John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 09:52PM

alastair wrote: »

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

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Sand · 03-11-2014 09:57PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Do you apply that logic consistently in your analysis of historical and political events?

alastair · 03-11-2014 10:00PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Once again - I don't care why they opted to give a shout out to their 'gallant' German 'allies' - the point is that they knew these 'gallant allies' to be the perpetrators of civilian massacres. Do you really need these reminders? And you've mentioned a number of times that I'm not one of the signatories - correct. You realise that you're also not one of the signatories? So we can only judge their thoughts on what they've committed to record. They've committed nothing that suggests they disputed the fact of the massacres.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 10:13PM

alastair wrote: »

I don't care

Don't care or don't know? The latter I think.....

the point is that they knew these 'gallant allies' to be the perpetrators of civilian massacres.

Knew such reports to be accurate? Get checking all these histories of the rising you've been telling me about alastair......

So we can only judge their thoughts on what they've committed to record.

Then perhaps you'll show where they've committed to record that they believed these reports to be accurate.

They've committed nothing that suggests they disputed the fact of the massacres.

Evidence of absence again? So so convenient...........

gladrags · 03-11-2014 10:14PM

alastair wrote: »

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.

So you are now "guessing", no more of you're disneyland sources.

You are now actually trying to represent the dead.

The very people you have been discrediting ,without a shred of evidence,relentlessly and vicously.

You have clearly lost all credibility.

Resorting to personal insults,are always an indication that the debate is lost.

Godwins Law.

Whataboutery?

alastair · 03-11-2014 10:21PM

gladrags wrote: »

So you are now "guessing", no more of you're disneyland sources.

I'm guessing what their attitude to ignorance amongst their fanboys would be - sure. Since they never met you, it's entirely supposition - unlike their documented absence of evidence regarding disputing the factual massacre of civilians by their 'gallant allies'.

gladrags wrote: »

You are now actually trying to represent the dead.

The very people you have been discrediting ,without a shred of evidence,relentlessly and vicously.

You have clearly lost all credibility.

Resorting to personal insults,are always an indication that the debate is lost.

Godwins Law.

Whataboutery?

Now you're just posting up random words.

alastair · 03-11-2014 10:22PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Evidence of absence again? So so convenient...........

...and so much more than you've been able to drum up. See how that works?

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 10:29PM

alastair wrote: »

and so much more than you've been able to drum up.

And yet another attempt to pass it over to me when your the one that needs to be doing the work. Oh dear......

alastair · 03-11-2014 10:30PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And yet another attempt to pass it over to me when your the one that needs to be doing the work. Oh dear......

Nope - you're still not getting it.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 10:36PM

alastair wrote: »

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Did the the signatories believe the records to be accurate?

alastair · 03-11-2014 10:38PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Did the the signatories believe the records to be accurate?

I'm finished playing your game. If you ever come up with anything evidential let me know. I won't hold my breath. Ta ta.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 10:41PM

alastair wrote: »

I'm finished playing your game. If you ever come up with anything evidential let me know. I won't hold my breath. Ta ta.

And I won't be holding my breath than you can provide evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate either. Nighty night...

gladrags · 03-11-2014 10:43PM

alastair wrote: »

I'm guessing what their attitude to ignorance amongst their fanboys would be - sure. Since they never met you.

This is very interesting.Let me ensure that I get this right.

You are guessing about what the hero's of 1916, who were murdered by the British,think about their "fanboys".

What do you think the relatives of those who gave their lives,think of you're crass attempt ,to smear their dead relatives?

gladrags · 03-11-2014 10:45PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And I won't be holding my breath than you can provide evidence that the signatories believed these records to be accurate either. Nighty night...

Well done.

Sand · 03-11-2014 11:02PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Sorry, buts that a rather convenient position to hide behind. Your not one of the signatories, and you weren't privy to the discussions that lead to the framing of the text. Therefore you don't the know reason why the words: 'gallant allies' were put in the text.

Do you apply that logic consistently in your analysis of historical and political events?

alastair · 03-11-2014 11:42PM

gladrags wrote: »

This is very interesting.Let me ensure that I get this right.

You are guessing about what the hero's of 1916, who were murdered by the British,think about their "fanboys".

What do you think the relatives of those who gave their lives,think of you're crass attempt ,to smear their dead relatives?

Strangely enough, their relatives are well aware that the reference to 'gallant allies' was to Imperial Germany. Because, unlike you, they're aware of the history of the rising.

RED L4 0TH · 03-11-2014 11:45PM

Sand wrote: »

Do you apply that logic consistently in your analysis of historical and political events?

I think you work on whats available to start with. If it isn't there, then go do some research yourself and then come back. Also you referred to 'balance of probability' in a earlier post. As an example, would you not think considering the sheer number of speeches that John Redmond gave around the country (to which I provided links to quite a few) on the subject of Ireland's participation in the war, that quite a few people joined the BA because of this? What I can't understand is someone taking a position on something and then provide no evidence at all, primary, secondary or any available related information when asked to do so by others to back up a point.

alastair · 03-11-2014 11:56PM

And just so we're all clear:

I provided ample evidence of absence to demonstrate that the signatories of the proclamation never uttered a word, wrote, recorded, or related anything to suggest they didn't acknowledge the factual nature of the German massacres in Belgium. Despite the obvious propaganda appeal of articulating such belief, in a scenario where they undoubtedly would have used any such material against British interests.

The nonsense of pretending that the leaders of the rising weren't well-aware of one of the biggest news stories of the start of the war, a story confirmed by the personal testimony of Belgian refugees in Ireland before 1916, is self-evident to anyone not blinded by ideology. Its laughable.

gladrags · 04-11-2014 12:44AM

alastair wrote: »

Strangely enough, their relatives are well aware that the reference to 'gallant allies' was to Imperial Germany. Because, unlike you, they're aware of the history of the rising.

You are now trying to act as spokesperson for the relatives of the those who gave their lives.

I am aware of the organisation,and their goals.They are I am sure,more than familiar with the wording of the proclamation.

And its interpretation.

Are you suggesting that they believe, their ancestors were complicit in the German alleged massacres in Belgium?

And are you now suggesting that they accept you're warped interpretation?

Quote Alistair
"Did they kill babies? Yes they did.
Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion, all these years later. Does that choice sully whatever moral ground they claimed for themselves? You can be sure it does. For James Connolly in particular, it's a real disappointment."

gladrags · 04-11-2014 12:54AM

alastair wrote: »

And just so we're all clear:

I provided ample evidence of absence to demonstrate that the signatories of the proclamation never uttered a word, wrote, recorded, or related anything to suggest they didn't acknowledge the factual nature of the German massacres in Belgium. Despite the obvious propaganda appeal of articulating such belief, in a scenario where they undoubtedly would have used any such material against British interests.

The nonsense of pretending that the leaders of the rising weren't well-aware of one of the biggest news stories of the start of the war, a story confirmed by the personal testimony of Belgian refugees in Ireland before 1916, is self-evident to anyone not blinded by ideology. Its laughable.

You will not wangle your way out of this with empty rhetoric.

Not even Bruton,has suggested the complicity or culpability of these men in the Belgium affair.

No one but you.I am sure the relatives of James Connolly would not be happy with your smears below.

Quote Alistair.

"Did they kill babies? Yes they did.
Did the signatories align themselves with these known perpetrators of civilian massacres? Yes they did. Their choice - nothing to do with my opinion, all these years later. Does that choice sully whatever moral ground they claimed for themselves? You can be sure it does. For James Connolly in particular, it's a real disappointment."

alastair · 04-11-2014 09:26AM

gladrags wrote: »

You are now trying to act as spokesperson for the relatives of the those who gave their lives.

I am aware of the organisation,and their goals.They are I am sure,more than familiar with the wording of the proclamation.

Which organisation would that be then?

gladrags wrote: »

And its interpretation.

Clearly not.

gladrags wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they believe, their ancestors were complicit in the German alleged massacres in Belgium?

They were certainly complicit with Imperial Germany, and opted to form and continue this alliance, knowing that the Germans had massacred civilians in Belgium.

gladrags wrote: »

And are you now suggesting that they accept you're warped interpretation?

Once again - everyone, relatives included is well aware of the German connection, of the reference to their 'gallant allies' as being the Germans, of the German gun running, of Casement and Plunkett's trips to Germany to work out a deal with the Germans. Of Plunkett's involvement in trying to put together an a Irish brigade of volunteers for the German Imperial military. Nothing warped about any of it - it's historic fact.

Sand · 04-11-2014 09:33AM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I think you work on whats available to start with. If it isn't there, then go do some research yourself and then come back. Also you referred to 'balance of probability' in a earlier post. As an example, would you not think considering the sheer number of speeches that John Redmond gave around the country (to which I provided links to quite a few) on the subject of Ireland's participation in the war, that quite a few people joined the BA because of this? What I can't understand is someone taking a position on something and then provide no evidence at all, primary, secondary or any available related information when asked to do so by others to back up a point.

So, no then. Only selectively.

RED L4 0TH · 04-11-2014 01:07PM

alastair wrote: »

They were certainly complicit with Imperial Germany, and opted to form and continue this alliance, knowing that the Germans had massacred civilians in Belgium.

Rubbish. In reality they had nothing to do with these events. They were only looking for assistance from Germany in their aid to fight the British, which became the common enemy once the war started. The 'enemy of my enemy' and all that. This doesn't put the British on a higher moral plane considering their own record of empire.

alastair · 04-11-2014 01:10PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Rubbish. In reality they had nothing to do with these events. They were only looking for assistance from Germany in their aid to fight the British, which became the common enemy once the war started. The 'enemy of my enemy' and all that. This doesn't put the British on a higher moral plane considering their own record of empire.

I never mentioned the British. The signatories were complicit with Imperial Germany - that's not in any doubt. They did know about the massacre of Belgian civilians - that's not in any doubt. They did choose to refer to the Germans as their 'gallant allies' with this knowledge - that's not in any doubt.

RED L4 0TH · 04-11-2014 01:21PM

alastair wrote: »

I never mentioned the British.

You did earlier.

You said:

I take it that you're quite happy to have an alliance with these gallant lads marked down in the proclamation then?

And were asked in the next post:

Why? Were the Brits any better?

To which you replied:

Yes they were actually.

In the context of their own record of empire, you are engaged in quite a selective (hypocritical?) analysis here.

alastair · 04-11-2014 01:28PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You did earlier.

You said:

And were asked in the next post:

To which you replied:

In the context of their own record of empire, you are engaged in quite a selective (hypocritical?) analysis here.

That would be someone else bringing the British up, not me. I'm not engaged in comparing the failings of various empires, just highlighting the nature of who the signatories referenced as their 'gallant allies'. Which is nothing to to with the British.

RED L4 0TH · 04-11-2014 01:39PM

alastair wrote: »

That would be someone else bringing the British up, not me. I'm not engaged in comparing the failings of various empires, just highlighting the nature of who the signatories referenced as their 'gallant allies'. Which is nothing to to with the British.

You said they were 'better'. You were referring to the British. How were they 'better' in the context of their own history of killing civilians in creating and maintaining an empire?

alastair · 04-11-2014 01:48PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You said they were 'better'.

When asked, I offered an opinion - they certainly weren't engaged in massacring civilians at the time. Which would make them the better of the two choices. But again - this isn't about the British - it's about who the signatories referenced as their 'gallant allies' - those responsible for civil massacres. Nothing to do with my opinion, the British, or anyone other than the signatories and the Germans.

gladrags · 04-11-2014 07:22PM

alastair wrote: »

Once again - everyone, relatives included is well aware of the German connection, of the reference to their 'gallant allies' as being the Germans, of the German gun running, of Casement and Plunkett's trips to Germany to work out a deal with the Germans. Of Plunkett's involvement in trying to put together an a Irish brigade of volunteers for the German Imperial military. Nothing warped about any of it - it's historic fact.

You are making false claims against the relatives of the dead.You again have shown no proof, other than hearsay.

It is not "historic fact" that these men were complicit, you are not an historian, you have provided no sources, referential material, or research material to back up your false claims.

Presence of evidence, is the fundamental democratic cornerstone that decides, and substantiates the validity of an event.

Absence of evidence is, and was, used by tyrants, dictators, warlords, witch hunters, religious zealots and bigots, to condemn innocent people to death, to invade, destroy and dictate.

It is the laws of the jungle.

You have failed to provide any evidence to back up your personal crusade to defame others.The so called sources you supplied, were all fantasies, and have no bearing whatsoever on your false claims. I pointed this out to you. You have not and cannot deny this.The very fact that you are prepared to use false information, to bolster your fantasies, is telling.

You cannot make up the rules as you go along, and then base assumptions on these rules.

Quote: Gladrags
“I am aware of the organisation, and their goals. They are I am sure, more than familiar with the wording of the proclamation. And its interpretation.”

Quote:Alistair
“Clearly not”

I am not going to reply to the above, there is no need to, further proof by you, of your inability to differ between fact and fiction, and to jump to totally irrational conclusions.

Quote: Alistair.
“They were certainly complicit with Imperial Germany, and opted to form and continue this alliance, knowing that the Germans had massacred civilians in Belgium.”

They certainly were not, you have provided no evidence, there is no evidence, historians have made no reference to suggest, that they were aware of the Belgian affairs.
This is a fact, and will remain a fact of history, there is nothing you can do to alter a fact of history.

Historian’s base their research. On the presence of evidence, not the absence of evidence.

Democracy and the judicial system,are based on primarily, presence of evidence, not absence of evidence.

I will be guided by historians on this, who deal with and research history, generally in an unbiased and factual manner, as anyone interested in factual history will testify.

I hope you were never on a jury, god help the defendants, if you were.

“We have no evidence your honour, so he’s guilty”

alastair · 04-11-2014 09:53PM

gladrags wrote: »

You are making false claims against the relatives of the dead.You again have shown no proof, other than hearsay.

All I can recommend, once again, is that you go off and educate yourself about the rising, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and (I know this isn't going to register, but...) absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Two different things altoghether.

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments