That glorious time of the year again....

Mr.Nice Guy · 11-07-2005 11:06PM

crazymonkey wrote:

Actually it was mostly culchies that fought in 1916, and when it was all over, the queen of England came to Dublin, and u "Dubs" lined the streets with little union jacks to wellcome her, Hence the name Jackeen's

In fairness, us "Dubs" weren't even born around this time.

Marty Whelan maybe...

g5hn710m4xpdwy · 11-07-2005 11:12PM

the first bonfire was just lit 15 mins ago (11:00pm)

in belfast

Mr.Nice Guy · 11-07-2005 11:15PM

Flunked wrote:

the first bonfire was just lit 15 mins ago (11:00pm) in belfast

Was there anybody on it?

Dyr · 11-07-2005 11:45PM

Was Mycroft the first to throw a tricolour on it? :rolleyes:

mycroft · 12-07-2005 01:11AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Unlike you I don't see parallels between Islamic terrorism and the Easter Rising.

And once again for the hard of thinking I've explained my reasoning you've just gone "I don't see it that way". Just stuck you fingers in your ears and gone la la la la .......

Well we can't have you distorting the facts.

Cute I haven't distorted the facts just mantained than anyone going "oh thats real mature" isn't.

How's that?

Um getting pedantic about the spelling of a made up word Instead of answering the point?

Already answered. Perhaps you ought to read my posts thoroughly before you comment?

Focusing on getting the rebels as opposed to blowing up as much of the city as possible.

Already raised by me and ignored by you, what were the british to do, charge the rebel positions at great loss of their own life?

Pearse made the call to surrender due to the loss of civilian lives.

Eventually and allegdly pearse also was the one calling for a blood sacrifice similiar to the call for jihad by muslim extremist.

I have supported my facts. You want evidence for my opinion on what was going through the mind of a man who is now dead. That's a bit hard to prove. I believe Pearse was primarily concerned with going down in history like his idols Tone and Emmet but I can't necessarily prove that. It's my opinion, based on the facts put before me.

No you haven't you've for example ignored pearse's williness to lie to include others in his noble blood scarifice, Connelly's "we're going out to be slaughtered' Just because someone chooses to die and take a great many people with him doesn't make him great.

I don't understand what you feel is so pathetic. And there's no need for vulgar language in this discussion.

Oh diddum doesn't like the harsh words. You just assume pearse sought the best despite what you quote, thats whats fu*king pathetic.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. It starts off like it's going somewhere and ends up as, well, God knows what?

No it's fairly f*cking basic, pearse was willing to kill, die, and lead others to their death (even lie to them) to bring them to that point, would your care to say exactly how that differs from a suicide bomber.

Bambi wrote:

Was Mycroft the first to throw a tricolour on it?

Yeah cause anyone who doesn't own a wolfe tone double album is a dirty protestant.

Mr.Nice Guy · 12-07-2005 01:33AM

mycroft wrote:

And once again for the hard of thinking I've explained my reasoning you've just gone "I don't see it that way". Just stuck you fingers in your ears and gone la la la la .......

You're telling me you were making a serious point by comparing the 1916 rebels with Islamic terrorists? Give over.

mycroft wrote:

Cute I haven't distorted the facts just mantained than anyone going "oh thats real mature" isn't.

Is that a fact mycroft?

mycroft wrote:

Um getting pedantic about the spelling of a made up word Instead of answering the point

You should lighten up.

mycroft wrote:

Already raised by me and ignored by you, what were the british to do, charge the rebel positions at great loss of their own life?

They shouldn't have pummeled them with artillery anyway.

mycroft wrote:

Eventually and allegdly pearse also was the one calling for a blood sacrifice similiar to the call for jihad by muslim extremist.

I don't think Pearse 'called' for blood sacrifice. Why do you say that?

mycroft wrote:

No you haven't you've for example ignored pearse's williness to lie to include others in his noble blood scarifice, Connelly's "we're going out to be slaughtered' Just because someone chooses to die and take a great many people with him doesn't make him great.

I didn't ignore that but is that any different to what British Generals were doing with their soldiers in WW1? 'Lions led by donkeys' as they say...

mycroft wrote:

Oh diddum doesn't like the harsh words. You just assume pearse sought the best despite what you quote, thats whats fu*king pathetic.

mycroft you're quick to make assumptions about me I notice. I find your vulgar words unnecessary for this discussion.

mycroft wrote:

No it's fairly f*cking basic, pearse was willing to kill, die, and lead others to their death (even lie to them) to bring them to that point, would your care to say exactly how that differs from a suicide bomber.

More vulgar language. Pearse was a SOLDIER. Suicide bombers are TERRORISTS. Soldiers seek to inflict damage upon other soldiers whereas terrorists seek to inflict damage to civilians and to inflict terror upon them. Therefore I fail to see how you can equate the 1916 rebels with terrorists. I find it quite sad really...

mycroft wrote:

Yeah cause anyone who doesn't own a wolfe tone double album is a dirty protestant.

Sums you up really. :rolleyes:

mycroft · 12-07-2005 01:44AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You're telling me you were making a serious point by comparing the 1916 rebels with Islamic terrorists? Give over.

Explain the difference, one is willing to kill and die for his goal and is eager for bloodshed, the other is.....

You should lighten up.

And you should stop being such a twat, we live in hope.

They shouldn' have pummeled them with artillery anyway.

Oh they shouldn't should they. Maybe the rebels shouldn't have seized positions in areas with massive civilian population, maybe lots of things shouldn't have happened, just, dismissing the tactics of one side as "wrong" while automatically praising the behaviour of the other is, what?

I don't think Pearse 'called' for blood sacrifice. Why do you say that?

No he did, the concept of the easter rising was a blood sacrifice, do you disagree with the concept or the wording of the concept?

I didn't ignore that but is that any different to what British Generals were doing with their soldiers in WW1? 'Lions led by donkeys' as they say...

Wow, just another case of whataboutrey, or whatever. Just cause someone else was doing it, it makes it okay. Interesting........

mycroft you're quick to make assumptions about me I notice. I find your vulgar words unnecessary for this discussion.

And again diddums, I think someone who things that they're a "nice guy" generally means they're a condescending twat who women use the exucse "you're a nice guy but" to avoid the honest "i'd not touch you with a leech coated barge pole" answer. But that just speculation. I expect it's true though.

More vulgar language. Pearse was a SOLDIER. Suicide bombers are TERRORISTS. Soldiers seek to inflict damage upon other soldiers whereas terrorists seek to inflict damage to civilians and to inflict terror upon them. Therefore I fail to see how you can equate the 1916 rebels and terrorists. I find it quite sad really...

Did pearse seek out to attack the major british army barricks, er no? He holded up in a couple of central points, surrounded by civilians, and got shot at, did he desire a massive amount of deaths on his own side, er yes. Was he indifferent to civilian casaulties, yes because he'd have not picked that location or surrendered earlier, yes. Pearse wanted death and mayhem, thats why I equate him to one of that kind.

Sums you up really. :rolleyes:

I'd sum youup but I'm banned, I'll say this, I nearly grew up in the north, my dad moved us out at the earliest opportunity to ensure we were'nt envolved in the violence, and i've had family injuried by the troubles and listening to a bunch of twats wax lyrically on the struggle, sickens me.

CerebralCortex · 12-07-2005 01:58AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You're telling me you were making a serious point by comparing the 1916 rebels with Islamic terrorists? Give over.

Most certainly would depend on your point of view. Ghandi liberated the whole of India without using a gun, Martin Luther King liberated the African Americans in a similar fashion.

Mr.Nice Guy · 12-07-2005 02:01AM

mycroft wrote:

Explain the difference, one is willing to kill and die for his goal and is eager for bloodshed, the other is.....

One is willing to kill civilians (Islamic terrorists) the other is not.

mycroft wrote:

And you should stop being such a twat, we live in hope.

Personal abuse. it reflects poorly on you.

mycroft wrote:

Oh they shouldn't should they. Maybe the rebels shouldn't have seized positions in areas with massive civilian population, maybe lots of things shouldn't have happened, just, dismissing the tactics of one side as "wrong" while automatically praising the behaviour of the other is, what?

You are the one praising only one side. The British Army should have protected 'their' people (cough) and done their best to prevent their bloodshed.

mycroft wrote:

No he did, the concept of the easter rising was a blood sacrifice, do you disagree with the concept or the wording of the concept?

The concept of the Easter Rising was a blood sacrifice TO PEARSE. But you alleged Pearse 'called for' a blood sacrifice which I don't believe is true.

mycroft wrote:

Wow, just another case of whataboutrey, or whatever. Just cause someone else was doing it, it makes it okay. Interesting........

Interesting that you chose to ignore the point. Or is it OK for the British to put soldiers to death for their cause?

mycroft wrote:

And again diddums, I think someone who things that they're a "nice guy" generally means they're a condescending twat who women use the exucse "you're a nice guy but" to avoid the honest "i'd not touch you with a leech coated barge pole" answer. But that just speculation. I expect it's true though.

Keep up the personal abuse. I have already reported you for it. I won't be foolish enough to engage in a flame war with you.

mycroft wrote:

Did pearse seek out to attack the major british army barricks, er no?

Why would he do that?

mycroft wrote:

He holded up in a couple of central points, surrounded by civilians, and got shot at,

Yes. Fortifications.

mycroft wrote:

did he desire a massive amount of deaths on his own side, er yes.

You went from describing the positions he took to terming him a mass murderer. How did that happen?

mycroft wrote:

Was he indifferent to civilian casaulties, yes because he'd have not picked that location or surrendered earlier, yes. Pearse wanted death and mayhem, thats why I equate him to one of that kind.

No you don't seem to understand what a Rising is. What a rebellion is. You see, it's pretty much worthless if you do it without the civilians knowing about it! Hence the Proclamation of the Republic!

mycroft wrote:

I'd sum youup but I'm banned, I'll say this,

You edited that I notice. I caught your original version calling me a "f*cking twat". Again this only goes to show that you are losing the argument and resorting to desperate measures.

mycroft wrote:

I nearly grew up in the north, my dad moved us out at the earliest opportunity to ensure we were'nt envolved in the violence, and i've had family injuried by the troubles and listening to a bunch of twats wax lyrically on the struggle, sickens me.

I'm sorry to hear that about your family but this has nothing to do with The Troubles as that concerns the Provisional IRA who are very different to the men and women who fought in the 1916 Rising.

Your last comment terming me and others as "a bunch of twats" only goes to show that your mind is closed to those of a different opinion to yours.

You have let yourself down.

BlitzKrieg · 12-07-2005 02:04AM

Mycroft the difference between modern islamic terrorism and the eater rising is the lack of a solid ideological base, Ireland demanding seperation from the British empire. When compared to islamic terrorism it varies from numerous splinter groups from a free iraq to destroys all infidals. I understand the direction your coming from but i would compare the 1916 rebels to the Iraqi insurgants (example Falajuh 9sp?) ) not the London bombings.

Mr Nice Guy

Mycroft has valid points despite his *ahem* blunt way of making them (i personnally love it, gives him real personality online)

1. The British had no choice but to use Artillary, ask any military expert it is impossible to remove dug in soldiers without some form of artillary unless your willing to sacrifice thousands of soldiers, something when you take in the whole WW1 element Britian couldnt spare. Other Examples WW2 Italy (cant remember name if someone can help me out? wait...i think its the Gustav line) The Germans held had dug into the grounds around a monestary and couldnt be moved because the allies were not allowed use artillary (monestary -not to be shelled) it wasnt until they gave in and did shell the monestary were the germans moved (still with difficulty). Now if you were informed that for the sake of all of Europe you were to quickly stop this rebellion and all you had access to were the reserves from the barracks, i think shelling would be an acceptable option.

2. On the whole BloodOath, no matter what you say about its importance. to the common rebel in the rising life would normally have been preferred and to be fair when they did surrender (Mycroft listen) it was not for the civilians BUT FOR THE REBELS UNDER HIM. His deal with the British was that only the leaders would be executed.

now both of you...your both well dug into your viewpoints and this is turning quickly into a mudslinging match. So unless you both outline your points instead of picking at each others comments (this gets us nowhere) i suggest we drop it and get back on topic.

My Opinion is historically the effects of 1916 on irish history are important and vastly influential and both positive and negative elements of Irish history and todays society.

BUT

as an event on its own i consider it a failure and a waste of life (by all sides) and a desperete attempt to violently lash out at an occupying nation which wasnt constructive militarilly or politically. I dont believe in Martydom, i believe in Motives and goals and the goals of the IRB were decietful and on the level very much a terroristic action.

Mr.Nice Guy · 12-07-2005 02:14AM

I think mycroft needs to learn to put his points across without resorting to insults. This thread was going well and everyone was respectful and he comes along and ruins it by throwing about insults. A pity. Anyway...

BlitzKrieg wrote:

1. The British had no choice but to use Artillary, ask any military expert it is impossible to remove dug in soldiers without some form of artillary unless your willing to sacrifice thousands of soldiers, something when you take in the whole WW1 element Britian couldnt spare. Other Examples WW2 Italy (cant remember name if someone can help me out? wait...i think its the Gustav line) The Germans held had dug into the grounds around a monestary and couldnt be moved because the allies were not allowed use artillary (monestary -not to be shelled) it wasnt until they gave in and did shell the monestary were the germans moved (still with difficulty). Now if you were informed that for the sake of all of Europe you were to quickly stop this rebellion and all you had access to were the reserves from the barracks, i think shelling would be an acceptable option.

I actually stated the British shouldn't have "pummelled them" with artillery. Like I said, they should have used necessary force rather than excessive force.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

2. On the whole BloodOath, no matter what you say about its importance. to the common rebel in the rising life would normally have been preferred and to be fair when they did surrender (Mycroft listen) it was not for the civilians BUT FOR THE REBELS UNDER HIM. His deal with the British was that only the leaders would be executed.

Are you telling me that Pearse didn't care about the loss of civilian life? I repeat:

In order to prevent further slaughter of the civil population and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers, the members of the Provisional Government present at headquarters have decided on an unconditional surrender, and commandants or officers commanding districts will order their commands to lay down arms.

- P.H. Pearse, Dublin, 30th April 1916

BlitzKrieg wrote:

now both of you...your both well dug into your viewpoints and this is turning quickly into a mudslinging match. So unless you both outline your points instead of picking at each others comments (this gets us nowhere) i suggest we drop it and get back on topic.

Hold on, when did I sling mud? I think I handled his verbal assaults rather well.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

BUT

as an event on its own i consider it a failure and a waste of life (by all sides) and a desperete attempt to violently lash out at an occupying nation which wasnt constructive militarilly or politically. I dont believe in Martydom, i believe in Motives and goals and the goals of the IRB were decietful and on the level very much a terroristic action.

How was it a failure when it sparked a revival in Irish nationalism? The idea of Home Rule was on its way out after 1916. And I don't agree that the goals of the IRB were on the level of a terrorist organisation as you must remember at this point in time, there was talk of partitioning our island despite the fact most of the people would have objected to this.

BlitzKrieg · 12-07-2005 02:34AM

I actually stated the British shouldn't have "pummelled them" with artillery. Like I said, they should have used necessary force rather than excessive force.

BUT YOUR NOT LISTENING!
Anyone in the military will tell you that this is not excessive force. Seriously look at any urban combat ARTILLARY IS THE PRIMARY WEAPON...Iraq, Market Garden, Gustav Line. Heck why do you think air Superioty is so damn popular...its artillary everywhere. Therefore NOT EXCESSIVE its a textbook answer.
example:
Sir. We have over a hunderd soldiers armed with rifles in numerous fortified areas across the city, if we send troops by foot, they will all be massacered, the rebels will only have surrendered when they ran out of ammo. CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE is the proof of this rule!

Are you telling me that Pearse didn't care about the loss of civilian life?

wake up genius i was partly supporting your point by stating that Pearse didnt want all his troops shot in a bloody execution. But I still question the thinking as to why a man who did value civilian life so highly would choose a civilian location for the rising when both previous risings(failed 1867 (i think) rising) and later ones (Micheal Collins guerilla war)...didnt. This throws in the element of maybe before the rising civilian life was not a major issue but afterwards it was (i remind you originally the rising was meant to have 1000s of troops)

Hold on, when did I sling mud? I think I handled his verbal assaults rather well.

true but the nitpicking from both of you on irrelevent points is what i consider mud slinging...the swearing is just it being more colourful.

How was it a failure when it sparked a revival in Irish nationalism? The idea of Home Rule was on its way out after 1916. And I don't agree that the goals of the IRB were on the level of a terrorist organisation as you must remember at this point in time, there was talk of partitioning our island despite the fact most of the people would have objected to this.

I SAID...ON ITS OWN! Ignore the events that followed, the actions of the day. Like 9/11 on its own is a tragedy. while in a historical context it is the end of something beutiful for america and the beginning of something horrible for the world.

On the IRB there was actually talk of civil war, not partition. Home rule did not want partition, Ulster unionists didnt want home rule, Britain wanted Partition, James Craig said if you try Partition we will go to war With Britian, both sides armed themselves, britian shat itself and was actually discussing h0ow to avoid this catastrophe the day war broke out and put home rule on the shelfs. Now the IRB descendents of the fenians had set up cells in numerous organisations across ireland and britain with the goal of freeing ireland, but they believed in violent means (and had commited bombings) they decided to use the irish volunteer force as an army for such violent act...the 1916 rising. And it wasnt the idea of Home Rule that was out but the use of home rule. Originally home rule was to be the end...by 1921 as Micheal Collins put it...It was now a stepping stone.

Mr.Nice Guy · 12-07-2005 02:57AM

BlitzKrieg wrote:

BUT YOUR NOT LISTENING!
Anyone in the military will tell you that this is not excessive force. Seriously look at any urban combat ARTILLARY IS THE PRIMARY WEAPON...Iraq, Market Garden, Gustav Line. Heck why do you think air Superioty is so damn popular...its artillary everywhere. Therefore NOT EXCESSIVE its a textbook answer.
example:
Sir. We have over a hunderd soldiers armed with rifles in numerous fortified areas across the city, if we send troops by foot, they will all be massacered, the rebels will only have surrendered when they ran out of ammo. CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE is the proof of this rule!

I am listening. Reports of the time say that the British fired indiscriminately. I'm saying their attacks should have been of necessary force when targeting the rebels. This was obviously not the case. They wanted to reduce the city to rubble and they did so. Costing many lives in the process.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

wake up genius

Is it really necessary to speak in that condescending tone? Settle down man.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

But I still question the thinking as to why a man who did value civilian life so highly would choose a civilian location for the rising

Because it's a Rising. The idea presumably was for the people to rally to them. That's why the Proclamation of the Republic was read from the steps of the GPO to the people.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

when both previous risings(failed 1867 (i think) rising) and later ones (Micheal Collins guerilla war)...didnt.

The United Irish rebellion was designed to see the people join in but it ended up a disaster. Collin's guerilla war tactics were not appreciated by de Valera and were largely undertaken when Dev was in America looking for funds.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

true but the nitpicking from both of you on irrelevent points is what i consider mud slinging...the swearing is just it being more colourful.

I don't feel I was nit picking. He made statements that were contrary to his earlier ones and I called him up on them and with respect, I don't think you would appreciate me calling you a 'twat' numerous times when you have conducted yourself well and with respect.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I SAID...ON ITS OWN! Ignore the events that followed, the actions of the day. Like 9/11 on its own is a tragedy. while in a historical context it is the end of something beutiful for america and the beginning of something horrible for the world.

Military-wise, the success of the Rising was irrelevant. Its success was awakening Irish nationalism from its slumber.

BlitzKreig wrote:

On the IRB there was actually talk of civil war, not partition. Home rule did not want partition, Ulster unionists didnt want home rule, Britain wanted Partition,

Home Rulers didn't want partition but they were willing to accept it. John Redmond was told by Lloyd George that any partition of the island would be TEMPORARY and Edward Carson was told it was to be PERMANENT. The difference is Carson was told in writing. Also, Pearse was originally a Home Ruler but decided to support militant Republicanism when he saw that Unionists with guns were getting results with the British.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

James Craig said if you try Partition we will go to war With Britian, both sides armed themselves, britian shat itself and was actually discussing h0ow to avoid this catastrophe the day war broke out and put home rule on the shelfs.

You're saying James Craig opposed partition?

BlitzKrieg · 12-07-2005 04:50AM

You're saying James Craig opposed partition?

He would perfer to have civil war then have home rule forced apon him,like you said home rulers saw partition as a temporary thing, Britian tried to have two seperate home rules (which is what manifested in 1920) but even that both sides disagreed to, and as you remember in 1913 the Ulster volunteers took a oath to give their lifes opposing any threat to the Union, even (In Craig's eyes as a presbyterian) if it is the Union itself. So yes in a way in 1914 Craig opposed partition in the form it was presented, i never fully understood why it was accepted in 1920, should read up on that, alot of books draw focus away from the north in 1920 and focus on sinn fien.

am listening. Reports of the time say that the British fired indiscriminately. I'm saying their attacks should have been of necessary force when targeting the rebels. This was obviously not the case. They wanted to reduce the city to rubble and they did so. Costing many lives in the process.

do you have reference for this? cause again popping back to the bbc http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/insurrection/in03.shtml they statement proved my point in that the street fighting proved more disastrous on both human life and tactics and forced the British into using artillary

There, newly arrived troops made successive, tactically inept, frontal attacks on determined and disciplined volunteers occupying several strongly fortified outposts. They lost 234 men, dead or wounded while just 5 rebels died. In some instances, lapses in military discipline occurred. Soldiers were alleged to have killed 15 unarmed men in North King Street near the Four Courts during intense gun battles there on 28th and 29th April.

but it mentions nothing of firing 'indiscrimantly' and i'm looking elsewhere, there was an artillary barrage, but you cannot be accurate with a military barrage on just one building, you will hit most of central dublin, regardless of how good ones aim was. (another site which doesnt say it fire with the goal to destroy dublin http://irelandsown.net/easterrising.html)

Because it's a Rising. The idea presumably was for the people to rally to them. That's why the Proclamation of the Republic was read from the steps of the GPO to the people.

that still doesnt make civilian safety their priority, this is a red herring of a discussion, because in the end you could blame either side for not securing the civilians first or the civilians themselves for not putting 2 and 2 together and buggering away for the week. So i think we'll both let this one slide into a unsurity of history

The United Irish rebellion was designed to see the people join in but it ended up a disaster. Collin's guerilla war tactics were not appreciated by de Valera and were largely undertaken when Dev was in America looking for funds.

i never said the United Irish Rebellion didnt fail, i just said it didnt focus on a centre of a civilian population of 1916. And Regardless of Dev being there or not you cannot deny that Collin's guerilla war tactics were more effective at creating legends and villianifying the British (oh those Black and Tans!) and from a military standpoint was a very effective tactic.

I don't feel I was nit picking. He made statements that were contrary to his earlier ones and I called him up on them and with respect, I don't think you would appreciate me calling you a 'twat' numerous times when you have conducted yourself well and with respect.

Well the statements you called him up on was wether you were a man with the maturity of a 12 year old or not. Which is nitpicking in MY opinion as it has nothing really to do with the topic at hand. I consider what we are doing nitpicking because this has nothing to do with the topic on hand yet we are throwing it back and forward as part of the debate that needs winning. And you can call me a twat as much as you want, its a meaningless word to me, call me a racist or ignorant or something with actually meaning apart from being colourful exclamations of distaste (like twat and asshole and ****er and so on) and then i might take offence.

Military-wise, the success of the Rising was irrelevant. Its success was awakening Irish nationalism from its slumber.

which is my point, i said my opinion of the 1916 rising is in 2 parts, the event itself and its role in irish history. I disaprove of the event itself, its not an act i personnally condone but i accept its place and importance in irish history.

Kernel · 12-07-2005 08:33AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

That doesn't excuse the British for being wreckless and costing the lives of Irish civilians. That's why the Rebels surrendered in the end. The loss of civilian lives.

The short duration of the Rising was another factor in its appeal to the Irish people. "Those brave boys" going up against the might of the British Empire.

I consider it the greatest moment in Irish history.

You're absolutely right Mr.Nice Guy, fair play to ye. Nice quote from Pearse also. To fight a war of freedom and independence against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy, knowing the consequences - but continuing to have the balls to fight for what you believe in - shows a strength of will that Narky, Mycroft and Seb can only dream of.

Unfortunately, many young Irish people don't believe fighting for anything is justified, and suffer a sheep/slave mentality whereby they are happy once they get their Burger King, BMW and plasma screen. The will easily be dominated by a stronger nation with more fighting spirit, or even by the insidious capitalist system of control.

The tractable Irish, as opposed to the noble and rebellious spirit of defiance.

Power to the people!

Dyr · 12-07-2005 08:51AM

mycroft wrote:

Yeah cause anyone who doesn't own a wolfe tone double album is a dirty protestant.

no, i can happily live without the wolfe tones, but while you're throwing remarks around, i could also happily live without vichy irish too, you disgust me on a mary whitehouse level.

mycroft · 12-07-2005 12:49PM

Bambi wrote:

no, i can happily live without the wolfe tones, but while you're throwing remarks around, i could also happily live without vichy irish too, you disgust me on a mary whitehouse level.

Oh diddums, WTF is vichy irish, am I attacking my own side?

MR.Nice Guy wrote:

I think mycroft needs to learn to put his points across without resorting to insults. This thread was going well and everyone was respectful and he comes along and ruins it by throwing about insults. A pity. Anyway...

Y'know I don't think I need to lessons on maturity from a grown man who posts obessively on the WWF forum.

One is willing to kill civilians (Islamic terrorists) the other is not.

Pearse knew civilians were going to die for his rising to succeed, in any way shape or forum.

Personal abuse. it reflects poorly on you.

Your being a twat also reflects purely on you.

You are the one praising only one side. The British Army should have protected 'their' people (cough) and done their best to prevent their bloodshed.

Fascinating, er how? Use harsh language?

The concept of the Easter Rising was a blood sacrifice TO PEARSE. But you alleged Pearse 'called for' a blood sacrifice which I don't believe is true.

So why didn't pearse suicidially charge a british barricades single handed, instead of lying to his troops, and seizing ground and positions in populated areas.

wrote:

Originally Posted by mycroft
Did pearse seek out to attack the major british army barricks, er no?

Why would he do that?

I'm not sure if you're being dense or obtuse, you keep up with the fine language and ignoring the realities of the actions. If the rising was supposed to be pearses blood sacrifice and he should have just attacked a british barricks.

Originally Posted by mycroft
He holded up in a couple of central points, surrounded by civilians, and got shot at,

Yes. Fortifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mycroft
did he desire a massive amount of deaths on his own side, er yes.

You went from describing the positions he took to terming him a mass murderer. How did that happen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mycroft
Was he indifferent to civilian casaulties, yes because he'd have not picked that location or surrendered earlier, yes. Pearse wanted death and mayhem, thats why I equate him to one of that kind.

No you don't seem to understand what a Rising is. What a rebellion is. You see, it's pretty much worthless if you do it without the civilians knowing about it! Hence the Proclamation of the Republic!

I'm not losing the argument you are. And You saying I am, instead of answering the points raised in just getting tedious.

Simply put the blitzkreig has already demolished your points about the deaths were all the british's fault and you're staggering around nitpicking about where it occured. The fact remains, that the tactics utilised by pearse ensured the greatest amount of civilian casaulties, you can repeat your mantra about indiscriminate shell fire, but thats been refuted, if pearse was so concerned about civilian casaulties he'd have surrendered earlier, or choosen a different tactic. Pearse wanted blood, he wanted it spilled, for his cause, how different is that to common terrorist?

You have let yourself down.

Like I said, recieving patronising condesending comments like that from a WWF fan is really funny.

kernel wrote:

Unfortunately, many young Irish people don't believe fighting for anything is justified, and suffer a sheep/slave mentality whereby they are happy once they get their Burger King, BMW and plasma screen. The will easily be dominated by a stronger nation with more fighting spirit, or even by the insidious capitalist system of control.

The tractable Irish, as opposed to the noble and rebellious spirit of defiance.

Power to the people!

Y'know kernel you do talk an unsufferable amount of sh*te.

arbeitsscheuer · 12-07-2005 12:50PM

Kernel wrote:

To fight a war of freedom and independence against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy, knowing the consequences - but continuing to have the balls to fight for what you believe in

Wow. When an idiot puts it like that, it does sound a lot like terrorism. Fair play to mycroft for making the analogy earlier - I didn't see it then, but now that someone has described the Rising in such terms as this, I can see the similarity.

Kernel wrote:

shows a strength of will that Narky, Mycroft and Seb can only dream of.

Riiiiiiiiiight, and you're basing this on what now?
Oh yes I see, about 20 posts from the 3 of us combined, right yeah... That pretty much shows your attitude doesn't it? Making broad assumptions based on the minimum of research and knowledge.

What the F**K gives you the right to say I or anyone else on this board lacks strength of will?

Kernel · 12-07-2005 12:59PM

mycroft wrote:

Y'know kernel you do talk an unsufferable amount of sh*te.

LOL... aw thanks head, you've given me a laugh there.. err.. read back over the vitriole you've posted and surely you'll see the irony.

:rolleyes:

Kernel · 12-07-2005 01:04PM

SebtheBum wrote:

Wow. When an idiot puts it like that, it does sound a lot like terrorism. Fair play to mycroft for making the analogy earlier - I didn't see it then, but now that someone has described the Rising in such terms as this, I can see the similarity.

An idiot... hmmm.. no need to resort to personal abuse there seb, remember, when someone has a different opinion than you, that doesn't make them an idiot. Look into the distant possibility that you are not infallible. The French Revolution which brought about the notion of democracy, equality and freedom would be seen as terrorism in your CNN brainwashed eyes? How about the War of Independence in America? Terrorists? :rolleyes:

SebtheBum wrote:

Riiiiiiiiiight, and you're basing this on what now?
Oh yes I see, about 20 posts from the 3 of us combined, right yeah... That pretty much shows your attitude doesn't it? Making broad assumptions based on the minimum of research and knowledge.

What the F**K gives you the right to say I or anyone else on this board lacks strength of will?

I'm basing my assumption on your posts Seb, I've nothing else to go on to judge you, but what you have posted to represent yourself. You guys have displayed a lack of understanding and, certainly, appreciation for sacrifice and resistance to ruling forces.

mycroft · 12-07-2005 01:14PM

Kernel wrote:

LOL... aw thanks head, you've given me a laugh there.. err.. read back over the vitriole you've posted and surely you'll see the irony. :rolleyes:

Thats the best you can do, "I am rubber you are glue"

The French Revolution which brought about the notion of democracy, equality and freedom would be seen as terrorism in your CNN brainwashed eyes?

The French revolution was led by a bunch of psychotic lunactics who make the queen of hearts look lucid and sane. In case you didn't know the french went back to the drawing board six times to sort out the republic. Your and the misty eye'd idealised version you've romanticised, verus the brutal reality of events, cannot be better illustrated by the french revolutions bloody random reign of terror.

And you'll response "see what blossomed from it" and I'll say "see what blossomed depsite it"

Next you'll be telling us about the glorious october revolution and the workers paradise it formed.

You guys have displayed a lack of understanding and, certainly, appreciation for sacrifice and resistance to ruling forces.

No we haven't we've shattered a couple of your delusions (still "up the dubs" after that myth was smashed for you?), the fact is that your noble revolutionaries displayed a rank indifference to the suffering of the people that you decry in "the ruling force"

Sarky · 12-07-2005 01:15PM

Kernel wrote:

The French Revolution which brought about the notion of democracy, equality and freedom would be seen as terrorism in your CNN brainwashed eyes? How about the War of Independence in America? Terrorists? :rolleyes:

Essentially, yes.

But don't worry, I'm completely misguided. That brand of terrorism was obviously completely different to any other kind you see on the news these days. The torture, evil killings and general bloodshed were noble and glorious, completely unlike the sick, twisted torture, evil killings and general bloodshed of anyone else.

arbeitsscheuer · 12-07-2005 01:19PM

Sarky wrote:

Essentially, yes.

But don't worry, I'm completely misguided. That brand of terrorism was obviously completely different to any other kind you see on the news these days. The torture, evil killings and general bloodshed were noble and glorious, completely unlike the sick, twisted torture, evil killings and general bloodshed of anyone else.

Brilliant. :cool:

Kernel · 12-07-2005 01:27PM

mycroft wrote:

Thats the best you can do, "I am rubber you are glue"

You're strange.

mycroft wrote:

The French revolution was led by a bunch of psychotic lunactics who make the queen of hearts look lucid and sane. In case you didn't know the french went back to the drawing board six times to sort out the republic. The suggestion that the ideals of the event aganist the reality of what occured and the misty eye'd idealised version you've romanticised cannot be better illustrated by the french revolutions bloody random reign of terror.

The ruling classes of France were psychotic lunatics (only one 'c'), the French may have taken some work to reach the finalised glorious constitution, but installing a revolutionary form of government takes time to be perfected. I don't see struggle as being romanticised, but I recognise that sometimes struggle and revolution are necessary for the betterment of the people. Unfortunately, if you look at history and the world around you, you will see that the ruling classes use violent and force to hold onto power.

mycroft wrote:

And you'll response "see what blossomed from it" and I'll say "see what blossomed depsite it"

Next you'll be telling us about the glorious october revolution and the workers paradise it formed.

No I wont. Go on then, give us next week's lotto numbers will you? :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

No we haven't we've shattered a couple of your delusions (still "up the dubs" after that myth was smashed for you?), and an empathy that your noble revolutionaries displayed a rank indifference to the suffering of the people that you decry in "the ruling force"

[/quote]

I was fully aware that there were a large amount of country folk involved in our glorious rebellion, the dubs thing was tongue-in-cheek. The reason why the heroes surrendered was to end the suffering of the people - therefore they were not 'displaying a rank indifference to the suffering of the people', that's nonsense. Do you have a personal reason to distort the history of this brave and noble act? Are you Protestant, or just contrary? There has to be a reason that you go against the history books with your off-the-wall interpretation of the 1916 rising?

Kernel · 12-07-2005 01:29PM

Sarky wrote:

Essentially, yes.

But don't worry, I'm completely misguided. That brand of terrorism was obviously completely different to any other kind you see on the news these days. The torture, evil killings and general bloodshed were noble and glorious, completely unlike the sick, twisted torture, evil killings and general bloodshed of anyone else.

Nonsensical, all war and revolution is terrorism then? You have displayed your lack of will and proven that you have no will to fight and would be easily ruled.

Sarky · 12-07-2005 01:35PM

Kernel wrote:

Nonsensical, all war and revolution is terrorism then? You have displayed your lack of will and proven that you have no will to fight and would be easily ruled.

Uh... What?

No, seriously, how does detesting war and the unnecessary killing of people make me weak willed and complacent?

I could just as easily claim you're not making sense because I have WILL OF THE WARRIOR!

At least there was a point of some sort in all my posts on this subject so far.

Kernel · 12-07-2005 01:36PM

Sarky wrote:

Uh... What?

No, seriously, how does detesting war and the unnecessary killing of people make me weak willed and complacent?

Precisely. QED.

Sarky · 12-07-2005 01:38PM

Ah, I see, you're just a tool.

Kernel · 12-07-2005 01:40PM

Sarky wrote:

Ah, I see, you're just a tool.

Good comeback Narky, very intellectual and well researched! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kernel · 12-07-2005 01:44PM

Sarky wrote:

Uh... What?

No, seriously, how does detesting war and the unnecessary killing of people make me weak willed and complacent?

I could just as easily claim you're not making sense because I have WILL OF THE WARRIOR!

At least there was a point of some sort in all my posts on this subject so far.

OK, I will explain it. Sometimes those who have power or seize power by force, are evil and bad people. An example of this could be Hitler's fascist regime in Germany. When these people take power and use force to expand and maintain their power, they begin to walk all over people and do as they wish. Sometimes it becomes necessary for people to say "no, that's not on, we don't like you doing that and would like you to stop".

What happens if the evil man doesn't stop? Then it becomes necessary to fight him in armed struggle, and if the struggle is for noble reasons, then the struggle is justified. See? Not terrorism.

That glorious time of the year again....

Comments