Rave from the Grave?

Norman Tebbit asks Her Majesty’s Government whether they regard celebrations of Irish republican violence during Easter 1916 as a glorification of terrorism. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) replies – see what you make of it:

Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which came into force on 13 April 2006, creates an offence of encouragement of terrorism including glorification of the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism. Section 1 contains a number of safeguards relating to this offence. For the offence to be committed, it requires a person who publishes a statement to intend it to be understood as encouraging others to commit terrorist acts or to be reckless as to whether it will be understood in that way; it requires that the statement is likely to be understood by people to whom it is directed as encouragement to them to carry out acts of terrorism; and it requires that what is being glorified is capable of being emulated in current circumstances. Prosecutions are a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities and much depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

  • Rory

    For an apposite comment on Tebbit’s question it’s back to the immortal Mandy Rice-Davies,
    “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

  • I’m sure the enlightened Mr Tebbit will ask whether July 4th is glorification of terrorism soon enough.
    Last night of the Proms with Rule Britannia will have to go to as we wouldn’t want people being encouraged to attack sovereign nations in order to build an empire. Wonder if Bin Laden listens to a re-mix of Rule Arabia

  • seabhac siulach

    Tebbit must have an awful lot of time on his hands to come up with such rubbish…
    Can we expect extradition orders for the whole Irish political elite anytime soon then? Absolute nonsense…and a cheap attempt to cause trouble.
    Ní thagann ciall roimh aois (well, here we have found an exception…)

  • J McConnell

    cladycowboy

    July 4’th is a celebration of a declaration by a group of people who were the (mostly) democratic representatives of the people (such as it was at the time). At some level, depending on the which colony they represented, they represented the community they came from using the legitimate political processes of the time.

    Those behind the Easter Rising were a rabble of thugs, self-appointed political leaders who rejected democracy (how many stood for democratic election in 1910?), who were making a grab for power that they could never achieve through peaceful democratic means. They represented no one but themselves and a small radical minority who rejected democracy because they knew they would never win power in free and fair elections.

    They were classic terrorists, using the classic terrorist technique of trying to provoke an overreaction by the authorities in order to radicalize the general population by creating a cycle of atrocities. Terrorism 101…how to destabilize a liberal democracy.

  • George

    If I had known 1916 got on people like Tebbit’s dander so much I would have been canvassing for its reinstatement years ago.

    I’ll be putting in a flagpole so the Tricolour flies proudly in the garden every Easter Monday. (Note to self: we are not the Cote d’Ivoire)

    I suppose I better save up to buy a Tricolour too.

    Who’d have thought there was still such a vicious virulent undercurrent of superior disdain for the Irish state and its people’s right to freedom running within the British establishment.

  • crossgar blogger

    Tá an ceart agat a sheabhac siulach.

    I can understand that Norman Tebbit is anti-IRA considering his past experiences. But I can’t abide this recent trend of labelling every single act of rebellion since the year dot as “terrorism.” Uniformed men taking part in an organised revolution and opposed to “cowardice and rapine” et al doesn’t equate with the deliberate murder of Islamic “terrorism.”

  • seabhac siulach

    It’s not terrorism if you win! Rule 1 of history

    …as I am sure a study of the British Empire’s ‘adventures’ all over the globe will show…

  • good point seabhac, tebbit always was dubbed “the nasty man” by the British Press, and “spitting image” had him dressed in an SS uniform.
    With these ancient colonial bigots refusing to acknowlede the sovereign rights of other nations, they remind me of this quote by Irishman Sydney Smith in 1807.
    “The moment the very name of Ireland is mentioned, the English seem to bid adieu to common feeling, common prudence and common sense, and to act with the barbarity of tyrants and the fatuity of idiots”.
    200 yrs… no change.

  • briso

    S-L
    “The moment the very name of Ireland is mentioned, the English seem to bid adieu to common feeling, common prudence and common sense, and to act with the barbarity of tyrants and the fatuity of idiots”.
    200 yrs… no change.

    So true. My wife is English and she only has to look at me lying on the sofa with a beer and all the behaviour you have described comes rushing out of her. Tyrant! 😉

  • nutjack

    that’s an ‘ancient colonial bigot’ whose wife was paralysed by Patrick Kelly in 1984 through an indiscriminate IRA bomb – brought about because Thatcher gave the Hunger Strikers the martydom they sought in 1981

    the man has a pathological hatred of the IRA which should be acknowledged with a little more gravitas than ‘well spitting image dressed him up as an SS officer so he must be bad’

    Irish Republicanism caused Tebbit’s hate, and he hates with good reason

    i don’t agree with is comments, the Rising was not terrorism. but blaming the British Empire? bizarre!

