kevin barry
david
> No, the British Army Military Band do that one! Along with the old favourite, "Down
> Croppie down" and "shoot to kill"
>
> Lesser known songs by the same band include"
> "How we helped bomb Dublin"
> "Sectaranism is our way"
> "I wish I was back in England (as does everybody else)"
Know anywhere where you can get Orange mpegs? I'm having an argument about 'Derry's
Walls'.
Maybe 'wilderness' could record a version for me, in the interests of cross community
understanding and all that.
DAvid
Gerry Doyle
Whitewolf <ra...@aol.ie> wrote in message
news:qlvussc1juo7feoka...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:18:23 -0700, John McCormack
<johnmc...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
> >"anita.gordon" wrote:
> >
> >> mp3 files of the following
> >> THE WORDS; BOULAVOGUE; KEVIN BARRY
> >> http://reachus.at/wilderness
> >> wilde...@reachus.at
> >> these files are free The songs are by the band WILDERNESS
> >> please enjoy soon to come
> >> Boys Of The Old Brigade
> >> Merry Ploughboy
> >> Sean South
> >> A Nation Once Again
> >> Grace
> >> The Men Behind The Wire
> >> The Irish Soldier Laddie
> >> Broad Black Brimmer
> >> The One Road
> >> Lonely Woods At Upton
> >> Come Out Ye Black And Tans
> >> Rising Of The Moon
> >> James Connolly
> >> Back Home In Derry
> >> Lord Nelson
> >> Boys Of Kilmichael
> >> Roddy McCorley
> >> The Soldiers Song plus many many more
> >
> >What about "Murder a child for Ireland" ?. Do they do that or do they
> >have someone else do it for them ?.
> >
>
> No, the British Army Military Band do that one! Along with the old
favourite, "Down
> Croppie down" and "shoot to kill"
I think he is trying to point out that Kevin Barry was done for the heroic
deed of shooting a 14 year old boy soldier who was delivering bread at the
time. Not exactly glorious either.
G
anita.gordon
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:08:58 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
not a breadboy
> and he was 17 not 14...
>
> Ray
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 26 + 6 = 1 Ireland unfree shall never be at peace!
> My goal is to prevent yours! - seen on T-Shirt.
> Email: ra...@iol.ie
> USA site: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7652
> Eire site: http://www.iol.ie/~rayh/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abby Sale
>Know anywhere where you can get Orange mpegs? I'm having an argument about 'Derry's
>Walls'.
Orange is handled by Conrad Bladey whose huge site is at
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bj333/HomePage.home.html and
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~cbladey/orange.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
I am Abby Sale - in Orlando, Florida
Boycott South Carolina! - http://www.naacp.org/SCEconomic2.html
What is the sound of ONE side compromising?
david
> Orange is handled by Conrad Bladey whose huge site is at
> http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bj333/HomePage.home.html and
> http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~cbladey/orange.html
Well that has a great version of the Sash (first time I've heard it sung sober), but only
the words to Derry's walls. Protestant children aren't taught orange songs, as that
would be considered bigoted, so they make up their own (much worse) rhymes.
david
Gerry Doyle
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:08:58 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
> >> >What about "Murder a child for Ireland" ?. Do they do that or do they
> >> >have someone else do it for them ?.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, the British Army Military Band do that one! Along with the old
> >favourite, "Down
> >> Croppie down" and "shoot to kill"
> >
> >I think he is trying to point out that Kevin Barry was done for the
heroic
> >deed of shooting a 14 year old boy soldier who was delivering bread at
the
> >time. Not exactly glorious either.
> >
> >G
> >
> >
> There wasn't any evidence that he did it and the guy killed was a soldier
not a breadboy
> and he was 17 not 14...
Didn't I say that he was a 'soldier who was delivering bread'? It was a
miserable squalid deed whichever way you look at it.
G
Gerry Doyle
anita.gordon <anita....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sO3A5.1071$616....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> As was Kevin Barry at the time of the Incident and only 18 when hung
What a sad waste of two young lives.
G
anita.gordon
Gerry Doyle <alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> wrote in message
news:Te9A5.4056$44.1...@news.iol.ie...
Gerry Doyle
> No one said this world was just!
It may not be just, but it doesn't have to be glib either.
G
Gerry Doyle
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:16:13 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:08:58 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
> ><alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
> >
they
> >> >> >have someone else do it for them ?.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> No, the British Army Military Band do that one! Along with the old
> >> >favourite, "Down
> >> >> Croppie down" and "shoot to kill"
> >> >
> >> >I think he is trying to point out that Kevin Barry was done for the
> >heroic
> >> >deed of shooting a 14 year old boy soldier who was delivering bread at
> >the
> >> >time. Not exactly glorious either.
> >> >
> >> >G
> >> >
> >> >
soldier
> >not a breadboy
> >> and he was 17 not 14...
> >
> >Didn't I say that he was a 'soldier who was delivering bread'? It was a
> >miserable squalid deed whichever way you look at it.
> >
>
anyway) that somehow
> he was less of a soldier and more "innocent" than those butchers like the
Tans...
Well, was he or wasn't he? He wasn't a Tan, he was a boy soldier, an
innocent. Of course no-one wrote any songs for him, who can even say his
name, the poor bastard.
He
> joined the armed forces of a country that was holding Ireland against it's
will and used
> force against any sort of self determination effort.. He knew the risk,
just like any
> soldier...
Do you really believe that that is that a justification for random murder?
Two boys dead, violently dead, two families devastated, and for what? All
that was achieved was a bloody awful song, both deaths did nothing to
advance the cause of either side.
You really need someone to take you by the scruff of the neck to actually
read that Bible that you spent so much time over, instead of just cut and
pasting it. What would Jesus have said about this?
G
Aleister Crowley's Cat
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> scribed:
The problem is that he's been reading too much of the Bible...the same
Bible in which Yahweh sent a bear to kill three dozen children for
mocking Elijah's baldness...
Regards,
Dave
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk or http://www.kharne.net
Rev Stapleton S Love
Whitewolf claptrapped in message ...
>I believe you are wrong in that... Barry died a hero and a Martyr for
Ireland for
>sacrificing his life for the hope that future generations could have a
better one...
Yeah, whatever....
You are truly sickening - typical Republican shite! - let others suffer and
then make capital out of it (you're not Gerry Bloodstained, Adams, by any
chance...)
Gerry Doyle
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:25:46 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
> wrote:
>
> Snip
> >> >> There wasn't any evidence that he did it and the guy killed was a
> >soldier
> >> >not a breadboy
> >> >> and he was 17 not 14...
> >> >
> >> >Didn't I say that he was a 'soldier who was delivering bread'? It was
a
> >> >miserable squalid deed whichever way you look at it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You did, but you said he was delivering bread, which implied (to me
> >anyway) that somehow
> >> he was less of a soldier and more "innocent" than those butchers like
the
> >Tans...
> >
> >Well, was he or wasn't he? He wasn't a Tan, he was a boy soldier, an
> >innocent. Of course no-one wrote any songs for him, who can even say his
> >name, the poor bastard.
> >
>
establishment and
> Army who took him in gave him a gun and put him to "defend the Empire."
The British Army
> put him in a warzone, he was killed..
Typical terrorist justification, I'm pulling a trigger but it's all someone
else's fault. If Ireland had become a warzone it wasn't the fault of the
British. If anything, Ireland in 1916 was peaceful, prosperous and
democratic, it was Pearse and his mad ravings that caused the conflict.
It could Kevin Barry was executed for being there,
> and no speciffic evidence was used other then being Irish in the wrong
place at the right
> time to be captured.. The English deplored the attack when the 17 yearold
was killed
And who wouldn't? It was a deplorable dirty deed.
but
> showed no mercy to Barry was was also 17 going on 18 at the time of
attack.. They have
> double standards (as always).
The use of the death penalty will always ensure that such barbarisms occur.
Aren't you in favour of that too?
> > He
> >> joined the armed forces of a country that was holding Ireland against
it's
> >will and used
> >> force against any sort of self determination effort..
Rubbish, the Home Rule Bill had already been passed in 1914, how do you
explain that?
He knew the risk,
> >just like any
> >> soldier...
He was a child for feck sake. How can you be so heartless?
> >Do you really believe that that is that a justification for random
murder?
> >Two boys dead, violently dead, two families devastated, and for what?
All
> >that was achieved was a bloody awful song, both deaths did nothing to
> >advance the cause of either side.
> >
>
> I believe you are wrong in that... Barry died a hero and a Martyr for
Ireland for
> sacrificing his life for the hope that future generations could have a
better one.
Propoganda. What exactly can you say was achieved by this? Nothing. In
what way exactly would the future be better than it was at that time by
killing a boy? How hard were things at that time? How oppressed were we?
> If Ireland was not occupied by the English then the war would not have
happened...
Pearse started the trouble, not the English.
>
> >You really need someone to take you by the scruff of the neck to actually
> >read that Bible that you spent so much time over, instead of just cut and
> >pasting it. What would Jesus have said about this?
> >
>
> There have been and probably always will be wars.. IN them some terrible
things happen,
> and finally they are resolved.. Then another starts.. So long as there
are tyrants there
> will be people willing to take up arms for a holy struggle for
independance and fight for
> the future.
Oh get down off your soapbox, Ireland in 1916 was part of a parliamentary
democracy that had recently voted to grant it Home Rule, there was no
tyranny and no need for Pearse and his twisted fantasies of blood and death.
>God himself is in battle with the forces of Darkness..
That's an embarrassing thing for a grown man to come out with.
War just is,
> terrible, but unavoidable.
No it isn't. Wars are easily the single most avoidable of all our
catastrophes.
G
anita.gordon
No but he is a Great Man also
BTW Just what kind of Church do you belong to REV (if you are indeed a man
of the cloth)
Rev Stapleton S Love <ka...@voetlaanger.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8r0jl5$gc4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Gerry Doyle
Aleister Crowley's Cat <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:39d2769f...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:25:46 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
>
> >You really need someone to take you by the scruff of the neck to actually
> >read that Bible that you spent so much time over, instead of just cut and
> >pasting it. What would Jesus have said about this?
> >
> >G
> >
>
> Bible in which Yahweh sent a bear to kill three dozen children for
> mocking Elijah's baldness...
Or the god that sent the men of Israel to slaughter the men of Shiloh and
rape all their women? There's a million of 'em...
G
Aleister Crowley's Cat
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> scribed:
>
>Aleister Crowley's Cat <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:39d2769f...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:25:46 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
>> <alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> scribed:
>>
>> >You really need someone to take you by the scruff of the neck to actually
>> >read that Bible that you spent so much time over, instead of just cut and
>> >pasting it. What would Jesus have said about this?
>> >
>> >G
>> >
>>
>> The problem is that he's been reading too much of the Bible...the same
>> Bible in which Yahweh sent a bear to kill three dozen children for
>> mocking Elijah's baldness...
>
>Or the god that sent the men of Israel to slaughter the men of Shiloh and
>rape all their women? There's a million of 'em...
>
>G
>
And so on and so on and so on...
Sue Quick
Is Gerry Bloodstained Adams worse than Ian Bloodstained (But Hands Look
Clean) Paisley? or the rest of the shower who shelter behind the
Loyalist mafia?
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
Adams is worse, but Paisley's not far behind...
Jonathan Quick
news:39D522C7...@scazon.com...
>
> Is Gerry Bloodstained Adams worse than Ian Bloodstained (But Hands Look
> Clean) Paisley? or the rest of the shower who shelter behind the
> Loyalist mafia?
Well said. A murderer is a murderer no matter what his religion or politics
are.
JJ.
--
Email: jonatha...@foxtrot.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.foxtrot.co.uk
Dave Fawthrop
"Jonathan Quick" <n...@spam.here> wrote in message
news:8r7b7r$mc9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> > Clean) Paisley? or the rest of the shower who shelter behind the
> > Loyalist mafia?
>
politics
> are.
Conspiracy to murder is also an offence,
That would include everyone who voted Unionist or Shin Fain.
--
Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk>
Aleister Crowley's Cat
<hyp...@hyphenologist.co.uk> scribed:
>
>"Jonathan Quick" <n...@spam.here> wrote in message
>news:8r7b7r$mc9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>> "Sue Quick" <s...@scazon.com> wrote in message
>> news:39D522C7...@scazon.com...
>> >
>> > Is Gerry Bloodstained Adams worse than Ian Bloodstained (But Hands Look
>> > Clean) Paisley? or the rest of the shower who shelter behind the
>> > Loyalist mafia?
>>
>> Well said. A murderer is a murderer no matter what his religion or
>politics
>> are.
>
>Conspiracy to murder is also an offence,
>
>That would include everyone who voted Unionist or Shin Fain.
>
Hold on a moment - when I was living in NI I voted UUP. Now, can you
connect even remotely any senior member of the UUP to any terrorist
organisation?
Can you even find any senior UUP member who doesn't utterly condemn
such organisations?
Narrow your brush a bit son...
Regards,
Dave
>
>--
>Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk>
Dave Fawthrop
> >
> >Conspiracy to murder is also an offence,
> >
> >That would include everyone who voted Unionist or Shin Fain.
> >
>
> Hold on a moment - when I was living in NI I voted UUP. Now, can you
> connect even remotely any senior member of the UUP to any terrorist
> organisation?
From _my_ purely Yorkshire viewpoint there are two *insane* *murderous*
tribes intent on both mutual and self destruction. Anyone how aligns
themselves with either of these tribes is responsible for the insane and
criminal actions of all that tribe.
Pity that will not stand up in law.
--
Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk>
anita.gordon
That is all that we are asking
Dave Fawthrop <hyp...@hyphenologist.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8r85qo$v0$2...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk...
Dave Fawthrop
"Gerard" <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
news:vp2ftsoonj903b6ki...@4ax.com...
> Dave Fawthrop wrote:
> >"Jonathan Quick" <n...@spam.here> wrote in message
> >news:8r7b7r$mc9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >> "Sue Quick" <s...@scazon.com> wrote in message
> >> news:39D522C7...@scazon.com...
> >> >
Look
> >> > Clean) Paisley? or the rest of the shower who shelter behind the
> >> > Loyalist mafia?
> >>
> >politics
> >> are.
> >
> >
> >That would include everyone who voted Unionist or Shin Fain.
>
All the English/Scottish/Welsh parties are trying to stop the carnage.
The Unionist and Nationalist tribes are intent on continuing it.
Northern Ireland never was British, I doubt it ever will be.
--
Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk>
kfuzzbox
> All the English/Scottish/Welsh parties are trying to stop the carnage.
> The Unionist and Nationalist tribes are intent on continuing it.
> Northern Ireland never was British, I doubt it ever will be.
I've got a lesbian haircut and I'm going to use it.
Gerry Doyle
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:59:52 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
> wrote:
>
> Snip
> >> >Well, was he or wasn't he? He wasn't a Tan, he was a boy soldier, an
> >> >innocent. Of course no-one wrote any songs for him, who can even say
his
> >> >name, the poor bastard.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well then put the blame for his death where it belongs - The British
> >establishment and
> >> Army who took him in gave him a gun and put him to "defend the Empire."
> >The British Army
> >> put him in a warzone, he was killed..
> >
> >Typical terrorist justification, I'm pulling a trigger but it's all
someone
> >else's fault. If Ireland had become a warzone it wasn't the fault of the
> >British. If anything, Ireland in 1916 was peaceful, prosperous and
> >democratic, it was Pearse and his mad ravings that caused the conflict.
> >
>
a warzone.
No, you see the way it works is that you say something, then I refute it,
then you refute that, simply repeating what you had already said isn't
enough. I notice though that this time you made it slightly more truthful
by omitting the 'gave him a gun' bit.
He
> is a soldier and he knows the risks that any soldier faces..
We all know the risks of life, it doesn't therefore give anyone a free hand
to do as they wish to us, as you are implying. Just because a soldier knows
the risks doesn't make it OK to kill him. I don't understand why you keep
harping on with this irrelevant point.
> > It could Kevin Barry was executed for being there,
> >> and no speciffic evidence was used other then being Irish in the wrong
> >place at the right
> >> time to be captured.. The English deplored the attack when the 17
yearold
> >was killed
> >
> >And who wouldn't? It was a deplorable dirty deed.
> >
> > but
> >> showed no mercy to Barry was was also 17 going on 18 at the time of
> >attack.. They have
> >> double standards (as always).
> >
> >The use of the death penalty will always ensure that such barbarisms
occur.
> >Aren't you in favour of that too?
> >
>
> It exposed the hypocracy of England, while whining about the death of one,
they executed
> another of a similar age... I'm in favour of the death penalty in
certain crimes, not
> political crimes...
Doesn't that make you the same sort of hypocrite? How can you say the
English are hypocrites for favouring the death penalty for muder, yet
condone it yourself? Have you never whined about a victim and called for
the execution of another of a similar age?
> >> > He
> >> >> joined the armed forces of a country that was holding Ireland
against
> >it's
> >> >will and used
> >> >> force against any sort of self determination effort..
> >
> >Rubbish, the Home Rule Bill had already been passed in 1914, how do you
> >explain that?
> >
>
> it's been discussed here before, and you know as well as I that it was
used as a carrot
> when the English tried to get Irish men to go fight for them. The
implied threat was
> that if they did not, there would be no home rule - which was suspended.
The Home Rule Bill was passed into law and placed on the statute book by an
act of a majority vote of parliament. It was suspended because of the
little matter of Britain finding itself in the greatest war ever known,
hardly a time for ceding a major part of its territory. There was no
implied threat. You will have to explain to me exactly how the British
planned to make known to the Irish the terms for forcing them to fight for
them, or what key performance indicators they might have used to decide
whether they had done enough or not. Redmond and his followers reasoned,
and were not coerced, that it was preferable to fight to ensure a British
victory and Home Rule than to do nothing and risk a German victory and all
that that might entail in view of their behaviour in other countries.
. The Rebellion
> was justified in every way...
Name one.
> It needed to happen, and it did...
No, Pearse needed it to happen, after all his years of fantasising he knew
he had only one last chance to see his obscene visions come true. Remember,
Pearse WANTED Irish people to die, he lusted for it, he thought that his
theories of blood sacrifice were the only way that Ireland could be reborn.
A passing of an act of parliament just didn't fit the bill...
> > He knew the risk,
> >> >just like any
> >> >> soldier...
> >
> >He was a child for feck sake. How can you be so heartless?
> >
>
> How can the people who put him in a uniform and put him in an warzone be
so heartless?
They gave him a job delivering bread. They were bastards too, but he was an
innocent.
> >> >Do you really believe that that is that a justification for random
> >murder?
> >> >Two boys dead, violently dead, two families devastated, and for what?
> >All
> >> >that was achieved was a bloody awful song, both deaths did nothing to
> >> >advance the cause of either side.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I believe you are wrong in that... Barry died a hero and a Martyr for
> >Ireland for
> >> sacrificing his life for the hope that future generations could have a
> >better one.
> >
> >Propoganda. What exactly can you say was achieved by this? Nothing. In
> >what way exactly would the future be better than it was at that time by
> >killing a boy? How hard were things at that time? How oppressed were
we?
> >
>
> There is no evidence that Barry killed anyone, he was the only one caught,
therefore
> naturally in British Justice eyes, he was guilty... And executed. He was
only a boy
> too... So it cuts both ways...
You admit it then.
> >> If Ireland was not occupied by the English then the war would not have
> >happened...
> >
> >Pearse started the trouble, not the English.
> >
> You don't understand the nature of the Rebellion do you?
More than you do. You shouldn't be so credulous about these things, you are
too ready to believe the myths.
> >>
> >> >You really need someone to take you by the scruff of the neck to
actually
> >> >read that Bible that you spent so much time over, instead of just cut
and
> >> >pasting it. What would Jesus have said about this?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There have been and probably always will be wars.. IN them some
terrible
> >things happen,
> >> and finally they are resolved.. Then another starts.. So long as
there
> >are tyrants there
> >> will be people willing to take up arms for a holy struggle for
> >independance and fight for
> >> the future.
> >
> >Oh get down off your soapbox, Ireland in 1916 was part of a parliamentary
> >democracy that had recently voted to grant it Home Rule, there was no
> >tyranny and no need for Pearse and his twisted fantasies of blood and
death.
> >
>
> And if that Rebellion hadn't happened, we'd all still be queens servants
today...
No, we wouldn't, the momentum towards Home Rule was unstoppable, nothing
would have prevented it, complete seperation would have followed in time.
The only likelihood of a monarchy remaining in Ireland would have been if
Pearse had gotten his way of setting up a German princeling on a new Irish
throne. You did know about that bit, didn't you?
> >>God himself is in battle with the forces of Darkness..
> >
> >That's an embarrassing thing for a grown man to come out with.
> >
> Are you religious?
I told you before that I was an atheist.
> > War just is,
> >> terrible, but unavoidable.
> >
> >No it isn't. Wars are easily the single most avoidable of all our
> >catastrophes.
>
> And yet we have them..
Wars are not random acts of nature, wars are not diseases, wars are not
freak weather patterns. Wars are acts of will. All wars are avoidable and
are products of evil and/or stupidity, they are examples of mass psychosis.
We have them when people believe the hype and cease to question the motives
of those whose ambitions are furthered by it.
Believe nothing. Question everything.
G
westprog 2000
"Gerry Doyle" <alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> wrote:
>
...
> The Home Rule Bill was passed into law and placed on the statute book
> by an
> act of a majority vote of parliament. It was suspended because of the
> little matter of Britain finding itself in the greatest war ever
> known,
> hardly a time for ceding a major part of its territory. There was no
> implied threat. You will have to explain to me exactly how the
> British
> planned to make known to the Irish the terms for forcing them to
> fight for
> them, or what key performance indicators they might have used to
> decide
> whether they had done enough or not. Redmond and his followers
> reasoned,
> and were not coerced, that it was preferable to fight to ensure a
> British
> victory and Home Rule than to do nothing and risk a German victory
> and all
> that that might entail in view of their behaviour in other countries.
I have always thought that the 1916 Rising happened because of the
inevitability of Home Rule, not because it was delayed. It was the
prospect of a peaceful transition to some form of independence that was
less than total that Pearse feared.
...
> > It needed to happen, and it did...
> No, Pearse needed it to happen, after all his years of fantasising he
> knew
> he had only one last chance to see his obscene visions come true.
> Remember,
> Pearse WANTED Irish people to die, he lusted for it, he thought that
> his
> theories of blood sacrifice were the only way that Ireland could be
> reborn.
> A passing of an act of parliament just didn't fit the bill...
...
> > You don't understand the nature of the Rebellion do you?
> More than you do. You shouldn't be so credulous about these things,
> you are too ready to believe the myths.
Creating a myth was Pearse's intention. You don't get a myth out of
peaceful compromise.
...
> > And if that Rebellion hadn't happened, we'd all still be queens
> > servants today...
> No, we wouldn't, the momentum towards Home Rule was unstoppable,
> nothing
> would have prevented it, complete seperation would have followed in
> time.
The treaty left Ireland under a monarchy. That is one reason why there
was a Civil War. The Treaty opponents said that there was no way to
achieve the Republic - in the end it just happened almost on a whim.
> The only likelihood of a monarchy remaining in Ireland would have
> been if
> Pearse had gotten his way of setting up a German princeling on a new
> Irish throne. You did know about that bit, didn't you?
Or if the Irish people had decided they wanted to keep it. Not that
unlikely - Australia decided precisely that. The important point is
that Irish people would have their own choice, without violence.
...> Wars are not random acts of nature, wars are not diseases, wars
> are not
> freak weather patterns. Wars are acts of will. All wars are
> avoidable and
> are products of evil and/or stupidity, they are examples of mass
> psychosis.
> We have them when people believe the hype and cease to question the
> motives of those whose ambitions are furthered by it.
Irish political violence over the last hundred years has always been
reactionary and counter-productive. It has been an obstacle to progress.
> Believe nothing. Question everything.
Even that.
--
J/ (Looking Backward)
SOTW: "Sweet Jane" - Bowie/Reed
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Derek Bell
: What kind of Reverend are you?
A missionary from the trolls.
: Are you one or do you simply suffer delusions of grandeur?
And what makes these two possibilities mutually exclusive?
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
Gerry Doyle
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:40:13 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
of that famous
> sketch! :-)
That will be ten pounds please.
> >I notice though that this time you made it slightly more truthful
> >by omitting the 'gave him a gun' bit.
> >
>
> No less or more truthful then before, just different words...
They didn't give him a gun, just a bread basket.
> >He
> >> is a soldier and he knows the risks that any soldier faces..
> >
> >We all know the risks of life, it doesn't therefore give anyone a free
hand
> >to do as they wish to us, as you are implying. Just because a soldier
knows
> >the risks doesn't make it OK to kill him. I don't understand why you
keep
> >harping on with this irrelevant point.
> >
>
> It's not irrelevant to me...
Barry knew the risks too when he acted as lookout, why doesn't that make it
OK too?
> >> > It could Kevin Barry was executed for being there,
> >> >> and no speciffic evidence was used other then being Irish in the
wrong
> >> >place at the right
> >> >> time to be captured.. The English deplored the attack when the 17
> >yearold
> >> >was killed
> >> >
> >> >And who wouldn't? It was a deplorable dirty deed.
> >> >
> >> > but
> >> >> showed no mercy to Barry was was also 17 going on 18 at the time of
> >> >attack.. They have
> >> >> double standards (as always).
> >> >
> >> >The use of the death penalty will always ensure that such barbarisms
> >occur.
> >> >Aren't you in favour of that too?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It exposed the hypocracy of England, while whining about the death of
one,
> >they executed
> >> another of a similar age... I'm in favour of the death penalty in
> >certain crimes, not
> >> political crimes...
> >
> >Doesn't that make you the same sort of hypocrite? How can you say the
> >English are hypocrites for favouring the death penalty for muder, yet
> >condone it yourself?
>
> Careful now... I support the death penalty when there is overwhelming
evidence, in Barry's
> case, he was there... he was Irish, that was enough...
Barry was a lookout for the IRA gunmen that did the deed, he wasn't randomly
picked up as you seem to be implying.
> >Have you never whined about a victim and called for
> >the execution of another of a similar age?
> >
>
> If the perp is proven in a fair court of law to be the murderer, and the
crime is so bad
> that the perp deserves to lose his too then yes...
But you seem willing to make exceptions on the grounds of motives, no matter
what the crime, that doesn't add up.
> >> >> > He
> >> >> >> joined the armed forces of a country that was holding Ireland
> >against
> >> >it's
> >> >> >will and used
> >> >> >> force against any sort of self determination effort..
> >> >
> >> >Rubbish, the Home Rule Bill had already been passed in 1914, how do
you
> >> >explain that?
> >> >
> >>
> >> it's been discussed here before, and you know as well as I that it was
> >used as a carrot
> >> when the English tried to get Irish men to go fight for them. The
> >implied threat was
> >> that if they did not, there would be no home rule - which was
suspended.
> >
> >The Home Rule Bill was passed into law and placed on the statute book by
an
> >act of a majority vote of parliament. It was suspended because of the
> >little matter of Britain finding itself in the greatest war ever known,
> >hardly a time for ceding a major part of its territory.
>
> There was hints though that it might not be reinstated.. or to be more
precise, that
> unless Irish people joined the British army and fought for England - for
small nations
> none the less, like Ireland' wasn't a small nation..
What hints, who made them? And if that was the case, then Home Rule wasn't
going to be stopped as so many Irishmen actually did join up, so where does
that leave your argument?
Ireland had the oppertunity,
> probably the best one, to try and free itself, and it took it...
1916 was hardly the best opportunity, how could you think that a small
ill-organised mess was the best opportunity?
the Rebellion failed only
> in that it didn't make for an immediate release of Ireland...
It had no hope of success whatsoever, too few men, useless tactics, and very
little support amongst the people.
It succeeded in that it
> reawakened the Irish Nationalism and while the English tried to make
Ireland a hell for
> the rebels, in reality more and more the situation became that the rebels
were making
> Ireland a hell for England.
It succeeded in doing nothing whatsoever. The only thing that succeeded was
the executions of the leaders, that was the thing that lit the spark. If
the English had given them a kick in the arse instead and sent them home,
things would have been very different.
> >There was no
> >implied threat. You will have to explain to me exactly how the British
> >planned to make known to the Irish the terms for forcing them to fight
for
> >them, or what key performance indicators they might have used to decide
> >whether they had done enough or not. Redmond and his followers reasoned,
> >and were not coerced, that it was preferable to fight to ensure a British
> >victory and Home Rule than to do nothing and risk a German victory and
all
> >that that might entail in view of their behaviour in other countries.
> >
> I believe it is better to die for Ireland as a small nation than to risk
all for England a
> nation that had basically enslaved and nearly destroyed Ireland for
hundreds of years
> previous... I'd definately have joined the Rebels and would never have
fought (and never
> would for that matter) for England...
The two things were not mutually exclusive.
> >. The Rebellion
> >> was justified in every way...
> >
> >Name one.
> >
>
> The existance of the Irish Republic as a free and democratic nation.
Ireland was free and democratic in 1916. Every man had a vote, no-one was
enslaved, the land question had been solved, Home Rule was on the statute
book. If anything, it took quite a long time before the citizens of the new
Irish State regained the amount of freedom they enjoyed within the UK.
> >> It needed to happen, and it did...
> >
> >No, Pearse needed it to happen, after all his years of fantasising he
knew
> >he had only one last chance to see his obscene visions come true.
Remember,
> >Pearse WANTED Irish people to die, he lusted for it, he thought that his
> >theories of blood sacrifice were the only way that Ireland could be
reborn.
> >A passing of an act of parliament just didn't fit the bill...
> >
>
> I don't think you understand the driving force in Pearse at all... Nothing
of what you
> wrote can be said of Pearse...
Ray, these are the well-known basic tenets of Pearse's thinking, if you
think otherwise, I can only conclude that you know very little about the
man, and should seek out some books on the subject. Your denials prove your
ignorance, you really should look things up a bit before going any further.
> >> > He knew the risk,
> >> >> >just like any
> >> >> >> soldier...
> >> >
> >> >He was a child for feck sake. How can you be so heartless?
> >> >
> >>
> >> How can the people who put him in a uniform and put him in an warzone
be
> >so heartless?
> >
> >They gave him a job delivering bread. They were bastards too, but he was
an
> >innocent.
> >
>
> He's still a soldier... think about it, had the rebels arrived 10 mins
later, that soldier
> may have been the one killing KB..
He was delivering bread for feck sake, unarmed. Barry was acting as lookout
for the IRA men, not just standing around.
It's a war... I feel little for enemy soldiers who
> would kill me as quickly as I them in a war...
So why feel for Barry, he was there to ensure that men would die and their
killers would escape.
> Admit what exactly?
That it cuts both ways. Poor Barry died crying and blubbering, not the
heroes death of legend, I wouldn't hold that against him, poor kid.
> >> >> If Ireland was not occupied by the English then the war would not
have
> >> >happened...
> >> >
> >> >Pearse started the trouble, not the English.
> >> >
> >> You don't understand the nature of the Rebellion do you?
> >
> >More than you do. You shouldn't be so credulous about these things, you
are
> >too ready to believe the myths.
> >
>
> And you seem too ready to accept the British apologist stance - not that
you are one, that
> would be Mills, but you seem to accept that the English could do no wrong
at that time...
> Or so it seems to me in your replies...
How can you say that? I've condemned them both, I have no truck with
militarists of any side. The English may have had very little choice but to
execute rebels, there was a war on, a much bigger one and they thought that
they needed to clamp down hard, they executed their own for less. When it
came to the new Irish government having to deal with their own rebels they
were even worse.
> Snip
> >> >Oh get down off your soapbox, Ireland in 1916 was part of a
parliamentary
> >> >democracy that had recently voted to grant it Home Rule, there was no
> >> >tyranny and no need for Pearse and his twisted fantasies of blood and
> >death.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And if that Rebellion hadn't happened, we'd all still be queens
servants
> >today...
> >
> >No, we wouldn't, the momentum towards Home Rule was unstoppable, nothing
> >would have prevented it, complete seperation would have followed in time.
>
> It's the "in time" bit that bothers me...
neither 1916 nor any other rebellion stopped us being a monarchy, it was a
political decision in a fit of pique in 1948.
> NI is still not free,
Of course it's free, it has it's own problems, but is as free as any other
democracy, are you saying that there are parts of the EU that are not free?
I don't believe England
> would have freed the rest either had they not been forced to by a military
defeat
> inflicted upon them by the rebels...
England had already agreed to Home Rule, it obviously has escaped you that
the Treaty was signed by the Irish under the threat of further war by the
British, which was why the Irish conceded to giving away NI, it wasn't the
British conceding the rest as you seem to think.
> >The only likelihood of a monarchy remaining in Ireland would have been if
> >Pearse had gotten his way of setting up a German princeling on a new
Irish
> >throne. You did know about th
at bit, didn't you?
> >
>
> Where did you get this gem from?
Oh read the books Ray.
> >> >>God himself is in battle with the forces of Darkness..
> >> >
> >> >That's an embarrassing thing for a grown man to come out with.
> >> >
> >> Are you religious?
> >
> >I told you before that I was an atheist.
> >
>
> Indeed... I forgot.. sorry.
>
>
> >> > War just is,
> >> >> terrible, but unavoidable.
> >> >
> >> >No it isn't. Wars are easily the single most avoidable of all our
> >> >catastrophes.
> >>
> >> And yet we have them..
> >
> >Wars are not random acts of nature, wars are not diseases, wars are not
> >freak weather patterns. Wars are acts of will. All wars are avoidable
and
> >are products of evil and/or stupidity, they are examples of mass
psychosis.
> >We have them when people believe the hype and cease to question the
motives
> >of those whose ambitions are furthered by it.
> >
>
> If your house is invaded and your family and belongings are threatened,
would you not
> defend them? War is like that but on a large scale...
You haven't understood a word of what I said, have you? Instead you trot
out this banality, think Ray, think! Who are these people invading your
house, why do they think it's a good thing, who put them up to it?
> >Believe nothing. Question everything.
>
> You've got to have faith too...
You do, I don't.
G
Gerry Doyle
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:50:14 GMT, mango...@my-dejanews.com (Aleister
Crowley's Cat)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:04:58 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
> ><alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> scribed:
> >
> >>
> >>Aleister Crowley's Cat <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> >>news:39d2769f...@news.freeserve.net...
> >>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:25:46 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
> >>> <alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> scribed:
> >>>
> >>> >You really need someone to take you by the scruff of the neck to
actually
> >>> >read that Bible that you spent so much time over, instead of just cut
and
> >>> >pasting it. What would Jesus have said about this?
> >>> >
> >>> >G
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that he's been reading too much of the Bible...the same
> >>> Bible in which Yahweh sent a bear to kill three dozen children for
> >>> mocking Elijah's baldness...
> >>
> >>Or the god that sent the men of Israel to slaughter the men of Shiloh
and
> >>rape all their women? There's a million of 'em...
> >>
> >>G
> >>
> >
> >
>
What do you mean, do you think that we are making any of this up?
G
Sue Quick
> Hold on a moment - when I was living in NI I voted UUP. Now, can you
> connect even remotely any senior member of the UUP to any terrorist
> organisation?
>
Ah now. The current round in NI didn't start with the IRA. It started
with the preceding 50 years of divide-and-rule by the - wait for it-
Ulster Unionists. Gerrymandering, job discrimination and the B specials.
So the UUP are as much to blame as anyone.
Paul Burke
david
> can you connect even remotely any senior member of the UUP to any
> terrorist
> >> organisation?
>
> David Trimble, King Rat, Drumcree, dancing a jig...
>
> Senior enough for you?
So you don't believe him that he was trying to stop Wright from driving an
armoured digger through the police lines? I thought you'd just do the old
UWC/ Vanguard bit..
David
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
>Aleister Crowley's Cat wrote:
>
>> Hold on a moment - when I was living in NI I voted UUP. Now, can you
>> connect even remotely any senior member of the UUP to any terrorist
>> organisation?
>>
>
>
>Ah now. The current round in NI didn't start with the IRA. It started
>with the preceding 50 years of divide-and-rule by the - wait for it-
>Ulster Unionists. Gerrymandering, job discrimination and the B specials.
>So the UUP are as much to blame as anyone.
>
>Paul Burke
Goes back further than that...
Thousands of years....
Regards,
Dave
Gerry Doyle
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:59:48 +0100, Sue Quick <s...@scazon.com>
> scribed:
>
> >Aleister Crowley's Cat wrote:
> >
> >> Hold on a moment - when I was living in NI I voted UUP. Now, can you
> >> connect even remotely any senior member of the UUP to any terrorist
> >> organisation?
> >>
> >
> >
> >Ah now. The current round in NI didn't start with the IRA. It started
> >with the preceding 50 years of divide-and-rule by the - wait for it-
> >Ulster Unionists. Gerrymandering, job discrimination and the B specials.
> >So the UUP are as much to blame as anyone.
> >
> >Paul Burke
>
> Goes back further than that...
>
> Thousands of years....
Hardly! OK, so there have been different waves of people turning up and
chopping up the locals, and then getting chopped up themselves by the
following wave, but this particular situation is perhaps the last of those
European folk movements and it's origins only go back to the Plantations. A
mere 400 years or so.
G
Gerry Doyle
> Groups cut to Irish ones... What's su.org.irish?
>
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 01:40:57 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com>
> wrote:
>
> Snip
> >> >> The British trained him, armed him and gave him a uniform, and put
him
> >in
> >> >a warzone.
> >> >
> >> >No, you see the way it works is that you say something, then I refute
it,
> >> >then you refute that, simply repeating what you had already said isn't
> >> >enough.
> >>
> >> This isn't an argument! Yes it is! NO it isn't! - MP.. you reminded
me
> >of that famous
> >> sketch! :-)
> >
> >That will be ten pounds please.
> >
>
No you didn't!
> >> >I notice though that this time you made it slightly more truthful
> >> >by omitting the 'gave him a gun' bit.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No less or more truthful then before, just different words...
> >
> >They didn't give him a gun, just a bread basket.
> >
>
> ON that day, on that occassion... he was a trained soldier..
On that day, Barry was an IRA lookout, he also knew what he was up to and
the consequences, by your logic, then he also would have had no complaint
about his fate.
> >> >He
> >> >> is a soldier and he knows the risks that any soldier faces..
> >> >
> >> >We all know the risks of life, it doesn't therefore give anyone a free
> >hand
> >> >to do as they wish to us, as you are implying. Just because a soldier
> >knows
> >> >the risks doesn't make it OK to kill him. I don't understand why you
> >keep
> >> >harping on with this irrelevant point.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not irrelevant to me...
> >
> >Barry knew the risks too when he acted as lookout, why doesn't that make
it
> >OK too?
> >
>
> He wasn't killed in a crossfire, he was executed by the state, thats a big
difference...
Something you don't seem to have a problem with, as long as it fits your
criteria.
> Snip
> >> >Doesn't that make you the same sort of hypocrite? How can you say the
> >> >English are hypocrites for favouring the death penalty for muder, yet
> >> >condone it yourself?
> >>
> >> Careful now... I support the death penalty when there is overwhelming
> >evidence, in Barry's
> >> case, he was there... he was Irish, that was enough...
> >
> >Barry was a lookout for the IRA gunmen that did the deed, he wasn't
randomly
> >picked up as you seem to be implying.
> >
>
> There is no point in attempting to retry the case... From what I've read,
he was innocent
> and still murdered..
All of them were murdered, Barry and the soldiers.
> >> >Have you never whined about a victim and called for
> >> >the execution of another of a similar age?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If the perp is proven in a fair court of law to be the murderer, and
the
> >crime is so bad
> >> that the perp deserves to lose his too then yes...
> >
> >But you seem willing to make exceptions on the grounds of motives, no
matter
> >what the crime, that doesn't add up.
> >
>
> I'm not a big fan of politically motavated state executions...
While politically motivated assassinations seem to be OK?
However if the perp is a
> convicted child murderer then it's a different story...
Convicted is not the same thing as being guilty.
> >> >The Home Rule Bill was passed into law and placed on the statute book
by
> >an
> >> >act of a majority vote of parliament. It was suspended because of the
> >> >little matter of Britain finding itself in the greatest war ever
known,
> >> >hardly a time for ceding a major part of its territory.
> >>
> >> There was hints though that it might not be reinstated.. or to be more
> >precise, that
> >> unless Irish people joined the British army and fought for England -
for
> >small nations
> >> none the less, like Ireland' wasn't a small nation..
> >
> >What hints, who made them? And if that was the case, then Home Rule
wasn't
> >going to be stopped as so many Irishmen actually did join up, so where
does
> >that leave your argument?
> >
> I read it some years ago in some book... It suggested that Home Rule
would never be
> introduced... That if Ireland was to break free, then it must do so now,
while England was
> trying to fight a war and could least afford to send troops to Ireland...
It's true that the IRB long had the intention of making a move during a war,
but they had far too many oldtimers with a grudge and a fantasy,
constitutional politicians were making more progress in the last few years
than all the rebels of the last few centuries.
> As for those who did join the Englsih I believe they had no business
fighting for a
> foreign power... I would certainly not have joined. It's ironic in that
they were
> "fighting for small nations" trying to achieve for countries in Europe
what was denied
> Ireland itself by England...
Propoganda, they were dragged into the War and in actual fact ended up
fighting the country that they had least quarrel with. They had made all
the treaties with the countries that they seen as threats, France and
Russia, they had been too bloody smart.
> > Ireland had the oppertunity,
> >> probably the best one, to try and free itself, and it took it...
> >
> >1916 was hardly the best opportunity, how could you think that a small
> >ill-organised mess was the best opportunity?
> >
>
> It was not small, it was disorganized... It was meant to have much more
people involved
> and more weapons.. Unfortunately, on the day, they did not come...
Confusion caused the
> Rebellion to have too few men, but they still won a moral victory.
No they didn't, not at all. But the British, on the other hand, made an
incredible blunder in executing them.
> > the Rebellion failed only
> >> in that it didn't make for an immediate release of Ireland...
> >
> >It had no hope of success whatsoever, too few men, useless tactics, and
very
> >little support amongst the people.
> >
>
> The tactics were actually sound, had they enough men to go through with
the plan. The
> tactics were sound also.
No they were hopeless tactics, trying to hold strongpoints against
overwhelming odds, and people like Collins knew it too and from their
meditations on this arose the guerilla warfare of the following conflicts.
The people initially were not supportive, but once they saw the
> reaction by the British of bombarding the city, and murdering the leaders,
shooting
> Connolly in the chair, there was a mood swing... Heck, barely a few
months had passed
> when they were considered heores, and those who were arrested were greeted
by cheering
> crowds...
Again you're wrong, the people of Dublin spat on them as they were led away,
they blamed the rebels for the destruction of their city. The mood swing
came after they were shot. Without the executions, and their long drawn out
manner serving to further outrage the people, 1916 would have been just
another botched Fenian rising, becoming nothing more than another collection
of maudlin ballads.
> > It succeeded in that it
> >> reawakened the Irish Nationalism and while the English tried to make
> >Ireland a hell for
> >> the rebels, in reality more and more the situation became that the
rebels
> >were making
> >> Ireland a hell for England.
> >
> >It succeeded in doing nothing whatsoever. The only thing that succeeded
was
> >the executions of the leaders, that was the thing that lit the spark. If
> >the English had given them a kick in the arse instead and sent them home,
> >things would have been very different.
>
> You might have a point... But we both know the English military have this
arrogance that
> they cannot be defeated and feel a need to "teach paddy a lesson"
mentality.
No, they just aren't very bright, but that's the military for ye.
> >> I believe it is better to die for Ireland as a small nation than to
risk
> >all for England a
> >> nation that had basically enslaved and nearly destroyed Ireland for
> >hundreds of years
> >> previous... I'd definately have joined the Rebels and would never have
> >fought (and never would for that matter) for England...
> >
> >The two things were not mutually exclusive.
> >
>
> Explain?
I'm sure you've come across men in receipt of quite a few pensions for their
various activities, no? Even Old IRA pensioners will quite often also have
British Army pensions too...
> >> >. The Rebellion
> >> >> was justified in every way...
> >> >
> >> >Name one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The existance of the Irish Republic as a free and democratic nation.
> >
> >Ireland was free and democratic in 1916. Every man had a vote, no-one
was
> >enslaved, the land question had been solved, Home Rule was on the statute
> >book. If anything, it took quite a long time before the citizens of the
new
> >Irish State regained the amount of freedom they enjoyed within the UK.
> >
>
> I beg to differ, we were under the Queen, we were subject to the whims of
a foreign
> military and our country was not freely ruled by Irish for Ireland and in
Ireland's best
> interest alone..
I fail to see how things had improved after Independence, still being ruled
by foreigners, and losing many of the rights that we had before that.
> >> >> It needed to happen, and it did...
> >> >
> >> >No, Pearse needed it to happen, after all his years of fantasising he
> >knew
> >> >he had only one last chance to see his obscene visions come true.
> >Remember,
> >> >Pearse WANTED Irish people to die, he lusted for it, he thought that
his
> >> >theories of blood sacrifice were the only way that Ireland could be
> >reborn.
> >> >A passing of an act of parliament just didn't fit the bill...
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't think you understand the driving force in Pearse at all...
Nothing
> >of what yoy wrote can be said of Pearse...
> >
> >Ray, these are the well-known basic tenets of Pearse's thinking, if you
> >think otherwise, I can only conclude that you know very little about the
> >man, and should seek out some books on the subject. Your denials prove
your
> >ignorance, you really should look things up a bit before going any
further.
> >
>
> Pearse was a peace loving man, who loved his country enough to sacrifice
his very life to
> try and free it for his people...
You really don't know Pearse at all then.
Like I said before, I will not hear a bad word said
> about this great man... He is probably one of the greatest men that ever
walked this
> earth.
Yeah right, he wasn't even the greatest of the signatories. Connolly
dwarfed him in every way.
> > It's a war... I feel little for enemy soldiers who
> >> would kill me as quickly as I them in a war...
> >
> >So why feel for Barry, he was there to ensure that men would die and
their
> >killers would escape.
> >
>
> Barry was executed for political reasons... He at best should have
received some time in
> prison for his activities, there is no death penalty for being a
lookout...
There isn't a death penalty for being a soldier either, but Barry's mates
tried, convicted and executed them in the gutter.
> >> >> There is no evidence that Barry killed anyone, he was the only one
> >caught,
> >> >therefore
> >> >> naturally in British Justice eyes, he was guilty... And executed.
He
> >was
> >> >only a boy too... So it cuts both ways...
> >> >
> >> >You admit it then.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Admit what exactly?
> >
> >That it cuts both ways. Poor Barry died crying and blubbering, not the
> >heroes death of legend, I wouldn't hold that against him, poor kid.
> >
>
> His cruel and heartless murder was avenged.
Cruelly and heartlessly no doubt.
> >> >More than you do. You shouldn't be so credulous about these things,
you
> >are
> >> >too ready to believe the myths.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And you seem too ready to accept the British apologist stance - not
that
> >you are one, that
> >> would be Mills, but you seem to accept that the English could do no
wrong
> >at that time...
> >> Or so it seems to me in your replies...
Funny now that I think of it, but Pearse often got flack from old IRB men
for daring to give the British credit where credit was due...
> >How can you say that? I've condemned them both, I have no truck with
> >militarists of any side. The English may have had very little choice but
to
> >execute rebels,
>
> If they are supposedly on the side of right and law, then they must act
accordingly.
> People accused of being a lookout do not get the death penalty unless it's
a politically
> motavated execution... They had no interest in his guilt or innocence
beying he being in
> the wrong place at the right time...
All accomplices in a capital crime are seen to be culpable. What about that
poor little gobshite, the last bloke hung in Britain, he was hung for being
with the bloke that pulled the trigger, while the killer wasn't hung as he
was underage? I'm not condoning Barry's execution, just placing it in the
context of the law.
> > there was a war on, a much bigger one and they thought that
> >they needed to clamp down hard, they executed their own for less.
>
> Clamp down hard... That's been their undoing for many a year... Look at
the Tans and the
> Auxies, both brough in to clam down hard, and they drove men and women
into the Rebel
> forces faster then any recruitment could have done...
Still, they weren't as bad as what the Irish did to each other a short while
later, and if so, they maybe they weren't all that bad at all?
> >When it
> >came to the new Irish government having to deal with their own rebels
they
> >were even worse.
> >
>
> I know, sad that... But that's because we accepted partitioin which we
should not have...
There was no partition under the Home Rule Act, perhpas we lost much more
than we gained.
> >> NI is still not free,
> >
> >Of course it's free, it has it's own problems, but is as free as any
other
> >democracy, are you saying that there are parts of the EU that are not
free?
> >
>
> It will be free only when it is returned to the Republic and Ireland is a
32 county Irish
> Republic..
Nonsense. In what way will it be any freer than it is now?
As for the EU, I hope the whole thing falls flat on it's arse... It's
not a
> good thing for Ireland, nor Europe...
That's the most idiotic statement you've made and that's saying something.
The EU forced Superstate is setting Europe up for
> ww3 because you cannot force different nations and cultures to lay aside
these differences
> in the name of Europe...
That's the whole point of it, nobody is being forced into EU membership, in
fact they are queueing up to get in. The EU is ensuring that all of Europe
is being raised to the highest level that human civilisation has ever
achieved, someday soon war will be unthinkable in Europe. You're listening
to too much of that anti-EU propoganda over there, I've seen so much of it
especially in those rubbishy Christian publications about the dangers of the
EU and bible prophecy bullshit.
> > I don't believe England
> >> would have freed the rest either had they not been forced to by a
military
> >defeat
> >> inflicted upon them by the rebels...
> >
> >England had already agreed to Home Rule, it obviously has escaped you
that
> >the Treaty was signed by the Irish under the threat of further war by the
> >British, which was why the Irish conceded to giving away NI, it wasn't
the
> >British conceding the rest as you seem to think.
> >
>
> I believe the English were bluffing... I further believe that we should
have called that
> bluff... England was in no position to send and maintain thousands of
troops to Ireland
> when they were not doing so well in Europe...
In 1923? They had a huge amount of surplus battle-hardened men, there had
been 500,000 men in the RAF alone with nothing to do now that the War was
over.
The Rebels were pretty organized by then
> and England would have had a hell of a time even trying to maintain order
in Ireland until
> they pulled out of it all..
>
> >> If your house is invaded and your family and belongings are threatened,
> >would you not
> >> defend them? War is like that but on a large scale...
> >
> >You haven't understood a word of what I said, have you? Instead you trot
> >out this banality, think Ray, think! Who are these people invading your
> >house, why do they think it's a good thing, who put them up to it?
> >
>
> If someone is breaking down my door, threatening my wife and myself, I
don't care who he
> is, I do care about stopping him...
Are you only a small bloke that things keep going over your head?
G
Gerry Doyle
westprog 2000 <west...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rce2e$fio$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Especially that.
G
Gerry Doyle
> >> >That will be ten pounds please.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I just paid you! :-)
> >
> >No you didn't!
>
> Oh yes I did!
Ten pounds please.
[snipped circular arguments getting nowhere]
> England can fight it's own wars, using it's own people, should not ever
have been able to
> use Irishmen in their armies, while British soldiers were oppressing the
Irish people..
> While Irishmen died in Europe, Britain were busy bombarding Dublin,
killing many
> civilians, afraid to fight a fair fight (nothing new there though), and
the Rebels in
> order to save lives and the city surrendered... You suggested before
that a blood
> sacrifice was the aim, but the fact that they surrendered shows that this
is propaganda...
The fact that you think that a blood sacrifice was a suggestion of mine
shows how embarrassingly little you know of this man. Read a feckin book on
him, go on, go out and get one!
> >> The tactics were actually sound, had they enough men to go through with
> >the plan. The
> >> tactics were sound also.
> >
> >No they were hopeless tactics, trying to hold strongpoints against
> >overwhelming odds, and people like Collins knew it too and from their
> >meditations on this arose the guerilla warfare of the following
conflicts.
>
> They were to hold a string of buildings, strategically placed, they were
to capture the
> Castle... Had they done as the plan called for, they may still not have
won, but I believe
> there would have been a truce and deal struck...
Michael Collins obviously regarded your military expertise as utter
bollocks too, considering that once he was in a position of military power
he totally rejected the idea of trying to hold isolated points. It just
wouldn't work against a professional army, by doing so as a guerilla force
your throw away all your advantages.
> > The people initially were not supportive, but once they saw the
> >> reaction by the British of bombarding the city, and murdering the
leaders,
> >shooting
> >> Connolly in the chair, there was a mood swing... Heck, barely a few
> >months had passed
> >> when they were considered heores, and those who were arrested were
greeted
> >by cheering
> >> crowds...
> >
> >Again you're wrong, the people of Dublin spat on them as they were led
away,
>
> Some did...
>
> >they blamed the rebels for the destruction of their city.
>
> This was wrong... The British destroyed the city..
Yes, but the rebels were blamed for bringing it on the city, Dublin was a
unionist city, the capital of unionist Ireland, as much as little places
like Belfast, and the second city of the Empire. Dublin had been the city
of the English for centuries after all...
> >The mood swing
> >came after they were shot. Without the executions, and their long drawn
out
> >manner serving to further outrage the people, 1916 would have been just
> >another botched Fenian rising, becoming nothing more than another
collection
> >of maudlin ballads.
>
> It still achieved it's goal in a sense... You're right, when the rebels
looked at the
> rebellion, they realized that defending positions against an army that
would bomb a whole
> city down was pointless... They did develop the flying column and since
then the British
> have never been able to adapt to that sort of warfare...
Exactly. They've even adopted it themselves, the LRPG and the SAS, or even
in the words of Churchill, who, when faced with an imminent German invasion,
vowed to do to them 'what Collins had done to us'!
> >> >It succeeded in doing nothing whatsoever. The only thing that
succeeded
> >was
> >> >the executions of the leaders, that was the thing that lit the spark.
If
> >> >the English had given them a kick in the arse instead and sent them
home,
> >> >things would have been very different.
> >>
> >> You might have a point... But we both know the English military have
this
> >arrogance that
> >> they cannot be defeated and feel a need to "teach paddy a lesson"
> >mentality.
You will excuse them having this arrogance, after all they have won almost
everything that they have set themselves to, I don't know if anything will
ever quite equal the British Empire.
> >I'm sure you've come across men in receipt of quite a few pensions for
their
> >various activities, no? Even Old IRA pensioners will quite often also
have
> >British Army pensions too...
> >
>
> Indeed... Strange but true...
I seem to recall that someone at Béal na Bláth got four pensions, Irish
Army, IRA, British Army and British Intelligence...
> >I fail to see how things had improved after Independence, still being
ruled
> >by foreigners, and losing many of the rights that we had before that.
> >
> Are you referring to the EU now?
The Vatican, and the hordes of holy joes that took over after the best of us
had all killed themselves in the Civil War. Rights and privileges that
existed in the UK then took decades before they were restored in the new
State.
> >> Pearse was a peace loving man, who loved his country enough to
sacrifice
> >his very life to
> >> try and free it for his people...
> >
> >You really don't know Pearse at all then.
> >
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree on Pearse I'm afraid...
Maybe we wouldn't if you knew all that much about him? Can I recommend 'The
Triumph of Failure' by Ruth Dudley Edwards, and before you say it, she wrote
it before she went off her rocker.
> > Like I said before, I will not hear a bad word said
> >> about this great man... He is probably one of the greatest men that
ever
> >walked this
> >> earth.
> >
> >Yeah right, he wasn't even the greatest of the signatories. Connolly
> >dwarfed him in every way.
> >
>
> How? They are both very different men, but neither dwarfs the other...
Even Pearse would disagree with you there.
> >Funny now that I think of it, but Pearse often got flack from old IRB men
> >for daring to give the British credit where credit was due...
> >
>
> Heck, even I give Britain credit when I feel it's due... Want a fresh
example?
> The plans to reduce troops in NI to 8000, the closing of more bases, the
allowing of
> lawyers to be present during questioning of suspects.. They are even
allowing escaped IRA
> (and other) that were overseas to return home with no fear of being
rearrested and jailed
> to serve the rest of the sentence... These are examples of thing I think
Britain are
> getting right, and fair play to them...
That's hardly credit where it's due when it's only when they do what you
want them to do. How about helping to save the world from Nazism? Not a
bad job there either was it?
> >All accomplices in a capital crime are seen to be culpable. What about
that
> >poor little gobshite, the last bloke hung in Britain, he was hung for
being
> >with the bloke that pulled the trigger, while the killer wasn't hung as
he
> >was underage? I'm not condoning Barry's execution, just placing it in
the
> >context of the law.
>
> The old "let him have it chris" thing.. I remember that... Turns out that
he never said
> those words, and was in custody at the time when the other fella shot the
cop... That is
> an example of injustice not justice...
Appeals didn't do him much good did they?
> >> > there was a war on, a much bigger one and they thought that
> >> >they needed to clamp down hard, they executed their own for less.
> >>
> >> Clamp down hard... That's been their undoing for many a year... Look at
> >the Tans and the
> >> Auxies, both brough in to clam down hard, and they drove men and women
> >into the Rebel
> >> forces faster then any recruitment could have done...
> >
> >Still, they weren't as bad as what the Irish did to each other a short
while
> >later, and if so, they maybe they weren't all that bad at all?
> >
>
> Civil wars are often much more vicious then any war between 2 nations...
ah so you admit that the Brits weren't the worse this century?
> >> >When it
> >> >came to the new Irish government having to deal with their own rebels
> >they
> >> >were even worse.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I know, sad that... But that's because we accepted partitioin which we
> >should not have...
> >
> >There was no partition under the Home Rule Act, perhpas we lost much more
> >than we gained.
> >
>
> Perhaps, and perhaps they'd never have gotten the Home Rule Act passed at
all and we'd
> still be British Subjects today...
No way.
> >> >> NI is still not free,
> >> It will be free only when it is returned to the Republic and Ireland is
a
> >32 county Irish Republic..
> >
> >Nonsense. In what way will it be any freer than it is now?
> >
>
> It will be Irish owned as it should be, run by Irish men in Ireland's best
interest not
> Britains...
It is owned and run by Irish men, unless of course you consider them
British?
> > As for the EU, I hope the whole thing falls flat on it's arse... It's
> >not a good thing for Ireland, nor Europe...
> >
> >That's the most idiotic statement you've made and that's saying
something.
> >
>
> Keep reading... ;-)
>
> > The EU forced Superstate is setting Europe up for
> >> ww3 because you cannot force different nations and cultures to lay
aside
> >these differences
> >> in the name of Europe...
> >
> >That's the whole point of it, nobody is being forced into EU membership,
in
> >fact they are queueing up to get in. The EU is ensuring that all of
Europe
> >is being raised to the highest level that human civilisation has ever
> >achieved, someday soon war will be unthinkable in Europe.
>
> Like Bosnia and Croatia?
Indeed, look what happens to states still outside of the EU.
We've seen the fall of the Russian Empire, and the ruin that
> such an alliance brought...
So you refute my argument for a union of states by showing what happens when
a federation breaks up?
We do not need a Euro Army, nor a single currency, we must
> be part of Europe for trade, but not ruled by Europe...
We are in Europe, it's not something external, we are part of it and have as
much say as anyone else, we all rule Europe. Who'd have thought that
Ireland would one day have a say in the doings of the people of Athens, Rome
or Madrid? It's worked well for Ireland.
> >You're listening
> >to too much of that anti-EU propoganda over there, I've seen so much of
it
> >especially in those rubbishy Christian publications about the dangers of
the
> >EU and bible prophecy bullshit.
> >
>
> I was anti-European before I ever came here... I've seen none of the
"prophecy bullshit"
> you're referring to, what is the prediction?
It's all fizzled out now that the 'nine-headed dragon of the north' as
mentioned in revelations has expanded and they had to go and look for some
other signs for the end of the world.
> >> I believe the English were bluffing... I further believe that we should
> >have called that
> >> bluff... England was in no position to send and maintain thousands of
> >troops to Ireland
> >> when they were not doing so well in Europe...
> >
> >In 1923? They had a huge amount of surplus battle-hardened men, there
had
> >been 500,000 men in the RAF alone with nothing to do now that the War was
> >over.
> >
>
> We're taking in cross purposes, you're taking about the Treaty, I was
still talking about
> the Rising...
No we weren't Ray, try and keep up we had gone on to partition and the
treaty already, tch!
But as for their battle hardened men, they were like the Auxies and Tans
> that came before, and were bastards, burning and raping and looting and
shooting anyone
> that they took a dislike to... Of course if the Rebels appeared the
tans/auxies ran like
> the bullies they were, not actually wanting a fair fight...
Er, Ray, that was the tactics of both sides, remember? Flying Columns?
They came to be confined to
> barracks, or having to move in huge numbers to try and avoid ambush and
snipers...
> The IRA of that time were more then a match for anything England could
throw at Ireland...
> If you've never read it, I highly recommend Guerilla days in Ireland by
Tom Barry... It's
> a fantastic read and give you a very different perspective on the workings
of the Flying
> Columns and the Tans etc...
Someday I'll get around to it, but I believe it has been largely
discredited.
> >> If someone is breaking down my door, threatening my wife and myself, I
> >don't care who he
> >> is, I do care about stopping him...
> >
> >Are you only a small bloke that things keep going over your head?
>
> Naw, I'm an expert at missing the point and having no sense of humor
(missing jokes is
> also a hobby of mine unfortunately)
In that case that's another ten pounds you owe me.
G
Gerry Doyle
Gerard <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
> Gerry Doyle wrote:
>
> >[snipped circular arguments getting nowhere]
>
I'll both snip and leave in whatever I want to. Nobody forces anyone to
read through long posts, nor indeed to actually count the number of lines...
G
Brian Moore
<alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> wrote:
> Redmond and his followers reasoned,
>and were not coerced, that it was preferable to fight to ensure a British
>victory and Home Rule than to do nothing and risk a German victory and all
>that that might entail in view of their behaviour in other countries.
The "behaviour" of the British in the many and various countries of
their Empire including Ireland was, of course, exemplary.
Gerry Doyle
Brian Moore <mo...@mooreorless.com> wrote in message
news:39e88111...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:40:13 GMT, "Gerry Doyle"
> <alac...@NO-FECKIN-SPAM-ireland.com> wrote:
>
> > Redmond and his followers reasoned,
> >and were not coerced, that it was preferable to fight to ensure a British
> >victory and Home Rule than to do nothing and risk a German victory and
all
> >that that might entail in view of their behaviour in other countries.
>
> their Empire including Ireland was, of course, exemplary.
The devil ye know...
G
Gerry Doyle
Gerard <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
> Gerry Doyle wrote:
>
> >Nobody forces anyone to...actually count the number of lines...
>
> Fortunately, Agent counts them for me.
Lovely.
> They Joy of Technology
You Gerard of Tir Chonaill?
G
Gerry Doyle
Gerard <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
> Gerry Doyle wrote:
>
> >> They Joy of Technology
> >
> >You Gerard of Tir Chonaill?
>
Can I call you Mwa for short?
G