John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

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

This isn't a court of law, so presumption of innocence or guilt dosn't arise.

gladrags wrote: »

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

The burden of proof has been met by me. I've demonstrated the evidence of absence.

gladrags wrote: »

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

My entire point is about 1916, and the debasement of the proclamation with reference to the perpetrators of civilian massacres as 'gallant allies'. That's not an imaginary position, but a reference to a fact.

gladrags wrote: »

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

'Fraid not. It's a solid argument.

gladrags wrote: »

Were is your proof of their gulit?

No-one is accused of guilt in anything, just culpability. The signatories bear responsibility for highlights those who massacred civilians, as their 'gallant allies'.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

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?

Yes - it's entirely about those signatories who never indicated the slightest doubt in the fact of those massacres. The same people, you propose, without a shred of evidence, disbelieved those facts.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

If?

Yes - 'if' your proposition is correct, which it's not.

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

The burden of proof has been met by me. I've demonstrated the evidence of absence.

Exactly, you have no evidence, it is not there, no historian has found any evidence.

So the burden of proof was not met by you.

With the exception of the British, who suspected, allies in Europe referred to Germany.

This was one of the reasons they were executed.

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

Exactly, you have no evidence, it is not there, no historian has found any evidence.

So the burden of proof was not met by you.

You clearly don't understand what evidence of absence is, do you?

gladrags wrote: »

With the exception of the British, who suspected, allies in Europe referred to Germany.

This was one of the reasons they were executed.

Could you try that again, in understandable English? No-one is disputing the 'gallant allies' are the Germans - except possibly you, but your post is pretty chewed up.

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what evidence of absence is, do you?


Could you try that again, in understandable English? No-one is disputing the 'gallant allies' are the Germans - except possibly you, but your post is pretty chewed up.

Were are you're historical references to back up the above.

Show me a reference by one,just one historian who supports your claims.

Name one historian who claims that this reference refers to Germany.

Historians use subjectivity and reliable sources,as subject matter.

You should at least do the same.

You are attempting to make disparaging claims,without one iota of evidence.

Other than bitter hearsay.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Yes - it's entirely about those signatories who never indicated the slightest doubt in the fact of those massacres.

So, since you can't show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate or produce any statements that they said such, then on what basis are you linking the words 'gallant allies' that are in the proclamation, to events in Belgium?

which it's not.

Evidence please.

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

Were are you're historical references to back up the above.

Show me a reference by one,just one historian who supports your claims.

Name one historian who claims that this reference refers to Germany.

I'd have thought that everyone was aware of this, but I guess not?

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LhI27wksmTcC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=gallant+allies+referred+to+germany&source=bl&ots=50mRWMrdPp&sig=CmIFzBh-vXN4pde-c-IB8SvWOJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b9BXVPf9HoS1yATyooAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=gallant%20allies%20referred%20to%20germany&f=false

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/insurrection/in04.shtml

http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=exposition

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusd.ff.cuni.cz%2F%3Fq%3Dsystem%2Ffiles%2Fnerad%2520gallant.pdf&ei=UNVXVKaCK4G0yAT1uYKIBQ&usg=AFQjCNGzOcku_kEtwwZPrdaVsRl6oOH_eg&sig2=VK6-8FH_Qm0rXIVJQwRMDA

gladrags wrote: »

Historians use subjectivity and reliable sources,as subject matter.

You should at least do the same.

You are attempting to make disparaging claims,without one iota of evidence.

Other than bitter hearsay.

Complete nonsense. Read up and try not to disparage, if you're uninformed.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So, since you can't show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate or produce any statements that they said such, then on what basis are you linking the words 'gallant allies' that are in the proclamation, to events in Belgium?

I've already demonstrated that the signatories knew of the fact of the massacres, and there's no dispute that the 'gallant allies' are the Germans; the perpetrators of those massacres, so I'm not sure what point confuses you. I note you still haven't produced any evidence to support your personal theory though.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evidence please.

Already provided.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I've already demonstrated that the signatories knew of the fact of the massacres

With your evidence of absence line? When all else fails..........

and there's no dispute that the 'gallant allies' are the Germans

Never said that myself.

I note you still haven't produced any evidence to support your personal theory though.

You introduced this argument into the thread. It's you who needs to produce evidence to support your personal theory.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

With your evidence of absence line? When all else fails..........

Correct. And what have you got to support your pet theory?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Never said that myself.

And yet you thanked your uniformed mate who did. How does that work then?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You introduced this argument into the thread. It's you who needs to produce evidence to support your personal theory.

I didn't introduce this argument at all. It's a fact, as evidenced by the text of the proclamation. I'm just pointing out the recent record of the 'gallant allies' referenced, a recent record that the signatories were well aware of.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Correct. And what have you got to support your pet theory?

How do you know that they knew the reports were accurate?

And yet you thanked your uniformed mate who did. How does that work then?

How do know that when I thanked the person's post that I thanked it all, plus how do you know that he/she is/isn't wearing a 'uniform'? Plus how this person my 'mate'. I don't know him/her.

I didn't introduce this argument at all. It's a fact, as evidenced by the text of the proclamation. I'm just pointing out the recent record of the 'gallant allies' referenced, a recent record that the signatories were well aware of.

alastair, would you please stop engaging in pedantic sh*te. I meant from your post #435 onwards.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How do you know that they knew the reports were accurate?

Because they never disputed the fact of them. As I keep telling you. Are you going to continue playing this game? Does repetition help you?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How do know that when I thanked his post that I thanked it all, plus how do you know that he/she is/isn't wearing a 'uniform'? Plus how is he my 'mate'. I don't know him/her..

Well, the post is devoid of any content, other than disputing that the 'gallant allies' were Germans. So if not that, what exactly were you thanking? I'm all ears.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

alastair, would you please stop engaging in pedantic sh*te. I meant from your post #435 onwards.

If you keep asking the same questions, you'll keep getting the same answers. Perhaps if you put some effort into finding some evidence to support your personal theory?

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

I'd have thought that everyone was aware of this, but I guess not?

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LhI27wksmTcC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=gallant+allies+referred+to+germany&source=bl&ots=50mRWMrdPp&sig=CmIFzBh-vXN4pde-c-IB8SvWOJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b9BXVPf9HoS1yATyooAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=gallant%20allies%20referred%20to%20germany&f=false

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/insurrection/in04.shtml

http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=exposition

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusd.ff.cuni.cz%2F%3Fq%3Dsystem%2Ffiles%2Fnerad%2520gallant.pdf&ei=UNVXVKaCK4G0yAT1uYKIBQ&usg=AFQjCNGzOcku_kEtwwZPrdaVsRl6oOH_eg&sig2=VK6-8FH_Qm0rXIVJQwRMDA


Complete nonsense. Read up and try not to disparage, if you're uninformed.

None of you're sources provide any evidence whatsoever of your false claims.

Clair Wills whose work I am familiar with makes a fleeting comment,without making any conclusion.

You are defaming this individual.

Your BBC link is the same,it makes no reference, or substantiates,you're lies.

The other two supposed sources say absolutely nothing,that would come close to you're wild allegations.

You clearly googled,and this is what you came up with.

Clair Wills is a respected academic in literature,you are abusing this individuals integrity.

As you are abusing the reputation of those who sacrificed their lives,and you are insulting their living relatives,with you're malicious poison.

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

None of you're sources provide any evidence whatsoever of your false claims.

Clair Wills whose work I am familiar with makes a fleeting comment,without making any conclusion.

You are defaming this individual.

Your BBC link is the same,it makes no reference, or substantiates,you're lies.

The other two supposed sources say absolutely nothing,that would come close to you're wild allegations.

You clearly googled,and this is what you came.

Clair Wills is a respected academic in literature,you are abusing this individuals integrity.

As you are abusing the reputation of those who sacrificed their lives,and you are insulting their living relatives,with you're malicious poison.

I'll leave you to your head/sand combo. Best of luck with that.

A chara, - An aspect of the correspondence under this heading is the extent to which it reveals a surprising want of familiarity with basic facts about the Rising.

To begin with, and contrary to what has been stated (at even the highest level), the leaders of the Rising never entertained the crackpot expectation of a military defeat of the British. They were no more stupid on this score than anyone today posing the same question.

In consultation with the German general staff and admiralty over a period of 18 months, the Rising was planned to coincide with a great German push (at, as it turned out, Verdun).

Three objectives of the Rising were co-ordinated in that context, reinforced by the following probabilities (a) That Britain would sue for peace in 1916 (a serious consideration of the British Cabinet); (b) that Germany would either win the war or be in a position to demand satisfactory peace terms and an end to hostilities.

The objectives of the Rising were:

1. To re-arouse the independent spirit of the nation.

2. To proclaim the Republic.

3. To hold out militarily for a minimum of three days, thus satisfying the requirement that would enable Germany to fulfil its promise to give Ireland a hearing at the post-war peace conference as an independent belligerent nation. (Hence also the reference in the proclamation to "gallant allies in Europe".)

The military campaign was intended to be nationwide and to resort to guerrilla warfare for a time. Events dictated otherwise. But, as it happened, the only one of the three objectives not achieved by the Rising was the third, which was outside the control of the Irish.

Among the lasting shibboleths perpetrated about the Rising - based on selected quotations from poems of some of the leaders - is that it was a "blood sacrifice". As one who is no stranger to propaganda, especially of the British variety, I am satisfied that this is one of the most effective and enduring examples of black propaganda this country has been subjected to in modern times. The world would be in a fine mess if we were all to be judged by out-of-context sentences from scattered poems or other jottings.

"The tree of liberty must continually be watered with the blood of martyrs and tyrants," is a similar phrase, but it was not written by Pearse. It was written by Thomas Jefferson. Are we to take it that the American war of Independence was also a "blood-sacrifice"?

This and two other myths relating to the Rising are examined - and, I trust, disposed of - in my forthcoming book, A Trinity of Myths.

EOIN NEESON, Blackrock, Co Dublin.

(Eoin Neeson was the author of ten plays and fourteen books, some of them pioneering works on aspects of Irish history notably The Civil War 1922-23, The Life and Death of Michael Collins and A History of Irish Forestry. His lifelong interest in mythology resulted in four books, the most recent, Deirdre and the Other Great Stories from Celtic Mythology, (1997) is a retelling for adults of myths from the Irish cycles with a comparative Introduction. Under the pseudonyms Desmond ONeill and Donal ONeill he had historical novels and thrillers published world-wide and translated into several languages.).

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Because they never disputed the fact of them.

Nah, sorry not buying this. You don't know any of the signatories. Your not privy to their thinking. So again, how do you know that they knew the records were accurate or not?

As regards evidence of absence, Irving Copi says:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Replace qualified investigators with historians in this context of this discussion.

Well, the post is devoid of any content

As opposed to yours when referring to 'your uniformed mate'?

Oh, and the person said 'one iota of evidence', which I agree with.

If you keep asking the same questions, you'll keep getting the same evasive answers.

FYP.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nah, sorry not buying this. You don't know any of the signatories. Your not privy to their thinking. So again, how do you know that they knew the records were accurate or not?

As regards evidence of absence, Irving Copi says:



Replace qualified investigators with historians in this context of this discussion.

Many and varied investigations of the rising by historians. Not a jot about any of the signatories disputing the fact of the massacres in Belgium. So - ample evidence of absence.

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

I'll leave you to your head/sand combo. Best of luck with that.

No more of you're waffle.

You are clearly on a sad and pathetic campaign to discredit and villify the dead.

Who are not here to defend their honour.

Shameless.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Many and varied investigations of the rising by historians.....

Have they shown any evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate?

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

No more of you're waffle.

You are clearly on a sad and pathetic campaign to discredit and villify the dead.

Who are not here to defend their honour.

Shameless.

I'm guessing they'd rather not be 'defended' by those ignorant of their stated 'allies'. I recommend you go off and educate yourself about the rising before embarrassing yourself further.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Have they shown any evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate?

Ample evidence of absence, now that you ask (again).

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Ample evidence of absence, now that you ask (again).

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Do you apply that logic consistently in your analysis of historical and political events?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Once again - I don't care why they opted to give a shout out to their 'gallant' German 'allies' - the point is that they knew these 'gallant allies' to be the perpetrators of civilian massacres. Do you really need these reminders? And you've mentioned a number of times that I'm not one of the signatories - correct. You realise that you're also not one of the signatories? So we can only judge their thoughts on what they've committed to record. They've committed nothing that suggests they disputed the fact of the massacres.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I don't care

Don't care or don't know? The latter I think.....

the point is that they knew these 'gallant allies' to be the perpetrators of civilian massacres.

Knew such reports to be accurate? Get checking all these histories of the rising you've been telling me about alastair......

So we can only judge their thoughts on what they've committed to record.

Then perhaps you'll show where they've committed to record that they believed these reports to be accurate.

They've committed nothing that suggests they disputed the fact of the massacres.

Evidence of absence again? So so convenient...........

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

I'm guessing they'd rather not be 'defended' by those ignorant of their stated 'allies'. I recommend you go off and educate yourself about the rising before embarrassing yourself further.

So you are now "guessing", no more of you're disneyland sources.

You are now actually trying to represent the dead.

The very people you have been discrediting ,without a shred of evidence,relentlessly and vicously.

You have clearly lost all credibility.

Resorting to personal insults,are always an indication that the debate is lost.

Godwins Law.

Whataboutery?

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

So you are now "guessing", no more of you're disneyland sources.

I'm guessing what their attitude to ignorance amongst their fanboys would be - sure. Since they never met you, it's entirely supposition - unlike their documented absence of evidence regarding disputing the factual massacre of civilians by their 'gallant allies'.

gladrags wrote: »

You are now actually trying to represent the dead.

The very people you have been discrediting ,without a shred of evidence,relentlessly and vicously.

You have clearly lost all credibility.

Resorting to personal insults,are always an indication that the debate is lost.

Godwins Law.

Whataboutery?

Now you're just posting up random words.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evidence of absence again? So so convenient...........

...and so much more than you've been able to drum up. See how that works?

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

and so much more than you've been able to drum up.

And yet another attempt to pass it over to me when your the one that needs to be doing the work. Oh dear......

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And yet another attempt to pass it over to me when your the one that needs to be doing the work. Oh dear......

Nope - you're still not getting it.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Did the the signatories believe the records to be accurate?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Did the the signatories believe the records to be accurate?

I'm finished playing your game. If you ever come up with anything evidential let me know. I won't hold my breath. Ta ta.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I'm finished playing your game. If you ever come up with anything evidential let me know. I won't hold my breath. Ta ta.

And I won't be holding my breath than you can provide evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate either. Nighty night...

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

I'm guessing what their attitude to ignorance amongst their fanboys would be - sure. Since they never met you.

This is very interesting.Let me ensure that I get this right.

You are guessing about what the hero's of 1916, who were murdered by the British,think about their "fanboys".

What do you think the relatives of those who gave their lives,think of you're crass attempt ,to smear their dead relatives?

gladrags

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And I won't be holding my breath than you can provide evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate either. Nighty night...

Well done.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Do you apply that logic consistently in your analysis of historical and political events?

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

This is very interesting.Let me ensure that I get this right.

You are guessing about what the hero's of 1916, who were murdered by the British,think about their "fanboys".

What do you think the relatives of those who gave their lives,think of you're crass attempt ,to smear their dead relatives?

Strangely enough, their relatives are well aware that the reference to 'gallant allies' was to Imperial Germany. Because, unlike you, they're aware of the history of the rising.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

Do you apply that logic consistently in your analysis of historical and political events?

I think you work on whats available to start with. If it isn't there, then go do some research yourself and then come back. Also you referred to 'balance of probability' in a earlier post. As an example, would you not think considering the sheer number of speeches that John Redmond gave around the country (to which I provided links to quite a few) on the subject of Ireland's participation in the war, that quite a few people joined the BA because of this? What I can't understand is someone taking a position on something and then provide no evidence at all, primary, secondary or any available related information when asked to do so by others to back up a point.

alastair

And just so we're all clear:

I provided ample evidence of absence to demonstrate that the signatories of the proclamation never uttered a word, wrote, recorded, or related anything to suggest they didn't acknowledge the factual nature of the German massacres in Belgium. Despite the obvious propaganda appeal of articulating such belief, in a scenario where they undoubtedly would have used any such material against British interests.

The nonsense of pretending that the leaders of the rising weren't well-aware of one of the biggest news stories of the start of the war, a story confirmed by the personal testimony of Belgian refugees in Ireland before 1916, is self-evident to anyone not blinded by ideology. Its laughable.

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

Strangely enough, their relatives are well aware that the reference to 'gallant allies' was to Imperial Germany. Because, unlike you, they're aware of the history of the rising.

You are now trying to act as spokesperson for the relatives of the those who gave their lives.

I am aware of the organisation,and their goals.They are I am sure,more than familiar with the wording of the proclamation.

And its interpretation.

Are you suggesting that they believe, their ancestors were complicit in the German alleged massacres in Belgium?

And are you now suggesting that they accept you're warped interpretation?

Quote Alistair
"Did they kill babies? Yes they did.
Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion, all these years later. Does that choice sully whatever moral ground they claimed for themselves? You can be sure it does. For James Connolly in particular, it's a real disappointment."

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

And just so we're all clear:

I provided ample evidence of absence to demonstrate that the signatories of the proclamation never uttered a word, wrote, recorded, or related anything to suggest they didn't acknowledge the factual nature of the German massacres in Belgium. Despite the obvious propaganda appeal of articulating such belief, in a scenario where they undoubtedly would have used any such material against British interests.

The nonsense of pretending that the leaders of the rising weren't well-aware of one of the biggest news stories of the start of the war, a story confirmed by the personal testimony of Belgian refugees in Ireland before 1916, is self-evident to anyone not blinded by ideology. Its laughable.

You will not wangle your way out of this with empty rhetoric.

Not even Bruton,has suggested the complicity or culpability of these men in the Belgium affair.

No one but you.I am sure the relatives of James Connolly would not be happy with your smears below.

Quote Alistair.

"Did they kill babies? Yes they did.
Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion, all these years later. Does that choice sully whatever moral ground they claimed for themselves? You can be sure it does. For James Connolly in particular, it's a real disappointment."

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

You are now trying to act as spokesperson for the relatives of the those who gave their lives.

I am aware of the organisation,and their goals.They are I am sure,more than familiar with the wording of the proclamation.

Which organisation would that be then?

gladrags wrote: »

And its interpretation.

Clearly not.

gladrags wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they believe, their ancestors were complicit in the German alleged massacres in Belgium?

They were certainly complicit with Imperial Germany, and opted to form and continue this alliance, knowing that the Germans had massacred civilians in Belgium.

gladrags wrote: »

And are you now suggesting that they accept you're warped interpretation?

Once again - everyone, relatives included is well aware of the German connection, of the reference to their 'gallant allies' as being the Germans, of the German gun running, of Casement and Plunkett's trips to Germany to work out a deal with the Germans. Of Plunkett's involvement in trying to put together an a Irish brigade of volunteers for the German Imperial military. Nothing warped about any of it - it's historic fact.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I think you work on whats available to start with. If it isn't there, then go do some research yourself and then come back. Also you referred to 'balance of probability' in a earlier post. As an example, would you not think considering the sheer number of speeches that John Redmond gave around the country (to which I provided links to quite a few) on the subject of Ireland's participation in the war, that quite a few people joined the BA because of this? What I can't understand is someone taking a position on something and then provide no evidence at all, primary, secondary or any available related information when asked to do so by others to back up a point.

So, no then. Only selectively.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

They were certainly complicit with Imperial Germany, and opted to form and continue this alliance, knowing that the Germans had massacred civilians in Belgium.

Rubbish. In reality they had nothing to do with these events. They were only looking for assistance from Germany in their aid to fight the British, which became the common enemy once the war started. The 'enemy of my enemy' and all that. This doesn't put the British on a higher moral plane considering their own record of empire.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Rubbish. In reality they had nothing to do with these events. They were only looking for assistance from Germany in their aid to fight the British, which became the common enemy once the war started. The 'enemy of my enemy' and all that. This doesn't put the British on a higher moral plane considering their own record of empire.

I never mentioned the British. The signatories were complicit with Imperial Germany - that's not in any doubt. They did know about the massacre of Belgian civilians - that's not in any doubt. They did choose to refer to the Germans as their 'gallant allies' with this knowledge - that's not in any doubt.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

I never mentioned the British.

You did earlier.

You said:

I take it that you're quite happy to have an alliance with these gallant lads marked down in the proclamation then?

And were asked in the next post:

Why? Were the Brits any better?

To which you replied:

Yes they were actually.

In the context of their own record of empire, you are engaged in quite a selective (hypocritical?) analysis here.

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You did earlier.

You said:



And were asked in the next post:



To which you replied:



In the context of their own record of empire, you are engaged in quite a selective (hypocritical?) analysis here.

That would be someone else bringing the British up, not me. I'm not engaged in comparing the failings of various empires, just highlighting the nature of who the signatories referenced as their 'gallant allies'. Which is nothing to to with the British.

RED L4 0TH

alastair wrote: »

That would be someone else bringing the British up, not me. I'm not engaged in comparing the failings of various empires, just highlighting the nature of who the signatories referenced as their 'gallant allies'. Which is nothing to to with the British.

You said they were 'better'. You were referring to the British. How were they 'better' in the context of their own history of killing civilians in creating and maintaining an empire?

alastair

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You said they were 'better'.

When asked, I offered an opinion - they certainly weren't engaged in massacring civilians at the time. Which would make them the better of the two choices. But again - this isn't about the British - it's about who the signatories referenced as their 'gallant allies' - those responsible for civil massacres. Nothing to do with my opinion, the British, or anyone other than the signatories and the Germans.

gladrags

alastair wrote: »

Once again - everyone, relatives included is well aware of the German connection, of the reference to their 'gallant allies' as being the Germans, of the German gun running, of Casement and Plunkett's trips to Germany to work out a deal with the Germans. Of Plunkett's involvement in trying to put together an a Irish brigade of volunteers for the German Imperial military. Nothing warped about any of it - it's historic fact.

You are making false claims against the relatives of the dead.You again have shown no proof, other than hearsay.

It is not "historic fact" that these men were complicit, you are not an historian, you have provided no sources, referential material, or research material to back up your false claims.

Presence of evidence, is the fundamental democratic cornerstone that decides, and substantiates the validity of an event.

Absence of evidence is, and was, used by tyrants, dictators, warlords, witch hunters, religious zealots and bigots, to condemn innocent people to death, to invade, destroy and dictate.


It is the laws of the jungle.


You have failed to provide any evidence to back up your personal crusade to defame others.The so called sources you supplied, were all fantasies, and have no bearing whatsoever on your false claims. I pointed this out to you. You have not and cannot deny this.The very fact that you are prepared to use false information, to bolster your fantasies, is telling.

You cannot make up the rules as you go along, and then base assumptions on these rules.


Quote: Gladrags
“I am aware of the organisation, and their goals. They are I am sure, more than familiar with the wording of the proclamation. And its interpretation.”

Quote:Alistair
“Clearly not”

I am not going to reply to the above, there is no need to, further proof by you, of your inability to differ between fact and fiction, and to jump to totally irrational conclusions.


Quote: Alistair.
“They were certainly complicit with Imperial Germany, and opted to form and continue this alliance, knowing that the Germans had massacred civilians in Belgium.”

They certainly were not, you have provided no evidence, there is no evidence, historians have made no reference to suggest, that they were aware of the Belgian affairs.
This is a fact, and will remain a fact of history, there is nothing you can do to alter a fact of history.


Historian’s base their research. On the presence of evidence, not the absence of evidence.


Democracy and the judicial system,are based on primarily, presence of evidence, not absence of evidence.


I will be guided by historians on this, who deal with and research history, generally in an unbiased and factual manner, as anyone interested in factual history will testify.



I hope you were never on a jury, god help the defendants, if you were.

“We have no evidence your honour, so he’s guilty”

alastair

gladrags wrote: »

You are making false claims against the relatives of the dead.You again have shown no proof, other than hearsay.

All I can recommend, once again, is that you go off and educate yourself about the rising, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and (I know this isn't going to register, but...) absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Two different things altoghether.