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

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

11718192123

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    WW! was unnecessary but it happened, the Bolshevik revolution (coup) also unnecessary but it happened.

    The German revolution with the likes of Rosa Luxemburg might have been justified but it failed.

    1916 - 1921 is our equivalent of the American Revolution if Americans can celebrate that we should be allowed to celebrate. Wasn't FG's lovechild Michael |Collins in the Easter Rising.?

    I suppose FG & SF are the only parties being consistent.
    FG hate everything Republican from 1916 - onwards
    SF celebrate everything Republican from 1916 (& before) - onwards.
    FF are selective. The Souths violence in the 1910's & 20's was good but those strange peoples violence in the North from 1969 - 1998 was bad.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    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.

    Your absence of evidence,and evidence of absence,are both hypothetical,Donald Rumsfeld dreamed them up.You used totally false hypothetical nonsense to cynically smear and defame.

    You should now retract your fabricated nonsense.

    They have nothing to do with innocent or guilty.You failed to reply to my last post,evading all the relevant points.

    Could you please respond.


    Quote: alastair

    "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”


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gladrags wrote: »
    Your absence of evidence,and evidence of absence,are both hypothetical,Donald Rumsfeld dreamed them up.You used totally false hypothetical nonsense to cynically smear and defame.

    You should now retract your fabricated nonsense.

    They have nothing to do with innocent or guilty.You failed to reply to my last post,evading all the relevant points.

    Could you please respond.

    Given that you couldn't answer a couple of straightforward questions, I don't know why I should tbh, but here you go:

    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.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Given that you couldn't answer a couple of straightforward questions, I don't know why I should tbh, but here you go:

    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.

    You will not respond,because you cannot respond.

    This is why you are now resorting to unfounded,and silly remarks.

    You have no right to try to defame and smear,Irish men and women,who gave their lives,for the future of this country.

    Your bigotted and bitter remarks,has exposed you for what you are.

    Keep them coming,and I will deal with them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭TiMe2PaRtYYYYY


    To be honest ... I dont really give a flying fcuk what john bruton thinks or says about anything .... the next election he will be go from a wasbeen to a hasbeen


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


    gladrags wrote: »
    You will not respond,because you cannot respond.

    This is why you are now resorting to unfounded,and silly remarks.

    You have no right to try to defame and smear,Irish men and women,who gave their lives,for the future of this country.

    Your bigotted and bitter remarks,has exposed you for what you are.

    Keep them coming,and I will deal with them.

    Let me know when you learn some history.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Let me know when you learn some history.

    I have studied history for the last 35 years,particularly Irish history,from medieval to O'Connell, and from Parnell to modern Irish history.

    Would you like to aske me another question, on any particular era of Irish history.

    Redmond perhaps,or 1916, or the Norman invasions.?

    Or do you prefer whataboutery?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gladrags wrote: »
    I have studied history for the last 35 years,particularly Irish history,from medieval to O'Connell, and from Parnell to modern Irish history.

    Would you like to aske me another question, on any particular era of Irish history.

    Redmond perhaps,or 1916, or the Norman invasions.?

    Or do you prefer whataboutery?

    Yet you can't identify the 'organisation' you referred to earlier, and seem to missed out on Casement and Plunkett's activities in Germany. Ignorant of the Aud, etc. 35 years wasted 'study', it would seem.


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


    Nodin wrote: »
    bombing Iraq into submission in 1922, the British were constantly killing civillians

    A tad earlier than that even Nodin. Hugh Trenchard, an area bombing advocate, and involved in the Iraq campaign, was sending planes to attack German towns & cities in WW1. 120 civilians killed in an attack on Frankfurt alone.

    http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/World.war.2/Air.Control.htm


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Yet you can't identify the 'organisation' you referred to earlier, and seem to missed out on Casement and Plunkett's activities in Germany. Ignorant of the Aud, etc. 35 years wasted 'study', it would seem.

    I come from Dublin,the relatives of 1916 association,are very well known.
    Particularly as the centenary,is not far off.

    Here is their e-mail address,I am sure they would like to hear from you.
    1916relatives@gmail.com

    Wrong again,your bigotry is clouding your judgement.

    The rest of your tiresome and narrow minded waffle,was dealt with before.

    Again,you have no right to intentionnaly smear the men and women who gave their lives for the future generations of this country.

    Keep them coming...


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


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    A tad earlier than that even Nodin. Hugh Trenchard, an area bombing advocate, and involved in the Iraq campaign, was sending planes to attack German towns & cities in WW1. 120 civilians killed in an attack on Frankfurt alone.

    http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/World.war.2/Air.Control.htm

    Strangely enough - the signatories of 1916 would not have any knowledge of events that happened in 1922, or 1918. Unlike their awareness of the Belgian massacres of 1914.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Strangely enough - the signatories of 1916 would not have any knowledge of events that happened in 1922, or 1918. Unlike their awareness of the Belgian massacres of 1914.

    The British also killing civilians in ww1. Still 'better'?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gladrags wrote: »
    I come from Dublin,the relatives of 1916 association,are very well known.
    Particularly as the centenary,is not far off.

    Here is their e-mail address,I am sure they would like to hear from you.
    1916relatives@gmail.com

    Wrong again,your bigotry is clouding your judgement.

    The rest of your tiresome and narrow minded waffle,was dealt with before.

    Again,you have no right to intentionnaly smear the men and women who gave their lives for the future generations of this country.

    Keep them coming...

    As I thought. You know nothing about the rising, Casement, Plunkett, gun running, or evidently anything much to do with any aspect of 1916. Well done on coming from Dublin though. Pretty persuasive stuff.

    http://www.irishbrigade.eu/index.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    The British also killing civilians in ww1. Still 'better'?

    Sure. 120 civilians killed in Frankfurt in 1918 is better than 5,500 civilians killed in Belgium in 1914. Particularly when the Belgian victims were systematically rounded up to be murdered, rather than died on the back of a primitive air raid. Keep in mind that the German Zeppelin raids had also killed 1,413 civilians - but again this was not a systematic massacre, like Belgium had been.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    As I thought. You know nothing about the rising, Casement, Plunkett, gun running, or evidently anything much to do with any aspect of 1916. Well done on coming from Dublin though. Pretty persuasive stuff.

    http://www.irishbrigade.eu/index.html

    I knew you had no option to revert to this type of bile.

    You were caught spoofing again,now you are frantic,and making it up as you go along.Hoping you can find a way out,by clouding the issue.

    And hoping the thread will move on,and forget your bigotry,you bull******* your way into a corner.

    And you know it.

    Instead of showing some dignity, and recognisising your mistake,you are cowardly reverting to type.

    You should apologise,for smearing the dead,and their relatives.

    Keep them coming...


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Sure

    Don't agree. Trenchard's policy was to deliberately attack these towns, even though the number of casualties were smaller.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gladrags wrote: »
    I knew you had no option to revert to this type of bile.

    You were caught spoofing again,now you are frantic,and making it up as you go along.Hoping you can find a way out,by clouding the issue.

    And hoping the thread will move on,and forget your bigotry,you bull******* your way into a corner.

    And you know it.

    Instead of showing some dignity, and recognisising your mistake,you are cowardly reverting to type.

    You should apologise,for smearing the dead,and their relatives.

    Keep them coming...

    Keep that head in the sand. Why learn some history now, when 35 years of 'study' haven't done you any good?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Don't agree. Trenchard's policy was to deliberately attack these towns, even though the number of casualties were smaller.

    So - fewer casualties. Better or worse?

    Take your time.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Keep that head in the sand. Why learn some history now, when 35 years of 'study' haven't done you any good?

    LOL

    History or no history,you have exposed yourself for what you are.

    I knew from past whataboutery, that you just needed enough rope.

    Your lies and bigotry have come to the fore.

    Any more Rumsfield jokes?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gladrags wrote: »
    LOL

    History or no history,you have exposed yourself for what you are.

    I knew from past whataboutery, that you just needed enough rope.

    Your lies and bigotry have come to the fore.

    Any more Rumsfield jokes?

    In your case - 'no history'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    gladrags wrote: »
    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 law 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”

    Hi alistair,this is the one you never answered.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gladrags wrote: »
    Hi alistair,this is the one you never answered.

    This makes no more sense than it did first time. Go learn some history.

    Irish%20Brigade%20pass.jpg


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


    alastair wrote: »
    In your case - 'no history'.

    Very profound and well thought out.

    Your credibility is in tatters,and deservedly so.

    LOL


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


    alastair wrote: »
    This makes no more sense than it did first time. Go learn some history.

    Irish%20Brigade%20pass.jpg

    Thats all old news,been around the web for years.

    Has absolutely no relevance to your claim,that the signatories were aware of the Belgium issue,or were complicit.

    And also that the living relatives are complicit.

    These are very serious allegations,and you cannot,and have not proved,because they are untrue,and completely unfounded.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    So - fewer casualties. Better or worse

    Equal on the basis of being deliberate.

    And what about poison gas? Both sides used it in contravention of the 1899 & 1907 Hague Conventions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Equal on the basis of being deliberate.
    And by the measure of lives cost?
    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    And what about poison gas? Both sides used it in contravention of the 1899 & 1907 Hague Conventions.
    More whataboutery?


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


    alastair wrote: »
    And by the measure of lives cost?

    Both sides took these lives as a result of deliberate actions. So they are both equal.
    More whataboutery?

    Nope. More evidence they were equal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Both sides took these lives as a result of deliberate actions. So they are both equal.



    Nope. More evidence they were equal.

    Even if you buy into the nonsense of the use of poison gas on the battlefield as having anything to do with civilian massacres, and believe that there was no difference between the two militaries on culpability for civilian deaths (despite the massive differentiation between the two in civilians killed as a consequence of their campaigns in the war), you're still left with the awkward central point that the signatories of the population had no obligation to call anyone their 'gallant allies' - and yet they chose to do so, knowing that these 'gallant allies' were responsible for the massacre of innocent civilians.

    So, yes - that would be classic whataboutery and dissembling.


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


    alastair wrote: »
    Even if you buy into the nonsense of the use of poison gas on the battlefield as having anything to do with civilian massacres

    The use of poison gas, regardless of where it was used, was classed as a war crime under the Hague Conventions. Both were wrong.
    and believe that there was no difference between the two militaries on culpability for civilian deaths

    If both sides are deliberately equally responsible how is one side less culpable compared to the other?


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


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    The use of poison gas, regardless of where it was used, was classed as a war crime under the Hague Conventions. Both were wrong.



    If both sides are deliberately equally responsible how is one side less culpable compared to the other?

    So, yes - that would be classic whataboutery and dissembling.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement