Wicknight wrote:

The 4th July was the signing of the declaration of independence, a day as far as I know, no one got shot to death. If anyone in Ireland wants to celebrate the signing of our independence (there are a good few days to choose from), I would be all for that.

OK, I'll hold you to that. On Easter Monday, 1916 our short-term independance was signed (c.f 1916 proclamation of independance).
What you fail to see is that in celebrating 1916 we celebrate the ideals of the proclamation and the willingness of our patriots to die for those ideals. We may not approve of killing people, but we understand that there was no choice (home rule? forget it - would have been 100 more years till full independance). And on the issue of terrorism: the rebels in 1916 did not start the fighting, it was the British who decided to use excessive force in shelling the GPO. It was the British who killed most civilians, so if there were any terrorists in 1916, they were the Brits (although we already knew that).
On the issue of mandate. What rebellions in history actually did have a mandate - did the French revolution, the American, the Warsaw uprising, the Chilian revolution, the South African Revolution - was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The British broke the rules of civilization by oppressing the Irish people and denying them their right to self-determination. You cannot expect the Irish to lie down and accept that. They had every right to fight for their freedom

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

OK, I'll hold you to that. On Easter Monday, 1916 our short-term independance was signed (c.f 1916 proclamation of independance).

The Easter proclamation is not the Irish declaration of independence. The declaration references the eariler Easter proclaimation, but it is not the same thing.

The actual Declaration of Independence was established in the Dial on 21st January 1919. Since it was the Dail it has some form of democracy and legal precedence.

So why not have a national holiday on the 21st of January? I would have no problems with that. As far as I know, no one was killed at the first sitting of the Dail

Diorraing wrote:

We may not approve of killing people, but we understand that there was no choice (home rule? forget it - would have been 100 more years till full independance).

There was a choice, thats the whole point. The Rising was a complete failure and was completely unnecessary, and actually achieved nothing.

Nothing that happened after the Rising could not have happened without the Rising.

Seriously, where did this idea that the Rising actually contributed to Irish Independence actually come from?

Diorraing wrote:

It was the British who killed most civilians, so if there were any terrorists in 1916, they were the Brits (although we already knew that).

So why do you we not celebrate the shelling of Dublin by the Helga? The actions of the British arm lead, indirectly, to the formation of the state as much as the actions of the Rebels.

Celebrating acts of violence that lead to independence isn't as paletable when it is acts of violence from the other side is it.

Diorraing wrote:

On the issue of mandate. What rebellions in history actually did have a mandate

I don't care. I am Irish, I care about what we celebrate as a country.

If Iran celebrated the holocaust, does that mean we should to?

Diorraing wrote:

The British broke the rules of civilization by oppressing the Irish people and denying them their right to self-determination. You cannot expect the Irish to lie down and accept that. They had every right to fight for their freedom

Maybe you missed it before, so I will repeat it

The rightousness of your cause cannot excuse the crimes of your actions.

LordSutch

Wicknight wrote:

*sigh*

Please read the thread before commenting, this has been discussed to death.

"Bastille Day" is the English, incorrect, name for the French holiday. The french don't celebrate the storming of the bastille (probably because they don't think it is a good idea to celebrate a day of carrnage and death ... silly french people)

The 4th July was the signing of the declaration of independence, a day as far as I know, no one got shot to death. If anyone in Ireland wants to celebrate the signing of our independence (there are a good few days to choose from), I would be all for that.

The point I was trying to make is that it is "Wrong" to Celebrate Easter 1916, and to be honest if Easter 1916 had not taken place then we would not have suffered seventy years of being the backwater of Europe that we were (until the Celtic Tiger)! I strongly suspect that the whole island of Ireland would have gradually moved from being part of the UK to being a fully independent State whilst at the same time bypassing all the hatred, bloodshed, and ingrained divisions that remain in Ireland to this day (all because of 1916)!

klash

Sand wrote:

Yes, no mandate

Irrelevant and null point. No rebellion in history has had a mandate. If there had being a similiar situation to 1798 the majority of the country would have supported it.

- going specifically against the views of Irelands elected representitives. Murder of unarmed policemen. Taking a civillian center as a fortress instead of attacking military targets, inviting the carnage that followed.

Against the views of Irelands elected representatives ? Irelands elected representatives whose only reason for being there and whose majority support came from people who wanted nothing to do wiuth the very political institution they were elected to.

Murder of unarmed policemen ? Policemen of the enemy, representatives of the British government in this country. In war policemen are as legitimate a target as Soldiers. What difference did it make if they were armed or not ?

If you believe an unarmed soldier is an illegitimate target and an armed one is a legitimate one you need to look at world military history. A soldier is a soldier regardless of his current context.

Yes. Far too many incidents to go into but the murder of unarmed non-combatants and the campaign of terrorism directed against Protestant communities certainly demonstrates the nature of their campaign.

The murder of unarmed combatants or campaign of terror directed towards any community does not make an army into terrorists. Look at what the Japanese did in WW2, in fact look at what the yanks did in WW2.

If you believe all armies are terrorists then i can accept that but you cannot label the IRA terrorists for doing the same thing armies worldwide have done and not label them all the same.

p.s > The geneva convention is a piece of paper, nothing more. War is war, its very nature is why we don't want it in any form. f you think for one second anyone follows "the rules" in a war then you need to wake up.

e.g > Bayonets are outlawed under the geneva convention yet every army in the world has them and continue to train to use them. They claim its for "ceremonial" purposes only. i.e > Bull****.
Its also against the convention to have crosshairs meet (On a optical scope) except for snipers. (Because snipers can be treated differently to normal soldiers.)

Trick question? If the Iraqi insurgency is successful and leads to the collapse of the Shia dominated government, would that make bombings of Shia religious festivals not terrorism?

Well you seem to go against 1916 because it didn't have a mandate (null point) and they lost. I'm simply asking if they had won and it had lead to a countrywide rising wouldn't that be more or less the same s the French revolution (Any other rebellion ? ) ?

Zombrex

klash wrote:

Irrelevant and null point. No rebellion in history has had a mandate. If there had being a similiar situation to 1798 the majority of the country would have supported it.

Loads of rebellions have had a mandates. The Irish War of Independence had a mandate

klash wrote:

Against the views of Irelands elected representatives ? Irelands elected representatives whose only reason for being there and whose majority support came from people who wanted nothing to do wiuth the very political institution they were elected to.

And who didn't approve and even know about the Rising ... no mandate.

Just because people in general wanted independence from Britian doesn't make a mandate for the actions of the rebels.

If my girlfriend wants a nice Valentine present does that mean I should rob a bank to get one?

klash wrote:

Policemen of the enemy

What nonsense. The vast vast majority of the irish police force were normal Irish catholics doing there bit to serve their communities. And considering the Rising members answer to law and order was to shoot looters on the spot, I think I will take the RIC thank you very much.

Do you agree with the modern IRA shooting Gardi because they don't accept the current Republic? Whats the difference?

klash wrote:

In war policemen are as legitimate a target as Soldiers. What difference did it make if they were armed or not ?

In a "war" unarmed policemen are not legitimate targets. Especially when they are out for a walk in a park.

klash wrote:

If you believe an unarmed soldier is an illegitimate target and an armed one is a legitimate one you need to look at world military history. A soldier is a soldier regardless of his current context.

An unarmed soldier is not a legitmate target either.

klash wrote:

The murder of unarmed combatants or campaign of terror directed towards any community does not make an army into terrorists.

You are right it doesn't

Killing unarmed police men who pose no immediate obstruction to any target, in an effort to terrorise the rest of the RIC into not doing their (legitmate) jobs is terrorism.

klash wrote:

p.s > The geneva convention is a piece of paper, nothing more.

So is the declaration of Irish independence.

Diorraing

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe you missed it before, so I will repeat it

The rightousness of your cause cannot excuse the crimes of your actions.

Will you therefore say that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist? Will you say that the Americans who liberated Europe from the Nazis are terrorists?
I believe that the rightousness of your cause can excuse the crimes of your actions as illustrated in the above examples. I'd like to think we lived in a world where the black population of SA could have been liberated without violence, where Hitler could have been overthrown without the firing of a single bullet. Unfortunately we don't, deal with it!

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

Will you therefore say that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist?

I don't know, did Mandela or the ANC use terrorism in their struggle?

Diorraing wrote:

Will you say that the Americans who liberated Europe from the Nazis are terrorists?

I am not aware of the entire actions of the American army between 1943 and 1945. Did the American army ever carry out an action of violence intended to bring about a political or social change, that would be difficult to achieve through military force, by the threat of further violence? If they did then that was a terrorist action.

Diorraing wrote:

I believe that the rightousness of your cause can excuse the crimes of your actions as illustrated in the above examples.

To what degree?

Were the American soldiers justified in shooting unarmed captured soldiers?

Were the American soldiers justifed in killing civilians?

Were the American airforce justified in bombing civilians cities?

Diorraing wrote:

I'd like to think we lived in a world where the black population of SA could have been liberated without violence, where Hitler could have been overthrown without the firing of a single bullet. Unfortunately we don't, deal with it!

You seem to be saying all violence is the same thing, and therefore if any violence is justified then all violence is justifed. That is a very dangerous idea.

Is an American soldier shooting a German soldier in an open gun battle the same thing as a Palestinian sucide bomber running into an bar were off duty Israeli soliders are drinking?

Is the Gardi special weapons unit shooting an armed bank robber who is firing into the crowd the same thing as the IRA shooting a Gardi as they try and rob a An Post Office?

klash

Wicknight wrote:

Loads of rebellions have had a mandates. The Irish War of Independence had a mandate

Definition of a rebellion.
1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

Loads of rebellions have not have mandates. The French for one.

And who didn't approve and even know about the Rising ... no mandate.

Null point.

Just because people in general wanted independence from Britian doesn't make a mandate for the actions of the rebels.

I never said it did. I never said a mandate was necessary or that they had one. I said a mandate is a null point for a rebellion.

What nonsense. The vast vast majority of the irish police force were normal Irish catholics doing there bit to serve their communities. And considering the Rising members answer to law and order was to shoot looters on the spot, I think I will take the RIC thank you very much.

I think your failing to see the point. They were in fact representatives, armed representatives, of the British establishment in this country. As far as the rebels were concerned Ireland was occupied by a foreign power. I don't care if you agree or disagree with that because its not the point what you or i think.

Do you agree with the modern IRA shooting Gardi because they don't accept the current Republic? Whats the difference?

Most definately no.

In a "war" unarmed policemen are not legitimate targets. Especially when they are out for a walk in a park.

Google -> WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Korean War, French Revolution, American war of independence etc.

You must label them all wrong if you label one.

An unarmed soldier is not a legitmate target either.

Why not ?

Again, try reading up on ANY war in history. The Americans executed unarmed Japanese/German troops after interrogation or when they tried to surrender. (They actually had a fairly acceptable reason for killing them while they were trying to surrender but again its not the point).

How many unarmed policemen, civilians, etc did the Americans kill when they bombed Japan ? And i don't even mean with nukes.

Killing unarmed police men who pose no immediate obstruction to any target, in an effort to terrorise the rest of the RIC into not doing their (legitmate) jobs is terrorism.

Why is it terrorism ? Why were their jobs legitimate ?
They were an occupying force, in a war you kill the enemy, its that simple. You don't care if hes armed, asleep, injured etc. Hes the enemy.

Do you think if a soldier came across a sleeping platoon of the enemy he'd politely ask them to wake up and get ready for a "fair" fight ? He'd riddle everyone of them with a bullet or a grenade.

Theres no such thing as a fair fight in war, you don't want to be in a fair fight. You want to cut the enemies throat in his sleep, you want to shoot him in the back, you want to trick and decieve him, you hit him where hes weak.

Heres something for you to think about. Many armies in the world have switched from 7.62mm round to a 5.56mm round. Do you know why ?

Do you know how a sniper works ? He shoots one soldier and leaves him alive if possible. Why ? To get anyone else that comes to look after him.

War is dirty and evil, theres no "fair" in it.

Your talking about duels among gentlemen, i'm talking about real war. Learn the difference.

Zombrex

klash wrote:

Loads of rebellions have not have mandates. The French for one.

And lots of them do. Of course how other rebelions were carried out is largely irrelivent since the only rebelion we are considering celebrating is the Easter Rising.

klash wrote:

Null point.

Not really, you lose a huge amount of legitimacy if the people you claim to support don't want you to do what you do. For example, the modern IRA claim to represent the Irish people. They don't. The Irish Army is the only army that represents the Irish Republic. Just because an organsistion claims to represent a group of people doesn't mean they do.

klash wrote:

I think your failing to see the point. They were in fact representatives, armed representatives, of the British establishment in this country. As far as the rebels were concerned Ireland was occupied by a foreign power. I don't care if you agree or disagree with that because its not the point what you or i think.

They were represenitives of the only establishment in this country. You talk as if they were all bused in from England. They were the only police force in Ireland, and the RIC was made up largely of normal Irish people.

As I said, just because the Irish Rebels wanted to shoot RIC members it doesn't mean it was a justified act of violence. It wasn't

klash wrote:

Most definately no.

As I said whats the difference.

To the IRA the Guards are not the legitimate police force of Ireland, they do not represent the Irish people, and they serve a government that is not the legitimate government of the Irish people.

klash wrote:

Google -> WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Korean War, French Revolution, American war of independence etc.

You must label them all wrong if you label one.

There were war crimes committed in both WW1 and WW2. A large number of the international laws with regard to war crimes comes from the actions in WW1, such as the use of chemical weapons. The Vietnam War was just one long big war crime. Both the French and American wars of independence contained war crimes. As far as I know a large huge number of civilians were executed during the French revolution.

klash wrote:

Why not ?

Because they do not represent a threat to you or an obstacle to a goal. Put simply killing them is not necessary, therefore killing them for the sake of killing them is not acceptable.

Same reason a bus full of children is not a legitmate target.

Simply wanted to kill someone is not a justified reason to kill someone during a war.

klash wrote:

Again, try reading up on ANY war in history. The Americans executed unarmed Japanese/German troops after interrogation or when they tried to surrender.

And that was a war crime. And if I was an American and someone wanted to celebrate the day the US Army killed a large number of captured soldiers I would probably have something to say about that too.

klash wrote:

How many unarmed policemen, civilians, etc did the Americans kill when they bombed Japan ? And i don't even mean with nukes.

The bombing of Tokyo during the start of the WW2 is widely considered a war crime.

klash wrote:

Why is it terrorism ?

Because it is using the threat of further terror (violence, murder) in an attempt to influence a politicial situation that cannot be changed by force.

Put simply, the IRA (or IRB or what ever they were called at the time) could not remove by force the RIC or Army. They could not storm every police station, they could not storm Dublin Castle. They could remove the RIC through force.

So they killed a member of the RIC and said if the others didn't leave they would be next. You effectively threaten every single RIC member with out actually having to do much, because each RIC cannot know if they will be next. So you effectively use terror itself as a weapon. Hence the term "terrorism".

If you think that is a legitimate tactic in a rebelion thats fine, but it is still terrorism

klash wrote:

They were an occupying force, in a war you kill the enemy, its that simple. You don't care if hes armed, asleep, injured etc. Hes the enemy.

That is a war crime. Like i said you can think it is fine, but killing the enemy for the only reason that he is the enemy is a war crime.

klash wrote:

Do you think if a soldier came across a sleeping platoon of the enemy he'd politely ask them to wake up and get ready for a "fair" fight ? He'd riddle everyone of them with a bullet or a grenade.

Why? Are the soldiers blocking a specific target? Are they guarding an important missle installation? Or are they just sleeping?

klash wrote:

Theres no such thing as a fair fight in war, you don't want to be in a fair fight. You want to cut the enemies throat in his sleep, you want to shoot him in the back, you want to trick and decieve him, you hit him where hes weak.

Why? For revenge because your friend got a bullet in the head last week? For the sake of terrorising his buddies so they leave the army? For the sake of making his wife and children so sick of the war they change the government?

klash wrote:

Heres something for you to think about. Many armies in the world have switched from 7.62mm round to a 5.56mm round. Do you know why ?

Well NATO did it because the 7.62mm round was too powerful and unsafe for an assault rifle, but I assume you are talking about the fact that modern NATO 5.56mm rounds can penetrate armor.

klash wrote:

Do you know how a sniper works ? He shoots one soldier and leaves him alive if possible. Why ? To get anyone else that comes to look after him.

Look Klash do you think any of this is a good thing, Do you think these are military tactics we should be proud of or even have a holiday over?

klash wrote:

War is dirty and evil, theres no "fair" in it.

So don't you think we should be very selective in what we celebrate. Both the French and Americans do not celebrate any military action with their independence national holidays. If war is so evil, then why do you want to celebrate a military action such as the Rising.

klash wrote:

Your talking about duels among gentlemen, i'm talking about real war. Learn the difference.

I am talking about morality, you are saying everyone else does it so whats the problem?

klash

Wicknight wrote:

And lots of them do. Of course how other rebelions were carried out is largely irrelivent since the only rebelion we are considering celebrating is the Easter Rising.

No its not. You keep saying they had no mandate and using it as part of your argument. I'm pointing out other rebellions had no mandate and yet are/were considered legitimate.

Not really, you lose a huge amount of legitimacy if the people you claim to support don't want you to do what you do.

Its obvious that the "old cause" was still in the majority of peoples hearts and minds. Its obvious that the majority of Irish people wanted independence and its obvious that they weren't opposed to military action. People don't change from completely against violence to completely for it in a matter of a couple of years.

For example, the modern IRA claim to represent the Irish people. They don't. The Irish Army is the only army that represents the Irish Republic. Just because an organsistion claims to represent a group of people doesn't mean they do.

Of course it doesn't but again we are back to the issue of a mandate. Why was it alright for the French but not for the Irish ? Did the French revolutionaries have the support of the people ?

They were represenitives of the only establishment in this country. You talk as if they were all bused in from England. They were the only police force in Ireland, and the RIC was made up largely of normal Irish people.

And ? Whats your point ? What about the nazis in occupied France ? Was it ok for the French to kill them that were serving the "establishment" ?

As I said, just because the Irish Rebels wanted to shoot RIC members it doesn't mean it was a justified act of violence. It wasn't

No it was an act of war.

To the IRA the Guards are not the legitimate police force of Ireland, they do not represent the Irish people, and they serve a government that is not the legitimate government of the Irish people.

Yes but the Irish people can elect representatives to a parliment NOT controlled from westminister. They have a real voice in their country and their rights. They didn't have that under westminister.

There were war crimes committed in both WW1 and WW2. A large number of the international laws with regard to war crimes comes from the actions in WW1, such as the use of chemical weapons. The Vietnam War was just one long big war crime. Both the French and American wars of independence contained war crimes. As far as I know a large huge number of civilians were executed during the French revolution.

Label one then label them all.

Because they do not represent a threat to you or an obstacle to a goal. Put simply killing them is not necessary, therefore killing them for the sake of killing them is not acceptable.

So ? It doesn't matter if they represent a threat to you or an obstacle. (They did represent an obstacle)

They were representatives of the enemy force that occupies your country. Do you think that the RIC were never orderered to "sort" out some IRA men ? Of course they were an obstacle.

Same reason a bus full of children is not a legitmate target.

Absolute crap. The RIC were armed representatives of the British government in Ireland and they were well able to fight the IRA, the same as the British Army.

Because it is using the threat of further terror (violence, murder) in an attempt to influence a politicial situation that cannot be changed by force.

No, it was fighting against the armed forces of your enemy and in case you didn't realise the IRA did change things through force.

Put simply, the IRA (or IRB or what ever they were called at the time) could not remove by force the RIC or Army. They could not storm every police station, they could not storm Dublin Castle. They could remove the RIC through force.

Neither could the RIC or Army remove by force the IRA.

That is a war crime. Like i said you can think it is fine, but killing the enemy for the only reason that he is the enemy is a war crime.

And if you want to call it that thats fine. I'll even agree with you.

My point is that it happens all the time in every conflict in the world. Its not just "a few" who do these things.

Why? Are the soldiers blocking a specific target? Are they guarding an important missle installation? Or are they just sleeping?

Because they are the enemy and its your job to kill them. Its basic and its true and its what happens and would happen and will continue to happen. Its war.

Why? For revenge because your friend got a bullet in the head last week? For the sake of terrorising his buddies so they leave the army? For the sake of making his wife and children so sick of the war they change the government?

No, because your simply taking out more of your enemy. Your job is to kill as many as the opposition as you can. Thats what war is, its what warfare is.

p.s > I'm talking about snipers in general not IRA here.

Look Klash do you think any of this is a good thing, Do you think these are military tactics we should be proud of or even have a holiday over?

No i don't think its a good thing, its a horrible disgusting evil thing that we should never ever ever have to go through again. But to deny them is even worse.

War is evil, ugly and many so called "war crimes" are how its conducted. They are the rule not the exception. You seem to think the Brits or any other military power are angels and they'd never resort to "murder" or killing unarmed opponents etc.

So don't you think we should be very selective in what we celebrate. Both the French and Americans do not celebrate any military action with their independence national holidays. If war is so evil, then why do you want to celebrate a military action such as the Rising.

I'm celebrating the declarating of the Republic and the sacrifice those men made.

I am talking about morality, you are saying everyone else does it so whats the problem?

Your trying to apply morals to something which by its very nature CANNOT have any. Its war not a game. You fight to win, any way you can.

Zombrex

klash wrote:

No its not. You keep saying they had no mandate and using it as part of your argument. I'm pointing out other rebellions had no mandate and yet are/were considered legitimate.

Legitimate according to who?

klash wrote:

Its obvious that the "old cause" was still in the majority of peoples hearts and minds.

Was it? Why did the people of Dublin ignore the declaration of the republic and then spit on the rebels then? Doesn't sound like they approved to me

klash wrote:

Of course it doesn't but again we are back to the issue of a mandate. Why was it alright for the French but not for the Irish ?

Did I say it was? As far as I know the French revolution was one of the bloodest in history.

klash wrote:

What about the nazis in occupied France ? Was it ok for the French to kill them that were serving the "establishment" ?

That's my point. The RIC were not an occuping force, they were the police force, the only police force.

Would it have been justifed for the French resistence to start killing ordinary French police men across the country the day after the Nazi government was formed in Paris? Who would then police the country?

When the Rising disrupted the police in Dublin there was large looting. The inital response of the rebels was to shoot looters. I'm sorry, but how is that better than the RIC?

klash wrote:

No it was an act of war.

An unjustifed act of war. Klash seriously where did you get the idea that once "war" is declared you can kill anyone you want.

klash wrote:

Yes but the Irish people can elect representatives to a parliment NOT controlled from westminister. They have a real voice in their country and their rights. They didn't have that under westminister.[/quotes]
Says you. The IRA would disagree.

klash wrote:

Label one then label them all.

No, that is illogical and ridiculous.

Is the bombing of a military base in Germany in 1942 the same as Genocide in Rwanda in 1992?

klash wrote:

So ? It doesn't matter if they represent a threat to you or an obstacle. (They did represent an obstacle)

Klash you seem to really be missing the point of war. It isn't to kill as many people as possible.

The purpose of war is to change a political or military system by force. That is your objective. With in that there are smaller objectives, capture a bridge, blow up a arms depo, which help you achieve your main objective.

If a soldier is not directly stopping the achieval of your objective it is immoral to kill them. Killing them simply because they are part of the enemy, but hold no obsticale to your current objective is immoral.

klash wrote:

They were representatives of the enemy force that occupies your country.

So? By simply being a member of the irish police force they should be killed?

klash wrote:

Absolute crap. The RIC were armed representatives of the British government in Ireland and they were well able to fight the IRA, the same as the British Army.

You can't just kill someone because they might some time in the future maybe stop you trying to do something.

The children in the bus might grow up to join the police force and might in the future be a threat to an operation. Believe me Klash, some armies do think like that.

You can use what ever warped logic you like to excuse the assisnation of police officers Klash, it still doesn't make it moral.

Unless a soldier or a police officers is directly stopping you reaching a specific objective (capturing a bridge, taking over a building, forming the first Dial Eireann) they are not legitimate targets.

klash wrote:

No, it was fighting against the armed forces of your enemy and in case you didn't realise the IRA did change things through force.

The IRA did change things through force, they also killed soldiers and police for no legitiamate reason. Unless you think walking into someones house and shooting them dead is legitimate.

klash wrote:

Neither could the RIC or Army remove by force the IRA.

Your point?

klash wrote:

My point is that it happens all the time in every conflict in the world. Its not just "a few" who do these things.

Very true. Did i say it was?

klash wrote:

Because they are the enemy and its your job to kill them.

Again, completely missing the point of war. The point of war is not to kill the enemy. You kill the enemy if it is absolutely necessary to achieve an specific objective, and only if it is absolutely neccessary. And if you can achieve that objective without killing the enemy then you don't. Simply killing the enemy for the hell of it is a war crime.

klash wrote:

Its war.

The fact that it is war excuses or justifes nothing Klash. If it did anytime a dicator or despot wanted to commit mass genocide they would simply declare a state of war.

klash wrote:

No, because your simply taking out more of your enemy. Your job is to kill as many as the opposition as you can.

No its not. Jesus what wars do you support.

Your "job" as a soldier is to achieve an objective. If the enemy attempts to stop you then you use force. If the enemy doesn't, you don't. You don't go out of your way to kill the enemy just to kill the enemy, not in any legitmate, legal war seneario.

In both Iraq wars a large number of the Iraq army put up no resistence to the Allied forces when it became clear that they would lose. They just walked away. By your logic the American army would have been quite justified in shooting them all dead, even if they weren't stopping the Americans from doing anything.

klash wrote:

No i don't think its a good thing, its a horrible disgusting evil thing that we should never ever ever have to go through again. But to deny them is even worse.

Deny them what? A paraide? I think I can live with not doing that.

klash wrote:

You seem to think the Brits or any other military power are angels and they'd never resort to "murder" or killing unarmed opponents etc.

What nonsense

Yes because if I take acception to the Easter Rebels starting a pointless and very bloody uprising I must think the British as fecking wonderful. You are either with us or against us. What crap.

klash wrote:

I'm celebrating the declarating of the Republic and the sacrifice those men made.

Firstly, the Republich wasn't declared on Easter 1916, so you are celebrating the wrong day.

Secondly the "sacrifices" those men made involved killing a load of people whie they were dying for the cause. I mean a suicide bomber makes a "sacrifice", would you celebrate that too if an IRA member had done it?

klash wrote:

You fight to win, any way you can.

So killing children on a bus in the centre of Israel is ok because its a war? Boiling half a million civilians in 0.6 seconds with an atomic weapon in Japan is ok because its a war?

There are limits to what we will tolerate in war, as there are limits to what we will tolerate in anything.

Simply saying "we are at war, anything goes" is one of the most immoral philosophies of the history of humanity. And personally I don't think it is something we should celebrate or be proud of.

Sand

Oh AGAIN with the mandate non sense. What about the Poles who took part in te Warsaw Uprising during World War 2, for example? Would you consider them as lowly as you consider the Volunteers

Irrelevant and null point. No rebellion in history has had a mandate. If there had being a similiar situation to 1798 the majority of the country would have supported it.

Do you then feel Omagh should be as treasured as 1916 in our national calender? After all, both were acts of terrorist violence in urban centers, both were carried out by men willing to kill and die for Ireland and a 32 country republic, both were carried out in a "British Occupied" Ireland, both were calcualted to sabotage the political compromise reached by the peoples elected representitives, and both had no mandate from anyone?

Hence, for you to be consistent you must treasure Omagh equally as much?

Murder of unarmed policemen ? Policemen of the enemy, representatives of the British government in this country. In war policemen are as legitimate a target as Soldiers. What difference did it make if they were armed or not ?

So again, youd support the murder of Jerry McCabe and other unarmed Gardai murdered by violent Republicans down through the years as much as youd support the murder of unarmed Dublin policemen in 1916? Again, both were carried out by men (and women) willing to kill and die for Ireland, both were carried out to advance the cause of a 32 county republic, both were carried out without any mandate, and both were carried out against enemies of the (true?) Irish Republic?

So again, to be consistent you reckon McCabes murder is completely justifiable?

If you believe an unarmed soldier is an illegitimate target and an armed one is a legitimate one you need to look at world military history. A soldier is a soldier regardless of his current context.

So, you feel its correct to murder unarmed soldiers like POWs - take no prisoners orders are totally right in your view?

The murder of unarmed combatants or campaign of terror directed towards any community does not make an army into terrorists. Look at what the Japanese did in WW2, in fact look at what the yanks did in WW2.

If you believe all armies are terrorists then i can accept that but you cannot label the IRA terrorists for doing the same thing armies worldwide have done and not label them all the same.

The difference is adherence to and enforcement of the Geneva Convention. If SFIRA adhered to the GC then they would have been guerillas, as opposed to terrorists. The GC makes specific recognition of guerillas. It specifically bans premeditated deliberate murder of civillians which SFIRA did many, many, many times. The deliberate calculated attack of civillians and civillian targets is the purest definition of terrorism in my book. The old IRA was exactly the same, carrying out murders and intimidation of protestants throughout Ireland.

p.s > The geneva convention is a piece of paper, nothing more. War is war, its very nature is why we don't want it in any form. f you think for one second anyone follows "the rules" in a war then you need to wake up.

So you think that the Paras did nothing wrong on Bloody Sunday? Sure they shot some unarmed people, but who follows the rules in war anyway? Seriously, wheres the bottom line for you in terms of whats permissable in warfare? Could the Paras have kidnapped children from Republican areas and started hanging them publically until the SFIRA gunmen surrendered? Would that have been okay in your book? What about attacks on military hospitals? Best way to ensure even the wounded dont survive if theres no hospital to receive treatment at. Even as a bonus you finish off the ones who got away before.

Seriously, stop me when I hit a point where you think "No, thats unacceptable" Oh wait, I remember, the so called British shoot to kill policy. I forgot. Provos only whinge about laws and rights when theyre on the wrong end of them.

e.g > Bayonets are outlawed under the geneva convention yet every army in the world has them and continue to train to use them. They claim its for "ceremonial" purposes only. i.e > Bull****.
Its also against the convention to have crosshairs meet (On a optical scope) except for snipers. (Because snipers can be treated differently to normal soldiers.)

Right, so whens the last time you saw a bayonet charge? Even talked about as a valid tactic? I think the Somme might have seen the end of those days. And if a soldier really wants something sharp and pointy he has a lot more options than just a bayonet.

Actually, this is hilarious. Some armies still have bayonets - scum!!!!! But murdering unarmed policemen is grand. You couldnt make this crap up.

Well you seem to go against 1916 because it didn't have a mandate (null point) and they lost. I'm simply asking if they had won and it had lead to a countrywide rising wouldn't that be more or less the same s the French revolution (Any other rebellion ? ) ?

Trick question? If the Iraqi insurgency is successful and leads to the collapse of the Shia dominated government, would that make bombings of Shia religious festivals not terrorism?

Im guessing you think that if the Sunnis win in Iraq, then by default they cant have committed terrorism doing so?

Snickers Man

(I was going to post this as a new thread but whatever)

Here's a couple of guys you might do some research on if you feel that the need for heroic national figures from the past is not being met by the tawdry 'terrorists' who took to the streets in 1916.

The fashion among revisionist historians is to look benignly on those Irishmen, especially from the Catholic section of the community, who loyally served the empire in its heyday and who gave their lives as a consequence.

So let's look at the example of two gentlemen called Reginald Dyer and Michael O'Dwyer whose paths were to cross with cataclysmic effect in India nearly 100 years ago.

Reginald Dyer was born in India into a military family but had clear Anglo-Irish ancestral links, as evidenced by the fact that he was sent to boarding school in Ireland to turn him into a proper English gentleman. In the fullness of time he joined the army and by 1919 he was a brigadier general.

A man of even more impeccable Irish connections was Michael Francis O'Dwyer (sounds like a Catholic) who was born in humble circumstances in Tipperary (yep he was Taig) but joined the British Civil Service and performed so well that by 1919 he had been knighted and was lieutenant governor of the Punjab province of India.

In 1919 the Punjab was in a state of some excitement. Home Rule--yes that's what they called it there at that time too--was a hot topic and many felt that the contribution by Indian soldiers to the empire's war effort would stand it in good stead. (My God this is familiar)

This was especially true in the Punjab which is the centre of the Sikh population which had a long history of service in the military, especially the British one. But amazingly, they were to find that their war service was of no consequence and instead of being 'engaged' on the home rule issue, the local ruler (Sir Michael) cut down on sedition, refused to let trouble makers like Mohandas Gandhi visit the Punjab and took a firm line with demonstrations.

Things came to a head in April 1919 when two leading nationalists were deported following which protestors marched on the office of the deputy commissioner where they were fired upon by troops, causing the death of several people. In the immediate aftermath, riots broke out and several Europeans were killed.

Three days after this, there was a major religious festival in Amritsar, religious focal point of the Sikhs in the Punjab, which thousands of people attended. Public gatherings had been banned in the wake of the earlier disturbances but nonetheless several thousand people gathered peacefully in an enclosed garden called the Jallianwallah Bagh that was frequently used for fairs and public meetings.

Brigadier General Dyer, acting in full connivance with Sir Michael O'Dwyer, gathered a troop of 50 soldiers and two armoured cars with machine guns and went to the Jallianwallah Bagh to teach the demonstrators a lesson. Tragically, he couldn't get the armoured cars to fit through the single entrance into the garden but filed his troops through regardless.

Then, without warning, they opened fire on the unarmed crowd and kept up a withering volley for about 10 minutes. The official figures estimated the death toll at just under 400 with over a thousand wounded.

The incident is dramatically re-enacted in the film Gandhi.

Dyer was unrepentant about his actions and received the full backing of Sir Michael. The former was relieved of his command and sent back to Britain where he received a hero's welcome and was presented with a considerable sum of money raised from public donations and a jewelled sword inscribed with the legend 'Saviour of the Punjab'.

Sir Michael continued his distinguished administrative career but his past eventually caught up with him in 1940 in London where, following a public meeting in a hall at which he was one of the keynote speakers, he was shot dead by a Sikh fanatic who had witnessed the Amritsar massacre as a teenager.

The assailant was caught, tried and hanged as a murderer. Several decades later his ashes were returned to India where they were venerably received, much in the same way that the body of Roger CAsement was ceremonially trransferred back to Ireland in 1966, 50 years after he had been hanged for treason to the British Crown.

So when next we want to venerate Irish troops who served the Empire as opposed to those who fought on their own country's behalf, let's remember the type of creature they were serving. And the type of savage some of them became.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

So when next we want to venerate Irish troops who served the Empire as opposed to those who fought on their own country's behalf, let's remember the type of creature they were serving. And the type of savage some of them became.

What does this have to do with Easter 1916??

Snickers if you want to discuss how much you don't think we should commemorate World War I maybe you should start a new thread.

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

What does this have to do with Easter 1916??

Snickers if you want to discuss how much you don't think we should commemorate World War I maybe you should start a new thread.

Well TBH I did think of starting off a new thread but I thought it was relevant to this one because:

a) the experience of the Indians who did NOT stage a revolution in the middle of WWI and instead sent a lot of men to the front, expecting their claim for Home Rule to be favourably received afterwards, was interesting to compare with the Irish situation. Do you think our Home Rulers would have been treated any less disgracefully than the Indians at the end of the war if there hadn't been a rising?

b) it showed what the alternative to having our own state would have been. We would have remained fully integrated within the Empire and would have enthusiastically joined in keeping the darkies in their place as we had done many times in the past and as some think wistfully we should have continued to do. Tuppence ha'penny has always looked down on tuppence.

It's not an isolated phenomena. The Rap band NWA highlighted the same thing in a different context nearly 70 years later, in their memorable ditty **** Tha Police


And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none
But don't let it be a black and a white one
Cuz they slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop

But if you'rea Mod and you think it deserves a new thread, go ahead.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

Do you think our Home Rulers would have been treated any less disgracefully than the Indians at the end of the war if there hadn't been a rising?

I have no idea. What I do know is that the Rising achieved nothing for the Home Rule, or Independence movements. So I fail to see the relievence to this discussion even if Home Rule wasn't going to be granted.

Snickers Man wrote:

b) it showed what the alternative to having our own state would have been.

As I said, the Rising didn't give us our own state. It didn't even help us get our own state.

Snickers Man wrote:

We would have remained fully integrated within the Empire

We remained "intergrated" with the Empire till the 1930s

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

I have no idea. What I do know is that the Rising achieved nothing for the Home Rule, or Independence movements. So I fail to see the relievence to this discussion even if Home Rule wasn't going to be granted.


As I said, the Rising didn't give us our own state. It didn't even help us get our own state.

I don't think you can look at the rise of Sinn Fein the Easter Rising and the history of the Home Rule movement in isolation from each other. They all helped created the conditions under which this country came into being.

I guess what I'm saying with reference to the Indian situation is that the democratic home rule movement here would have been fobbed off, ignored, patronised and beaten down until a war, or insurgency or whatever --something violent anyway--would have emerged. That had already started to happen when the Third Home Rule Bill was shelved in 1914, despite the fact that it had passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Great imperial powers have no qualms about using brute force tactics against inferior opposition.

Being committed to exclusively peaceful means didn't save Daniel O'Connell from having his meetings threatened by gunboats.
Being unarmed didn't save the Indians at Amritsar from Brigadier General Dyer
Not having weapons of mass destruction didn't save the people of Iraq from 'shock and awe' ie terrorist tactics.

You might say that Gandhi managed to keep the Indian independence movement relatively peaceful but then he had huge numerical superiority. As the film says (and as he may well have said himself although I don't know for sure) '100,000 British soldiers cannot control 800 million Indians if those Indians refuse to co-operate.' (confession I'm guessing the numbers but they're about right)

Four million Irish people could have been controlled with slightly smaller numbers. But we wouldn't have let it get to that level anyway. We'd have started fighting long before the indians did.

Wicknight wrote:

We remained "intergrated" with the Empire till the 1930s

The 1940s actually. But with a very different and more hostile attitude to the mother country than some of her overseas colonies. And that was largely, I would say, a legacy of the risings of 1916 and 1919-21.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

I don't think you can look at the rise of Sinn Fein the Easter Rising and the history of the Home Rule movement in isolation from each other. They all helped created the conditions under which this country came into being.

But the Rising didn't help create the conditions under which this country came into being.

The executions of the Rising members by the Army following the Rising and the blaming of the Rising on Sinn Fein by the police force, and the successful spin of the events of the Rising by Sinn Fein lead to the conditions under which this country came into being.

You cannot connect in any meaningful way the actions of the rebels during the rising with the events above. The Rising members had no idea the way the events would eventually turn out, and it certainly not they way the planned it to go.

Seriously it is like one of those bad hollywood movies where the bumbling idiot stumbles throught the movie setting in motion all the events but being blissfully unaware of what he is doing. You don't go "Wow, Mr Bean is so clever, he managed to capture those bank robbers", you go "Sh*t what a lucky idiot"

Snickers Man wrote:

I guess what I'm saying with reference to the Indian situation is that the democratic home rule movement here would have been fobbed off, ignored, patronised and beaten down until a war, or insurgency or whatever --something violent anyway--would have emerged.

Well in fairness you can't really say that just because it happened in India. The relations internally and with Britian were very different, and the circumstances around and leading up to, the formation of Home Rule were very different.

Snickers Man wrote:

That had already started to happen when the Third Home Rule Bill was shelved in 1914, despite the fact that it had passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Due to the out break of war. That was a common occurence as far as I know.

Snickers Man wrote:

Great imperial powers have no qualms about using brute force tactics against inferior opposition.

Certainly not. But then the argument that the British are just all monsters and therefore would never give Ireland anything belongs in the SF/IRA version of history in my opinion. You are ignoring the specific circumstances of British rule in Ireland in the early 20th century for a story book idea of the monster that was the British Empire.

Snickers Man wrote:

But we wouldn't have let it get to that level anyway. We'd have started fighting long before the indians did.

Er .. ok ... still not sure what this has to do with Easter 1916.

Snickers Man wrote:

And that was largely, I would say, a legacy of the risings of 1916 and 1919-21.

How?

Unless you are under the very mistaken idea that resistence to British rule began with 1916, I fail to see the "legacy".

In fact between 1922 and 1937 we successfully removed ourself from the Commonwealth with almost entirely peaceful political methods. How does that relate to an armed rebellion that achieved very little except the deaths of hundreds of Irish? If anything it is the legacy of Parnell and the Home Rule movement of fighting the system from the inside.

To be perfectly honest I think events like the Rising, and in later years the actions of the different IRA groups, which has lead to the perception in Ireland and around the world, that the Irish faught a hard and bloody constant war against the British.

We didn't. We achieved 90% of our freedom through completely peaceful political protest. That is what I think the Irish should be most proud of. But that is not a popular view, and unfortunately this reality has been superceeded by the romantic militarisitic myth that the Irish are a nation of violent resistence fighters who resisted the Irish would our blood and sweet, instead of our intelligence and peaceful honour.

We are closer to Gandi that you think

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

You cannot connect in any meaningful way the actions of the rebels during the rising with the events above. The Rising members had no idea the way the events would eventually turn out, and it certainly not they way the planned it to go.

Seriously it is like one of those bad hollywood movies where the bumbling idiot stumbles throught the movie setting in motion all the events but being blissfully unaware of what he is doing.

Oh for Goodness sake. WWI was supposed to be all over by Christmas
The Germans were supposed to beat the French in a month.
Gallipoli would see Turkey knocked out of the war and Russia given access to teh Mediterannean.
Cavalry was going to be the deciding factor


Not to mention other wars.
The Maginot line would keep the Germans out in WWII Uh-Oh!!
Pre-emptive strike at Pearl Harbor would cripple the American navy. Oops!!
Shock and awe tactics in the Gulf War led to "Mission Accomplished" signs being shown nearly three years ago. Whahooga!!
......lots of things didn't work out as planned.

Wicknight wrote:

Well in fairness you can't really say that just because it happened in India. The relations internally and with Britian were very different, and the circumstances around and leading up to, the formation of Home Rule were very different.

No but you can get an idea of the rulers' attitudes. Especially if they stretch people to breaking point and then say '"We mustn't have any violence"

wicknight wrote:

Due to the out break of war. That was a common occurence as far as I know.

There were two provisos when HR 3 was passed. One was to shelve it for duration of war. The other was to hold it up until Ulster was happy. So they would have just sat on it after the war and let things fester. Bit like they're doing now with the process and let every two-bit neocon commentator claim that the Peace process is a surrender to evil.

wicknight wrote:

.
To be perfectly honest I think events like the Rising, and in later years the actions of the different IRA groups, which has lead to the perception in Ireland and around the world, that the Irish faught a hard and bloody constant war against the British.

We didn't. We achieved 90% of our freedom through completely peaceful political protest. That is what I think the Irish should be most proud of. But that is not a popular view, and unfortunately this reality has been superceeded by the romantic militarisitic myth that the Irish are a nation of violent resistence fighters who resisted the Irish would our blood and sweet, instead of our intelligence and peaceful honour.

Well I think you're right in a lot of that but I'll tell you what has led to a renewed interest in what you call the 'romantic militaristic myth'. It's the determination by some of the more vociferous commentators to paint a picture of Ireland as willing participants in WWI and loyal subjects of the empire, then and thereafter and their urge to commemorate such people in a totally euphemistic way that has led to such a renewed interest in the men of 1916.

I mean, if we are going to wear poppies on our tits to commemorate people, like that nice General Dyer and to concentrate solely on the victims on the Allied side and not bother for a second about the mayhem that they wrought on others, including on civilians, people are inevitably going to think: Well, if we're going to reverently commemorate the actions of one bunch of killers we may as well commemorate the actions of others whose deeds led to something we can all see and appreciate for ourselves--namely our own self determination.

wicknight wrote:

We are closer to Gandi that you think

Well I'd like that to be true. But I'm afraid I can't fully agree with you.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

......lots of things didn't work out as planned.

True, and neither did the Rising. The Rising was a disaster. So why celebrate it?

Snickers Man wrote:

No but you can get an idea of the rulers' attitudes.

The "rulers" were not one single entity. You talk about the British government as if it is some villian in a comic book.

Snickers Man wrote:

It's the determination by some of the more vociferous commentators to paint a picture of Ireland as willing participants in WWI and loyal subjects of the empire, then and thereafter and their urge to commemorate such people in a totally euphemistic way that has led to such a renewed interest in the men of 1916.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't really know what you are talking about?

Who wishes to "paint" Ireland as a willing participant in WWI (I am not even sure I understand what you even mean with that).

And I am pretty sure the "renewed" interest in 1916 has very little to do with a repainting of Ireland role in WWI.