John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Bruton now pishing off FG with his one man crusade to rewrite history.

His hysterical reference to the criteria for a just war says it all.

There are always moral questions in any armed conflict. He forgets again to mention the British contribution.

"John Bruton last night repeated his strong reservations about the commemoration of the 1916 Rising, opening up clear differences with the Taoiseach and current leader of Fine Gael, Enda Kenny.
The Taoiseach last week insisted that Fine Gael had its roots in the Rising, which “had been the central formative and defining act in the shaping of modern Ireland”.
The use of violence in the 1916 Rising did not meet a criterion for just war and raised other moral questions, Mr Bruton argued in a lecture on John Redmond last night to the Wexford Historical Society."

Irish Times

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The paper was intended as an organ of the Irish volunteers, of which some of the signatories were members of. Any chance of a balanced discussion starting at any time soon?

A paper produced and edited by Sinn Fein. Try again.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

But intended as an organ for the Irish volunteers. Evidence that the volunteers didn't believe the reports to be false would be nice now thanks......

I can intend to pitch my newspaper at anyone I care to mention, but that doesn't make it a paper of anyone but myself. It was a Sinn Fein funded, printed, and edited newspaper. No-one involved had any connection with the proclamation.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nice try. Papers expressing what the government viewed as a dissenting opinion were rapidly shut down (as this one was after a couple of months) under the conditions of the Defense of the Realm Act.

So any chance of some contradicting evidence from you?

I'm not sure what part of it being a Sinn Fein produced newspaper you don't get. It has nothing to do with the signatories of the proclamation. The newspaper of the Irish Volunteers was the, eh, Irish Volunteer. A newspaper which never made any claim that the massacres didn't happen. So, if you can point to anything which actually supports your proposition, feel free to show us.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Balls in your court now Alastair. Since neither you or I are privy to the contents of the discussion that lead to the text of the proclamation, I've given the next best thing: some background into what they might have been thinking. You have offered nothing whatsoever.

You're quite mistaken. You've the responsibility to prove your proposition - which you've failed to do. There's absolutely no evidence to support your claim, while I can point to the complete absence of any statement, propaganda, debate, article, or otherwise , by these people, that disputed the factual nature of the massacres in Belgium.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hardly true now is it, since the this particular newspaper also didn't believe it.

You have me there. So everyone, bar a group that played no role in the rising, and the signing of the proclamation. Correction noted.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You are aware of what the Defense of the Realm Act was right?

I am. So where is your evidence to support your proposition?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76008?comment_order=asc

Any evidence to support this contention? That's simply another opinion piece.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Can you produce anything at all to the contrary?

Sure. The complete absence of anything to suggest that the signatories didn't accept the fact of the massacres. That's pretty persuasive. Meanwhile you have nothing to support your contention.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

That's quite funny actually considering what Connolly wrote about Belgium.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?10128-Eamon-Gilmore-to-Launch-Book-on-James-Connolly&p=253254#post253254

I didn't realise that the a German military were involved in massacres in Congo as well as a Belgium. Oh wait, you're just dissembling!

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evasion disguised as wit. Top marks.

Connolly's views on the Belgians record in Congo has nothing to do with accepting that the German massacre of Belgian civilians was a fact. And to dissemble from that issue is your evasion.

Now, you were finally about to produce some evidence to support your contention?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evidence, commentaries, opinions etc that the 1916 signatories also accepted them as fact?

Do you need to have the responsibility on you, to support your contention, with evidence, explained again?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

As opposed to your "complete absence of anything to suggest that the signatories didn't accept the fact of the massacres. That's pretty persuasive" line?

I'm not persuaded.

That's handy. Let me know if you ever produce anything to support your contention.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I've given you commentaries and opinions of others as opposed to your 'absence of anything' line.

Opinion pieces are no evidence of anything other than a third party's opinion.

What you need is some evidence from the signatories, that they disputed the fact of the massacres. Let me know when you have that.

alastair wrote: »

No-one said it was a court of law, but if you make a claim, it's reasonable to have to demonstrate is has some basis, there's no basis for this claim.

I'm not particularly interested in Orlando Bloom or Daniel Day Lewis, or vampires. Cheers.

You are alert today - no conjecture for you this Autumnal's 'een.

Round of golf old boy ??? Just as good a way to blow the old bluster off as a good hiccory like we're having right now !!!