John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

We know that they definitely gave consideration to whether to state their feelings about the perpetrators of those massacres, because they committed them to the text of their proclamation.

Supposition. You weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the drafting of the proclamation.

Put up, or shut up.

Classy.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Supposition. You weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the drafting of the proclamation.

No supposition - the text is there to see. You're suggesting they gave it no consideration before including it?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Classy.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention.

1StradBROOK

alastair wrote: »

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You're seriously proposing that the effectiveness of the rising, or of the credibility of the proclamation, required the declaration of an alliance to a 'gallant' military who were engaged in the massacre of civilians in Belgium? Any sensible/neutral reading of their pitch, would have informed them that this would work against them, not generate any additional support.

Ah Alisdair my darling - where have you been all my life !!!

Question to you Alisdair old chum - are these gallant allies the same ones who massacred the massacre-ers of the entire Ugandan and Congolese races during the Belgian colonial days in old Middle Eastern Africa ?

Question Alisdair - is it acceptable to put in it's place, a genocide committing colonialist, in the way the Germans did the Belgians old chum - it would seem the hand cutters had their old babies boiled and heads chopped off - such are the spoils of risk taking and going into another country for resource gain I suppose!!

Alisdair tell me where your views lie on one side committing massacres by cutting off the hands of generations of Congolese only to be massacred themselves in the World Wars - isn't it a case of just desserts ?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

No supposition - the text is there to see.

Yes supposition. I'm not referring to the text, but the discussion that lead to it.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention.

Likewise.

1StradBROOK

alastair wrote: »

Not me who opted to call those responsible for civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'. I think we can all agree that 'my quest' has no bearing on that reality.

Again - you miss the point.

Perhaps they were French priests who went down to Africa and saw the massacres the royal houses and colonialists were committing in Africa.

Perhaps they were acting on words of such priests trying to prevent such action in Africa.

Perhaps they were Scandinavian adventurers who whilst on safari saw the worst the Royal houses of Europe had done to races not of their own.

In any case, what they (our gallant allies in Europe) carried out was of moral standing and uprightness because they rooted out vampirism in the form of King Leopald and the Russian empires.

They only fell short on a trio of hits in failing to prevent slavic unification in the Balkans - if they had done that we might not have a Russian (Slavic) nation or people today !!!!

alastair

1StradBROOK wrote: »

Ah Alisdair my darling - where have you been all my life !!!

Question to you Alisdair old chum - are these gallant allies the same ones who massacred the massacre-ers of the entire Ugandan and Congolese races during the Belgian colonial days in old Middle Eastern Africa ?

Question Alisdair - is it acceptable to put in it's place, a genocide committing colonialist, in the way the Germans did the Belgians old chum - it would seem the hand cutters had their old babies boiled and heads chopped off - such are the spoils of risk taking and going into another country for resource gain I suppose!!

Alisdair tell me where your views lie on one side committing massacres by cutting off the hands of generations of Congolese only to be massacred themselves in the World Wars - isn't it a case of just desserts ?

Fine dose of whataboutery there - and about as relevant to the point as you managed to be accurate with my name.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Yes supposition. I'm not referring to the text, but the discussion that lead to it.



Likewise.

Nope, as explained, it doesn't work that way.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your contention.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

that way.

Alastairs way?

If you don't know the contents of the discussion that lead to the text, then how do you know what the reason was for the inclusion of 'gallant allies'?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Alastairs way?

If you don't know the contents of the discussion that lead to the text, then how do you know what the reason was for the inclusion of 'gallant allies'?

I don't care what the reason was. The point is that they chose to declare known perpetrators of civilian massacres, their 'gallant allies'. So your bizarre proposition is that they, unlike everyone around them, refused to believe that the massacres had taken place - and you have no evidence whatsoever to support that proposition (despite being asked a number of times), or they chose to believe that these 'gallant allies' actions were acceptable.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

and you have no evidence whatsoever to support that proposition

Here you go:

The autumn of 1914 saw the appearance of a new Separatist paper, Eire-Ireland, which appeared as a weekly on October 26th and was changed to a daily after the second number. It is significant of the change in Irish feeling that it was now possible to run a Separatist daily paper in Dublin, and of the gradual rapprochement between Irish parties that this paper, intended as the organ of the Irish Volunteers.......

The new daily contained a column " The War Day by Day" in which a critical analysis of the military situation was attempted. While most of the other Irish papers merely repro- duced the amateur war criticisms of Fleet Street, the editor of Eire, assuming that English news- papers were giving only one side of the case, attempted an independent study of the situation, which was made to appear much less favourable to the Allies than was asserted by other Irish papers. Stories of German atrocities were analyzed and ridiculed.

https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028168726/cu31924028168726_djvu.txt

Easier to read version here:

https://www.bookiejar.com/Content/Books/7ccbe2a1-12a9-41fa-a3ff-0f8ebaf40ef6/1269_r1/34477/www.gutenberg.org@files@34477@34477-h@34477-h-3.htm.html

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Here you go:



https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028168726/cu31924028168726_djvu.txt

Easier to read version here:

https://www.bookiejar.com/Content/Books/7ccbe2a1-12a9-41fa-a3ff-0f8ebaf40ef6/1269_r1/34477/www.gutenberg.org@files@34477@34477-h@34477-h-3.htm.html

Sinn Fein played no role in the rising, nor were they any signatory to the proclamation. You're supposed to be proving your contention that the signatories did not believe the massacres had taken place.

Anything to support that proposition?

gladrags

Bruton now pishing off FG with his one man crusade to rewrite history.

His hysterical reference to the criteria for a just war says it all.

There are always moral questions in any armed conflict. He forgets again to mention the British contribution.

"John Bruton last night repeated his strong reservations about the commemoration of the 1916 Rising, opening up clear differences with the Taoiseach and current leader of Fine Gael, Enda Kenny.
The Taoiseach last week insisted that Fine Gael had its roots in the Rising, which “had been the central formative and defining act in the shaping of modern Ireland”.
The use of violence in the 1916 Rising did not meet a criterion for just war and raised other moral questions, Mr Bruton argued in a lecture on John Redmond last night to the Wexford Historical Society."

Irish Times

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Anything to support that proposition?

The paper was intended as an organ of the Irish volunteers, of which some of the signatories were members of. Any chance of a balanced discussion starting at any time soon?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The paper was intended as an organ of the Irish volunteers, of which some of the signatories were members of. Any chance of a balanced discussion starting at any time soon?

A paper produced and edited by Sinn Fein. Try again.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

A paper produced and edited by Sinn Fein. Try again.

But intended as an organ for the Irish volunteers. Evidence that the volunteers didn't believe the reports to be false would be nice now thanks......

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

But intended as an organ for the Irish volunteers. Evidence that the volunteers didn't believe the reports to be false would be nice now thanks......

I can intend to pitch my newspaper at anyone I care to mention, but that doesn't make it a paper of anyone but myself. It was a Sinn Fein funded, printed, and edited newspaper. No-one involved had any connection with the proclamation.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I can intend to pitch my newspaper at anyone I care to mention, but that doesn,to make it a paper of anyone but myself. It was a Sinn Fein funded, printed, and edited newspaper. No-one involved had any connection with the proclamation.

Nice try. Papers expressing what the government viewed as a dissenting opinion were rapidly shut down (as this one was after a couple of months) under the conditions of the Defense of the Realm Act.

So any chance of some contradicting evidence from you?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nice try. Papers expressing what the government viewed as a dissenting opinion were rapidly shut down (as this one was after a couple of months) under the conditions of the Defense of the Realm Act.

So any chance of some contradicting evidence from you?

I'm not sure what part of it being a Sinn Fein produced newspaper you don't get. It has nothing to do with the signatories of the proclamation. The newspaper of the Irish Volunteers was the, eh, Irish Volunteer. A newspaper which never made any claim that the massacres didn't happen. So, if you can point to anything which actually supports your proposition, feel free to show us.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

feel free to show us.

Balls in your court now Alastair. Since neither you or I are privy to the contents of the discussion that lead to the text of the proclamation, I've given the next best thing: some background into what they might have been thinking. You have offered nothing whatsoever.

Also:

unlike everyone around them, refused to believe that the massacres had taken place

Hardly true now is it, since this particular newspaper also didn't believe it.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Balls in your court now Alastair. Since neither you or I are privy to the contents of the discussion that lead to the text of the proclamation, I've given the next best thing: some background into what they might have been thinking. You have offered nothing whatsoever.

You're quite mistaken. You've the responsibility to prove your proposition - which you've failed to do. There's absolutely no evidence to support your claim, while I can point to the complete absence of any statement, propaganda, debate, article, or otherwise , by these people, that disputed the factual nature of the massacres in Belgium.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hardly true now is it, since the this particular newspaper also didn't believe it.

You have me there. So everyone, bar a group that played no role in the rising, and the signing of the proclamation. Correction noted.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

statement, propaganda, debate, article, or otherwise , by these people

You are aware of what the Defense of the Realm Act was right?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You are aware of what the Defense of the Realm Act was right?

I am. So where is your evidence to support your proposition?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

your evidence

One has only to read the detail of what Connolly actually wrote from 1914 to 1916 to realise that his supposed wartime neutrality was such a pose. Connolly’s very first article on the outbreak of that War - “Our Duty in the Crisis” (“Irish Worker”, August 8th, 1914) explicitly stated:

“Should a German army land in Ireland tomorrow we should be perfectly justified in joining it, if by doing so we could rid this country once and for all from its connection with the Brigand Empire that drags us unwillingly into this War”.

But what of Connolly’s disregard of the issue of German atrocities in Belgium? In total, 5,500 Belgian civilians are estimated to have been deliberately killed by the German army. Connolly did not, however, accept British propaganda concerning these atrocities because such propaganda had become so wildly exaggerated as to become utterly incredible.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76008?comment_order=asc

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76008?comment_order=asc

Any evidence to support this contention? That's simply another opinion piece.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Any evidence to support this contention? That's simply another opinion piece.

Can you produce anything at all to the contrary?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Can you produce anything at all to the contrary?

Sure. The complete absence of anything to suggest that the signatories didn't accept the fact of the massacres. That's pretty persuasive. Meanwhile you have nothing to support your contention.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Sure. The complete absence of anything to suggest that the signatories didn't accept the fact of the massacres. That's pretty persuasive.

That's quite funny actually considering what Connolly wrote about Belgium.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?10128-Eamon-Gilmore-to-Launch-Book-on-James-Connolly&p=253254#post253254

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

That's quite funny actually considering what Connolly wrote about Belgium.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?10128-Eamon-Gilmore-to-Launch-Book-on-James-Connolly&p=253254#post253254

I didn't realise that the a German military were involved in massacres in Congo as well as a Belgium. Oh wait, you're just dissembling!

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Oh wait, you're just dissembling!

Evasion disguised as wit. Top marks.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evasion disguised as wit. Top marks.

Connolly's views on the Belgians record in Congo has nothing to do with accepting that the German massacre of Belgian civilians was a fact. And to dissemble from that issue is your evasion.

Now, you were finally about to produce some evidence to support your contention?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

accepting that the German massacre of Belgian civilians was a fact.

Evidence, commentaries, opinions etc that the 1916 signatories also accepted them as fact?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evidence, commentaries, opinions etc that the 1916 signatories also accepted them as fact?

Do you need to have the responsibility on you, to support your contention, with evidence, explained again?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

..........

As opposed to your "complete absence of anything to suggest that the signatories didn't accept the fact of the massacres. That's pretty persuasive" line?

I'm not persuaded.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

As opposed to your "complete absence of anything to suggest that the signatories didn't accept the fact of the massacres. That's pretty persuasive" line?

I'm not persuaded.

That's handy. Let me know if you ever produce anything to support your contention.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

anything.

I've given you commentaries and opinions of others as opposed to your 'absence of anything' line.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I've given you commentaries and opinions of others as opposed to your 'absence of anything' line.

Opinion pieces are no evidence of anything other than a third party's opinion.

What you need is some evidence from the signatories, that they disputed the fact of the massacres. Let me know when you have that.

1StradBROOK

alastair wrote: »

That's handy. Let me know if you ever produce anything to support your contention.

How can we ever produce anything Allister - this isn't a court of law.

What I do know however is that your views are peculiar given you support the British establsihment views of Ireland and the UK.......you don't however represent the views of the beloved ORlando BLOOM or indeed all of our fathers Daniel Day Lewis who countenance themselves as the modern day reicnarnation of Jesus Christ and therefore the spreaders of the words of love. I however beg to differ - they plan with the exception of Orlando to take over this wonderful isle for British Latins and Normans perversion. I am therefore my good friend by countenance a communist of Irish form and blood - not of the Slavic and vampiric Russian breed.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Let me know when you have that.

Do you realise how boring you're starting to sound? Can you offer me any evidence, commentaries, opinions of others etc, that the signatories knew to the contrary on these reports. You know like, something, ANYTHING, we can have an actual discussion on.

alastair

1StradBROOK wrote: »

How can we ever produce anything Allister - this isn't a court of law.

What I do know however is that your views are peculiar given you support the British establsihment views of Ireland and the UK.......you don't however represent the views of the beloved ORlando BLOOM or indeed all of our fathers Daniel Day Lewis who countenance themselves as the modern day reicnarnation of Jesus Christ and therefore the spreaders of the words of love. I however beg to differ - they plan with the exception of Orlando to take over this wonderful isle for British Latins and Normans perversion. I am therefore my good friend by countenance a communist of Irish form and blood - not of the Slavic and vampiric Russian breed.

No-one said it was a court of law, but if you make a claim, it's reasonable to have to demonstrate is has some basis, there's no basis for this claim.

I'm not particularly interested in Orlando Bloom or Daniel Day Lewis, or vampires. Cheers.

1StradBROOK

alastair wrote: »

No-one said it was a court of law, but if you make a claim, it's reasonable to have to demonstrate is has some basis, there's no basis for this claim.

I'm not particularly interested in Orlando Bloom or Daniel Day Lewis, or vampires. Cheers.

You are alert today - no conjecture for you this Autumnal's 'een.

Round of golf old boy ??? Just as good a way to blow the old bluster off as a good hiccory like we're having right now !!!

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Let me know when you have that.

Oh, and one more thing. Remember that this 'gallant allies' line is your idea, you introduced it into the thread. It's irrelevant you saying that the records were accurate or factual. Did the signatories also believe this? Up to you to show that they did.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Oh, and one more thing. Remember that this 'gallant allies' line is your idea, you introduced it into the thread.

And who introduced it into the proclamation?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It's irrelevant you saying that the records were accurate or factual. Did the signatories also believe this? Up to you to show that they did.

As explained many time - no it's not.

The massacres are a fact, widely communicated and confirmed in 1916. Any different belief, on the part of anyone, would need to articulated with evidence, as it would run contrary to the facts on the ground. There is no such evidence. It's also a given that the signatories believed fire to be hot, as that's also a fact, and any proposition to the contrary, would have to be articulated with evidence.

Otherwise it's a pet theory of your own, and you're more than welcome to it, just understand that it's not supported by anything other than your imagination.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

And who introduced it into the proclamation?

Er, you introduced it into this thread.

As explained.........

Nodin asked you this:

How do you know they believed any reports that may have been extant?

Your reply was:

Why would they have doubted them? They were both accurate, and widely reported.

Your argument hasn't progressed anywhere since. It's irrelevant you keep repeatedly claiming this, when you can't show the signatories believed likewise.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Er, you introduced it into this thread.

Yes I did. And?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Your argument hasn't progressed anywhere since. It's irrelevant you keep repeatedly claiming this, when you can't show the signatories believed likewise.

Thats because my argument is solid. It's down to you to prove that believed something other than the facts. That's generally understood - your proposition, your responsibility to support it with evidence.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Yes I did. And?

It's your idea. Show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate.

Thats.....

Don't know why you are trying to turn this back on to me when you haven't shown any evidence to support your original idea.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It's your idea. Show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate.

It's not my idea. It was the idea of the signatories to include it in the proclamation. I've already demonstrated that.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Don't know why you are trying to turn this back on to me when you haven't shown any evidence to support your original idea.

I've shown the compelling evidence of absence for your proposition. In a context where any such belief would have been undoubtedly articulated by the individuals concerned.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I've already done that.

By YOU saying the records were accurate & factual. You are not one of the signatories.

I've shown the compelling evidence of absence for your theory. In a context where any such belief would have been undoubtedly articulated by the individuals concerned.

Nonsense. Because they've said nothing you can extrapolate that they agreed?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

By YOU saying the records were accurate & factual. You are not one of the signatories.

The massacres were fact, and known to be fact in 1916. Again - you have no evidence to support the signatories held any contrary belief.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nonsense. Because they've said nothing you can extrapolate that they agreed?

That's correct. If they did believe otherwise, they would have said so, given the context of the times, and their ideology. It would have been in their interest to do so.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

The massacres were fact, and known to be fact in 1916. Again - you have no evidence to support the signatories held any contrary belief.

Again trying to turn it back on to me, when YOU keep repeatedly keep saying they were a fact. It's not about you but the signatories. What did they believe?

If they did believe otherwise

If?

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

The massacres were fact, and known to be fact in 1916. Again - you have no evidence to support the signatories held any contrary belief.



That's correct. If they did believe otherwise, they would have said so, given the context of the times, and their ideology. It would have been in their interest to do so.

People are innocent until proven gulity, brave men died for these values.

The burden of proof is with the accuser, you have no proof, and you have merely speculated.

This thread was about Bruton and 1916, not some personell vendetta, imagined by you.

Your arguement is totally false, bitterness and "if only"runs throught it.

Were is your proof of their gulit?