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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

1…1112141617…23

Comments

  • #392
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    Sand wrote: »
    No, he is incorrect. Much like the Rising, that's a matter independent of your agreement or disagreement with it.

    That said, can I direct you to all my posts on your contributions in the last page or two which you have evaded?

    He/She is correct.

    You clearly intentionnaly misquoted.

    "I'd say alot of these heeded Redmond's call to join."

    I have no intention of responding to an individual who cannot admit to error.

    Particularly when we are talking about so many deaths.


  • #393
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    gladrags wrote: »
    He/She is correct.

    You clearly intentionnaly misquoted.

    One simple, clear question. One simple, clear answer.
    Sand: And do you believe that Redmond is directly or indirectly responsible for all those dead and missing?
    Red Louth: He's collectively responsible.

    Backpeddle all you like. No one has yet presented any evidence that Redmond is responsible for a single casualty so Red Louths position is just as ludicrous whatever % of casualties he assigns to Redmond.
    I have no intention of responding to an individual who cannot admit to error.

    That's a shame. I enjoy your insight.
    Particularly when we are talking about so many deaths.

    How many deaths do you think Redmond is responsible for?

    And to save some time, how many deaths do you think Gerry Adams is responsible for?


  • #394
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    Sand wrote: »
    Yep, when I asked if he was responsible for all those deaths, wounded and missing you said he was.

    Nope. Alot & collective responsibility were the terms used.
    No, its you who are unable to judge the motivations of either Pearse or Redmond without the benefit of jumping ahead in the timeline. I'm quite happy to judge both men within the context of their time. You're not.

    What? You brought in Gerry Adams and jumped outside of the period being discussed.
    Pearse praising bloodshed as a positive thing in and of itself. And it was Pearse, not Redmond, that launched a pointless, stupid, bloody battle in the middle of Dublin, just to make a point.

    Pearse was just one individual involved. Connolly, being another, didn't accept Pearse's theories on this.

    Pearse's views were quite common at that time in Europe. Interesting piece by Joost Augusteijn:

    http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/patrick-pearseproto-fascist-eccentric-or-mainstream-european-thinker/
    All the context of that time.

    And the anti-Redmondite wing of the Irish Volunteers didn't get involved at all in the war, in the context of that time too.
    On the other have not provided a single *scrap* of evidence that even a single Irish Volunteer was swung to joining the British Army by Redmond specifically.

    Are you claiming no one heeded him at all?
    You haven't provided a single *scrap* of evidence that Redmon was responsible, directly or indirectly for even a single casualty suffered by the 10th or 16th division.

    His speech is a collective contribution to the evidence.
    90% English & Indian by the end of the war, because England has conscription and Ireland did not. I presume we can discount Englishmen and Indians as being influenced by Redmond, right?

    How would English & Indians be recruited in Ireland?
    instead smear him as *knowingly* sending the volunteers into more than 4 years trench warfare that hadn't even broken out when Redmond gave his speech at Woodenbridge.

    As I said previously, thousands were already dead by this time, the style of warfare that killed them is a secondary point. He knew the risks of what his speech might do.
    so I just allowed you to frame yourself up nice and tight

    Aren't you great.........
    smearing Redmond as being responsible for thousands of deaths on the basis of a speech, of just supporting the war effort.

    Smearing? He has a collective responsibility. Saying that those who join an army in wartime know the risks, while those who encourage them are unaware, is quite frankly bizarre.
    I made sure you wouldn't have any wriggle room

    Someone's wrong on the internet?
    Heroes

    Er, I never said Adams was a 'hero' of mine. Throwing Adams into the argument at the point you did was rather baffling tbh. Accusing Adams of giving the same type of speech as Redmond is hardly a credible defense of Redmond not doing so in the first place. I trust Redmond is a hero of yours then? You seem quite emotionally attached to him.
    limited to the context of the time.

    You altered course radically for reasons best known to yourself.
    Deal with the points I raised then.

    Already done.


  • #395
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    gladrags wrote: »
    He/She is correct.

    You clearly intentionnaly misquoted.

    "I'd say alot of these heeded Redmond's call to join."

    I have no intention of responding to an individual who cannot admit to error.

    Particularly when we are talking about so many deaths.
    ..............…....…,...,..,.........,.................,..............
    Quote:Sand

    "It is interesting that even today, 100 years after Redmond first secured home rule for Ireland from the UK, home rule is seen as the solution for the UK today as well."

    The above is another example of many, of your fictatious posts on a an important part of Irish history.

    You posted this in another topic.


  • #396
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Are you claiming no one heeded him at all?

    That's all you've got to support your belief that Redmond is responsible for all the dead and wounded of the 10th and 16th division in WW1?

    I think that about summarises it alright.

    When you introduce a claim, it is up to you to demonstrate it is true. You haven't.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    Sand wrote: »
    your belief that Redmond is responsible for all the dead and wounded of the 10th and 16th division in WW1?

    Stop making false allegations please.
    You haven't.

    I have.

    Do you believe in light of the position of influence that he held at the time, that Redmond didn't persuade any Irish nationalist to join the BA on the basis of his Woodenbridge speech?


  • #398
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Stop making false allegations please.

    I've already quoted where I asked you if he was responsible for all dead and wounded, and you said he was. It's very simple.

    Dont get too wound up about it though - even if you claimed he was only responsible for 50% of the dead and wounded, it would still be a laughable argument.
    I have.

    Do you believe in light of the position of influence that he held at the time, that Redmond didn't persuade any Irish nationalist to join the BA on the basis of his Woodenbridge speech?

    What you've got there as an argument is referred to as an Appeal to Ignorance. If a claim is made it must be true unless disproven, right? Wrong. You've made a claim, you have to prove it. Or at least provide *some* evidence to support it.

    Start easy: try and find evidence that even a single Irish Volunteer decided to join purely because Redmond said to.

    I think you're going to find it pretty hard though. In WW2, even with strong disapproval by Irish political leaders and attempts to restrict travel by any Irishmen of military age, at least 70,000 and anything up to 150,000 Irishmen served in British forces, and hundreds of thousands more emigrated to the UK to support the war effort by working in British factories and on British farms. And all that after the horrors of WW1 were fully understood. It doesn't seem like approval/disapproval of politicians plays much a role in the decision making process.


  • #399
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    Sand wrote: »
    and you said he was

    If you misunderstand me, I'm saying 'alot', which I already said in an earlier post, which you missed. Clear enough for you?
    laughable argument

    What's really laughable is the idea that a politician widely lauded by many (including yourself) for getting Home Rule on the statute books through the supposed power of his oratory both inside and outside parliament, failed to persuade anybody through his efforts alone to join the BA in order to defend this achievement.
    Start easy

    Start easy yourself maybe? In an earlier post you claimed to have quoted from the Woodenbridge speech, you only partially did. Some of the extracts were from speeches Redmond made on 3 August 1914 in parliament and in Co Laois on 16 August.

    At Woodenbridge he said:
    ‘The interests of Ireland—of the whole of Ireland—are at stake in this war. This war is undertaken in the defence of the highest principles of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country and a reproach to her manhood and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and to shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which has distinguished our race all through its history. I say to you, therefore, your duty is twofold. I am glad to see such magnificent material for soldiers around me, and I say to you: “Go on drilling and make yourself efficient for the Work, and then account yourselves as men, not only for Ireland itself, but wherever the fighting line extends, in defence of right, of freedom, and religion in this war”’.

    Key here, is that he attacked those who wish to remain at home instead of joining the war. Peacelover? Hardly, hence Connolly's neat riposte: 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland'. Would you criticise anyone for staying out of the war?

    Wexford, 4th October 1914 - speaks of 'a blessed result' coming out of the bloodshed:
    One blessed result may come to Ireland, and that is that the blood shed side by side, in the field of battle by Catholics and Protestants, by north of Ireland Irishmen and south of Ireland may prove to be the seed of the future unity of our Irish nation.

    Pearse hardly has a monopoly on the topic does he?

    Kilkenny, 19th October 1914 - specifically mentions the 16th Division as the one Irish men should join:
    Now as you are aware, there is in existence what is called the 16th Division, which is being recruited. The headquarters are at Mallow, and it is being recruited all over the country.......

    It's clear through a multitude of speeches in addition to Woodenbridge, 'the leader of nationalist Ireland' exhorted his fellow nationalists to join the BA. He failed to persuade a single one through his own efforts? Nonsense.


  • #400
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Sand wrote: »
    Yeah, but how many. How many lives would have been saved if Redmond had not made the speech? How many men who were killed were *only* motivated to go because Redmond gave that speech?

    We don't know. It's hypothetical and useless to speculate on. Quantum mechanics would be more predictable. You either disagree with violence or you don't.


  • #401
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Red L4 0th

    You actually cant present a single argument *for* your belief, can you? Everything you post is a criticism of opposing views. I don't expect you to acknowledge this publicly, but it is something to consider. If you cant think of a logical reason to support your own views, why do you support them?


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Key here, is that he attacked those who wish to remain at home instead of joining the war. Peacelover? Hardly, hence Connolly's neat riposte: 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland'. Would you criticise anyone for staying out of the war?

    Hardly - he just pointed out that if someone wished to serve the war effort, a war to be fought for the highest principles of religion, morality and right an invasion of Ireland was highly unlikely - the conflict was going to be fought and won on the continent - specifically in Belgium which was the tiny, neutral, Catholic state who was an innocent victim of imperial aggressions. As I pointed out, there would be several reasons Irish nationalists might feel sympathy for Belgium's plight. It was the ISIS/Syria/Iraq of its day.

    Connolly fought alongside his "gallant allies in Europe" by the way. Really compromises that King/Kaiser claim. The 1916 Rising - every loon in Dublin showing up with a rifle, so something for every loon to cling onto 100 years later.
    Wexford, 4th October 1914 - speaks of 'a blessed result' coming out of the bloodshed:

    Yes, most men engage in warfare because they see a better *peace* resulting from the warfare. Pearse however praised war and bloodshed as a good thing in its own right. In fact he praised WW1 on this basis, despite it being a terrible imperial conflict despised by Republicans today.

    His full quote...which you seem to see the need to edit to better suit your argument is as below:
    One blessed result may come to Ireland, and that is that the blood shed side by side, in the field of battle by Catholics and Protestants, by north of Ireland Irishmen and south of Ireland may prove to be the seed of the future unity of our Irish nation.

    I don't need to reduce quotes to (incorrect) three word extracts to support my views. Why do you feel the need to do so if your views are so self evidently true?
    Pearse hardly has a monopoly on the topic does he?

    No, a couple of other individuals have had similar views on conflict and bloodshed as a positive, especially in racial/nationalistic terms. I'd be accused of breaching Godwins law were I to mention them however.
    He failed to persuade a single one through his own efforts? Nonsense.

    Well, if its a slam dunk case you ought to be able to find clear cut evidence of at least one, right? I mean for the sake of argument, surely you can find a single diary entry by a soldier who says "Jaysus, if it wasnt for that ****ing Redmond git I'd never have signed up for this!" Right?

    The heroes of the rising failed to persuade hundreds of thousands of Irishmen not to join the British war effort during WW2. If Irishmen are the witless children awaiting direction from their politicians to throw their lives away in causes that are not their own, then surely they would have followed orders 20 years later.

    I think Provos find it extremely difficult to process that Irishmen might have fought willingly and without coercion for the British Army. Hence the desperate attempts to paint Redmond as a politician with some sort of mind control powers as yet unparalleled in political history.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You either disagree with violence or you don't.

    Bollocks - as I pointed out in my post a few pages back which you have steadfastly ignored despite crying about not getting a response to your own posts.


  • #403
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Sand wrote: »
    Bollocks - as I pointed out in my post a few pages back which you have steadfastly ignored despite crying about not getting a response to your own posts.

    My thesis stand correct. It's not the violence that's the issue but the cause.


  • #404
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    Sand wrote: »
    You actually cant present a single argument *for* your belief, can you? Everything you post is a criticism of opposing views. I don't expect you to acknowledge this publicly, but it is something to consider. If you cant think of a logical reason to support your own views, why do you support them?

    What are you on about? You requested some evidence to support my opinions. You got some.
    Appeal to Ignorance. If a claim is made it must be true unless disproven, right? Wrong. You've made a claim, you have to prove it.

    Ergo, if a claim is made, it must be false until proven? What did Carl Sagan say about that i wonder........
    Hardly - he just pointed out that if someone wished to serve the war effort, a war to be fought for the highest principles of religion, morality and right an invasion of Ireland was highly unlikely......

    Nope, he also attacked those that wanted no part in the war. Just as important to point that out, if you are going to laud Redmond as a man of peace in contrast to republicans.
    Connolly fought alongside his "gallant allies in Europe" by the way. Really compromises that King/Kaiser claim.

    That was a year and a half in the future. It was true at that time (1914).
    The 1916 Rising - every loon in Dublin showing up with a rifle, so something for every loon to cling onto 100 years later.

    Loons eh? Are you going to 'prove' they were/are now, maybe by producing their psychiatric evaluation reports? Oh wait, don't bother........
    Yes, most men engage in warfare because they see a better *peace* resulting from the warfare.

    Yet you still attack the 1916 leaders (of which Pearse was just one) for 'starting a war.' Don't you think that they too also saw a better peace resulting from it?
    Pearse however praised war and bloodshed as a good thing in its own right. In fact he praised WW1 on this basis, despite it being a terrible imperial conflict despised by Republicans today.

    As already said, Pearse was just one individual involved in the Rising. Connolly called him a 'blithering idiot' for holding such views. Did you even bother reading the article by Joost Augusteijn I posted a link to earlier?
    His full quote...

    Which I produced. Stop with the deliberate misinterpetations.
    Why do you feel the need to do so if your views are so self evidently true?

    Why are you so self-obsessed by logic in a historical debate?
    Well, if its a slam dunk case you ought to be able to find clear cut evidence of at least one, right?

    I'm not looking to prove 'I'm right' and by extension that others are subsequently 'wrong'. History is a subjective pursuit. It's just my opinion. But since you asked, maybe Willie Redmond?
    Provos find it extremely difficult to process that Irishmen might have fought willingly and without coercion for the British Army.

    Oh dear, out come the labels........
    Hence the desperate attempts to paint Redmond as a politician with some sort of mind control powers as yet unparalleled in political history.

    Silly. A man in a position of influence won't try to influence his constituency?


  • #405
    petronius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭petronius


    When I here FG-ers like Bruton discredit the Rising and war of independence it saddens me that they are in power and could be during the celebration of the 1916 rising.

    The doffing the forelock, and blind belief that freedom was going to be bestowed upon us by the colonial power! as a gift almost, is naive and insulting.

    Ireland deserved independence and self-determination and had to take it.


  • #406
    MrHogan35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭MrHogan35


    These traitorous criminals should be shot their worse the British Government no wonder their no United Ireland.


  • #407
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    Well Bruton sagely spotted that the financial crash was nothing to do with the bankers gov, nooo, no, that received perception was just your typical witch hunt. Shur the bankers were our saviours begob.

    So we need to take seriously his thesis that our troubles were nothing to do with English colonists. They were our best friends for gods sake. They were desperate to give us independence and were only waiting until we were ready for it.

    John Bruton is 5 and a half.


  • #408
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    John Bruton is a pathetic, mealy-mouthed, fantasist, sycophant.

    Home Rule, a lack of economic development in Ireland, and the rise of the British welfare state would probably have mainlined Ireland into a position of dependency on transfers from the British economy.

    It wouldn't have expunged the Irish psyche of its desire for independence though. In 'Ireland the Dependency' there would still have been a continuous rebellion/insurgency and perhaps a civil war between those served by the status quo and those seeking independence.

    We'd likely have become a right ****-hole, like the north in the 70's/80's, an island of Republican strongholds in a mollified dependency; Bogsides, Ardoynes and Divis Flats in all the major populations centres with bandit country in the rural hinterlands.


  • #409
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    John Bruton is a pathetic, mealy-mouthed, fantasist, sycophant.

    Home Rule, a lack of economic development in Ireland, and the rise of the British welfare state would probably have mainlined Ireland into a position of dependency on transfers from the British economy.


    It wouldn't have expunged the Irish psyche of its desire for independence though. In 'Ireland the Dependency' there would still have been a continuous rebellion/insurgency and perhaps a civil war between those served by the status quo and those seeking independence.

    We'd likely have become a right ****-hole, like the north in the 70's/80's, an island of Republican strongholds in a mollified dependency; Bogsides, Ardoynes and Divis Flats in all the major populations centres with bandit country in the rural hinterlands.

    It was by and large, an obscene attempt by Bruton and his cheerleaders to rewrite history.

    It failed,and Kenny I see has now distanced himself from Bruton's gobsh*** remarks.

    He was a mealy mouthed self serving politician, who most people have forgotten,other than for his tax on children.


  • #410
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    A deluded and useless buffoon.


  • #411
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    John Bruton is a pathetic, mealy-mouthed, fantasist, sycophant.

    Home Rule, a lack of economic development in Ireland, and the rise of the British welfare state would probably have mainlined Ireland into a position of dependency on transfers from the British economy.

    It wouldn't have expunged the Irish psyche of its desire for independence though. In 'Ireland the Dependency' there would still have been a continuous rebellion/insurgency and perhaps a civil war between those served by the status quo and those seeking independence.

    We'd likely have become a right ****-hole, like the north in the 70's/80's, an island of Republican strongholds in a mollified dependency; Bogsides, Ardoynes and Divis Flats in all the major populations centres with bandit country in the rural hinterlands.

    Ah yes, the Free State or Irish Republic was a beacon for all. Except for women, and protestants, and working men or women. It was so great a few million left, I presume to spread the news.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jank wrote: »
    Ah yes, the Free State or Irish Republic was a beacon for all. Except for women, and protestants, and working men or women. It was so great a few million left, I presume to spread the news.

    This. The reality is that Ireland, was going to migrate towards independence in exactly the same fashion as every other colonial state did. The only real question is how the conflicting identities of unionist and nationalist communities would have played out in a scenario of migration from home rule to full independence. It could have been as ugly as Indian independence, or it could have resulted in a more civilised accommodation, but there was clearly a majority desire for a shift from union. We'll never know now. Quite how it would have meant a recipe for island-wide Divis's escapes me. 'Winter is coming!'


  • #413
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    jank wrote: »
    Ah yes, the Free State or Irish Republic was a beacon for all. Except for women, and protestants, and working men or women. It was so great a few million left, I presume to spread the news.

    In contrast with a country stuffed out with criminals and the scum of the British Isles taking control of Australia through the genocide inflicted on the native population.

    One of the most racist countries on the planet.

    Advance Australia Fair..........ha ha ha


  • #414
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    jank wrote: »
    Ah yes, the Free State or Irish Republic was a beacon for all. Except for women, and protestants, and working men or women. It was so great a few million left, I presume to spread the news.

    Millions were leaving prior to the emergence of the State.,for centuries. Women were treated globally in such a manner.Prior to and after 1920's.

    The beacon you refer to goes right back to Cromwell.Downs Survey TCD.

    Irrespectively, the "what ifs" and "if onlys",
    are mere fantasies,and have nothing to do with historical fact.


  • #415
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    jank wrote: »
    Ah yes, the Free State or Irish Republic was a beacon for all. Except for women, and protestants, and working men or women. It was so great a few million left, I presume to spread the news.

    Ah yes indeed. Working men and women had it great when the British were here and nobody left.


  • #416
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Working men and women had it great when the British were here and nobody left.

    There were people in their 70's+ in 1916 who would have had first hand experience of the famine and subsequent halving of the Irish population from starvation and emigration under British administration.


  • #417
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Ah yes indeed. Working men and women had it great when the British were here and nobody left.

    Sitting there dreaming of the tolerant utopia north of the border.....


  • #418
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    There were people in their 70's+ in 1916 who would have had first hand experience of the famine and subsequent halving of the Irish population from starvation and emigration under British administration.

    Summary: At least 8 million men, women and children emigrated from Ireland between 1801 and 1921. That number is equal to the total population of the island in the fourth decade of the 19th century. The high rate of Irish emigration was unequalled in any other country and reflects both the overseas demand for immigrant labour and the appalling lack of employment and prospects for the average Irish person. –
    See more at: http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.com
    Conditions for example, in Dublin, for the majority of the population was bleak. Particularly in the early 20th century, pre Irish State, when tenement’s and unemployment became the norm.
    This was in spite of the famines of the 19th century, which dramatically lowered the population.


  • #419
    yipeeeee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭yipeeeee


    Wasn't he on a programme a while ago saying how he was proud his grandad was in the "old IRA" and admired how he murdered people in the name of the republic?


  • #420
    richardw001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 575 ✭✭✭richardw001


    I'm not sure whether the Easter rising was unnecessary or not.

    However it was tragic - in the sense that we lost some potential political leaders that were executed.
    I do believe they actually cared about the Irish people - and were prepared to put the Irish people above their own self-interest.

    The Easter rising was driven by people that were educated, well read and understood what a republic should be (Not the corrupted word that is used in Ireland today)

    Personally I think that John Bruton could take some time to try and understand what some of the real founders of this state were about - and celebrate that.

    "The leaders in Ireland have nearly always left the people at the critical moment; they have sometimes sold them"

    None of the political parties knocking around today deserve to be associated with the Easter rising.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    richardw001 wrote: »
    I'm not sure whether the Easter rising was unnecessary or not.

    However it was tragic - in the sense that we lost some potential political leaders that were executed.
    I do believe they actually cared about the Irish people - and were prepared to put the Irish people above their own self-interest.

    The Easter rising was driven by people that were educated, well read and understood what a republic should be (Not the corrupted word that is used in Ireland today)

    Personally I think that John Bruton could take some time to try and understand what some of the real founders of this state were about - and celebrate that.

    "The leaders in Ireland have nearly always left the people at the critical moment; they have sometimes sold them"

    None of the political parties knocking around today deserve to be associated with the Easter rising.

    I'm not entirely sure what your stance is on the rising, or allowing transition to independence through home rule.

    If the rising wasn't necessary - as you imply might be the case, then the waste of lives - amongst all, not just the leadership of the rising, is down to that leadership - no-one else. However educated they might have been, it's also entirely true to point out that they were acting undemocratically - they had no mandate for their actions.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement