'1916 Rising' or '1916 Terrorist Attack' - Poll

GizAGoOfYerGee

If you were living in 1916 Ireland, would you have supported the terrorists/freedom fighters and their proclamation of an Irish Republic? Or would you have thrown cabbages at them, as the majority of Dubliners did at the time?

The Irish Times reported the "sickening", "dreadful" and "awful" attack on the British Administration in Ireland. As did the majority of papers around the island.

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

It was only until the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters executed Irish people that colluded with the British, and of course, the atrocities by the ex-convict Black and Tans, when Irish people changed their minds and sided with the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters.

There is a huge anti-Irish sentiment here on AH and I would love to see the outcome of this poll.

Biggins

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

...There is a huge anti-Irish sentiment here on AH...

Say what!

GizAGoOfYerGee

Biggins wrote: »

Say what!

People in AH are continuously hating on all things Irish.

Just wait for the AH responses below.

Biggins

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

People in AH are continuously hating on all things Irish.

Just wait for the AH responses below.

No, I disagree.
Some just dislike some areas of Irish society and goings-on.
We should be more clear about that.

There isn't a huge wide carte-blanch anti-Irish sentiment here in AH I would have to say.

Sharkey 10

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

People in AH are continuously hating on all things Irish.

Just wait for the AH responses below.

No i would disagree , a lot of people here disagree with a lot of the bad things in Irish society and I think the boys in the gpo would have been equally opposed to a lot of stuff that goes on in this country.
By todays the rising would be classed as a act of terror . It was defiantly not a populist act.

hotmail.com

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

If you were living in 1916 Ireland, would you have supported the terrorists/freedom fighters and their proclamation of an Irish Republic? Or would you have thrown cabbages at them, as the majority of Dubliners did at the time?

The Irish Times reported the "sickening", "dreadful" and "awful" attack on the British Administration in Ireland. As did the majority of papers around the island.

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

It was only until the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters executed Irish people that colluded with the British, and of course, the atrocities by the ex-convict Black and Tans, when Irish people changed their minds and sided with the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters.

There is a huge anti-Irish sentiment here on AH and I would love to see the outcome of this poll.

What evidence have you got for this?

You're equating being anti-Irish with being against terrorism. Silly.

Einhard

I'm far from nationalist, and I don't give a flying feck if there's ever a United Ireland, but I don't think it's unreasonable to resort to violent methods when the right of self-determination is denied to a people, and the democratic process neutered. The America revolutionaries, the Maquis in WW II, and Neslon Mandela all resorted to such means, and yet I have never heard eny of them denounced with the vitriol that some revisionists reserve for the participants in the Rising.

brianthebard

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

Historiographical fail - the worst kind of fail!!!!

rockmongrel

Well the definition of a terror attack would be to invoke terror in the populace, and that clearly wasn't the aim of the rising. So definitely 1916 Rising.

Black Swan

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

There is a huge anti-Irish sentiment here on AH

After whose Hours?

Doneg Al

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

If you were living in 1916 Ireland, would you have supported the terrorists/freedom fighters and their proclamation of an Irish Republic? Or would you have thrown cabbages at them, as the majority of Dubliners did at the time?

The Irish Times reported the "sickening", "dreadful" and "awful" attack on the British Administration in Ireland. As did the majority of papers around the island.

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

It was only until the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters executed Irish people that colluded with the British, and of course, the atrocities by the ex-convict Black and Tans, when Irish people changed their minds and sided with the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters.

There is a huge anti-Irish sentiment here on AH and I would love to see the outcome of this poll.

Man you need to read a book. Lots and lots of books.

Einhard

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

I don't know how you possibly stand by the former statement. The Home Rule Party (IPP) was consistently the largest party on the island of Ireland, and its support clearly showed that Irish people wanted a break from the Union at the very least. That Sinn Fein, which advocated complete seperation through the establishment of a Republic won 46% of the vote in 1918, shows that the electorate were favourably disposed to independence.

hotmail.com

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know how you possibly stand by the former statement. The Home Rule Party (IPP) was consistently the largest party on the island of Ireland, and its support clearly showed that Irish people wanted a break from the Union at the very least. That Sinn Fein, which advocated complete seperation through the establishment of a Republic won 46% of the vote in 1918, shows that the electorate were favourably disposed to independence.

Just to qualify that 46.9% - If you remove the unionist vote, 68% of nationalists voted for Dev's SF.

The_Kew_Tour

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

^^^
When end year poll comes along and votes asked for stupid comments then this will get my vote.

minidazzler

I wouldn't consider it a terrorist attack given it wasn't done in a way that involved the harm of non-combatants.

It was an insurgency more than anything.

Insurgency does not equal terrorism.

That said, the cnuts who went on bombing campaigns in later years were nothing short of terrorists and I hope they burn in jet fuel fires if their is a hell.

OutlawPete

Strange Poll, not sure what to make of the thread.

Anyway, of the thousands that took part in The Rising, I am proud of every single one of them.

As far as the people that gave the Rebels a hard time, most of those were getting money from the British state because they had family members that fought for the British Army in World War I.

Obviously there was the executions in Kilmainham and further executions elsewhere in Dublin (not to mention those that were interened, over a thousand) but it was still the principal act that led to the Anglo Irish Treaty.

Irish citizens, that think that the Old IRA were 'terrorists', should take the boat as far as I'm concerned.

Napper Hawkins

Didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to consider the old IRA terrorists.

I reckon they'd be fairly disgusted with how we've managed to **** up everything they fought and died for though.

Could you imagine what Michael Collins and his crew would make of the scum running todays show? Imagine him meeting the likes of Bertie or Cowen...

StupidLikeAFox

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

People in AH are continuously hating on all things Irish.

Just wait for the AH responses below.

Since when did Irish people use the phrase "hating on"?

"Yo, Collins, Pearse, these brits be hatin on all your asses, they been all up in our faces for 800 years y'all, lets get our rising on"

digme

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

If you were living in 1916 Ireland, would you have supported the terrorists/freedom fighters and their proclamation of an Irish Republic? Or would you have thrown cabbages at them, as the majority of Dubliners did at the time?

The Irish Times reported the "sickening", "dreadful" and "awful" attack on the British Administration in Ireland. As did the majority of papers around the island.

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

It was only until the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters executed Irish people that colluded with the British, and of course, the atrocities by the ex-convict Black and Tans, when Irish people changed their minds and sided with the Irish terrorists/freedom fighters.

There is a huge anti-Irish sentiment here on AH and I would love to see the outcome of this poll.

stocklholm sydrome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Athlone_Bhoy

adrian280582 wrote: »

^^^
When end year poll comes along and votes asked for stupid comments then this will get my vote.

Don't know about majority but they were indeed spat at by certain locals.

Irish citizens, that think that the Old IRA were 'terrorists', should take the boat as far as I'm concerned.

Old IRA? Whats the difference between the Old IRA and the likes of the PIRA? Oh don't bother anwering I know the answer.

Jamiekelly

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Don't know about majority but they were indeed spat at by certain locals.



Old IRA? Whats the difference between the Old IRA and the likes of the PIRA? Oh don't bother anwering I know the answer.

2 minutes ago the poll showed 0 votes for "1916 A terrorist attack" and coincidently after your comment was posted some fool gave it a vote. You're a SPY!!!1

OutlawPete

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Oh don't bother anwering I know the answer.

Don't bother asking the question then.

K-9

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know how you possibly stand by the former statement. The Home Rule Party (IPP) was consistently the largest party on the island of Ireland, and its support clearly showed that Irish people wanted a break from the Union at the very least. That Sinn Fein, which advocated complete seperation through the establishment of a Republic won 46% of the vote in 1918, shows that the electorate were favourably disposed to independence.

This to me sums it up.

Home Rule was by far the biggest party pre 1916 among men who could vote, about 30% of the population (as women didn't have the vote and there were age restrictions on males).

Three things changed that for me. 1916 obviously, as shown by SF bye elections wins between 1916 and the General Election of 1918, the Home Rule Bill not being passed in 1916 (why did the soldiers go to WW1), due to partition becoming a major issue and the threat of conscription that was later suggested as an enticement to get HR.

So, in 1916 SF wasn't that particularly popular but something happened to change that in 2 short years. Home Rule died away (First past the post system wiped it out), resistance from Unionists even to HR and SF's time had come, helped by 1916.

Where they terrorists? By todays description, maybe. But, within 2 years they had a massive democratic mandate.

jethro081

The 1916 risin was not terrorism. The idea of a democratic mandate or even a popular mandate is not relevant to the issue of whether or not it was in fact terrorism.

The simple facts are that the Volunteers of 1916 seized what they estimated to be the most valuable strategic centres they could within Dublin. Their aim was not to strike terror into anyone, they genuinely believed (for the most part, and however naievely) that they had a chance to succeed.

It can be described as a militant extremist coup, it can be described as unwanted or unwarranted depending on your political opinions and affiliations.

it can not however be described as terrorism.

THe war of independance however is a different matter....

dvpower

There's a big difference between supporting Home Rule and supporting the rising. it's clear that there was a widespread support for Home Rule in 1916 but a much lower support for any armed rising (especially one that was bound to fail).

Still, I don't think it can be categorised as a terrorist attack. They faced the fight straight on, even in the knowledge that they were doomed from the outset; more than can be said for some of Collins' later actions.

TerryTibbs!

The terrorist act was the Brits showing up here in the first place.

RMD

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

The Irish Times reported the "sickening", "dreadful" and "awful" attack on the British Administration in Ireland. As did the majority of papers around the island.

The Irish Times was a unionist paper at the time so it's not a fair judgement, but yes the rising was disliked by the majority of the population at the time. Once they realised they were being executed without trial, then they started to receive support.

10green bottles

RMD wrote: »

, but yes the rising was disliked by the majority of the population at the time. Once they realised they were being executed without trial, then they started to receive support.

No ****!!!

lugha

jethro081 wrote: »

The 1916 risin was not terrorism. The idea of a democratic mandate or even a popular mandate is not relevant to the issue of whether or not it was in fact terrorism.

Got it in one. Mode of engagement and mandate are two different things. It is amazing how many people don't get this, and it is not unique to Irish affairs.

Personally I blame George W. Bush and Jack Bauer for all the tendency to decry "terrorist" when "unjustified" is what is intended. :pac: And this of course invites the daft logical arguments: Mandela was a terrorist, Mandela's actions can be justified, therefore my favourite terrorists can be justified

Truth is that even modern physical force republicans (unlike the loyalists) did not / do not seek to instil terror in the wider population. They by and large, targeted "crown forces" so terrorism isn't really an apt description of them. But are their actions justified? No, because like the 1916 crew they do not have a mandate from those they claim to represent.

Predator_

Depends on what side of the fence you are. If your Gaelic Irish then they were/are freedom fighters. If your foreign/west-brit/brainwashed-traitor then they usually were/are terrorists.

R P McMurphy

dvpower wrote: »

There's a big difference between supporting Home Rule and supporting the rising. it's clear that there was a widespread support for Home Rule in 1916 but a much lower support for any armed rising (especially one that was bound to fail).

Still, I don't think it can be categorised as a terrorist attack. They faced the fight straight on, even in the knowledge that they were doomed from the outset; more than can be said for some of Collins' later actions.

Fought head on but always doomed to failure doing so against a much bigger military infrastructure. Collins was a realist and certainly a revolutionary strategist. If you consider the insurgents in Iraq, if they came out and fought the coalition forces head on they would be bombed from the face of the map. Their position necessitates the adoption of urban guerrilla techniques in order to survive. The fact that they are still there ten years later in the face of vastly superior military might would indicate the validity of their approach. Not their aims I might add but the tactics they have adopted

gbee

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

By all accounts, the vast majority of Irish people wanted to be under British rule and were sickened by the 1916 attack on Dublin.

Pretty much all the big urban cities and towns wanted to stay with the British, they were their trading lifeline and Cork City especially was a jewel in the European environment, let alone the UK.

We had international banking, an international stock exchange, one of the busiest and most profitable ports in the world, the biggest food and dairy industry anywhere and so on and on ....

All went after the events following 1916 leaving Cork a slum in rubble to be ruled by misguided bogmen who have spent the rest of the intervening years trying to restore Cork to its former British glory, including one Lord Mayor recently who flew the Union Jack over our City Hall.

I think you'll find the divide between those who would still like today to be part of Britain to be reasonably comfortable entrepreneurs or tradesmen and the socialist and the republicans are still largely in the council estates.

However, in the country, like as far away as Macroom, I've spoken to people who would take up the rifle again today and use it.

gbee

OutlawPete wrote: »

Irish citizens, that think that the Old IRA were 'terrorists', should take the boat as far as I'm concerned.

We don't need much of a push to take the boat now, I'm afraid.

Just a wee revision, not in detail but Collins himself, masterminded the bombings and shooting of the British Special Agents from Belfast and London in what is a 'classic' terrorist attack and execution of both the event and the intelligence gathering to facilitate such event.

Plus you must forgive people too as terminologies get confused, technically, the Old IRA morphed into the Irish Army and Collins is still considered their founder today.

Dev, walked out of the Dail starting the Civil War, actually lost and was honoured as a hero for many years. Believe it or not, as kid in school I was taught that Dev started the IRA, and that was in a Cork school.

old_aussie

Time to move on, going round in circles just wears out the grass and your shoes, gets you no where.

Notorious97

As of a minute ago there are 9 votes to yes they are terrorists. I am actually ashamed if those people are Irish. This thread will go down a threat when other Republicans log on. Im Republican and personally im proud of every last one of them who fought in the Easter Rising and the war that followed. Those men and women fought and died for this country’s future, and to see how we have allowed it to slide into the disaster it is today is disgraceful, im sure if they knew that at the time they might think why on earth should we fight for these idiots such as Cowen and Co to come along and fu*k it up for all of us!

More should be done to remember their sacrifices, they seen an injustice and wanted to correct it, people should study Irish History more, their current knowledge is quite shocking if they think it was a terrorist act.

I agree though this forum is extremely anti-irish and im pretty sure if they had a vote on if we should rejoin the UK the majority would vote yes.

Terry

lugha wrote: »

Got it in one. Mode of engagement and mandate are two different things. It is amazing how many people don't get this, and it is not unique to Irish affairs.

Personally I blame George W. Bush and Jack Bauer for all the tendency to decry "terrorist" when "unjustified" is what is intended. :pac: And this of course invites the daft logical arguments: Mandela was a terrorist, Mandela's actions can be justified, therefore my favourite terrorists can be justified

Truth is that even modern physical force republicans (unlike the loyalists) did not / do not seek to instil terror in the wider population. They by and large, targeted "crown forces" so terrorism isn't really an apt description of them. But are their actions justified? No, because like the 1916 crew they do not have a mandate from those they claim to represent.

http://www.iol.ie/~dluby/proclaim.htm

The people of any naton under foreign rule have a right to stand up against the invaders.
Fighting against an oppressive regime is not terrorism or insurgency. It's the right thing to do.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i'll assume you'll all stand and fight for the proud men and women of cork, alaska and quebec so?

dlofnep

I've already discussed this at length - But in summary, it was not a terrorist attack. "Terrorism" is thrown around by people who can't actually discuss the context of a war. Britain had no mandate to control Irish affairs, and their position in Ireland was untenable. 2 home rule bills had failed, and people were becoming discontent with the political process (or lack of).

By the time the third bill was introduced, and not enacted - there was a thirst for real independence and not a devolved Government. The reality of the matter is the 1918 elections were the most pivotal in Irish history, and told exactly how the electorate were feeling. If they were for a British presence in Ireland, then you'd think that it would of been reflective outside of the 4 north-eastern counties where Unionists had a majority. People may say, that it's retrospective logic. But if 2 years after the Rising, a political unknown sweeps 70% of all the seats isn't an indication of the public's view, then what is?

Biggins

Notorious97 wrote: »

...I agree though this forum is extremely anti-irish and im pretty sure if they had a vote on if we should rejoin the UK the majority would vote yes.

If that feeling exists in some, I put down a lack of kop-on in regards reality and knowledge of established facts.

Anyone that thinks those that lost their lives in 1916 were terrorists, they don't have a god damn clue and frankly, if someone is that stupid and insulting ignorant towards those that has given their lives in the name of the establishment of our Irish nation, those fools todays don't deserve to be Irish and they should be utterly ashamed of themselves!

Frankly, I don't want to know them. They can sod off out of Ireland!

kfallon

Ireland's bravest men & women!

prinz

Easter '16 was a rising not a terrorist attack.

Although there would be a few alleged instances of scummy coward behaviour (on both sides) by and large they fought a fair fight, fought with the intention of scrapping it out to the finish not trying to use terror/fear as a weapon to bring their opponents down.

You are confusing the understandable anger of the (mostly) Dub population with a love of the Union. I think they just preferred getting on with their daily lives and not having snipers on both sides taking pot-shots through their kitchens, and a decent proportion of the city shelled. IIRC civilians made up the largest proportion of the victims, they took that anger out on the people seen as causing it.

lugha

Terry wrote: »

http://www.iol.ie/~dluby/proclaim.htm

The people of any naton under foreign rule have a right to stand up against the invaders.
Fighting against an oppressive regime is not terrorism or insurgency. It's the right thing to do.

Not without authority from the people they claim to represent. To argue otherwise is to make a justification for the actions of PIRA in the past and for present day dissident republicans.

And of course there is the difficulty of establishing the basis on which Ireland the island, was a nation. There was a sizable minority in the North East who would not subscribe to this nation. I wonder did the authors of the proclamation get the irony when the claimed “the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman” when the clearly did not have the allegiance of the aforementioned whilst they simultaneously berated the “usurpation of that right (to control Irish affairs) by a foreign people and government” ?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

And of course there is the difficulty of establishing the basis on which Ireland the island, was a nation. There was a sizable minority in the North East who would not subscribe to this nation.

They had no problems subscribing to it until 1920.

We know exactly what this sizable minority did - incorporated Fermanagh, Tyrone, South Down, South Armagh & Derry City into an orange state, despite having no mandate to do so.

mathepac

Einhard wrote: »

... the Maquis in WW II, ... resorted to such means, and yet I have never heard eny of them denounced with the vitriol that some revisionists reserve for the participants in the Rising.

Interesting that you should mention one arm of the French Resistance movement all of whose methods and tactics were based on those devised by Collins, Mulcahy and McKee and used by the freedom fighters against the occupying power during the War of Independence, based on their learnings from 1916.

If you want an example of terrorist activity in Ireland look at the splendid example set by the sweepings of British gaols and military 'glass-houses' referred to colloquially as the Black and Tans.

It might be an idea to gather some historical facts and get at least some accuracy into your observations before initiating another of these absurd and seriously flawed polls.

round tower huntsman

1916 rising was another stage in irelands fight against british imperialism in ireland. armed insurgencies had been on going since before the 1798 rebellion.
the 1916 rebels like all militant republicans before and since were demonised by church and state,status-quo.

gandalf

If you bear in mind that an awful lot of men were fighting in France against Germany and those left behind relied on the wages they received for their service it is easy to understand the reaction against those that took part in the rising. Also if you look at the photos of the aftermath of the rising and the destruction that was meted upon Dublin you can also understand that initial reaction against those that took part in the rising.

Are the men who took part in the rising terrorists, no I do not believe they are. They felt that they had a good chance of success and if the Aud had not been scuttled and Eoin MacNeill had not issued that infamous advert in the papers countermanding the original orders the Rising may have had a much different outcome.

MickShamrock

A fight for Irish freedom.

mathepac

Biggins wrote: »

... frankly, if someone is that stupid and insulting ignorant towards those that has given their lives in the name of the establishment of our Irish nation, those fools todays don't deserve to be Irish and they should be utterly ashamed of themselves!

Frankly, I don't want to know them. They can sod off out of Ireland!

+1

"... Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
`To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods, ...' " to quote Baron Macauley (Scots-Irish, poet, politician, historian)

pablomakaveli

I dislike seeing the Rising called a terrorist attack as well. It was a military action because they sought a confrontation with British soldiers. They did'nt aim to attack civilians so how could it be considered a terrorist attack.

Incidentally i was reading a thread in the Politics forum the other day and a sizeable number of posters seemed to consider the Rising as a terrorist action.

deise go deo

gbee wrote: »

Just a wee revision, not in detail but Collins himself, masterminded the bombings and shooting of the British Special Agents from Belfast and London in what is a 'classic' terrorist attack and execution of both the event and the intelligence gathering to facilitate such event.

The targeting of an enemy agent/soldier/offical is not terrorism.

Plus you must forgive people too as terminologies get confused, technically, the Old IRA morphed into the Irish Army and Collins is still considered their founder today.

Dev, walked out of the Dail starting the Civil War, actually lost and was honoured as a hero for many years. Believe it or not, as kid in school I was taught that Dev started the IRA, and that was in a Cork school.

Why did DeV walk out, Collins brok the pact, and it was the free state that fired the first shots.

Neither Collins nor DeV started the IRA, That was Eoin McNeil

deise go deo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I dislike seeing the Rising called a terrorist attack as well. It was a military action because they sought a confrontation with British soldiers. They did'nt aim to attack civilians so how could it be considered a terrorist attack.

Incidentally i was reading a thread in the Politics forum the other day and a sizeable number of posters seemed to consider the Rising as a terrorist action.

Not really, Just a few posters saying it again and again.:rolleyes: