nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

GizAGoOfYerGee

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

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

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gbee

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

gbee

OutlawPete wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

old_aussie

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

Notorious97

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

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

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

Terry

lugha wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

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

dlofnep

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

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

Biggins

Notorious97 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

kfallon

Ireland's bravest men & women!

prinz

Easter '16 was a rising not a terrorist attack.

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

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

lugha

Terry wrote: »

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

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

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

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

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

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

They had no problems subscribing to it until 1920.

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

mathepac

Einhard wrote: »

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

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

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

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

round tower huntsman

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

gandalf

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

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

MickShamrock

A fight for Irish freedom.

mathepac

Biggins wrote: »

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

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

+1

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

pablomakaveli

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

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

deise go deo

gbee wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

deise go deo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

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

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

Sanjuro

lugha wrote: »

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

Interesting aside- Nelson Mandela was only removed from the US' list of international terrorists in 2008.

round tower huntsman

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter!

LordSutch

From the perspective of those who carried out the Rising it was of course a rising against the establishment and or the administration in Ireland & Ireland's economic connection with Britain, however, the accounts of the day claim that most Dubliners didn't see it that way, and that the destruction that had been done to their City might equate to what (we today) might call Terrorism! The havoc caused to Dublin by the rebels & looters was not popular, many civilians were left dead on the streets, and their beloved city was left in total ruins.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/Sackville_Street_%28Dublin%29_after_the_1916_Easter_Rising.JPG

Dublin & the country at large had a much stronger sense of Economic & Cultural Unionism with Britain than most of you can ever imagine today, therefore you must look at the events of Easter 1916 through the eyes of the people who actually lived then, the same people who spat & shouted abuse at the rebels (who terrorised their City) as they were led away.

Britain & Ireland were then in the middle of the biggest war in history (The Great War), tens of thousands of Irish men were being killed on a weekly basis that year (and even that month) > and then the rebels attack Dublin!!! not a move that would garner support from the general public who were mostly worried sick or grieving for their loved ones in the trenches, and it wasn't until the execution of the rebels that support for their cause gained momentum in the following years . . . .

That's how I see it.

P.S. My family lived in Dublin at that time and my Grandfather was a mailman who served for twenty years on the Dublin to Cork mail train which was raided/looted at gunpoint one night by the so called 'freedom fighters' who proclaimed to be fighting for Ireland, they took all the mail, beat up one of the crew & scarpered into the darkness, needless to say they didn't gain suport from my Grandfather for their actions.

gbee

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

I'd agree, but I think Terrorist action did take place later, and I, for one, displaced this action over the 1916 military actions.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Decided to go for Eastari-Riseuar

Impossible to know how you would feel at the time. From the 1918 election results it would appear that many who condemned them in 1916 changed their minds after 2 years.

Perhaps the event made people really think about how they felt being a part of the UK.

If dissident republicans took over stormont, donegall square and belfast crown coutr by armed revolt, declared a new republic and were later thrown in Maghaberry it is likely 99% of the island would call them terrorists.

But in a poll on after hours in 2110 they would probably be regarded as heroes.

Minstrel27

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

Does this really surprise anyone?

D-Generate

gbee wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

The mayors after 1916 included Terence McSwiney and Tomás McCurtain, are you seriously trying to think of them as bogmen? Come off it!
Cork has always been regarded as a nationalist stronghold and this is before it was sacked by the British. The writings of Frank O'Connor give good insight as to what the sentiment was of the time with him painting a picture of his neighbours on Barrack St. as highly supportive of IRA activities.

There is nothing worse than a revisionist like yourself, someone who is willing to ignore the fact that there was a two tier and oppressive society all so that the city could have been considered a crown jewel.
You probably walk past the monument to the executed IRA members in UCC and tut tut at these scalliwags upsetting the establishment, heck you probably want the monument torn down.

dlofnep

gbee wrote: »

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

No they didn't. More revisionist nonsense. In the 1918 elections the vote broke down as follows.

Cork City had a Sinn Féin majority.

10 of 12 Dublin constituencies had a Sinn Féín majority.

Limerick City had a Sinn Féin majority.

Derry City had a Sinn Féin majority.

Try again.

gbee

D-Generate wrote: »

The mayors after 1916 included Terence McSwiney and Tomás McCurtain, are you seriously trying to think of them as bogmen? Come off it!.

My reference would really be for those who followed much later. But don't forget that the term "LORD" Mayor was bestowed by Queen Victoria in honour of her "LOYAL" subjects.

It was indeed a great honour to have "Lord" bestowed and only two others, Dublin and Belfast were preferred in Ireland.

Two tier, no question about that, but the core of the city, run my merchants were very pro British and our wealth stemmed from this. We could take this a side step into how the Protestant employers positively treated their Catholic workers, who were repaid by being burnt out by vigilante groups.

gbee

dlofnep wrote: »

No they didn't. More revisionist nonsense. In the 1918 elections the vote broke down as follows. .

Just to remind you, your own date: 1918: I probably should have put an "up to 1916" and an "after 1916" in my comments.