  • The British sent their ambassador and military attache along to the 1916 march. Why, spying apart, have the Brits a military attache in Dublin. Would Brig Gordon be interested in swapping Beijing for a further bit of Paddy bashing?

    Also, George Washington was a slave owner. And more colonists fought with the forces of law and order(the Red Coats of mad George 111) than with Gorgous George. The terrorists won because the French and their Indian allies helped them subvert the democratic process. The result of this was France was bankrupted and Republican terrorists seized power in 1789 from the legally elected regent and these Republicans later went on to arm Irish terorist aboriginals against their white Protestant masters.

  • Betty Boo

    Coming from people who still send their men into other people’s country by the might of their arms, forcing them to submit to their rules, their culture by all means and reacting with utter surprise when faced with signs of resistance.
    Look who is talking.
    And now they want to punish the mere mention of resistance.

  • PHIL

    Tebbit is an old has been that stands for everything that I hate about the Conservative and unionist party and their union jack waving, empire loving army of blue rinsers that vote for them. They could be the government of England if they woke up to the fact that the empire and union are dead, but the spineless fools can’t see that Labour and the Celtic fringe are shafting England at every opportunity. People like Tebbit should be more concerned about that than some foreign celebration of something that happened long before he and most others were born.

  • fartrick YOU need a RED CARD !!!

    nutjack, I honestly believe their hatred is there anyway, its inherent so do no agree with your cause and effect model. Sure the bombings exacerbate it, but they use that to justify their hatred.
    Fancy footwork to mask the underlying bigotry.
    Its the lie they sell, quite well as it happens!

    briso — that’s hilarious 😉

  • Nevin

    Gary, the [url=http://dunlathairfb.tripod.com/]Dunloy Fallen Comrades[/url] Easter ‘[url=http://dunlathairfb.tripod.com/id24.html]rave[/url]’ was a curious affair.

    There was the Proclamation, the Rosary and

    “Afterwards the band was treated to an excellent meal of rice and curry at the Elk nite club, where there was also a great display on the hungerstrikers taking place.”

    What do you think Norman would have made of it?

  • tally

    you all have taken the bait, Tebbit was just pointing out the stupidity of this law. It looks like there is a few people about more stupid than the law.

  • seabhac siulach

    “you all have taken the bait, Tebbit was just pointing out the stupidity of this law. It looks like there is a few people about more stupid than the law.”

    Perhaps…but why did he choose that particular event of 1916 to make his point (out of all the possibilities)…hardly an innocent is our Mr. Tebbit…
    The linkage is clear…he is equating 1916 with terrorism…or is it that I am too stupid to see this…

  • willis

    Taigs & Tally

    Ta very much!

    Really enjoyed your posts. I suspect that Lord Tebbit (What a wonderful juxtaposition of images) was indeed taking the piss.

  • Young Fogey

    within the British establishment.

    Norman Tebbit is not part of the British Establishment, in either it’s old fashioned or NuTrendiPC husky-hugging manifestations.

    Norman Tebbit is part of the lower-middle class, aspirational, estuary-accented suburban class. Calling him part of the British establishment is like calling Jackie Healy-Rae a D4!

  • J McConnell

    I’m sorry for you that the accident of birth meant you grew up in Ireland, i know your keen distaste for the people and ethos. I know that they don’t deserve to run their own affairs, feckless lot that they are.

    I know that the Orange usurption of the British Royal house was true freedom and not terrorism, i know that pretty much every other nations independence struggle was freedom fighting and only the Irish have used terrorism.

    Perhaps these conservative men of violence were the proto neo-cons? Pre-emptive striking without mandates in the hope they were endorsed at the next elections. Bush and Blair were. Howls of terrorism in their slipstream, the world recognising Iraq as a valid democracy.
    The men of 1916 learnt from the best, those they rebelled against.

  • Tochais Siorai

    This is outrageous – I think his invite to the 2016 anniversary commmemoration should be cancelled immediately.

  • nutjack

    funny how Tebbit gets labled a right wing Nazi, when it was the Republican movement that saw fit to sign a book of condolence for Hitler’s death

    as the saying goes, ‘only the shinners get to write history’

  • Mayoman

    Nutjack — DeValera’s embarassing condolence episode doesn’t register on the scale of Britain’s fliratation and support for the growth of the Third Reich prior to the war (and members of the British aristocracy’s support for Nazi Germany during the war). In particular, a cetain ‘Lord Londonderry’ was very pally with the Nazis and eminent Nazi scholar Ian Kershaw is quoted as saying of ‘Lord Londonderry’ “Londonderry’s flirtations with Nazi Germany reflected those of
    his social class, as many conservatives in Britain regretted the rise of democratic institutions nd thus viewed some aspects of Nazism favorably.”

  • Stephen Copeland

    Mayoman,

    And don’t forget Britain’s collusion with the 20th Century’s other Great European Tyrant and Murderer … Comrade Stalin himself.

    But of course he was on the winning side in WW2 so we draw a veil over his attrocities, and the British role in helping him, supplying him, and most shamefully of all, sending hundreds of thousands of people back to the USSR to face certain death.

    British fingers mmay not have pulled the triggers, but their signatures were on the shipping documents.

  • George

    Young Fogey,
    For me, Lord Tebbit is a member of the British establishment. So is Lady Thatcher, even if she is a grocer’s daughter.

    Jacky has a long way to go before he is invited to the Aras for anything. When he is, I’ll consider him part of the Irish establishment.

  • mnob

    Hello to everyone who thinks that Ireland is the centre of the universe.

    Is it not possible that Tebbit was attacking the legislation regarding incitement rather than attacking the Irish ?

  • Mayoman

    mnob–if you can’t see why calling 1916 remembrances ‘glorification of terrorism’ is an attack on the Irish then I suggest you get a better grip on your own history. There are plenty of other ways he could have made the point.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Taigs: “George Washington was a slave owner. And more colonists fought with the forces of law and order(the Red Coats of mad George 111) than with Gorgous George.”

    The first is irrelevant, slavery being part of the legal construct of the United Kingdom at the time. The second is inaccurate – most put matters in rough thirds — one third pro-independence, one third loyalist and one third “could you all just leave us alone and let us live in peace.”

    Taigs: “The terrorists won because the French and their Indian allies helped them subvert the democratic process. The result of this was France was bankrupted and Republican terrorists seized power in 1789 from the legally elected regent and these Republicans later went on to arm Irish terorist aboriginals against their white Protestant masters. ”

    Actually, the English had the lion’s share of Indian allies, not the colonials, having administration of the “far west” (meaning Ohio), offering to halt western expansion in exchange for aid against the colonials, leading to such instances as the “Cherry Hill massacre,” in which several hundred settlers were killed by the Indians allied with the British.

    Ironically, had the “democratic process” of the United Kingdom been extended to the colonies, in the form of representation in Parliment, the whole unpleasentness could have been avoided, Lexington to Yorktown.

  • Fraggle (health care professional with occasional

    semiliterate: having limited knowledge or understanding : not well-versed

    Fartrick, I think this describes you quite well.

  • Young Fogey

    George

    For me, Lord Tebbit is a member of the British establishment. So is Lady Thatcher, even if she is a grocer’s daughter.

    Then you’re intent on seeing the world through glasses of your own preferred tint. Tebbit is not a member of the British Establishment. Come on, he doesn’t even speak properly! Thatcher is different – she went to Oxford, speaks proper and married Dennis.

    Look, I live among these people and Tebbit is not One Of Them.

    mnob

    Is it not possible that Tebbit was attacking the legislation regarding incitement rather than attacking the Irish ?

    No, just leave us wallowing in our own myopia, mnob!

    Of course his main point was the incitement laws. Doesn’t mean he isn’t a champion Paddybasher though.

    Mayoman

    Britain’s fliratation and support for the growth of the Third Reich prior to the war (and members of the British aristocracy’s support for Nazi Germany during the war).

    Dearie me, where to start?

    ‘Britain’s flirtation and support for the growth of the Third Reich’ – um, can you give any evidence of this? I doubt it, because there isn’t any. Certain members of the establishment – Londonderry, Edward VIII, the Mitfords – had a certain fascination with and even admiration for Hitler. But ‘Britain’ as an actor certainly did not support the growth of Nazi Germany or fascism.

    The usually made, and in my view correct, criticism is that it didn’t too enough or early enough to contain Hitler – over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, poor enforcement of the blockade of Spain during the Civil War, etc. But to be fair, the driving force behind most of the attempts to reach some sort of modus vivendi between Britain, France and Germany in the 1930s was the desire on the British and French sides to avoid a rerun of World War I.

    The rising generation of politicians, journalists and senior soldiers in Britain (and in France) had fought in the trenches as junior officers in World War One, while the hundreds of thousands of walking wounded were a visible reminder of the horrors of war to everyone. You can’t exactly blame people for not wanting a rerun of Paschendaele, even if they were naive about Hitler.

    As for “members of the British aristocracy’s support for Nazi Germany during the war”, this is, to use a technical term, shite. There were no legal channels of communication between Britain and Germany during the war (although a certain amount of backchat via Dublin, Lisbon and Ankara). The prominent appeasers basically disappeared from public life in disgrace after 1939 and I’ve never seen a remotely serious suggestion that any of them, Londonderry included, were supporting Nazi Germany during the war. Had they, they’d have probably been hanged, if they hadn’t been interned under Defence Regulation 18B long before. Oswald Moseley’s establishment connections did not keep him from being interned in Wandsworth Prison.

    As for backing Stalin, had they not your grandparents and mine would have had the choice of collaborating with the Nazis or being locked up in a concentration camp. Hitler was a direct threat to the liberty of the Irish nation and people and de Valera’s response to it was cowardly and shameful. Thankfully many Irishmen saw things differently.

  • Stephen Copeland

    Young Fogey,

    As for backing Stalin, had they not your grandparents and mine would have had the choice of collaborating with the Nazis or being locked up in a concentration camp.

    ‘Backing’ is one thing (a bad one, since he and his regime were appalling, murderous and dangerous), but actually signing up to the whole-scale human rights abuse of repatriating people to the USSR knowing that they would be killed? Do you condone this? It was certainly not necessary to get Stalin’s war support – he was already in it up to his eyeballs. It was done purely because the British (and US, France aand others) did not really give a damn about human rights.

    Hitler was a direct threat to the liberty of the Irish nation and people

    No he wasn’t. Churchill was, though.

    … and de Valera’s response to it was cowardly and shameful.

    No it wasn’t. It was brave and diplomatically correct. At a time when the Allies were on the verge of winning the greatest war ever, and had enough power to squash Ireland, Devalera stood up for the independence and neutrality of the country, and did not allow himself, as Head of State, to be dragged down to the gutter. His response to Churchill, broadcast in 1945, is a powerful statement of small-country bravery in the face of large-country bullying.

  • Mayoman

    Evidence, as I mentioned YF, comes from Nazi historian Ian Kershaw. http://www.michiganwarstudiesreview.com/2006/downloads/20060402.pdf
    Gonna look up more on this stuff, just to see what else was airbrushed out of British history.

    Furthermore, I find it laughable that you point to Hitler being a threat to Irish freedom at a time when Britain still claimed dominion. Only an arrogant British person could make such a comment. And as for DeVelera bing cowardly, he was hardly going to jump into bed with the fascists he only so recently got rid of.

  • Garibaldy

    YF,

    Does being a senior member of the Conservative party, and a senior government minister, then a member of the Lords not qualify you as a member of the British Establishment? Surely there’s a very good case to me made that it does, regardless of accent, education, or marriage.

    On Britain and the Nazis before 1939, there’s an arguable case to be made that the reason Hitler met the lacklustre response he did had a great deal to do with fear of Communism as well as memories of WWI. Germany acted as a counter-balance to the rapidly growing strength of the USSR, which had been transformed by Uncle Joe, the five-year plans, and the dedication of the peoples of the Soviet Union. This would explain why France and Britain – which after all had had their troops aiding the Whites in the USSR not that long before – absolutely refused to help the democratically-elected republican government in Spain.

    On the issue of the Free State and WWII, it seems to me that very few people raise the consequences of what would have happened had FF tried to take it into the war on Britain’s side. I would say inevitably civil war. After all your statement that “Hitler was a direct threat to the liberty of the Irish nation” might have met with the response that there was a nearer power that had denied the entire nation its liberty, and continued to do so. Hitler did have plans for an invasion of Ireland, but then so did Churchill. None of which, of course, excuses Dev going to the German embassy, but does perhaps make the actions of the Free State government more explicable.

  • rafa benitez

    funny how Tebbit gets labled a right wing Nazi, when it was the Republican movement that saw fit to sign a book of condolence for Hitler’s death

    No, no. Dev signed it. He signed it against the wishes of his own party and government because Dev, being Dev does things his way alone.
    But don’t let historical accuracies get in the way of a good rant. Continue…

  • nutjack


    and what about that Liam Devlin geezer from The Eagle Has Landed? up to his neck in Jack Higgins plots about trying to kidnap Churchill he was

    he even admitted he was a Republican in the film while talking to a monacled Nazi!?

    and that Michael Caine eh? once a member of the British establishment who fought the Zulu, he switches sides and wears an Iron Cross, then shares an (Irish) whisky with Devlin and salutes the Republican cause

    oh where will it all end?

  • nutjack

    will that do?

  • rafa benitez

    Forget Micheal Caine. The only thing I’ve learned from films is ‘Never thrust a Sean Bean character’. Think about it;-)

  • rafa benitez

    Sorry, Friday afternoon and all, that should be ‘trust’.

  • nutjack

    while i would never willingly ‘thrust’ a Sean Bean character, a bit of Sharpe never hurt anyone (unless you were French or his Irish 2nd in command)

    [geek]
    and Boromir was a good guy corrupted by the power of The One Ring[/geek]

    Lady Chatterley’s Lover had a bit of thrusting in though

    i would agree with you on When Saturday Comes – he played a bloody Sheffield U****d player – totally untrustworthy in anyone’s opinion

    Up The Owls!

    where were we…..?

  • rafa benitez

    Ronin
    National Treasure
    Goldeneye
    Lord of the Rings.
    Patriot Games
    Troy
    Equilibrium
    The Field

    When are people going to learn? Don’t trust him!!

  • nutjack

    but Lord Wellington did at the Battle of Waterloo, he chose Sean Bean to lead the Essex Rifles in the defence of Le Hain Sante farm

    and he got the girl…

  • Young Fogey

    Do you condone this?

    Stephen, stop changing the subject. Of course I don’t condone the repatriation of cossacks and chetniks to Eastern Bloc countries after the end of the Second World War. It was utterly shameful. But yes, it was after the end of the Second World War. So, it’s completely irrelevant to whether the Western Allies needed to have an alliance of convenience with Stalin in 1941-5.

    No he wasn’t. Churchill was, though.

    In what way did Churchill do anything (as opposed to blustering pointlessly) to threaten Irish freedom? As you point out, the Allies had enough power to squash Ireland and didn’t, despite de Valera not giving them remotely what they wanted. What do you think the Nazis would have done in Ireland had Britain fallen?

    Mayoman

    Evidence, as I mentioned YF, comes from Nazi historian Ian Kershaw.

    The article you reference does nothing of the sort. It says Londonderry was a third rate Air Minister (you never asked before, but I agree) and he played footsie with the Nazis during the ’30s (absolutely correct, nothing I said contradicted that). What you said was that members of the British Aristocracy were collaborating with Hitler during the War. This is nonsense.

    Only an arrogant British person could make such a comment.

    Oh yes, I disagree with you so I can’t possibly be Irish and must be British. Wrong. Only the arrogant deep green tendency in Irish society would claim that any particular interpretation of history couldn’t be held by an Irishman.

    Garibaldy

    Does being a senior member of the Conservative party, and a senior government minister, then a member of the Lords not qualify you as a member of the British Establishment?

    There’s certainly a case to be made but not an irrefutable one. Lots of members of the House of Lords are not members of the Establishment (Eileen Paisley), lots of senior government Ministers aren’t (John Prescott) and most members of the Tory Party aren’t. The NCO/small businessman element of English society, which in many ways Tebbit is the apotheosis of, certainly is not part of the Establishment, and Tebbit himself was always too anti-intellectual, anti-high culture and awkwardly middle-class to fit in.

    On Britain and the Nazis before 1939, there’s an arguable case to be made that the reason Hitler met the lacklustre response he did had a great deal to do with fear of Communism

    It was certainly part of the mix but pacifism was almost universal in Britain in the early 1930s (e.g. the East Fulham by-election in, I think, 1933) including among the working-classes and among the bourgeois left, and certainly among those who sympathised with the USSR. Only the Spanish Civil War really started to shake that up.

    On which, your own comments about the USSR in the 1930s rather give your political perspective on that away! You can blame the Brits and the French all you want, but it was Uncle Joe and his local allies’ attempts to seize absolute power, as so brilliantly portrayed in Orwell’s homage to Catalonia, that basically caused the Republican cause to implode. But maybe that’s another argument for another day.

    None of which, of course, excuses Dev going to the German embassy, but does perhaps make the actions of the Free State government more explicable.

    It’s entirely explicable. Just wrong. And, remember when Dev went to the German Embassy, Germany was on the verge of unconditional surrender anyway.

  • Garibaldy

    YF,

    It is a bit late on Friday afternoon for a full on Spanish civil war debate. So instead, I’ll wheel out a favourite quote. Homage to Catalonia was the inspiration for Ken Loach’s Land and Freedom, both being about the POUM. As was said of Loach’s film, Like telling the story of NI from the point of view of the IPLO

  • Young Fogey

    Like telling the story of NI from the point of view of the IPLO

    Funny, but not entirely accurate.

  • Mayoman

    The pdf I linked clearly showed the tendency for the British establishment to a) be anti-democratic and b) on the back of its anti-democratic nature to find Nazism appealing. It also hints at a larger support for the growth of Nazism from Britain, which is why I said I would read more of Kershaw.

    And sorry for wrongly accusing you of being British, although I like the ‘deep green’ tendency bit. Better ‘deep green’ than an apologist for other country’s sins.

  • andy

    G
    Hello Again
    You may have that quote wrong – at least I heard it as being “Northern Ireland as seen by the PLO”

    ie a radical outside group with sympathy for one side but limited knowledge..

  • Garibaldy

    Hey Andy,

    The version I heard was trying to suggest a microgroup of mad people with little or no influence and a tenuous group on reality

  • andy

    Hi Garibaldi
    Actually it appears I am a drooling idiot.
    I thought I saw the quote somewhere on Tangled Web… so I looked it up – saw it did say IPLO, and was from you!

    think I best be off now…..

  • Garibaldy

    Caught on repeating myself

  • Garibaldy

    One of the two biggest lies in the world, the other being…

  • Rory

    I’m getting a bit lost here. Let me get this straight. If Sean Bean gets to play Norman Tebbit in the biopic and Margaret Rutherford (natch) is Baroness Scotland, will Patsy Kensit provide the love interest and what role for Cillian Murphy? Slugger perhaps?

  • J McConnell

    cladycowboy

    Your assumptions, like your grasp of historical facts, are weak at best.

    If I remember correctly you are from the ‘wrong’ side of the border. What I have always wondered is, if the yoke of the saxon invader is so oppressive, and the state declared in the name of pure Republicanism on the ‘right’ side of the border is so wonderful, why dont you move down South. Its been an absolute nirvana since 1923. Or was it 1937? Or 1949? Or 1959? Or was that 1993? Whenever…

    Having direct experience of the joys of applied Irish Republicanism in running a state, and of several other countries who national identity and civil nationalism seems to rise above the historical grudges and perennial buck passing that passes for the state ethos down south, you should not be too surprised that I have a somewhat jaundiced view towards the political folk tales that pass as the national historical narrative in the ROI.

  • Conor Gillespie

    J McConnell,

    “J McConnell,
    “July 4’th is a celebration of a declaration by a group of people who were the (mostly) democratic representatives of the people (such as it was at the time). At some level, depending on the which colony they represented, they represented the community they came from using the legitimate political processes of the time.”

    LOL! Wow. sorry J, but anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history can tell you that only about 40-45% of the colonists actually supported full independence from Britain during the Time of the revolutionary war? The ‘revolutionaries’ were BY NO MEANS the legitimate representatives of the people. But wait a second? As you yourself said of cladcowboy. “Your assumptions, like your grasp of historical facts, are weak at best.” Too bad you yourself don’t seem to know your shit from your oatmeal. (:

  • Conor Gillespie

    JM,
    oh and heres the link to the wiki article on the American Revolution which you should probably read before making any other comments with regards to it (:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolutionary_war

  • Brian Boru

    I am very tired of the eternal bitterness by the Tories and the Unionists about Irish independence. Deal with it. And the Easter Rising was not terrorism. They were freedom fighters. Man has a right to stand up to oppression. If peaceful means fail he or she has every right to revolutionary mean provided they do not target the innocent. And there is no comparison between 1916 and the PIRA. Not least in terms of methods.