Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Telegraph writer compares Easter rising to IS Brussels attack

13567…22

Comments

  • #62
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Indeed, all they did (in the main) was occupy buildings ....
    On the very first day they shot unarmed people. Taking up arms and shooting people is terrorism, many would and did say.


  • #63
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    maryishere wrote: »
    Actually only one of the leaders of the '16 rising had ever stood for election, and that was in a local election, and he came last. A few hundred votes.

    If the ISIS bomber had stood for election in Brussels they would have got more votes.

    Mary dear, I'm going to repost something I posted in the History and Heritage forum regarding democratic mandates in response to you making the same narrow point over and over again, perhaps you might reply this time.....

    There was no mandate for the Act of Union - a Protestant only parliament was bribed to vote itself out of existence and join the Union.

    There was no mandate for the rejection of the first two Home Rule bills, the unelected House of Lords had a veto.

    There was no mandate for the formation of the UVF to oppose Home Rule by importing vast amounts of weaponry and threatening civil war.

    There was no mandate for officers in the British Army to mutiny in support of the UVF

    There was no mandate for the Famine.

    There was no mandate for the attempted eradication of the Irish language.

    There was no mandate for institutionalised sectarian discrimination against Catholics.

    There was no mandate for an unelected colonial Lord Lieutenant wielding power in a constituent part of the UK.

    But yeah, you're right - the rules should only apply to one side


  • #64
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,041 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    maryishere wrote: »
    Actually only one of the leaders of the '16 rising had ever stood for election, and that was in a local election, and he came last. A few hundred votes.

    If the ISIS bomber had stood for election in Brussels they would have got more votes.

    It's a somewhat spurious comparison though. The rising was certainly "illegal" under the law at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean it was illegitimate.


  • #65
    buried
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,980 ✭✭✭buried


    maryishere wrote: »
    Actually only one of the leaders of the '16 rising had ever stood for election, and that was in a local election, and he came last. A few hundred votes.

    If the ISIS bomber had stood for election in Brussels they would have got more votes.

    Islamic fundamentalists like ISIS don't do elections as they think it is 'kufr'

    Bullet The Blue Shirts



  • #66
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,041 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    maryishere wrote: »
    On the very first day they shot unarmed people. Taking up arms and shooting people is terrorism, many would and did say.

    Yes, you could argue there were elements of terrorism in some of the incidents but it should be pointed out these were fairly isolated (and it may well be that this was rogue elements in the rebels committing such deeds).


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Yes, you could argue there were elements of terrorism in some of the incidents but it should be pointed out these were fairly isolated (and it may well be that this was rogue elements in the rebels committing such deeds).

    Indeed....But where deos shelling the most heavily populated slums in Europe at the time fall on Mary's scale of terrorism


  • #68
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    We would have been better off being left alone so we could be independent and develop as a state in our own little way.

    Then you'd have had an Irish empire, all of your own.


  • #69
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,930 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    12Phase wrote: »
    The Act of Union was 1801 and within barely 40 years there was a widespread famine in what was a region of the UK
    Hundreds of millions of people died in famines in the 19th century. Attributing it solely to the Act of Union is simplistic. People are still dying from famine in the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
    That's what laid the ground for 1916.
    It just took 70 years?
    Revisionist history seen through imperial tinted glasses.
    Revisionist history seen through green-tinted glasses?


  • #70
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Then you'd have had an Irish empire, all of your own.

    But we couldn't as we were a colony??


  • #71
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Then you'd have had an Irish empire, all of your own.

    Cool!


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    But we couldn't as we were a colony??

    Did you read the post I replied to??


  • #73
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Do not forget that in 1847, one of the worst years of the famine, food exports from Ireland were 120 thousand tons, , and imports of food in the same year was 900 thousand tons......ie, almost 8 times more than exports. http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/famine


  • #74
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Cool!

    Apologies, I meant an empire that extended beyond Newfoundland.


  • #75
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Did you read the post I replied to??

    I did....but you are saying Ireland would have an empire if left to developed on its own

    But all this conjecture of pure fantasy as it stood Ireland was a colony and you'll never know for sure???

    Would this imaginary empire come with hoverboardss though??


  • #76
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    maryishere wrote: »
    Do not forget that in 1847, one of the worst years of the famine, food exports from Ireland were 120 thousand tons, , and imports of food in the same year was 900 thousand tons......ie, almost 8 times more than exports. http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/famine

    This makes exporting food from a famine riddled country where a million would starve to death ok???

    How is It ok??


  • #77
    buried
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,980 ✭✭✭buried


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Then you'd have had an Irish empire, all of your own.

    We Irish don't do the whole 'trampling all over other people and their homelands by lethal force' Fred, we let people come in here and let them assimilate themselves to our ways over a space of time, like the Normans did.

    Bullet The Blue Shirts



  • #78
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    I did....but you are saying Ireland would have an empire if left to developed on its own

    But all this conjecture of pure fantasy as it stood Ireland was a colony and you'll never know for sure???

    Would this imaginary empire come with hoverboardss though??

    It's a bit more than conjecture.


  • #79
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It's a bit more than conjecture.

    How??

    You've no evidence to say so??

    Unless Ireland was going around invading and pillaging several countries around the world as your suggestion we'd have an empire would suggest???


  • #80
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I'm happier we didn't have an empire.


  • #81
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    buried wrote: »
    We Irish don't do the whole 'trampling all over other people and their homelands by lethal force' Fred, we let people come in here and let them assimilate themselves to our ways over a space of time, like the Normans did.

    Sure you do, isn't there 50 million Americans of Irish decent?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Anyone listen to the documentary on Radio 1 today?

    It was called 'The Easter Re-Rising'

    About how Indian rebels used Irish literature, correspondence and documents to help stage their own rebellion.

    They even carried out some main operations on Easter, in 1930. Even though Easter would have meant **** all to them as (mainly) Hindus

    http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/2016/0331/778511-an-easter-re-rising/

    It's very good.

    I like the bit about Mountbatten ordering that a memorial be destroyed in Singapore, and being warned by a local that he would one day be blown up in the same way


  • #83
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Victor wrote: »
    Hundreds of millions of people died in famines in the 19th century. Attributing it solely to the Act of Union is simplistic. People are still dying from famine in the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

    The root cause of the famine was the system of land ownership that had developed over the preceding two centuries. A completely different system known as the Ulster Custom existed in the north and in England, Scotland and Wales. The rights enjoyed by northern tenant farmers were agitated for during the land war.

    The legacy of the famine was still being felt in 1916 as the population of the country was still in decline due to mass emigration. Rural Ireland remained devastated, deserted villages and cabins were still visible throughout the landscape. Reform of land ownership had to be dragged out of the British during the land war and left a legacy of extreme bitterness. Had the British been willing to make concessions earlier then things would probably have been different.

    Asking why did it take 70 years is rather simplistic.


  • #84
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Sure you do, isn't there 50 million Americans of Irish decent?

    This quite a stretch to say they've invaded and pillaged America after going over on coffin ships to escape famine...at first??

    But if you wish to count that as an empire...I can't wait to see what other leaps of logic await....


  • #85
    timthumbni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,845 ✭✭✭timthumbni


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Sure you do, isn't there 50 million Americans of Irish decent?

    Whatever did become of the native Americans anyway? Are they getting on well?


  • #86
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    maryishere wrote: »
    The world was a different place hundreds of years ago, all the European countries were in a expansionist mode...like it or not. Twas the way of the time.

    Aye. Invade or be invaded as you said previously. What were the chances of Egypt invading UK and France in 1956? Or apropos Sykes-Picot, Syria and Iraq invading in 1920?


  • #87
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    The root cause of the famine was the system of land ownership that had developed over the preceding two centuries. A completely different system known as the Ulster Custom existed in the north and in England, Scotland and Wales. The rights enjoyed by northern tenant farmers were agitated for during the land war.

    The legacy of the famine was still being felt in 1916 as the population of the country was still in decline due to mass emigration. Rural Ireland remained devastated, deserted villages and cabins were still visible throughout the landscape. Reform of land ownership had to be dragged out of the British during the land war and left a legacy of extreme bitterness. Had the British been willing to make concessions earlier then things would probably have been different.

    Asking why did it take 70 years is rather simplistic.

    and throw in the famine in 1879 which was a further reminder of how little had changed .


  • #88
    buried
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,980 ✭✭✭buried


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Sure you do, isn't there 50 million Americans of Irish decent?

    lol And what brought the Irish over there Fred? The great construction collapse of 1852 was it?

    Bullet The Blue Shirts



  • #89
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Sure you do, isn't there 50 million Americans of Irish decent?

    Jesus Fred that's a really stupid post.


  • #90
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I'm happier we didn't have an empire.
    The people in India for example did not care if the white man who helped build their railways or whatever was from Liverpool or Dublin. To him we were all part of the UK at the time.


    Small countries were often invaded- if were were not with England we would have been part of some other European Empire, given they all colonised at the time, hundreds of years ago. Then you may have seen what a brutal empire was really like.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    quote="maryishere;99263979"]Instead of helping the British to run their Empire (a third of the British admin staff in India was Irish), we would have been much better being a colony of Spain or France or Belgium. The inhabitants of their colonies, like the Congo, fared much better[/quote]

    You're setting a very low benchmark if the best you can do is compare your imperialists favourably with the Belgian savages in the Congo. Whatever anyone says about Casement he left the world a better place than he found it.


Advertisement
Advertisement