Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’
Options
Comments
-
Given that you couldn't answer a couple of straightforward questions, I don't know why I should tbh, but here you go:
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.You will not respond,because you cannot respond.
This is why you are now resorting to unfounded,and silly remarks.
You have no right to try to defame and smear,Irish men and women,who gave their lives,for the future of this country.
Your bigotted and bitter remarks,has exposed you for what you are.
Keep them coming,and I will deal with them.Let me know when you learn some history.I come from Dublin,the relatives of 1916 association,are very well known.
Particularly as the centenary,is not far off.
Here is their e-mail address,I am sure they would like to hear from you.
1916relatives@gmail.com
Wrong again,your bigotry is clouding your judgement.
The rest of your tiresome and narrow minded waffle,was dealt with before.
Again,you have no right to intentionnaly smear the men and women who gave their lives for the future generations of this country.
Keep them coming...I knew you had no option to revert to this type of bile.
You were caught spoofing again,now you are frantic,and making it up as you go along.Hoping you can find a way out,by clouding the issue.
And hoping the thread will move on,and forget your bigotry,you bull******* your way into a corner.
And you know it.
Instead of showing some dignity, and recognisising your mistake,you are cowardly reverting to type.
You should apologise,for smearing the dead,and their relatives.
Keep them coming...Keep that head in the sand. Why learn some history now, when 35 years of 'study' haven't done you any good?LOL
History or no history,you have exposed yourself for what you are.
I knew from past whataboutery, that you just needed enough rope.
Your lies and bigotry have come to the fore.
Any more Rumsfield jokes?In your case - 'no history'.Very profound and well thought out.
Your credibility is in tatters,and deservedly so.
LOL
Mod: Cut this drivel out please. Take it to pm or whatever but stop clogging up the thread with it. Thanks.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
RED L4 0TH wrote: »Nah. It's you ignoring the basic point that all these events happened against the background of WW1
How would you imagine that? Given that the Belgian massacres are a bit tricky to disassociate from WW1. :rolleyes:0 -
-
RED L4 0TH wrote: »Who said I disassociated? Pretty clear you were trying to disassociate other events that occurred in that war.
That have nothing to do with the signatories choice to call the perpetrators of civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'? Sure - because they don't have anything to do with that choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
That have nothing to do with the signatories choice to call the perpetrators of civilian massacres their 'gallant allies'? Sure - because they don't have anything to do with that choice.
The signatories signed the proclamation, in its entirity.
Not just two words.
There is no reference in the proclamation to Belgium,or to Germany.
If Germany was one of the allies referred to,well and good.
The bottom line is that until you provide the evidence,to prove otherwise.
Your claims are without foundation.
And always will be.0 -
-
-
That's handy.
Not at all. Odd how you still think them to be 'better' in light of events such as the 1857 uprising in India for example.0 -
Its strange that sending many 100,000 Irish men to die for the Colonial power is viewed as the peaceful option by Bruton. Even after all that in 1917 the British prime minister effectively reneged on his word to Redmond by tying the implementation of the 1914 home rule bill to Irish conscription. That was the end of the home rule party.
Given the choice of the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands of Irish men (and whatever amount of men they killed/maimed in battle) to achieve a mickey mouse partitioned home rule, of the deaths of two to three thousand total to achieve independence for the 26 counties, the more peaceful choice is quite obvious.
Since Cornwallis bribed the Irish parliament to the tune of several hundred million of todays equivalent to pass the bill enacting the utterly corrupt Act of Union, there had been repeated attempts to peacefully repeal the Union.
The great hope was O'Connell whose passivism was used against him by the violent British colonial power. The parliamentary party's efforts ended when they were duped into sending a large part of the Irish male population to die or kill as some kind of "peaceful solution".
The amount of military and civil violent death has diminished beyond recognition since independence.
I challenge any revisionist to put forth any scenario with less loss of life than what ensued.
The ultimate responsibility for a state resides with the actual governers of the state. The British government must take full blame for their policies in Ireland and their inevitable consequences.0 -
Advertisement
-
John Bruton is completely missing the point there was dozens of different revolutions threw out the world between 1916 - 1923, in obviously Ireland, Russia, Germany, Malta, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Egypt, The Red Scare in the USA, Mexico, Finland etc...& some more revolutions & counter-revolutions within in these countries, some are considered good & some bad the Irish one I think is considered good by most Irish people.
The February revolution in Russia in 1917 I think was a good thing but the following Bolshevik coup in October (don't know why people call it a revolution) was a very bad thing. It just replaced the Tsarist systems of oppression with more even more effective ones like the Cheka & KGB.
The point is they happened. The Irish Republican movement has always seen itself in a international context as well as a national context ever since the 1780's when it was born some 230 years ago.0 -
Its strange that sending many 100,000 Irish men to die for the Colonial power is viewed as the peaceful option by Bruton. Even after all that in 1917 the British prime minister effectively reneged on his word to Redmond by tying the implementation of the 1914 home rule bill to Irish conscription. That was the end of the home rule party.
Given the choice of the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands of Irish men (and whatever amount of men they killed/maimed in battle) to achieve a mickey mouse partitioned home rule, of the deaths of two to three thousand total to achieve independence for the 26 counties, the more peaceful choice is quite obvious.
Since Cornwallis bribed the Irish parliament to the tune of several hundred million of todays equivalent to pass the bill enacting the utterly corrupt Act of Union, there had been repeated attempts to peacefully repeal the Union.
The great hope was O'Connell whose passivism was used against him by the violent British colonial power. The parliamentary party's efforts ended when they were duped into sending a large part of the Irish male population to die or kill as some kind of "peaceful solution".
The amount of military and civil violent death has diminished beyond recognition since independence.
I challenge any revisionist to put forth any scenario with less loss of life than what ensued.
The ultimate responsibility for a state resides with the actual governers of the state. The British government must take full blame for their policies in Ireland and their inevitable consequences.
You could also add if the British government recognized the 1918 general election votes in in Ireland & accepted the democratic wishes of a large majority of the Irish then almost certainly the best part of 10,000 people would not have lost their lives & about 80,000 would not have been injued in conflicts between Republicans, Loyalists, the British Army & the Free State Army. threw out most of the 2oth century.
All of those combatant forces committed terrible atrocities the Free State Army carried out the Ballyseedy massacre & similar type actions. The british paramilitary force in Ireland killed 12 people at GAA match & burned down the center of Cork city. That's the 1919 - 1923 period.
In the 1969 - 1998 period. The BA murdered 14 civilians on Bloody Sunday & murdered 16 during the Ballymurphy & Springhill massacres. And not to mention the collusion between Loyalist death squads.
The IRA killed 11 civilians on the Eniskillen bombing, 8 civilians during the Shankill bombing & 9 civilians on Bloody Friday (although I think one person was a UVF or UDA member).
the INLA shot up Church service in Darkley killing 3 innocent church goers.
The IPLO shot up a number of pubs in Protestants areas killing several people between 1987 - 1991 & carried out random sectarian attacks.
The Loyalists - The UVF,UDA & RHC who imo carried out the worst massaacres of the troubles but because they were aimed at Irish Catholic/nationaliss the media didn't weren't as "outraged" compared to the IRA attacks.
The UVF\.UPV were the first group to start a bombing campaign in 1969 alot of which was were in Dublin. There was McGurks bar bomb by the UVF which killed 15 innocent people & injured about 30. And then of course the most vile disgusting act of the troubles - The Dublin & Monaghan bombings which killed 34 people & injured around 300. And about a weeks before that they blew up another pub in the which 7 were killed. Then in the late 80's - early 90's they carried some of their worst. the Sean Grahams bookmakers massacre which killed, 5 in 1992, in the week coming up to the Greystseel massacre they killed 6 & 8 in the Greysteel massacre istself which brought the death toll for that week to 14.
And of course the Loughinisland massacre. the UVF said it was in retaliation for the killings of 3 UVF members. If they wanted to retaliate they should have went after the INLA not innocent Catholics enjoying a drink.
The IRA evened up some scores taken out top UVF & UDA men who ordered massacres like Greysteel & Loughinisland, in the last 6 weeks of before their ceasefire.0 -
-
And yet The Commons passed three Home Rule bills?
And yet, the Empire is no more.
First of all, The Rising was not about “resisting colonization” – it had already happened centuries before. The lads involved well and truly missed the boat on that one.
Secondly, independent Ireland was a nation conferring “religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens”? Well sure, as long as you were a Catholic, adult male.
Somehow I don't see the likes of James Connolly being ok with the state that emerged in the 1920's so it's a bit unfair to be critical of the proclamation when none of its signatories lived to see independance and thus cannot be held directly responsible for its many faults.0 -
In terms of the OP and John Bruton's statement that we should have just stayed with Home Rule and everything would have been fine. Given the British behaviour in those years I do not see how home rule would have been allowed to lead to a fully independant Irish republic which for at least 26 counties is what happened following on from the Easter rising. Bruton it seems would have us believe the British politcial establishment of the day were reasonable men who would have respected the wishes of the significant majority of Irish people for independance when their behaviour says otherwise. I tend to think this is more about John Bruton's revulsion for Irish Republicanism and his dismay at the idea of seeing Ireland mark the 100th anniversay of the Easter Rising on any kind of large scale.0
-
In terms of the OP and John Bruton's statement that we should have just stayed with Home Rule and everything would have been fine. Given the British behaviour in those years I do not see how home rule would have been allowed to lead to a fully independant Irish republic which for at least 26 counties is what happened following on from the Easter rising. Bruton it seems would have us believe the British politcial establishment of the day were reasonable men who would have respected the wishes of the significant majority of Irish people for indpedance when their behaviour says otherwise. I tend to think this is more about John Bruton's revulsion for Irish Republicanism and his dismay at the idea of seeing Ireland mark the 100th anniversay of the Easter Rising on any kind of large scale.
Yes, if the Brits were such reasonable people then why:
1. The War of Independence even though the vast majority of the electorate voted for SF- fair weather democrats our friends in London.
2. The threat by Churchill to sign the Treaty or else.
Bruton would have us think that all we had to do was ask nicely....:rolleyes:0 -
Bruton is right.
The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood. Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc.
Idiocy to kill and die for that. We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed. The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.
What should be celebrated is the 1918 election, this is the only point at which the Irish people give a mandate to a government. The war of independence followed. Celebrate democracy not a random group of people taking up arms at the GPO.
If a terrorist group did that today it would be no different. Madness, and the average person is so brainwashed that cant see it.0 -
Brutons big problem is that we achieved independence in the first place
He would have been quite happy to see the country still in the UK, a quisling of the first order our John0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Bruton is right.
The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood. Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc.
Idiocy to kill and die for that. We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed. The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.
What should be celebrated is the 1918 election, this is the only point at which the Irish people give a mandate to a government. The war of independence followed. Celebrate democracy not a random group of people taking up arms at the GPO.
If a terrorist group did that today it would be no different. Madness, and the average person is so brainwashed that cant see it.
Protestants in the 26 counties remained in the economically elite position they had enjoyed before independence. That was due to Irish government protection. The protections for the Protestant minority in the Government of Ireland Act were not included in the treaty (The Brits didn't care). In spite of this Protestants by and large remained as an economically elite minority. The Free State government protected them (as it was in their interest to do).
On the other hand sectarianism, oppression, pogroms etc escalated North of the border. The issues remain until this day. The problems that Ireland faced (Catholic church influence south of the border, de facto apartheid in the North) may have been more the natural result of dividing the country on sectarian grounds. In fact 'Rome rule' could not have been implemented in the government of Ireland Act due to the protections in place for minorities.
The only group who supported the 26/6 partition were the Unionist politicians in NE Ireland. They were the only group who refrained from talking in the ALL Ireland discussions that were held post 1916. Southern and 3 county Ulster Protestants were all willing to find agreement.
The argument that Irish people were involved in 'Empire building' is weak. Every Empire expands by recruiting soldiers from within the empire. This tactic solves the problem of recruitment for expansion, while gaining some local loyalty (divide and keep control).
The Romans occupied Germany subsequently employing many German soldiers to win many of their other wars. Does this mean German peoples were OK being occupied? Ofcourse not! This is what Empires do.
Ireland wasn't literally worth anyone's blood after independence. Thats because we were neutral. In fact after 1916 the level of Irish people joining the British army fell off considerably. We didn't contribute much more to the slaughter that accounted for 49 million deaths in that particular war. We havent killed too many since either. We had no part in the Iraq invasion that resulted in over 500,000 deaths. And you know what? The role that Ireland plays now sits easier with me, and ill bet it sits easier with most of us. Killing has gone DOWN since independence not up as you imply.
The level of some kind of child abuse is above 20% in most European countries. The covering up of child abuse within countries and states is not a peculiarly Irish problem. That is not to diminish the despicable acts by church and state here.
To pass the Act of Union the British used money to the value of several hundred million modern pounds to bribe Irish MPs after it failed to pass initially. Even when it did, Ireland was only given 1/6 of seats even though it had 1/3 of population. Half Citizens I guess. They wanted to control Ireland without giving them any say.
The result of the disaster that was the Act of Union was British centric industrial and agricultural policies imposed on Ireland, Religious intolerence in the name of religious tolerance, poverty, famine, exploitation, a large drain of resources from Ireland...and with all those you get rebellion.
People don't fight a massive empire for no good reason. Its a last resort. I would look at WHO actually fights. The main Republican, Suffragette, Union, Equality et. leaders all took up arms. That's people who give their lives to helping others believing that taking arms against the State was the best thing for their children. You know what. They were right. Many other territories around the world followed our lead. Less lives have been lost as a results Id wager.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Bruton is right.
The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood. Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc. .
Yes, and they did such a job in maintaining a tolerant inclusive statelet on their side of the border. You know that in the North Churches dominate control of schools as much as in the South? That their abortion laws are different to the UK generally?Deleted User wrote: »Idiocy to kill and die for that.
.
But that isn't what they fought and died for.Deleted User wrote: »We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed..
So the British Empire, with its legacy of violence, racism and subjugation was a good thing? From the massacres following the Sepoy rebellion to the torture camps of Kenya in the 1960's?Deleted User wrote: »The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. ..
...as did all conquered peoples in it, from the Sikhs to the Kenyans to the Scots. It's one of the perversions of Empire that it uses one group to inflict what it has suffered on another, divides by using scraps from the 'masters' table and encouraging sectarianism and racism between subject peoples. The British were accomplished practioners of that methodology.Deleted User wrote:We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.
Fighting against a racist Empire that spanned the globe is not a good thing? Hmmmmm.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Bruton is right.
The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood.
The fight was for self-determination. In an ideal world, nobody should ever have to die for a cause but I'm afraid the world just isnt that nice. Is your interpretation of Bruton such that we made such a balls of running the country that it wasnt worth it?Deleted User wrote: »Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc.
The shameful role of the Catholic Church is a different argument altogether. Plus, the 1916 leaders were socialist and they were on for a head on clash with the RCC. It is a fair argument to make that Ireland under the 1916 leaders would have pushed the RCC to the sidelines. Of course that is a moot point. It was Bruton and his forefathers that elevated the RCC to its position in Irish society.
Also, remember the minority Unionists started the arms race in 1912 by importing arms to defend their position against the majority. The authorities looked the other way. This is turn lead to the Nationalists arming.
I love the way the 1916 Rising is portrayed as violent armed terrorists while ignoring the armed British and Unionist side. What would you have them do? Hindsight is great isn't it. [/QUOTE]Deleted User wrote: »Idiocy to kill and die for that. We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed.
Speak for yourself. As a avid reader of history I think our Irish history lessons were extremely moderate and we were not told half the story. Only years later I read about the British role in, for example, during the famine there was plenty of food in Ireland but the British were exporting it under armed escort. I was never told that in school or about the siege of Drogheda or slaughter of civilians by Cromwell and Francis Drake.Deleted User wrote: »The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.
Yes, plenty of Irish people worked around the world in the pay of the 'Empire'. Not entirely sure what that was to do with 1916 and Ireland's fight for self-determination.
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people did and still do think it was noble- how many people today would show the courage and bravery they showed before their executions in Kilmainham? If fighting and dying for your country in not noble- then what is?Deleted User wrote: »What should be celebrated is the 1918 election, this is the only point at which the Irish people give a mandate to a government. The war of independence followed. Celebrate democracy not a random group of people taking up arms at the GPO.
That does not make sense.
So basically ignore or even condemn the 1916 Rising but celebrate the 1918 elections. Okay- but the 1916 Rising and subsequent executions lead to the 'success' of the 1918 elections against HR.
Pick the good bits but ignore the more unsavory bits.Deleted User wrote: »If a terrorist group did that today it would be no different. Madness, and the average person is so brainwashed that cant see it.
'madness' 'craziness'- why the emotive words?
'brainwashed' - again speak for yourself. But please not so average person, tell us more?
Why dont you tell that the Croats et al?
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Bruton is right.
The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood. Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc.
Idiocy to kill and die for that. We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed. The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.
What should be celebrated is the 1918 election, this is the only point at which the Irish people give a mandate to a government. The war of independence followed. Celebrate democracy not a random group of people taking up arms at the GPO.
If a terrorist group did that today it would be no different. Madness, and the average person is so brainwashed that cant see it.
If you do not support Irish independance thats fair enough. But please refrain from gross insults and calumny. The people who fought and died in the Easter Rising fought to free Ireland from the British empire and to even suggest they fought so children could be molested and brutalised as they were in Ireland over many decades is disgusting and wrong. As is calling others brainwashed.0 -
partyguinness wrote: »The fight was for self-determination. In an ideal world, nobody should ever have to die for a cause but I'm afraid the world just isnt that nice. ...
Agreed.The shameful role of the Catholic Church is a different argument altogether.
Without the silence by the people on such matters, I wonder whether and how they could had proceed in their ways at all. Ireland was for a very Long time a country of devoted catholics that allowed the church to have that much influence on society and on politics via certain politicians, to name Dev as being at the top of it.Plus, the 1916 leaders were socialist and they were on for a head on clash with the RCC. It is a fair argument to make that Ireland under the 1916 leaders would have pushed the RCC to the sidelines. Of course that is a moot point.
Aside from James Connolly, I´m not aware that the other signatories of the Easter Proclamation were that much of socialist creed. Maybe Thomas Clarke had some socialist affiliations, but I didn´t recognise anything pointing in such a direction by the others, according to their biography and social background.
I have my doubts about the 1916 leaders to have pushed the RCC to the sidelines because the people, and most those living in the country, weren´t that inclined to push the RCC back on her influence upon them.It was Bruton and his forefathers that elevated the RCC to its position in Irish society.
I think that Bruton himself wasn´t even born when this happened, on the contrary, he merely grew up with it.Also, remember the minority Unionists started the arms race in 1912 by importing arms to defend their position against the majority. The authorities looked the other way. This is turn lead to the Nationalists arming.
The thread that led to that goes further back than just 1912, in fact it goes back to the early days of the plantation of Ulster in early years of the 17th century.I love the way the 1916 Rising is portrayed as violent armed terrorists while ignoring the armed British and Unionist side. What would you have them do? Hindsight is great isn't it.
Well, the only two parties which were involved in the Easter Rising were the Irish Volunteers / Irish Citizen Army and the British Army. Never heard of the UVF taking part in it. In fact, the UVF couldn´t hardly take part in it because they all formed the 36th Ulster Division and they were already deployed to France when the Easter Rising happened.
To your Point it´s interesting that the Easter Rising revolutionaries were seen as terrorists by the Irish themselves. That changed just with the executions of the leaders in the aftermath. Then they became heros, but not while they were fighting in Dublin. If the British hadn´t shot 16 of them, they might even not had become heros at all, aside from those who saw them already as heros no matter what because they made a stance against British rule in Ireland.Speak for yourself. As a avid reader of history I think our Irish history lessons were extremely moderate and we were not told half the story. Only years later I read about the British role in, for example, during the famine there was plenty of food in Ireland but the British were exporting it under armed escort. I was never told that in school or about the siege of Drogheda or slaughter of civilians by Cromwell and Francis Drake.
I would assume, that even by the Standards of what sort of School one is attending, the history curriculum in each School allows just to handle some picked parts of history and it mostly remains on the surface to have a go at the key Events that shaped further developments. For more indepth study, one has to do it by his / her own. But what you said regarding the Famine and the Cromwell years in Ireland, it does strike me that this wasn´t mentioned, for both events were key events with a huge effect on the population of Ireland.Yes, plenty of Irish people worked around the world in the pay of the 'Empire'. Not entirely sure what that was to do with 1916 and Ireland's fight for self-determination.
I´m not speaking for the poster you were addressing in this quoted post of yours. It is often the case that some die-hard nationalist republicans do have a certain problem in dealing with this. I´d say that the reasons for why Irish people joined the British Forces through the centuries were as variable and different as they were when lots of them joined the British Army to fight in WWI. Fact is, that no matter what their reasons were, they supported and helped the British to build up and to sustain their Empire, along with other People from the British colonies as well.
To me, the principle and the blue print of the British Empire is based on that of the former ancient Roman Empire. The British (with the exemption of the Scottish) have been part of that ancient Roman Empire, and there was something left in the legacy of the ancient Romans that endured the times and lived on in history to be picked up when the time was right for England to look over the seas and make their fortune there. But this reference to the ancient Romans goes just to the principles that brought them their success, divide and rule is just one thing to mention. Before the British seized any overseas land, the Spanish and the Portuguese were already at it. Hence the rivalty between England and Spain at the period of Queen Elizabeth I.
Self-determination was always decided upon military strength and diplomacy but above all, it needed a strong and united Country ruled by a strong leader, which means King or Queen. The Irish didn´t have that when they were invaded and conquered, but the English had. That´s to say for the Long term of that part of history, not to speak about the infights among the Irish themselves in medieval times and afterwards.Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people did and still do think it was noble- how many people today would show the courage and bravery they showed before their executions in Kilmainham? If fighting and dying for your country in not noble- then what is?
They gave an example for modern revolutionary Irish nationalism and republicanism. Would you say that this applies for those born some generations afterwards and thought that this is their legitimacy to take up arms and join the PIRA during the troubles?So basically ignore or even condemn the 1916 Rising but celebrate the 1918 elections. Okay- but the 1916 Rising and subsequent executions lead to the 'success' of the 1918 elections against HR.
Pick the good bits but ignore the more unsavory bits.
That´s what many die-hard Nationalist republicans do as well.0 -
I have great respect for the men killed on 1916. I never got the impression they were violent people. It looks to me like a minor calamity that exploded beyond what it should have been. They seemed like decent people whose legacy was hijacked by corruption and greed. I think we should not celebrate 1916 officially, because those doing the celebrating and taking the glory do not deserve it. We should celebrate by listing all our mistakes made since then and try an learn from them0
-
Without the silence by the people on such matters, I wonder whether and how they could had proceed in their ways at all. Ireland was for a very Long time a country of devoted catholics that allowed the church to have that much influence on society and on politics via certain politicians, to name Dev as being at the top of it.
Some kind of child abuse occurs to over 20% of children in European countries from Ireland to England to Holland to Romania. Your mistake is in assuming that child abuse and silence surrounding it is peculiar to Independent Ireland.Aside from James Connolly, I´m not aware that the other signatories of the Easter Proclamation were that much of socialist creed. Maybe Thomas Clarke had some socialist affiliations, but I didn´t recognise anything pointing in such a direction by the others, according to their biography and social background.
The proclamation they all signed before the Easter rising (knowing they might die) says otherwise.I have my doubts about the 1916 leaders to have pushed the RCC to the sidelines because the people, and most those living in the country, weren´t that inclined to push the RCC back on her influence upon them.
They would have most definately pursued a more Republican ethos which would have been the antithesis of Catholicism. As it happened the Republicans were beaten by the British backed Free State army so society continued much as before (similar corrupt society with Catholicism wielding more influence especially due to the border reducing Protestant influence massively).The thread that led to that goes further back than just 1912, in fact it goes back to the early days of the plantation of Ulster in early years of the 17th century.
And consistant divide and rule policies by Britain in NE Ulster e.g an insistance on Caomplete Catholic non-ownership of land, forged documents to spark pogroms (e.g when Catholics threatened Protestant domination of Linen industry in Armagh)..these policies made more acute when the NI government kicked in.Well, the only two parties which were involved in the Easter Rising were the Irish Volunteers / Irish Citizen Army and the British Army. Never heard of the UVF taking part in it. In fact, the UVF couldn´t hardly take part in it because they all formed the 36th Ulster Division and they were already deployed to France when the Easter Rising happened.
The UVF made a bit of noise when they arrived back physically throwing over 10,000 Catholics out of 'their' jobs. Any reaction from the British government?To your Point it´s interesting that the Easter Rising revolutionaries were seen as terrorists by the Irish themselves. That changed just with the executions of the leaders in the aftermath. Then they became heros, but not while they were fighting in Dublin. If the British hadn´t shot 16 of them, they might even not had become heros at all, aside from those who saw them already as heros no matter what because they made a stance against British rule in Ireland.
That was the version in the British media and Unionist Irish Times at the time. The insurgents seemed to have significant support among the Irish in Dublin city center. Many dozens of civilians were summarily executed in the residential area west of the GPO. When the British army murders civilians it implies that they view them as the enemy.
The fact that the entire decade was one of radicalism and militarisation was a fact missed by this revision. The pro-British media outlook can be safely regarded as propaganda.
But there maybe some truth in the fact that the British should have strategically been more sensitive to nationalist concerns then Unionist bays for blood on this occasion. But...Its not in their nature, brutality worked for 100s of years in every colony. Not this time though. Looked like the revolutionaries were right.Fact is, that no matter what their reasons were, they supported and helped the British to build up and to sustain their Empire, along with other People from the British colonies as well.
If the reason was for example poverty as in most colonies then your use of the word 'support' is unsubstantiatedSelf-determination was always decided upon military strength and diplomacy but above all, it needed a strong and united Country ruled by a strong leader, which means King or Queen. The Irish didn´t have that when they were invaded and conquered, but the English had. That´s to say for the Long term of that part of history, not to speak about the infights among the Irish themselves in medieval times and afterwards.
The barbarism of empire. You are weaker than us. Therefore we have the right to invade you and treat you as sub-human and impose racism, sectraianism (and whatever tool works) to keep you subdued . The fact that this position is still being defended in the 21st century implies 'brain-washing'. British empire defenders and Royalists need to let it go. People should have the right to be citizens, not subjects.
The corpse of a particularly despicable ruler was reburied in England in the last year with full military and religious honours. The English establishment still believe this wretch was some kind of half-God? WTFWould you say that this applies for those born some generations afterwards and thought that this is their legitimacy to take up arms and join the PIRA during the troubles?
Pogroms, apartheid, massacres, people gunned down in 'legitimate' civil rights marches. Wouldnt you pick up a gun and defend your street and family if it became life or death? That's not to defend the leaders of the PIRA who should have carried out peaceful abstentionism when there was a chance after 1975.
Half a million Protestants signed the Ulster covenant to defend Ulster 'by any means' from Home rule. It was crystal clear that this would include the pogrom, expulsion and murder of their Catholic neighbours. Have you a problem with this?0 -
Some kind of child abuse occurs to over 20% of children in European countries from Ireland to England to Holland to Romania. Your mistake is in assuming that child abuse and silence surrounding it is peculiar to Ireland.
The Posters reference was to Ireland and therefore I´ve had no Need to take other countries within my reply.The proclamation they all signed before the Easter rising (knowing they might die) says otherwise.
I wouldn´t believe in a statement that to know that one might die because he took up arms against his government means to be of socialist creed. As various as the Irish Republican movement was at that time and with regards on how it split in different factions after the signing of the Anglo-Irish-Treaty, I take the Easter Proclamation not as a singular Socialist declaration but as a summary of many creeds from the Irish Republican movement that is displayed in there. The outset of an Irish State that bears conservative as well as progressive aims to built upon. It was a proclamation, not a consitituion.They would have most definately pursued a more Republican ethos which would have been the antithesis of Catholicism.
I seriously doubt that the Catholic Church had stood idly by watching their influence on Irish Society going down the drain by Irish Republicans taking over. Despite the most fierce political ideologies, the Catholic Church survived because People Chose for themselves whom they believed and whom they distrusted. The Nazis tried that one from 1933 to 1945, the Communists tried that one as well from 1945 to 1989 and they both failed. The reason for why they failed is simple, because both were oppressive regimes.As it happened the Republicans were beaten by the British backed Free State army so society continued much as before (similar corrupt society with Catholicism wielding more influence especially due to the border reducing Protestant influence massively).
The Irish Free State was the stepping Stone towards ultimate freedom in the long run for the price of partition and in the circumstanced of that time when the Free State was established. There was nothing else on offer, otherwise, the Irish had to wait for another fifty years until they would had gained independence and it´s obvious, that the majority of the Irish people then was not prepared to take another fifty years of waiting.And consistant divide and rule policies by Britain in NE Ulster e.g an insistance on Caomplete Catholic non-ownership of land, forged documents to spark pogroms (e.g when Catholics threatened Protestant domination of Linen industry in Armagh)..these policies made more acute when the NI government kicked in.
What forged documents are talking about?The UVF made a bit of noise when they arrived back physically throwing over 10,000 Catholics out of 'their' jobs. Any reaction from the British government?
Many of the British soldiers returned to their homes in 1919 and in that year, the Irish War of Independence was already going on. So why should the British react on such a thing when they had to battle the Irish in their efforts to gain Independence by military force?That was the version in the British media and Unionist Irish Times at the time. The insurgents seemed to have significant support among the Irish in Dublin city center. Many dozens of civilians were summarily executed in the residential area west of the GPO. When the British army murders civilians it implies that they view them as the enemy.
The fact that the entire decade was one of radicalism and militarisation was a fact missed by this revision. The pro-British media outlook can be safely regarded as propaganda.
No doubt, the whole decade was that, but it continued for another decade with less killed people after the Irish Civil War ended.But there maybe some truth in the fact that the British should have strategically been more sensitive to nationalist concerns then Unionist bays for blood on this occasion. But...Its not in their nature, brutality worked for 100s of years in every colony. Not this time though. Looked like the revolutionaries were right.
I´m not buying this in regards that the Irish are in contrast better then them. Just look to other places where they settled themselves on foreign soil in America, Australia and New Zealand. You can´t make me believe that those Irish settlers over there were merely Protestants in their majority, the reference goes to all Irish people, both Catholic and Protestant. They didn´t give a damn about the natives there either. Such was the way of history then. There was no humanitarianism back then. It´s a modern concept and to judge history by that makes one missing the pure picture of those time periods concerned.The barbarism of empire. You are weaker than us. Therefore we have the right to invade you and treat you as sub-human. The fact that this position is still being defended in the 21st century implies 'brain-washing'.
Such is the rule of force and it´s sad enough that this continues in our times by the likes of ISIS.The corpse of a particularly despicable ruler was reburied in England in the last year with full military and religious honours. Do the English still believe these people are half-God? WTF
Was it any better make a show of the funeral of Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa in 1915 to have him for a good use for Propaganda?Pogroms, apartheid, massacres, people gunned down in 'legitimate' civil rights marches. Wouldnt you pick up a gun and defend your street and family if it became life or death? That's not to defend the leaders of the PIRA who should have carried out peaceful abstentionism when there was a chance after 1975.
To pick up a gun to defend oneself is one thing, to go on a bombing campaign and kill hundreds of innocent people is quite another.Half a million Protestants signed the Ulster covenant to defend Ulster 'by any means' from Home rule. It was crystal clear that this would include the pogrom, expulsion and murder of their Catholic neighbours. Have you a problem with this?
I have no Problem with the amount of People who signed the Ulster Covenant and as for the Pogroms, Expulsion and murder of Catholics, same happened to Protestants in Ireland too.0 -
The Posters reference was to Ireland and therefore I´ve had no Need to take other countries within my reply.
Your agreement that levels of covered up child abuse were related to Irish independence should have referenced child abuse in Ireland Ireland pre-independence and other countries to be valid. As levels of child abuse being covered up did not vary with state or country the assumption is invalid.
And the strong socialist language and tone of the proclamation reveals the likely views of the people who signed it which was originally what you disagreed with.It was a proclamation, not a consitituion.I seriously doubt that the Catholic Church had stood idly by watching their influence on Irish Society going down the drain by Irish Republicans taking over. Despite the most fierce political ideologies, the Catholic Church survived because People Chose for themselves whom they believed and whom they distrusted. The Nazis tried that one from 1933 to 1945, the Communists tried that one as well from 1945 to 1989 and they both failed. The reason for why they failed is simple, because both were oppressive regimes.
The Nazis tried to quell the Catholic church and failed because they were oppressive regimes? I have no idea what point you are trying to mkae here. Do you?The Irish Free State was the stepping Stone towards ultimate freedom in the long run for the price of partition and in the circumstanced of that time when the Free State was established. There was nothing else on offer, otherwise, the Irish had to wait for another fifty years until they would had gained independence and it´s obvious, that the majority of the Irish people then was not prepared to take another fifty years of waiting.
It was all that the British claimed they were offering. So the Irish question was settled as the British wished which seems to again disprove the assumption that the problems post sectarian partition Ireland were somehow of Republicans causing.
FYI. The militarisation of the UVF (and then the rest of Ireland) was caused by the British government's deliberate wording of the home rule bill. They duped Redmond by leaving a clause about the inclusion of Ulster being revisited should circumstances in Ulster change. That was a signal for the UVF to militarise and for the covenant to be signed in order to 'change' the Ulster situation. Even though Unionists only had a majority in 3 counties they got 6.What forged documents are talking about?
E.g Before almost every Catholic household in Armagh was burned out (and their linen looms were all destroyed or stolen) by peep o day boys, a document was circulated in the days before 'exposing' a Catholic plot to kill every Protestant in Armagh in their beds. The document was later exposed as a (Britsih) forgery. This is typical of colonial tactics for social subjugation.Many of the British soldiers returned to their homes in 1919 and in that year, the Irish War of Independence was already going on. So why should the British react on such a thing when they had to battle the Irish in their efforts to gain Independence by military force?
The Dail was only outlawed in September 1919. The expulsions happenned in July. No. Its the same reason why they ignored anti- Catholic pogroms in NE Ireland for 400 years. It was not only in their interest to ignore it. It was in their interest to ignite it. These are imperialist tactics. Why should a country accept such despotic rule?No doubt, the whole decade was that, but it continued for another decade with less killed people after the Irish Civil War ended.
The amount of deaths post Independence Ireland compared to pre-independence Ireland are miniscule. Could this be related to the lack of British rule in Ireland I wonder?There was no humanitarianism back then.
Humanitarianism and the concept that all human beings are of equal moral significance has been around since the Greek Republic. Imperialist defenders use this as a classic defence. I do agree the British empire was racist. But humanitarian and its political manifestation (republicanism) were obviously around.Such is the rule of force and it´s sad enough that this continues in our times by the likes of ISIS.
And The British/American armies.... 500,000 fatalities in the Iraq war mainly civilians. Lies about WMDs. Attacks on hospitals etc etc. Im so glad that most of Ireland is not part of that bloodbath anymore. Are you not?Was it any better make a show of the funeral of Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa in 1915 to have him for a good use for Propaganda?
At least you admit that media coverage of the 1916 rising at the time was propaganda.To pick up a gun to defend oneself is one thing, to go on a bombing campaign and kill hundreds of innocent people is quite another.
I have no Problem with the amount of People who signed the Ulster Covenant and as for the Pogroms, Expulsion and murder of Catholics, same happened to Protestants in Ireland too.
You have no problem with people signing something knowing that the are de facto threatening to murder innocent people by doing so? The fact that they considered Catholics as inferior does not constitute an excuse.
At the end of the day the government of a state is responsible for what happens in the state. You can either govern fairly or you can subjucate, corrupt and use your army to enforce (as an empire does). The continuous huge British military presence in Ireland as well as state documents and the terms of the Act of Union itself point to the latter.
You need to look at your own prejudices and be honest about why you are defending Imperialism.0 -
First of all, I think that I have to make some things clear to you. I´m not here to serve any political stance in this thread. I do such things on other political matters. The thread itself is about historical matters and an individual opinion on these by a former Irish politician.
As we do not know each other yet, I just tell you that I´m a Social Democrat and therefore politically left of the centre, but I don´t call myself a Socialist in the sense of the far-left who hang on to that term.
So, what I express in my opinion is just coming from the angle and the way I look at history and try to take both parts of a story into account, not just following one side. I´m therefore no Imperialism apologist, I just look at the things that happend in the context of the times when they happened and what the rule as well as what the attitude of the People towards it were.Your agreement that levels of covered up child abuse were related to Irish independence should have referenced child abuse in Ireland Ireland pre-independence and other countries to be valid. As levels of child abuse being covered up did not vary with state or country the assumption is invalid.
Again, I´ve had no Intention to widen this specific topic and therefore I´ll leave it at what I´ve said before.And the strong socialist language and tone of the proclamation reveals the likely views of the people who signed it which was originally what you disagreed with.
Is that so? Some from the republican faction told me that the proclamation has no explicit wording that bears the word "Socialism" in it. It is therefore a matter of interpretation regarding the text and of course what the signatories had in mind when setting up the text and signing it. I have once called that document as bing a socialist one and got bothered by some Republicans that it is not. But still, despite the lacking of the word, I´m more of the opinion that it carries socialistic ideals with it. Otherwise, Connolly had never signed it, that´s for sure, at least to me.The Nazis tried to quell the Catholic church and failed because they were oppressive regimes? I have no idea what point you are trying to mkae here. Do you?
To keep it short in order to not getting too far from the topic, I just like to point out how the Nazis as well as the Communists tried to replace the Christian Religion by their ideology. They took their efforts to alienate the people from Christianity and win them over for their political ideology which was anti-religious to some extent but more of a nihilistic nature. The oppressive regime both ideologies had hat their core demanded that the people are standing 100% behind that ideology and abandon their religion. It didn´t work because one can´t have the whole of the population behind an ideology. To follow or prefer a religion in contrast to the ruling ideology meant to be suspicious to the regime. Another word for that is totalitarianism, a system that demands from the people to subjugate themselves totally to the ruling ideology with no questions asked. That was at the core of Nazism and Communism. When you look at North Korea, you still see it there (apart from the fact that there is no link to Catholicism, but the totalitarianism of the ruling regime is open on display).
So, we both know that the Catholic Church always had an opposite stance regarding Socialism and Communism. Given that the majority of the Irish Republican were followers of the Socialist ideals, they had got into conflict with the Catholic Church in Ireland sooner or later. Once Irish Independence had been achieved (given that the Easter Rising had not failed), the People might had been more or less satisfied with having the British out of the Country, but this doesn´t mean that they all had necessarily become Socialists. To change a society is a very difficult and long period matter. The way you look at it is a bit too simply for me.It was all that the British claimed they were offering. So the Irish question was settled as the British wished which seems to again disprove the assumption that the problems post sectarian partition Ireland were somehow of Republicans causing.
On the parts of David Lloyd George, Irish Unity hadn´t been a Problem if it wasn´t for Craig and his Unionists in Ulster. The British government approached to solve the Irish Problem by the most pragmatic one given the circumstances and what has been feasible at that time. The establishing of the Northern Irish Statelet in 1920 by the Act of Ireland was a result of the then still ongoing Irish War of Independence but also addressing the staunch Opposition from the Unionists accept home rule and thus dominion Status for Ireland. In fact there was no other way out of it than this from their point of view.FYI. The militarisation of the UVF (and then the rest of Ireland) was caused by the British government's deliberate wording of the home rule bill. They duped Redmond by leaving a clause about the inclusion of Ulster being revisited should circumstances in Ulster change. That was a signal for the UVF to militarise and for the covenant to be signed in order to 'change' the Ulster situation. Even though Unionists only had a majority in 3 counties they got 6.
The same things had been included into the Anglo-Irish-Treaty of 1921.E.g Before almost every Catholic household in Armagh was burned out (and their linen looms were all destroyed or stolen) by peep o day boys, a document was circulated in the days before 'exposing' a Catholic plot to kill every Protestant in Armagh in their beds. The document was later exposed as a (Britsih) forgery. This is typical of colonial tactics for social subjugation.
I´m rather sceptical about the validity of that assumption.The Dail was only outlawed in September 1919. The expulsions happenned in July. No. Its the same reason why they ignored anti- Catholic pogroms in NE Ireland for 400 years. It was not only in their interest to ignore it. It was in their interest to ignite it. These are imperialist tactics. Why should a country accept such despotic rule?
You speak of the anti-Catholic Pogroms and killings but you don´t mention the anti-Protestant Pogroms and killings carried out by Catholics in These 400 years? You seem to be doing that on purpose.The amount of deaths post Independence Ireland compared to pre-independence Ireland are miniscule. Could this be related to the lack of British rule in Ireland I wonder?
Is it? In all the books I´ve read about Irish history regarding that period many historians, if not all, say that the amount of killed People during the time of the Irish Civil War is higher than that from the Irish War of Independence.Humanitarianism and the concept that all human beings are of equal moral significance has been around since the Greek Republic. Imperialist defenders use this as a classic defence. I do agree the British empire was racist. But humanitarian and its political manifestation (republicanism) were obviously around.
You speak of the idea whereas I was speaking of the reality and practice.And The British/American armies.... 500,000 fatalities in the Iraq war mainly civilians. Lies about WMDs. Attacks on hospitals etc etc. Im so glad that most of Ireland is not part of that bloodbath anymore. Are you not?
Sure, it´s better that Ireland has no part in this.At least you admit that media coverage of the 1916 rising at the time was propaganda.
I wasn´t admitting anything. I´ve merely put a question to you by using a different person for example.You have no problem with people signing something knowing that the are de facto threatening to murder innocent people by doing so? The fact that they considered Catholics as inferior does not constitute an excuse.
No, I have no problem with the Ulster Covenant because it´s just a Piece of paper multiplied and distributed to many people to give their signature on it and thus showing their agreement with its content. The things you´ve come up with are not written there, it´s your interpretation and connection to what happened a couple of years later and you use it as being something of a document that might prove the sinister ideas you think that the Unionists had when they signed that paper.At the end of the day the government of a state is responsible for what happens in the state. You can either govern fairly or you can subjucate, corrupt and use your army to enforce (as an empire does). The continuous huge British military presence in Ireland as well as state documents and the terms of the Act of Union itself point to the latter.
...
I realised that you have the usual republican view on history.0 -
Winston Churchill argued with Lloyd George in cabinet over Ulster's inclusion in the home rule bill. Lloyd George subsequently met after reassuring them that the clause in the bill allied to the 2 year delay in its enactment would ensure that Ulster would be able to stay out. Ulster Unionists had 2 years to create a reason for the Brits to reconsider. Thus the arming and growth of the UVF.On the parts of David Lloyd George, Irish Unity hadn´t been a Problem if it wasn´t for Craig and his Unionists in Ulster. The British government approached to solve the Irish Problem by the most pragmatic one given the circumstances and what has been feasible at that time. The establishing of the Northern Irish Statelet in 1920 by the Act of Ireland was a result of the then still ongoing Irish War of Independence but also addressing the staunch Opposition from the Unionists accept home rule and thus dominion Status for Ireland. In fact there was no other way out of it than this from their point of view.
Churchill actually went to Belfast to support Unionists there. Thus there was another way. The British just made sure the way that transpired was the way strategically most appealing to them. Remember, unionists still had only a majority in 3 Irish counties of 32. There clearly were several other ways then the 26/6 split.
If the treaty negotions had split up over partition do you think the US would assume anything other than that Britain was acting tyrant and tit again?
Not the same thing. In 1921 the NI parliament had the option to vote themselves out. Simple.The same things had been included into the Anglo-Irish-Treaty of 1921.
In the home rule bill, a general worsening situation in Ulster might provoke a rethink. In option 1921, a vote was necessary. Before that a huge threat needed to be established by Unionists: ergo: UVF, covenant etc
There have been some massacres of Protestants although tehse have by and large been once off during wars: e.g 1641 and wexford 1798.You speak of the anti-Catholic Pogroms and killings but you don´t mention the
anti-Protestant Pogroms and killings carried out by Catholics in These 400
years? You seem to be doing that on purpose.
Yes, they existed. But never on the same scale or as a pattern.
The violence against Catholics has been massively more prevalent taking on a familiar repetitive pattern. More recently between 1920 and 1930 the population of Catholics fell from 1/3 to 1/4 in NI. This was due to 'a pPotestant state for a Protestant people' state and social violence.
The population of Protestants in the Free State dropped also. This was due to relocation of jobs (RIC, British army). Relocation of people working close to the border. Ne temara etc. There was violence against some big houses, some of it revenge on informers, some of it straight forward sectarian murder...all of it wrong.....but the only redeeming factor is that there were so few. If you look at any post revolutionary State, no minority who supported the exiting power, has been treated as well as the Protestants in the Free State/ROI. Their position as the elite economic group in Ireland remained unchanged. Unheard of.
Look at the 100 years before independence compared to the 100 years after. Compare it with NI even. The murder, infighting etc that the British used to smear the Irish, seems to have more or less disappeared with the British. Curious.Is it? In all the books I´ve read about Irish history regarding that period many
historians, if not all, say that the amount of killed People during the time of
the Irish Civil War is higher than that from the Irish War of Independence.
Sure empires raped, murdered and plundered most of the globe. But the argument that they thought they were doing right is a lie. Many, many peaceful democracies have emerged when the imperial tyrant departs.You speak of the idea whereas I was speaking of the reality and practice.
The signatories agreed that they would use every means in their power to defend Ulster from Home rule. One of the principal tools used again and again and again against popery or fenians in the past had been the use of violence/pogroms/burning out/murder of Catholic populations. Do you really believe that their most used tool would not come under the heading 'every means in their power'?. The very FIRST thing that would have happened should home rule be brought in was that Catholics would be attacked. I think you know this well. Some Catholics in Belfast were actually against home rule by virtue of putting the safety of their families first.No, I have no problem with the Ulster Covenant because it´s just a Piece of
paper multiplied and distributed to many people to give their signature on it
and thus showing their agreement with its content. The things you´ve come up
with are not written there, it´s your interpretation and connection to what
happened a couple of years later and you use it as being something of a document
that might prove the sinister ideas you think that the Unionists had when they
signed that paper.
If you could attack what I say and not who you think I am it might help with clarity and strength of your argument.I realised that you have the usual republican view on history.0 -
Advertisement
-
...
If you could attack what I say and not who you think I am it might help with clarity. The old unionsist logic......Republicans = non unionist/imperialists = ridiculous ... argument doesn't wash in this State any more at least.
Well, I recommend you to take your own advice first and remember that you were the first who accused me of defending imperialism, which I didn´t.
Here´s what you "recommended" to me:You need to look at your own prejudices and be honest about why you are defending Imperialism.
So either you stop implying things into my Posts I did not say, or just look for another poster you can play you poxy little games. I´ve been dealing with various kinds of idiots in the recent past and frankly, I´ve no interest to meet new ones.
I hope that this was clear enough and will be understood by yourself.
Good day to you.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement