Glasnevin Cemetery Monument.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As interesting as a quote from a man who consummated genocide of millions of ethnic Greeks, Armenians and Kurds is : no Turk shares a memorial with a British soldier at Galliopli, and vis versa (actually, I understand mostly Irish fell there too).

There were approximately 4,000 Irishmen killed in Gallipoli. 10,000 ANZACS and about 18,000 from Britain and elsewhere in the empire.

Plus about 10,000 French and 60,000 Turkish.

feargale

davycc wrote: »

the relatives opinion carries just as much weight as yours and every other citizen in the state .

Precisely, no more, no less. I'm glad that has been cleared up.

davycc wrote: »

. it just so happens i agree with the 1916 relatives and the national graves associations point of view

Except that not all the relatives share your point of view.

Strazdas

I think the purpose of the wall has been slightly misinterpreted by some. It's role is simply to list the name of every single person who died in the Rising as a form of remembrance. Its purpose is not to 'reward the good guys' and 'punish the bad guys' of the Rising (and nor should it be).

Esel

Patrick Pearse had a death wish, imo.

If this was the case, and he knew they could not win, was he culpable for the deaths that ensued?

Esel

Has anyone been to see the wall lately? Many people there?

Strazdas

Esel wrote: »

Patrick Pearse had a death wish, imo.

If this was the case, and he knew they could not win, was he culpable for the deaths that ensued?

In fairness to Pearse, he was the one who gave the order to surrender when he realised just how bad civilian casualties were becoming.

The rebels were also taken by surprise at just how heavy handed the British response was. Connolly assumed that they would never do anything to damage the buildings of their 'fellow capitalists'.

tomwaterford

Strazdas wrote: »

In fairness to Pearse, he was the one who gave the order to surrender when he realised just how bad civilian casualties were becoming.

The rebels were also taken by surprise at just how heavy handed the British response was. Connolly assumed that they would never do anything to damage the buildings of their 'fellow capitalists'.

It was a somewhat naive view aided and adbetted by the notion still pushed today that Britain was somehow a benevolent ruler

Yet the brutality/excessive violence showen to any dissent (reducing Dublin city centre to rubble??) suggests otherwise

LorMal

tomwaterford wrote: »

It was a somewhat naive view aided and adbetted by the notion still pushed today that Britain was somehow a benevolent ruler

Yet the brutality/excessive violence showen to any dissent (reducing Dublin city centre to rubble??) suggests otherwise

Tom, you have not got a clue. Explain to us why Dublin was reduced to rubble? Did the Brits decide to lay waste to it on a whim perhaps? Or maybe someone started shooting at them do you think?

tomwaterford

LorMal wrote: »

Tom, you have not got a clue. Explain to us why Dublin was reduced to rubble? Did the Brits decide to lay waste to it on a whim perhaps? Or maybe someone started shooting at them do you think?

Riddle me this....why lay waste to a city centre and shell the most heavily populated slums in Europe
Without attempting negotiations first??


Like I said for a suposedly benevolent ruler....any attempt at dissent was met with excessive violence

Unless you consider bombing the city centre of Dublin to ruins an appropriate reaction to people occupying a few buildings???

StupidLikeAFox

LorMal wrote: »

Tom, you have not got a clue. Explain to us why Dublin was reduced to rubble? Did the Brits decide to lay waste to it on a whim perhaps? Or maybe someone started shooting at them do you think?

tomwaterford wrote: »

Unless you consider bombing the city centre of Dublin to ruins an appropriate reaction to people occupying a few buildings???

Does anybody actually speak like this in real life? Hoping to get their point across with endless questions? Or are you hoping the other person will come to your point of view by asking them these questions?

Oh my god I am doing it, arent I?

Esel

tomwaterford wrote: »

Riddle me this....why lay waste to a city centre and shell the most heavily populated slums in Europe
Without attempting negotiations first??


Like I said for a suposedly benevolent ruler....any attempt at dissent was met with excessive violence

Unless you consider bombing the city centre of Dublin to ruins an appropriate reaction to people occupying a few buildings???

Dafug? They razed Summerhill and The Diamond? Residents must not have got that memo.

Stop Press: Slums Cleared, Southside Saved.

As you were.

Esel

The Golden Miller wrote: »

...
As for "free speech", you should probably look up what section 31 was ...

31 was an own goal. The shorter months were what you had to worry about.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Redmond and Dillon need to be moved to Glasnevin.

Statesmen..

Esel

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Redmond and Dillon need to be moved to Glasnevin.

Statesmen..

It's a wall. Get over it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Esel wrote: »

It's a wall. Get over it.

You can forget about them. I've studied history not propaganda and I won't.

Irish Statesmen.

Esel

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You can forget about them. I've studied history not propaganda and I won't.

Irish Statesmen.

Move them then. I can give a dig out next Wed. Busy on the 24th, sorry.

LorMal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Please do? What do you actually contribute to the forum except sideline snipping at the best of times? Two posters giving an honest assessment of their views of the forum and you can't help but make snide remarks and throw out some stereotypes on top of that for good measure? Scratch the surface and your posts are little more that agenda driven hate filled vitriol towards any "shinner". Absolutely no intention of honest debate and are a good example of what I'm talking about.

As for "free speech", you should probably look up what section 31 was in RTE and Conor Cruise O'Briens involvement with it, along with Eoghan Harris' influence in their current affairs output before you preach about SF and free speech. Or maybe the Tony O'Reilly/Denis O'Brien media aka the Indo, or the Irish Times. If free speech doesn't exist, it certainly ain't SF standing in the way. What does democracy have to do with anything here?

I don't need to look up section 31. I remember it well. It was ridiculous and stupid.

As regards SF and free speech, I also lived through the IRA/ SF terror campaign from 1969 onwards. They were no respecters of democracy or free speech, were they? Examples of how they respected free speech and democracy include the murders of Ross Mc Whirter or Airey Neave for speaking out against the IRA. Yeah, they loved a bit of honest debate, those IRA lads.

No need to scratch the surface btw, I am honest in my hatred of violence as a political strategy. I really don't like the kneecapping of joyriders or the murder of children in shopping centres, the bombing to pieces of people attending a parade or sitting in pubs, the abduction and murder of a young mother in front of her children because she comforted a soldier as he lay dying. Yes, SF make me sick - always have, always will.

traprunner

I wonder will there be protests that it's only civilians and not volunteers being commemorated: http://www.whatsonin.ie/component/jem/event/23934-the-civilian-dead-of-1916

JPNelsforearm

LorMal wrote: »

I don't need to look up section 31. I remember it well. It was ridiculous and stupid.

As regards SF and free speech, I also lived through the IRA/ SF terror campaign from 1969 onwards. They were no respecters of democracy or free speech, were they? Examples of how they respected free speech and democracy include the murders of Ross Mc Whirter or Airey Neave for speaking out against the IRA. Yeah, they loved a bit of honest debate, those IRA lads.

No need to scratch the surface btw, I am honest in my hatred of violence as a political strategy. I really don't like the kneecapping of joyriders or the murder of children in shopping centres, the bombing to pieces of people attending a parade or sitting in pubs, the abduction and murder of a young mother in front of her children because she comforted a soldier as he lay dying. Yes, SF make me sick - always have, always will.

Not a Sinn Fein supporter and I'd oppose the socialist/marxist ****e they stand for, but you present the IRA as if they were birthed in a vacuum, how did a group go from a lightly armed rag tag group to a heavily armed fully fledged guerrilla army in about the space of a decade, with widespread popular support within their community? What was the context? You are quick to cry about the IRA, yet completely ignore context, as is standard for the unionists on this thread.

As for violence not being a political strategy, très progressive, such a bland sentiment, utterly insulated from the conditions that would drive someone to view violence as a means to force someone to the negotiating table, its a stance not reflected in history. There is no "pure" political solution to apply as a blanket policy when you are dealing with human beings, its fantasy.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

In fairness to Pearse, he was the one who gave the order to surrender when he realised just how bad civilian casualties were becoming.

Eoin MacNeill, founder and Chief of Staff of the Volunteers specifically stated that an armed rising would be immoral because of the inevitable civilian casualties.

Pearse and the IRB ignored him. MacNeill even ordered all Volunteers to stand down and not join the Rising when he heard about it, for this reason.

I suppose he was a quisling and a traitor, too?

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eoin MacNeill, founder and Chief of Staff of the Volunteers specifically stated that an armed rising would be immoral because of the inevitable civilian casualties.

Pearse and the IRB ignored him. MacNeill even ordered all Volunteers to stand down and not join the Rising when he heard about it, for this reason.

I suppose he was a quisling and a traitor, too?

Yes, and The O'Rahilly and Bulmer Hobson were opposed to the Rising too.

I've heard people saying here that Irish born British Army soldiers should not have suppressed the Rising and were wrong to do but that is completely ignoring the fact that most Irish nationalists were against the idea of armed revolution, even men of the calibre of O'Neill and The O'Rahilly and these were no fans of the British.

P. Breathnach

Perhaps there should be a careful scrutiny of the civilians who were killed. There is a view that some of them were looters, and that both the rebels and the British army shot looters.

And then we can have another debate: should looters shot by the British be commemorated, and those shot by the rebels be "disappeared"?

Strazdas

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Perhaps there should be a careful scrutiny of the civilians who were killed. There is a view that some of them were looters, and that both the rebels and the British army shot looters.

And then we can have another debate: should looters shot by the British be commemorated, and those shot by the rebels be "disappeared"?

I think the whole point of what Glasnevin are up to is simply to remember every single person who died in the Rising and put their name on the wall.

In truth, there were probably rotten apples among the rebels, the British soldiers and the civilians and by contrast some fine human beings too. But any wall that commemorates some people who died and excludes others would be a lot more controversial than the one that's there now.

flutered

LorMal wrote: »

I don't need to look up section 31. I remember it well. It was ridiculous and stupid.

As regards SF and free speech, I also lived through the IRA/ SF terror campaign from 1969 onwards. They were no respecters of democracy or free speech, were they? Examples of how they respected free speech and democracy include the murders of Ross Mc Whirter or Airey Neave for speaking out against the IRA. Yeah, they loved a bit of honest debate, those IRA lads.

No need to scratch the surface btw, I am honest in my hatred of violence as a political strategy. I really don't like the kneecapping of joyriders or the murder of children in shopping centres, the bombing to pieces of people attending a parade or sitting in pubs, the abduction and murder of a young mother in front of her children because she comforted a soldier as he lay dying. Yes, SF make me sick - always have, always will.

this happened on both side, i remember attending sporting fixtures in the north, the car being stopped, the barell of a gun shoved into my jaw and being told in a scouser or gordie accent to fcku off home to my own country, as for the bomning, were not the security forces in the north aiding and abetting the unionist hard men, with both material and intelligence, were not catholics being murdered, because of their religon, what about the dublin and monaghan bombings, did not the trousering party sit on their hands afterwards, you cannot throw all the schit ar the provos, they would not have existed only for desperation on the nationalist side, funny how 300 people from the nationalist slumbs could not be defeated by the paras etc

flutered

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eoin MacNeill, founder and Chief of Staff of the Volunteers specifically stated that an armed rising would be immoral because of the inevitable civilian casualties.

Pearse and the IRB ignored him. MacNeill even ordered all Volunteers to stand down and not join the Rising when he heard about it, for this reason.

I suppose he was a quisling and a traitor, too?

well if he cause half the volunteers to feck off home, which was a defeat before the rising started, what was he entitled to be called

flutered

Esel wrote: »

Dafug? They razed Summerhill and The Diamond? Residents must not have got that memo.

Stop Press: Slums Cleared, Southside Saved.

As you were.

dont give up the day job as you will not make it as a comedian

flutered

feargale wrote: »

When did this republic acquire this new aristocracy? I thought the opinions of relatives of the great and the good carried extra weight only in states with a monarchial system, such as you know where.
P.S. and in North Korea too.

connoblers

flutered

feargale wrote: »

When did this republic acquire this new aristocracy? I thought the opinions of relatives of the great and the good carried extra weight only in states with a monarchial system, such as you know where.
P.S. and in North Korea too.

have they not equal rights, can their viewpoint not be respected

Zubeneschamali

flutered wrote: »

well if he cause half the volunteers to feck off home, which was a defeat before the rising started, what was he entitled to be called

A national hero.

He was not a pacifist - his Irish Volunteers numbered 80,000 before WWI, and he was preparing for the threatened civil war with the Unionists over Home Rule.

Instead the IRB went off half cocked in 1916, and exactly what MacNeill predicted happened - a lot of civilians got killed when the Rising was crushed.

LorMal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not a Sinn Fein supporter and I'd oppose the socialist/marxist ****e they stand for, but you present the IRA as if they were birthed in a vacuum, how did a group go from a lightly armed rag tag group to a heavily armed fully fledged guerrilla army in about the space of a decade, with widespread popular support within their community? What was the context? You are quick to cry about the IRA, yet completely ignore context, as is standard for the unionists on this thread.

As for violence not being a political strategy, très progressive, such a bland sentiment, utterly insulated from the conditions that would drive someone to view violence as a means to force someone to the negotiating table, its a stance not reflected in history. There is no "pure" political solution to apply as a blanket policy when you are dealing with human beings, its fantasy.

Unionist? Where did you get that from?
As regards 'context' - that old chestnut is used to justify all sorts. Even ISIS cite 'context' for their violent actions.
It is not 'fantasy' to resist the desire to 'force someone to the negotiating table' through violence - the moral force of passive resistance proved highly successful in SA and India.