John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 11:57AM

alastair wrote: »

Let me know when you have that.

Oh, and one more thing. Remember that this 'gallant allies' line is your idea, you introduced it into the thread. It's irrelevant you saying that the records were accurate or factual. Did the signatories also believe this? Up to you to show that they did.

alastair · 03-11-2014 12:46PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Oh, and one more thing. Remember that this 'gallant allies' line is your idea, you introduced it into the thread.

And who introduced it into the proclamation?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It's irrelevant you saying that the records were accurate or factual. Did the signatories also believe this? Up to you to show that they did.

As explained many time - no it's not.

The massacres are a fact, widely communicated and confirmed in 1916. Any different belief, on the part of anyone, would need to articulated with evidence, as it would run contrary to the facts on the ground. There is no such evidence. It's also a given that the signatories believed fire to be hot, as that's also a fact, and any proposition to the contrary, would have to be articulated with evidence.

Otherwise it's a pet theory of your own, and you're more than welcome to it, just understand that it's not supported by anything other than your imagination.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 12:55PM

alastair wrote: »

And who introduced it into the proclamation?

Er, you introduced it into this thread.

As explained.........

Nodin asked you this:

How do you know they believed any reports that may have been extant?

Your reply was:

Why would they have doubted them? They were both accurate, and widely reported.

Your argument hasn't progressed anywhere since. It's irrelevant you keep repeatedly claiming this, when you can't show the signatories believed likewise.

alastair · 03-11-2014 01:01PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Er, you introduced it into this thread.

Yes I did. And?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Your argument hasn't progressed anywhere since. It's irrelevant you keep repeatedly claiming this, when you can't show the signatories believed likewise.

Thats because my argument is solid. It's down to you to prove that believed something other than the facts. That's generally understood - your proposition, your responsibility to support it with evidence.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 01:08PM

alastair wrote: »

Yes I did. And?

It's your idea. Show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate.

Thats.....

Don't know why you are trying to turn this back on to me when you haven't shown any evidence to support your original idea.

alastair · 03-11-2014 01:11PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It's your idea. Show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate.

It's not my idea. It was the idea of the signatories to include it in the proclamation. I've already demonstrated that.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Don't know why you are trying to turn this back on to me when you haven't shown any evidence to support your original idea.

I've shown the compelling evidence of absence for your proposition. In a context where any such belief would have been undoubtedly articulated by the individuals concerned.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 01:17PM

alastair wrote: »

I've already done that.

By YOU saying the records were accurate & factual. You are not one of the signatories.

I've shown the compelling evidence of absence for your theory. In a context where any such belief would have been undoubtedly articulated by the individuals concerned.

Nonsense. Because they've said nothing you can extrapolate that they agreed?

alastair · 03-11-2014 01:21PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

By YOU saying the records were accurate & factual. You are not one of the signatories.

The massacres were fact, and known to be fact in 1916. Again - you have no evidence to support the signatories held any contrary belief.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nonsense. Because they've said nothing you can extrapolate that they agreed?

That's correct. If they did believe otherwise, they would have said so, given the context of the times, and their ideology. It would have been in their interest to do so.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 01:36PM

alastair wrote: »

The massacres were fact, and known to be fact in 1916. Again - you have no evidence to support the signatories held any contrary belief.

Again trying to turn it back on to me, when YOU keep repeatedly keep saying they were a fact. It's not about you but the signatories. What did they believe?

If they did believe otherwise

If?

gladrags · 03-11-2014 02:31PM

alastair wrote: »

The massacres were fact, and known to be fact in 1916. Again - you have no evidence to support the signatories held any contrary belief.

That's correct. If they did believe otherwise, they would have said so, given the context of the times, and their ideology. It would have been in their interest to do so.

People are innocent until proven gulity, brave men died for these values.

The burden of proof is with the accuser, you have no proof, and you have merely speculated.

This thread was about Bruton and 1916, not some personell vendetta, imagined by you.

Your arguement is totally false, bitterness and "if only"runs throught it.

Were is your proof of their gulit?

alastair · 03-11-2014 04:06PM

gladrags wrote: »

People are innocent until proven gulity, brave men died for these values.

This isn't a court of law, so presumption of innocence or guilt dosn't arise.

gladrags wrote: »

The burden of proof is with the accuser, you have no proof, and you have merely speculated.

The burden of proof has been met by me. I've demonstrated the evidence of absence.

gladrags wrote: »

This thread was about Bruton and 1916, not some personell vendetta, imagined by you.

My entire point is about 1916, and the debasement of the proclamation with reference to the perpetrators of civilian massacres as 'gallant allies'. That's not an imaginary position, but a reference to a fact.

gladrags wrote: »

Your arguement is totally false, bitterness and "if only"runs throught it.

'Fraid not. It's a solid argument.

gladrags wrote: »

Were is your proof of their gulit?

No-one is accused of guilt in anything, just culpability. The signatories bear responsibility for highlights those who massacred civilians, as their 'gallant allies'.

alastair · 03-11-2014 04:10PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Again trying to turn it back on to me, when YOU keep repeatedly keep saying they were a fact. It's not about you but the signatories. What did they believe?

Yes - it's entirely about those signatories who never indicated the slightest doubt in the fact of those massacres. The same people, you propose, without a shred of evidence, disbelieved those facts.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

If?

Yes - 'if' your proposition is correct, which it's not.

gladrags · 03-11-2014 05:03PM

alastair wrote: »

The burden of proof has been met by me. I've demonstrated the evidence of absence.

Exactly, you have no evidence, it is not there, no historian has found any evidence.

So the burden of proof was not met by you.

With the exception of the British, who suspected, allies in Europe referred to Germany.

This was one of the reasons they were executed.

alastair · 03-11-2014 06:05PM

gladrags wrote: »

Exactly, you have no evidence, it is not there, no historian has found any evidence.

So the burden of proof was not met by you.

You clearly don't understand what evidence of absence is, do you?

gladrags wrote: »

With the exception of the British, who suspected, allies in Europe referred to Germany.

This was one of the reasons they were executed.

Could you try that again, in understandable English? No-one is disputing the 'gallant allies' are the Germans - except possibly you, but your post is pretty chewed up.

gladrags · 03-11-2014 06:46PM

alastair wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what evidence of absence is, do you?

Could you try that again, in understandable English? No-one is disputing the 'gallant allies' are the Germans - except possibly you, but your post is pretty chewed up.

Were are you're historical references to back up the above.

Show me a reference by one,just one historian who supports your claims.

Name one historian who claims that this reference refers to Germany.

Historians use subjectivity and reliable sources,as subject matter.

You should at least do the same.

You are attempting to make disparaging claims,without one iota of evidence.

Other than bitter hearsay.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 07:25PM

alastair wrote: »

Yes - it's entirely about those signatories who never indicated the slightest doubt in the fact of those massacres.

So, since you can't show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate or produce any statements that they said such, then on what basis are you linking the words 'gallant allies' that are in the proclamation, to events in Belgium?

which it's not.

Evidence please.

alastair · 03-11-2014 08:20PM

gladrags wrote: »

Were are you're historical references to back up the above.

Show me a reference by one,just one historian who supports your claims.

Name one historian who claims that this reference refers to Germany.

I'd have thought that everyone was aware of this, but I guess not?

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LhI27wksmTcC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=gallant+allies+referred+to+germany&source=bl&ots=50mRWMrdPp&sig=CmIFzBh-vXN4pde-c-IB8SvWOJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b9BXVPf9HoS1yATyooAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=gallant%20allies%20referred%20to%20germany&f=false

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/insurrection/in04.shtml

http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=exposition

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusd.ff.cuni.cz%2F%3Fq%3Dsystem%2Ffiles%2Fnerad%2520gallant.pdf&ei=UNVXVKaCK4G0yAT1uYKIBQ&usg=AFQjCNGzOcku_kEtwwZPrdaVsRl6oOH_eg&sig2=VK6-8FH_Qm0rXIVJQwRMDA

gladrags wrote: »

Historians use subjectivity and reliable sources,as subject matter.

You should at least do the same.

You are attempting to make disparaging claims,without one iota of evidence.

Other than bitter hearsay.

Complete nonsense. Read up and try not to disparage, if you're uninformed.

alastair · 03-11-2014 08:23PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So, since you can't show that the signatories believed these reports to be accurate or produce any statements that they said such, then on what basis are you linking the words 'gallant allies' that are in the proclamation, to events in Belgium?

I've already demonstrated that the signatories knew of the fact of the massacres, and there's no dispute that the 'gallant allies' are the Germans; the perpetrators of those massacres, so I'm not sure what point confuses you. I note you still haven't produced any evidence to support your personal theory though.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evidence please.

Already provided.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 08:36PM

alastair wrote: »

I've already demonstrated that the signatories knew of the fact of the massacres

With your evidence of absence line? When all else fails..........

and there's no dispute that the 'gallant allies' are the Germans

Never said that myself.

I note you still haven't produced any evidence to support your personal theory though.

You introduced this argument into the thread. It's you who needs to produce evidence to support your personal theory.

alastair · 03-11-2014 08:43PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

With your evidence of absence line? When all else fails..........

Correct. And what have you got to support your pet theory?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Never said that myself.

And yet you thanked your uniformed mate who did. How does that work then?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You introduced this argument into the thread. It's you who needs to produce evidence to support your personal theory.

I didn't introduce this argument at all. It's a fact, as evidenced by the text of the proclamation. I'm just pointing out the recent record of the 'gallant allies' referenced, a recent record that the signatories were well aware of.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 08:53PM

alastair wrote: »

Correct. And what have you got to support your pet theory?

How do you know that they knew the reports were accurate?

And yet you thanked your uniformed mate who did. How does that work then?

How do know that when I thanked the person's post that I thanked it all, plus how do you know that he/she is/isn't wearing a 'uniform'? Plus how this person my 'mate'. I don't know him/her.

I didn't introduce this argument at all. It's a fact, as evidenced by the text of the proclamation. I'm just pointing out the recent record of the 'gallant allies' referenced, a recent record that the signatories were well aware of.

alastair, would you please stop engaging in pedantic sh*te. I meant from your post #435 onwards.

alastair · 03-11-2014 08:59PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How do you know that they knew the reports were accurate?

Because they never disputed the fact of them. As I keep telling you. Are you going to continue playing this game? Does repetition help you?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How do know that when I thanked his post that I thanked it all, plus how do you know that he/she is/isn't wearing a 'uniform'? Plus how is he my 'mate'. I don't know him/her..

Well, the post is devoid of any content, other than disputing that the 'gallant allies' were Germans. So if not that, what exactly were you thanking? I'm all ears.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

alastair, would you please stop engaging in pedantic sh*te. I meant from your post #435 onwards.

If you keep asking the same questions, you'll keep getting the same answers. Perhaps if you put some effort into finding some evidence to support your personal theory?

gladrags · 03-11-2014 09:14PM

alastair wrote: »

I'd have thought that everyone was aware of this, but I guess not?

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LhI27wksmTcC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=gallant+allies+referred+to+germany&source=bl&ots=50mRWMrdPp&sig=CmIFzBh-vXN4pde-c-IB8SvWOJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b9BXVPf9HoS1yATyooAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=gallant%20allies%20referred%20to%20germany&f=false

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/insurrection/in04.shtml

http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=exposition

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusd.ff.cuni.cz%2F%3Fq%3Dsystem%2Ffiles%2Fnerad%2520gallant.pdf&ei=UNVXVKaCK4G0yAT1uYKIBQ&usg=AFQjCNGzOcku_kEtwwZPrdaVsRl6oOH_eg&sig2=VK6-8FH_Qm0rXIVJQwRMDA

Complete nonsense. Read up and try not to disparage, if you're uninformed.

None of you're sources provide any evidence whatsoever of your false claims.

Clair Wills whose work I am familiar with makes a fleeting comment,without making any conclusion.

You are defaming this individual.

Your BBC link is the same,it makes no reference, or substantiates,you're lies.

The other two supposed sources say absolutely nothing,that would come close to you're wild allegations.

You clearly googled,and this is what you came up with.

Clair Wills is a respected academic in literature,you are abusing this individuals integrity.

As you are abusing the reputation of those who sacrificed their lives,and you are insulting their living relatives,with you're malicious poison.

alastair · 03-11-2014 09:16PM

gladrags wrote: »

None of you're sources provide any evidence whatsoever of your false claims.

Clair Wills whose work I am familiar with makes a fleeting comment,without making any conclusion.

You are defaming this individual.

Your BBC link is the same,it makes no reference, or substantiates,you're lies.

The other two supposed sources say absolutely nothing,that would come close to you're wild allegations.

You clearly googled,and this is what you came.

Clair Wills is a respected academic in literature,you are abusing this individuals integrity.

As you are abusing the reputation of those who sacrificed their lives,and you are insulting their living relatives,with you're malicious poison.

I'll leave you to your head/sand combo. Best of luck with that.

A chara, - An aspect of the correspondence under this heading is the extent to which it reveals a surprising want of familiarity with basic facts about the Rising.

To begin with, and contrary to what has been stated (at even the highest level), the leaders of the Rising never entertained the crackpot expectation of a military defeat of the British. They were no more stupid on this score than anyone today posing the same question.

In consultation with the German general staff and admiralty over a period of 18 months, the Rising was planned to coincide with a great German push (at, as it turned out, Verdun).

Three objectives of the Rising were co-ordinated in that context, reinforced by the following probabilities (a) That Britain would sue for peace in 1916 (a serious consideration of the British Cabinet); (b) that Germany would either win the war or be in a position to demand satisfactory peace terms and an end to hostilities.

The objectives of the Rising were:

1. To re-arouse the independent spirit of the nation.

2. To proclaim the Republic.

3. To hold out militarily for a minimum of three days, thus satisfying the requirement that would enable Germany to fulfil its promise to give Ireland a hearing at the post-war peace conference as an independent belligerent nation. (Hence also the reference in the proclamation to "gallant allies in Europe".)

The military campaign was intended to be nationwide and to resort to guerrilla warfare for a time. Events dictated otherwise. But, as it happened, the only one of the three objectives not achieved by the Rising was the third, which was outside the control of the Irish.

Among the lasting shibboleths perpetrated about the Rising - based on selected quotations from poems of some of the leaders - is that it was a "blood sacrifice". As one who is no stranger to propaganda, especially of the British variety, I am satisfied that this is one of the most effective and enduring examples of black propaganda this country has been subjected to in modern times. The world would be in a fine mess if we were all to be judged by out-of-context sentences from scattered poems or other jottings.

"The tree of liberty must continually be watered with the blood of martyrs and tyrants," is a similar phrase, but it was not written by Pearse. It was written by Thomas Jefferson. Are we to take it that the American war of Independence was also a "blood-sacrifice"?

This and two other myths relating to the Rising are examined - and, I trust, disposed of - in my forthcoming book, A Trinity of Myths.

EOIN NEESON, Blackrock, Co Dublin.

(Eoin Neeson was the author of ten plays and fourteen books, some of them pioneering works on aspects of Irish history notably The Civil War 1922-23, The Life and Death of Michael Collins and A History of Irish Forestry. His lifelong interest in mythology resulted in four books, the most recent, Deirdre and the Other Great Stories from Celtic Mythology, (1997) is a retelling for adults of myths from the Irish cycles with a comparative Introduction. Under the pseudonyms Desmond ONeill and Donal ONeill he had historical novels and thrillers published world-wide and translated into several languages.).

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 09:21PM

alastair wrote: »

Because they never disputed the fact of them.

Nah, sorry not buying this. You don't know any of the signatories. Your not privy to their thinking. So again, how do you know that they knew the records were accurate or not?

As regards evidence of absence, Irving Copi says:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Replace qualified investigators with historians in this context of this discussion.

Well, the post is devoid of any content

As opposed to yours when referring to 'your uniformed mate'?

Oh, and the person said 'one iota of evidence', which I agree with.

If you keep asking the same questions, you'll keep getting the same evasive answers.

FYP.

alastair · 03-11-2014 09:27PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nah, sorry not buying this. You don't know any of the signatories. Your not privy to their thinking. So again, how do you know that they knew the records were accurate or not?

As regards evidence of absence, Irving Copi says:

Replace qualified investigators with historians in this context of this discussion.

Many and varied investigations of the rising by historians. Not a jot about any of the signatories disputing the fact of the massacres in Belgium. So - ample evidence of absence.

gladrags · 03-11-2014 09:30PM

alastair wrote: »

I'll leave you to your head/sand combo. Best of luck with that.

No more of you're waffle.

You are clearly on a sad and pathetic campaign to discredit and villify the dead.

Who are not here to defend their honour.

Shameless.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 09:42PM

alastair wrote: »

Many and varied investigations of the rising by historians.....

Have they shown any evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate?

alastair · 03-11-2014 09:45PM

gladrags wrote: »

No more of you're waffle.

You are clearly on a sad and pathetic campaign to discredit and villify the dead.

Who are not here to defend their honour.

Shameless.

I'm guessing they'd rather not be 'defended' by those ignorant of their stated 'allies'. I recommend you go off and educate yourself about the rising before embarrassing yourself further.

alastair · 03-11-2014 09:46PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Have they shown any evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate?

Ample evidence of absence, now that you ask (again).

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments