Easter Sunday/ 2006

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

So then, since you understand the analogy I was using, can you see the difference between someone who sacrafices themselves for a cause and someone who sacrafices themselves for a cause while killing innocent people.

What is the difference in your view between a hunger striker like Bobby Sands, and a suicide bomber who destroys a police station in a public square in say Israel?

Assuming both are fighting for a noble cause, a cause we will assume both yourself and I support, do you think they are the same thing? Are both justifed?

In response to this all I would say that bringing israel/Hamas into this discussion is an irrelevance to the 1916 Easter Parade in Dublin.

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

I dont think anyone here is accusing you of being a british agent - you are bringing that up.

Think we can add sarcasim to analogies on the list concepts you don't seem to get .. :rolleyes:

ChityWest wrote:

We can go around in more circles on this if you like - I think I have responded to your points as much as I would want to

Fair enough ... to me the difference between someone who sacrafices themselves and someone who sacrafices themselves while killing civilians, is quite important.

But if you don't want to reply fair enough. I think I know your answer already.

So instead I will throw that question out to anyone else who thinks the Rising is an event that we should celebrate and be proud off....

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

In response to this all I would say that bringing israel/Hamas into this discussion is an irrelevance to the 1916 Easter Parade in Dublin.

It was an example to see if you can abstract out your views on the Rising to a more rounded moral stand point, I seem to remeber me being asked a ton of questions about the War of Independence, and rebelion and politics in general, same thing... or do you views only apply to the Rising and nothing else? Sand tried to point this out to you but you dismissed him

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

Think we can add sarcasim to analogies on the list concepts you don't seem to get .. :rolleyes

Again with the insults in place of an intelligent comment or actually making a point or answering a question.

Wicknight wrote:

Fair enough ... to me the difference between someone who sacrafices themselves and someone who sacrafices themselves while killing civilians, is quite important.

But if you don't want to reply fair enough. I think I know your answer already.

You are welcome to think you know whatever you want. Being wrong hasnt stopped you so far.

Wicknight wrote:

So instead I will throw that question out to anyone else who thinks the Rising is an event that we should celebrate and be proud off....

I think you are trying to take this thread even further off topic by dragging the contemporary israeli/palestinian conflict into it.

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

It was an example to see if you can abstract out your views on the Rising to a more rounded moral stand point, I seem to remeber me being asked a ton of questions about the War of Independence, and rebelion and politics in general, same thing...

abstracting views to a rounded moral standpoint = bringing modern day israel/palestine into a discussion on the 1916 Rising Parade in dublin -

our survey says X

Wicknight wrote:

or do you views only apply to the Rising and nothing else?

Is this actually a question or are you making a point and adding a question mark at the end ?


If I had to bet - I know where I would put my money.

Wicknight wrote:

Sand tried to point this out to you but you dismissed him

I think what I said to him was (among many other things) that I didnt require an explanation of what an analogy was. It wasnt intended to be dismissive - in fact he was polite and logical (havent re-read the conversation but thats the gist I got).

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

Is this actually a question or are you making a point and adding a question mark at the end ?

Its a question, one you seem to not want to answer ...

Do you make a distinction between someone sacraficing their life for a good cause, and someone sacraficing their life for a good cause while killing innocent people?

Its a pretty simple question Chity, didn't mean to confuse you with using an analogy to try to explain it. Won't make that mistake again.

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

Its a question, one you seem to not want to answer ...

The actual question was

"or do you views only apply to the Rising and nothing else?"

That would be a No. You are aware that this is a discussion about the 1916 Easter Rising Parade in Dublin ? i.e. not israel/palestine ?

Wicknight wrote:

Do you make a distinction between someone sacraficing their life for a good cause, and someone sacraficing their life for a good cause while killing innocent people?

What an inane question.


Do I make a distinction between
A and B -

yes there is a distinction between A and B. They are both different things so that would be a difference between them.

Wicknight wrote:

Its a pretty simple question Chity, didn't mean to confuse you with using an analogy to try to explain it. Won't make that mistake again.

Dont worry you didnt confuse me. But your condesencion is always welcome !

How about you answer any of the rake of questions put to you by me and others in the previous threads ? The ones you sidestepped with dragging analogies to Tibet/Dead Babies/Bank Robbers into it ?


It seems to me that you know you have completely and totally lost this argument and are now trying to drag this conversation down the road of israel/palestine as yet another distraction in your Chewbacca-defence approach.

I have yet to see you prove your opinion that those involved in the Easter Rising were 'idiotic, stupid, moronic, and stupid again.


Or that they were bloodthirsty, mindless etc.

I have already mentioned that this topic is related to the 1916 Easter Parade in Dublin Ireland.

**************

** Edit -

After reading the post below from 'Growler' I too am out of this - wick you are welcome to try drag israel palestine into this discussion.

It is not required in a discussion on 1916 Easter commemoration in Dublin 2006 - and considering the thread is 16 pages as of now perhaps best suited to another new thread but I can see why you would want to cloud the issue so fire away.

The fact is that there are points previously made in this thread (which you have sought to obfuscate with inane analogies plucked out of thin air and in no way related) which have not yet been addressed by you.

You constantly ask new questions instead of giving answers whenever anything is put to you.

You have approached this entire discussion with an attitude that in my view was condescending - arrogant - dismissive of others and generally not pleasant to deal with. I dont have anything against people being condescending or arrogant so long as they have the wit to back it up - and you dont.

You have mis-represented the views of others consistently.

You have made absurd comments with no rationale - ie allegations of Ra propaganda - westbrit - referring to the Gardai as Gardi - and Bobby Sands as Billy sands etc

You have stated your opinions as fact and offered no evidence beyond bluster and bluff and distractions to prove your case despite countless requests for you to do so.

So enjoy the parade - I know that I will.

growler

Wicknight wrote:

Not quite sure of your point. The fact that a lot of people were willing to join the rebelion shows very little.

If you judge the worthiness of a movement by the number of those willing to die and kill for that movement then Al Queda must be the most worthy of all modern political movements.

Last post on his topic from me, there seems to be little point in debating this issue with you Wicknight as you constantly move the goal posts and veer off onto unrelated issues in order to make some irrelevant comparisons, presumably you imagine that bringing Al Qaeda / Hamas into it that you create a "guilt by association" scenario. At this point I don't expect you to concede any point of historical fact, since you are arrogant enough to presume to speak for the "improvement of mankind" I guess your ego will always get in the way.

There were 1200 men in Dublin that day, there were many more throughout the country that did not take up arms due mainly to the disorganisation and fractured nature of the IRB. I'm glad you have the exact numbers of Al Qaeda members to hand, presumably you can enlighten me as to how many there are exactly ? No doubt you'll respond that the "willingness to kill" is what you were referring to , a suitably opaque state of mind that doesn't warrant comparison, but if one wants to talk compare innocents killed as a measure of worthiness then I wonder which has taken more innocent lives over the course of history : the British Empire or Irish Nationalists ? I'll give you a hint... it wasn't the Irish Nationalists. I feel bad now for stooping to your level of argument.

Wicknight wrote:

And as you well know they would have had to been incredabily stupid not to know that a lot of innocent people were going to die as a result of their actions.


Why are you are assuming they had to perform some kind of military rebelion? Was it a choice between a Rising in Dublin and a Rising somewhere else? How about no Rising.

I honestly don't know and cannot presume to know the innermost thoughts of the Rising' leaders that morning, maybe they expected people to get out of the way, avoid areas teeming with armed insurrectionists etc. , But I do not believe that they set out to kill innocent civilians, bloodless coups are few and far between though.

Wicknight wrote:

Why?

I have no problem if someone wants to kill themselves for a cause. I admire the strength needed to truely sacrafice yourself, like someone like Billy Sands did, for something you believe in. I don't support him, or his politics, but you have to admire someone willing to die in pain for their cause.

I draw the line when you decide that along with sacraficing yourself you decide to take a whole load of innocent people with you.

Which is why I don't have any admiration for someone like a Hamas suicide bomber even though he is willing to kill himself in the same way Sands was. The difference is Sands didn't hurt anyone while doing that (I'm ignoring for argument sake his history before the hunger strike), where as the suicide bomber does.

Is your only objection to the Rising the fact that some innocent people got killed ?

I find it comical that you are presuming to lecture us , and by extension mankind, on Irish history and you didn't know Bobby Sands christian name.

Regardless, Sands, the IRA, Hamas, Bin Laden, ETA, Red Army Faction, the A-Team and the Kilfenora Ceilidh Band have nothing to do with this discussion, stop making irrelevant analogies in order to tar all with the same bloodthristy terrorist brush.

Wicknight wrote:

It is, its called the Parliment voting record, and it shows that in the late 1800s and early 1900s the government (ie the majority) repeatable passed the Home Rule bill, only to have it stopped by the House of Lords. The complete veto of bills was then removed from the House of Lords.

Oi, put them goalposts back lad !!

Did I ask you about the late 1800s and early 1900's ? no I did not.

Wicknight wrote:

I agree totally with that, since that is the chain of events. There is no disputing that.

What is not true is that the Rising or the rebels achived any of it. They didn't.

The events that lead to the 1918 election were out of the hands of the rebels. The rebels had no idea that their eventual execution would have the effect it did, and the decision to execute them was not of their making.

Since they did not have the benefit of precognition , no they did not know that their executions would be the catalyst, however remembrance of 1916 i not to celebrate what the leaders of the Rising THOUGHT might happen as a result of their actions that day, but to commemorate what DID actually happen subsequently.

I've thoroughly enjoyed going round in circles with you, enjoy the weekend and try not to get caught up in any parades !

ateam

Is anyone going on sunday? It starts at 11.45 (i think)

Flex

murphaph wrote:

1200 clowns march out and try to overthrow the 'yoke of british oppression' (even though these goons were allowed drill their private armies in public-compare this freedom to modern day China or Zimbabwe to find true oppression lads) and this is 'popular support' from a country of millions.

The reason they were allowed drill is because when the UVF did it, that was fine because it was the UVF doing it, and when the IVF did it they usually carried hurley sticks because most of them didnt have guns. Another reason they were allowing it is because they needed Irishmen to continue to sign up and be cannon fodder... oh, I mean soldiers in their army so they were probably worried about upsetting people. Also, their army was stretched on the western front so they probably didnt want an open conflict in Ireland. Contrast this behaviour towards the IVF with the way the British army and RIC shot at unarmed civilians in Dublin who were laughing at them because they had failed to stop the importation of guns at Howth by the IVF. Or the occassion when the Black and Tans burnt down Cork city centre, and they got away with it because the British parliament believed their claim that the people of Cork burnt the place down by themselves for no reason :rolleyes: Anyway, if another country occupied Ireland and imposed their nationality on me Id consider that oppression.

Tell me, how many irishmen were away fighting WWI while these 1200 men were occupying the post office (that particular act infuriated ordinary dubs who used the post office to contact their loved ones at the front)?

What point are you trying to make by mentioning the Irishmen on the western front? I have 2 relatives (I know of, probably more) who died in WW1 and if they knew people would be trying to claim the reason they fought was out of some devotion to Britain or the union or the British monarch theyd be spinning in their graves. Participation rates in Ireland were quite poor in comparison to Britain. In Ireland only 10% of elligable men enlisted, whereas in Britain 25% did.

The rising achieved SFA but for 220 odd civilian deaths and the toal destruction of the city centre. All the other stuff was achieved through other means and all could have been achieved (as evidenced by almost EVERY other former part of the empire) peacefully.

Well we voted for independence in 1918 when Sinn Fein won a landslide victory, but it was ignored; well I suppose it wasnt ignored because we got the Black and Tans and 2 year long War of Independence for it, but the expressed wish of the representatives of the people of Ireland was for freedom. So why did we have to fight for it, after peacefully making it clear we wanted it?

Flex

ateam wrote:

Is anyone going on sunday? It starts at 11.45 (i think)

Im going. Its a pity, I used to be in FCA so theres a chance I mightve been taking part in the parade. It wouldve been such a great honour.

TempestSabre

This is only going one place...

Wicknight wrote:

...the rising was just like making love to a beautiful woman...

LordSutch

Anyone got any opinions about what might happen this Sunday apart from the planned parade...............
a spot of subversion by the Shinners maybe? or a bit of rioting? a few smoke bombs? some looting?

Hopefully not.

(I only ask, because contingency plans have been discussed by the Government in recent days).

Zombrex

growler wrote:

At this point I don't expect you to concede any point of historical fact, since you are arrogant enough to presume to speak for the "improvement of mankind" I guess your ego will always get in the way.

I find it hilarous that both you and Chity are prefectly happy to ask me hypothetical questions about general morality, whether I think any rebellion is ever acceptable, if I believe anyone has the right to over throw any government, but when I ask you both to stand behind your postion when we take thing to their logical conclusion both you and Chity instantly try to change the subject, say that is nothing to do with the Rising, or simply attack me.

Are you both incapable of expression a moral stand point beyond the confinds of the Risng itself? You demand that I stand behind my position faced with a torrent of hypotheticals (which you notice, I did), yet you won't even entertain the questions let alone provide answers.

I can only assume you are both hypocritical when it comes to your own stance on morality.

growler wrote:

There were 1200 men in Dublin that day, there were many more throughout the country that did not take up arms due mainly to the disorganisation and fractured nature of the IRB.

I've no doubt. My point is the number of men has no bearing on the morality of the cause. Just because you have a lot of followers doesn't mean your cause is just. Just ask Al Queda.

growler wrote:

the British Empire or Irish Nationalists ? I'll give you a hint... it wasn't the Irish Nationalists. I feel bad now for stooping to your level of argument.

Again no doubt. The British army was one of the most ruthless and blood thirsty in history, especailly during the 800 years of presence in Ireland.

But I find it interesting that you condem the British when they kill innocent people, but you want to celebrate when the Irish do it? Why is that exactly?

Because the British killed more innocent civilians than the Irish rebels, they are bad and we are good? Is that how it works, you count up the numbers and the highest is the bad-guy :rolleyes:

growler wrote:

But I do not believe that they set out to kill innocent civilians, bloodless coups are few and far between though.

I don't believe they set out to specifically kill innocent civilians either, but they must have know that many many innocent civilians would die because of their actions.

The Americans didn't set out to kill civilians with the atomic bomb when they dropped 2 on Japan, they were targetting naval bases. But they kill hundreds of thousands in just under a second. Can they hold there hands up and so "Not our fault, we were just targetting the ships with or mega-ton atomic bomb" :rolleyes:

Saying that a military group doesn't mean to kill civilans when they do something that they know will kill civilians is the biggest cop-out in war crime history. And that ignorance is an insult to the lives lost.

growler wrote:

Is your only objection to the Rising the fact that some innocent people got killed ?

That and it was a stupid plan with no justification that was doomed to fail from the start, so everyone who died or was killed died needlessly.

Do I need more of a reason ... ?

growler wrote:

I find it comical that you are presuming to lecture us , and by extension mankind, on Irish history and you didn't know Bobby Sands christian name.

I find it comical that when faced with the actual hard questions you turn into Chity and start nit-picking my posts instead of answering the questions put to you, despite the fact that I answered yours.

growler wrote:

Regardless, Sands, the IRA, Hamas, Bin Laden, ETA, Red Army Faction, the A-Team and the Kilfenora Ceilidh Band have nothing to do with this discussion, stop making irrelevant analogies in order to tar all with the same bloodthristy terrorist brush.

You, like Chity, only claim they are irrelevant because you don't have an answer to the questions raise by them.

As much as it pains both of you to admit (and I doubt you ever will) it is pretty clear that your acceptance of the morality of the Rising only holds to the Rising, and that if you were looking at the same circumstances happening in Isreal, or Asia, or America you would not support it (and rightly so)

The mists of Irish propaganda have clouded both your viewpoints. Suddenly it becomes different when the rebels our on our side. Then all if forgotten, forgiven. They can do no wrong.

growler wrote:

Oi, put them goalposts back lad !!
...
Did I ask you about the late 1800s and early 1900's ? no I did not.

Yeah, you did :rolleyes:

"British MP's and lords during the time from 1798 to 1920"

So instead of bitching about "goalposts" how about you conceed that fact that the British were quite happen, and willing, to give Ireland independence peacefully .... I know that fact must really be head wreaking with the whole "British = Bad" logic you and Chity have going ...

growler wrote:

Since they did not have the benefit of precognition , no they did not know that their executions would be the catalyst, however remembrance of 1916 i not to celebrate what the leaders of the Rising THOUGHT might happen as a result of their actions that day, but to commemorate what DID actually happen subsequently.

So what are we celebrating? Blind luck? The British? The executions? What?

If the rebels didn't cause what happened why are we celebrationg the rebels? For simply showing up and getting executed?

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

So why did we have to fight for it, after peacefully making it clear we wanted it?

Because we twice rejected Home Rule in 1916 and 1917, the deal that had already been established democratically, and then we started the War of Independence because Sinn Fien wanted our own Republic, which we were never going to get.

And then the British fought us for a bit to save face and then gave in to a treaty because I can only assume they were so sick of our little country and just wanted us to get independence and stop pissing them off, despite the fact that they were gong to easily win the war of independence.

And then what did we get in the end, pretty much exactly what we would have got if we had just accepted Home Rule in the first place. And then we realised oh wait we can get everything we want peacefully, and we eventually got the Republic through peacefull means.

We (the Irish) rejected peace and went for war, because we thought we could get more out of it. War was not forced upon us, we chose it. And we were dead wrong. We were never going to defeat the British, the British let us win, and we never were going to get a Republic, even after a WoI and a civil war, through fighting the British. The republic would come years later, and be achieved through peaceful political struggle

So you tell me, what did we fight for? A republic we didn't, and were never going to, get? Yeah, that was worth it :rolleyes:

TempestSabre

For pity sake. It wasn't so simplistic.

At the time combat wasn't so evolved as it was today. Remember they were WALKING in a line towards massed machines guns in France. Guerrilla warfare wasn't that well known, Collins was only learning about the The Boer Guerilla War. But for many (not all) they thought the right way to fight was out in the open, or to take on the British head on. The seat of power was Dublin and not well defended. In fact they took their objectives very easily. But they didn't get the support they hoped, basically misjudged the mood of the people, and it was a foregone conclusion once they didn't get popular support. Its not uncommon for risings to fail, for military conflicts to end in diaster. It happens. They tend to be significant events, that people want to remember.

Collins went on from the rising, to fight a (argueably a successful Guerilla War) and ended up signing a peace treaty with Lloyd George, even though Collins was the most wanted man in Ireland at one stage. Cosgrave, De Valera and many others did not tred a entirely peaceful/political route to popular support and power. You can't leave out all the nasty bits that happened along the way to peace, the failures and the successes, are all part of it.

TempestSabre

Wicknight wrote:

....
So you tell me, what did we fight for? A republic we didn't, and were never going to, get? Yeah, that was worth it :rolleyes:

...never going to get?

Zombrex

TempestSabre wrote:

...never going to get?

Yes, never going to get. Sinn Fein were never going to get a Republic out of the War of Independence. If they were we would have got one.

The Republic came years later, and didn't require any bloodshed

Zombrex

TempestSabre wrote:

You can't leave out all the nasty bits that happened along the way to peace

Could not have put it better myself ... it is preciecely because of all the nasty bits that we should be very very careful about what we choose to celebrate when looking back over our history. Simply because eventually we go an independent Republic does not mean we should turn a blind eye to every attrocity that was done in the name of independence.

Looking back through our history with Republican tinted glasses, choosing to only accept the good and not the bad, choosing to ignore the stupid mistakes, the moronic decisions, the unnecessary bloodshed, does a dis-service to not only our own history and the history of this country, but to the memory of those who died needlessly

lostexpectation

ArthurF wrote:

(I only ask, because contingency plans have been discussed by the Government in recent days).

what have they been discussing?

Flex

Wicknight wrote:

Because we twice rejected Home Rule in 1916 and 1917, the deal that had already been established democratically, and then we started the War of Independence because Sinn Fien wanted our own Republic, which we were never going to get.

The 1916 offer was rejected because of Llotd Georges negotiating methods, the 1917 one was 'rejected' because unionists held it up over what counties wouldnt come under Home Rule.Do you think people voting for a party on the pledge that the party will demand self determination is starting a War of Independence?

And then the British fought us for a bit to save face and then gave in to a treaty because I can only assume they were so sick of our little country and just wanted us to get independence and stop pissing them off, despite the fact that they were gong to easily win the war of independence.

"the British fought us for a bit to save face"?? Are you serious? Do you realise how much money they were spending in Ireland, or how long they 'fought us for a bit'? It was estimated that on average they spent £50,000,000 a year (an ENORMOUS amount of money back then), plus Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries were being paid a far higher wage than average workers in Britain earned. They were going to win because the IRA was near exhaustion, but they didnt know that. They figured to completely quell the WoI and defeat the IRA they would need 100,000 soldiers to completely clamp down on Ireland and given the fact they were already spening a fortune, and that people in Britain were becoming appalled at the methods they were using to coerce Ireland into surrendering, they figured it wasnt feasible to do that. Plus, the strategic value of Ireland to Britain at the time was very very great. We got independence earlier than they wouldve wanted us to have it.

And then what did we get in the end, pretty much exactly what we would have got if we had just accepted Home Rule in the first place. And then we realised oh wait we can get everything we want peacefully, and we eventually got the Republic through peacefull means.

Do you know the difference between the powers a HR parliament would have and a Dominion??? The differences in taking Home Rule or getting what we got in the treaty are massive. Its sheer stupidity to compare HR to Dominion status. Why do people think that a HR parliament wouldve been of any use, it had f-all power, PLUS our representation in the British parliament was reduced from 105 to 42 out of some 680, so the odds of us holding the balance of power so we could beg for some concessions like the IPP had done before were very very little indeed. AND the HR parliament (which already had SFA power) was going to have its powers further recinded until such a point where both the north and south had transferred enough power to the Council of Ireland (which was intended to lead to reunification), which in effect gave unionists a veto over how much power the HR parliaments in Ireland would/could have; and considering the fact unionists were willing to start a civil war a few years earlier and didnt even want HR in the first place, the chances of the HR parliament getting those reserved powers from Westminster anytime soon didnt look to good at all :rolleyes: Furthermore, do you not realise that we only had the power amd freedom to declare a republic because of the the fact we were a Dominion.

We (the Irish) rejected peace and went for war, because we thought we could get more out of it. War was not forced upon us, we chose it. And we were dead wrong. We were never going to defeat the British, the British let us win, and we never were going to get a Republic, even after a WoI and a civil war, through fighting the British. The republic would come years later, and be achieved through peaceful political struggle

How did we choose war; unless you mean by voting for self determination we were voting for war? And the British did not 'let us win', it ended in a stalemate; the IRA couldnt defeat the British outright and the British wouldnt have been able to go to the lenghts they figured were necessary to defeat the IRA. They wanted us to have HR within the British state, we wanted a Republic; it was a compromise. At the time people did think we were going to get the Republic either via pleading our case for self determination at the Paris peace conferences (which Britain prevented us from doing), requesting recognition from the League of Nations or requesting recognition from the USA (both of which refused through fear of upsetting Britain). Having been elected on a pledge to establish a sovereign Irish state Sinn Fein set about doing so, and Britain started a war to prevent it.

So you tell me, what did we fight for? A republic we didn't, and were never going to, get? Yeah, that was worth it :rolleyes:

The republic was already established (January 21st 1919 IIRC). We were fighting at the time to defend it and force a foreign army to leave its shores. Was it worth? Absolutely.

TempestSabre

Wicknight - You are contradicting yourself. Independence and the republic came from EVERYTHING that went before. You are leaving out the bits you find unsavory. Like the rising. Ignoring the connection that links people in the Rising to the events that followed.

In all wars non-combatants get killed. Usually non-combatants suffer more than the combatants. Lots of people get killed needlessly. Indeed people get killed needlessly, wastfully in peacetime. However war is wasteful, thats its nature.

You are free to decide you don't want celebrate wars and their outcomes. The irony is that freedom has been achieved, through countless wars and bloodshed.

Zombrex

TempestSabre wrote:

In all wars non-combatants get killed.

As I told Chity that ridiculous cop-out of responsbility is not an excuse.

You can't just declare a "war" and then when you mow down civilians say shi*t happens.

And even if stupid mistakes are ineveitalable in a war, please explain why we should celebrate these stupid mistakes like the Rising?

TempestSabre

Wicknight wrote:

As I told Chity that ridiculous cop-out of responsbility is not an excuse....You can't just declare a "war" and then when you mow down civilians say shi*t happens.

Who's denying responsibility? A declaration of war is a declaration of responsibility of what follows. Its not something that is done lightly. Your putting your own, and other lives on the line. Its no small matter.

Wicknight wrote:

And even if stupid mistakes are ineveitalable in a war, please explain why we should celebrate these stupid mistakes like the Rising?

You don't have to. Its a personal decision.

However you need to seperate the event in 1916, with why the present govt are jumping on the bandwagon this year. Personally I believe its just another shallow vote grabbing exercise, badly thought out, like everything else they do.

However whats really annoying is the simplistic view of the event you are painting, with no real understanding of the context in which it occured, or its impact on subsequent events or the people involved. That and the appalling spelling. Its just lazy posting. http://dictionary.reference.com/ My spelling is bad. But at least I make some effort.

murphaph

Criticising his spelling shows what little substance is contained in your own argument tbh.

You didn't anwser his last question either, he said "why should we celebrate suc mistakes?" and you didn't answer, you just said "you are free not to". So the rising was a mistake and we should not celebrate the deaths of 220 civilians.

I saw Ahern and McAleese making the same silly extrapolations about rising=celtic tiger on the news. When I saw them dopes saying it I knew I was right

Zombrex

TempestSabre wrote:

However whats really annoying is the simplistic view of the event you are painting

Yeah, I'm being simplistic :rolleyes:

I'm painting a very complex accurate view of the event, which you might not want to hear because it doesn't fit into your neat picture of the brave heros of the Rising that this country has been force feed since 1922.

The fact is that most posters here, including yourself, seem to want to white wash over the little details like 220 dead civilians as simply an unfortunate and regretable out come of a war. You dismiss it off hand.

You are like the 5th person when faced with trying to jusfity their deaths to simply say "In all wars non-combatants get killed" as if that is an justifitcation in itself. Its not. Simply saying it was war, sh*t happens is ridiculous.

It is an insult to those 220 people and their familys to pretend that their deaths was unfortunate but necessary or inevitable. You are dimissing the deaths of civilians off hand as if the Rising had to happen. It didn't have to happen, it was completely unnecessary. Their deaths are stem directly from the stupidity of the rebels and their ridiculous military plan.

TempestSabre wrote:

That and the appalling spelling.

You are the third person who when faced with my arguments decides instead to attack my spelling instead of my points .. Jez, I'm on a roll :rolleyes:

TempestSabre

its symptomatic of lazy posting. It does your credibility no favours.

I did answer the question. You don't have to. Theres no "should".

Why the govt arranging a parade is a different question. I answered that aswell. Its vote grabbing stunt. That should be seperated from the event itself.

The rising is an event of a series of events which are all connected by the people involved. Many of which were involved in the diplomatic/political events that followed. You can't look at the rising in isolation. Which is what you are doing. Even in pure military terms lessons where learned from its failure. How many innocent lives did inaction cost?

If you are going to look at historical events in isolation with little or no context to the people involved, lessons learned from mistakes, and other experiences. How the event effected them moving forward, influenced their decisions and action. Then its obvious those events will make no sense whatsoever.

Which is what you are saying about the Rising.

growler

Wicknight, you've agreed that sometimes armed rebellion is justified albeit not in 1916 Ireland.

Can you point to an armed rebellion where there were no civilian casualties ?

If not, since civilian casualties are your particular bug bear , how can you reconcile this with saying that armed rebellion is ever justified ?

TempestSabre

I've never said I was for or aganst the risng, I'm just making the pont that if your sole metrc on making value judgements on historcal event, especally battles, is the number of civilians killed, is nonsenscal. For example D-Day was a daster because cvilians got killed. A complete falure. Equaly if you think battles have no futher effect than a simple who won the day.

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

The 1916 offer was rejected because of Llotd Georges negotiating methods,

No, it was rejected by Redmond because he believed partition would be temporary. When he found out it wasn't he with drew.

The 1917 was failed because a number of groups, including Sinn Fein refused to attend.

Flex wrote:

Do you realise how much money they were spending in Ireland,

Like I said, they were pissed off with Ireland and desprate to get rid of us.

Doesn't sound like a country that was really interested in keeping our little country now does it?

Flex wrote:

We got independence earlier than they wouldve wanted us to have it.

That is complete nonsense Flex, the British governments had been trying to give us Home Rule for the last 20 years.

Flex wrote:

Do you know the difference between the powers a HR parliament would have and a Dominion??? The differences in taking Home Rule or getting what we got in the treaty are massive.

They weren't "massive" at all they, were practically identical.

Flex wrote:

Why do people think that a HR parliament wouldve been of any use, it had f-all power,

Under Home Rule a bicameral Irish Parliment would be set up that dealth with all national issues. This is the same as the parliment set up under the Anglo-Irish treaty.

Under the HR act the British handled foreign affairs matters, this is exactly the same Dominion status in 1922.

Flex wrote:

PLUS our representation in the British parliament was reduced from 105 to 42 out of some 680

How many did we have after the Anglo-Irish treaty?

Flex wrote:

Furthermore, do you not realise that we only had the power amd freedom to declare a republic because of the the fact we were a Dominion.

Not in 1922 we didn't. We achieved that through a number of changes that happened after 1922, changes that also would have effected Home Rule status.

Flex wrote:

How did we choose war;

We choose war by rejecting Home Rule and starting the War of Independence.

Flex wrote:

And the British did not 'let us win', it ended in a stalemate; the IRA couldnt defeat the British outright and the British wouldnt have been able to go to the lenghts they figured were necessary to defeat the IRA.

It didn't end in a stalemate, the IRA was days away from complete collapse.

Flex wrote:

The republic was already established (January 21st 1919 IIRC).

That republic was abolished in 1922 under the Anglo-Irish treaty.