David Ford the Justice Minister for Norneverland and also a member of the Alliance Party, says he cannot attend a ceremony that commemorates men who used violence in the 1916 Rising. He has been invited as a guest at the centenary event but has declined. Basically he snubbed the Irish Government and the Irish people as they remember the core event which was the spur and ignition for republic’s origin.The Alliance Party is in a bit of a quandary on this one because there is hardly a nation on the planet which did not come into being except through violence of some sort. If that is their proposed reason for staying away , it is a very odd one .The Irish Republic is recognised worldwide as a legitimate state whose ministers are welcomed everywhere.
If they have, in the past , been proposing a parity of esteem of some sort across the board in Norneverland and throughout Ireland ,their thinking has been exposed as ambivalent and somewhat hypocritical in some ways.By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy . Her Maj obviously doesn’t think so, of course .At the same time Alliance shares governmental offices with both Sinn Fein , the DUP , theTUVand the UUP who have all been associated with violence of some sort ,or proposal of violence, over this past hundred years. They can’t have it both ways. Sinn Fein have finally been accepted as another political party with a perfectly legitimate republican agenda as its raison d’etre. They propose to fight for that all- Ireland by purely political means, just as unionism across the board is perfectly free to argue for the re-unification of Ireland under the UK and to include the rest of Ireland in their calculations if that is what they ultimately wish. I don’t believe that could ever happen but they are perfectly free to do that.
It is obvious that the state of Norneverland was founded in violence itself, against the wishes of the majority of people living on the island of Ireland at the time.That goes without saying. That is a simple fact of historical record. The Alliance Party appears to have joined with the DUP on this one in that their leader Arlene Foster also refusedan invitation . There is obviously some residual fear in them even countenancing the true origin story of Norneverland . The state was brought into being by the threat of armed insurrection . How will its own origin story be celebrated and who will join in those celebrations? The cynical among us would think it’s all about electioneering and losing votes.
The Alliance party sees itself as an alliance between the natives and colonists ergo they are not neutered but neutral. They,being intellectuals, are above tribal squabbles and sneer at those who actually hold a principled view. But one important thing they do hold dear is the status quo. They are not pro separation from Britain. They are unionist. But like all fence sitters they are a ‘ broad church’. In other words they have no principles – only pragmatic politics. Unionists you can relate to – even understand – but eunuchs are valued by nobody.
What a difference a day makes, the Alliance Party used to be designated as neither Irish nationalist or unionist. A party that has no representation at Westminster and commands approximately 6% of votes cast, seems to believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Perhaps it is time to reflect on the recent history of The Irish Labour Party and the Green Party with promises made and promises broken. It was all about electioneering and losing votes.
“The Alliance Party is in a bit of a quandary on this one because there is hardly a nation on the planet which did not come into being except through violence of some sort. If that is their proposed reason for staying away , it is a very odd one .”
But it’s not their reason for staying away. It’s because it’s a celebration of illegitimate violence. They haven’t said they’re opposed to legitimate violence.
“By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy ”
No they’re not.
That answer sounds like another conundrum to me , MT….so you are saying they are not opposed to violence except that specific very particular violence when they have not put their own personal rubber stamp on it ..In other words, a bit of the old ultra- violence is fine, just so long as it suits your particular agenda.Well governments and despots have always used that argument throughout history..as long as they can gather up enough soldiers , willing or not, to help them.
Surely the rising of 1916 was little different from any other revolutionary act against any other state throughout time ..America came into being like that , for example ..India and Pakistan came into being like that..Many in Ireland may have been laxadaisical when it initially happened but they eventually got on board and it was the spark that eventually granted them their present republic.Many young ill-prepared british soldiers were boated in and slain on the streets before britain went into overdrive and bombarded Dublin into submission with heavy armaments.When they also quickly rounded up and executed the handful of perpetrators it was handled poorly as was britain’s usual action in such circumstances .
Many saw this kind of self-sacrifice as a kind of noble, romantic and poetic gesture , especially in Catholic Ireland then which held great store in the Easter sacrifice of Jesus. There was much serendipity in these events for many . ..the timing..the continuity from one generation to the next…the constant struggle to wrest their land from british control.
It’s not what unionists at the time wanted of course .They preferred the status quo and were also prepared to arm themselves and illegally fight the british government to maintain it . Unionism ‘s first choice was still a United Ireland under British rule ,, after all. You don’t smuggle in all those German weapons just for the hell of it. Every rifle and every man trained to use them was ready and willing to use violence against britain’s will to kill and maintain that particular United Ireland. The northern state of six-counties was really a poor and let’s face it, slightly paranoid second choice…even to the extent of lopping off three counties of Ulster to make it politically and religiously manageable for unionism…..
PS … MT I deliberately left that line… “By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy ”…ambivalent.
“PS … MT I deliberately left that line… “By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy ”…ambivalent.”
How is it ambivalent?
It’s ambivalent Mt, because “their own state lacks legitimacy ” can apply both to themselves and to the Republic of Ireland…depending on your point of view..
“It’s ambivalent Mt, because “their own state lacks legitimacy ” can apply both to themselves and to the Republic of Ireland…depending on your point of view..”
Who is “their” and “themselves’?
“….so you are saying they are not opposed to violence except that specific very particular violence when they have not put their own personal rubber stamp on it ..In other words, a bit of the old ultra- violence is fine, just so long as it suits your particular agenda.”
No, I’m saying that, like most rational and reasonable people, they’re opposed to unjust violence, but thst doesn’t mean they think all violence is unjustified.
“Well governments and despots have always used that argument throughout history..as long as they can gather up enough soldiers , willing or not, to help them.”
If they have it’s not relevant as Ford isn’t using thst “argument”.
“Surely the rising of 1916 was little different from any other revolutionary act against any other state throughout time ..America came into being like that , for example ..India and Pakistan came into being like that..”
The US came into being after a just war supported by the representative body of the states. India gained independence after a peaceful campaign by Gandhi. I doubt Ford would support any celebration of the sectarian violence thst marked the transition to independence.
“Many in Ireland may have been laxadaisical when it initially happened but they eventually got on board and it was the spark that eventually granted them their present republic.Many young ill-prepared british soldiers were boated in and slain on the streets before britain went into overdrive and bombarded Dublin into submission with heavy armaments.When they also quickly rounded up and executed the handful of perpetrators it was handled poorly as was britain’s usual action in such circumstances ”
You make Ford’s point for him, for that’s the type of argument (nobody supports us now, but they will eventually) thst could be used to justify dissident violence.
Ford’s rationale is suspect because no matter how he twists and turns, the Rising is …even retrospectively…the touchstone for the formation of the the independant Irish state.It would simply not be remembered in such a national celebratory way otherwise. Think about it .1916 is the very new beginning for what became Irish Independance.
The fact that it was perpetrated in a violent way is only relevent in the sense that a sacrificial act was performed.The people involved knew that such an act would be a necessity. You get similar behaviour when people go on hunger strikes as a final offering.They think that their own bodily sacrifice is all that they have left to offer. It’s really not unlike offering up sacrifices to a god.That was the poetic, romantic , political and religious mindset of the time among the people involved.They saw britain as an oppressive presence. The perpetrators had some right lofty ideals and they knew that there would be deaths across the board …their own included .
Now some of us might be cynical about such behaviour but it obviously caught a national mood at the time and in its aftermath came all the linear acts that produced the Irish state.
I never said any of it was justified other than the Irish nation obviously quietly wanted to rid themselves of a neighbouring state’s governance…ie Britain’s assumption that they had any right to govern the Irish in the first place …some people might think that was a reasonable enough thing to rail against.Many , of course were quite happy to be ruled by Britain, forever. they wanted to maintain a United Ireland under british rule. Obviously a majority eventually decided they wanted an independant Ireland . Now that all said …we are where we are.. and David Ford was cordially invited to join in recognition of what happened 100 years ago and recognise its significance….It was significant even though his inherent unionism might have preferred a differing story. Many unionists would have preferred Ireland to have remained united after all….just united with britain in charge .
“Ford’s rationale is suspect because no matter how he twists and turns, the Rising is …even retrospectively…the touchstone for the formation of the the independant Irish state”
How does that make his rationale suspect?
“It would simply not be remembered in such a national celebratory way otherwise. Think about it .1916 is the very new beginning for what became Irish Independance.”
But Ford and others who oppose unjust violence would say that it shouldn’t be the focus of celebration.
“The fact that it was perpetrated in a violent way is only relevent in the sense that a sacrificial act was performed.The people involved knew that such an act would be a necessity. You get similar behaviour when people go on hunger strikes as a final offering.They think that their own bodily sacrifice is all that they have left to offer. It’s really not unlike offering up sacrifices to a god.That was the poetic, romantic , political and religious mindset of the time among the people involved.They saw britain as an oppressive presence. The perpetrators had some right lofty ideals and they knew that there would be deaths across the board …their own included .”
I’m afraid that doesn’t justify it. It’s one thing sacrificing oneself, quite another sacrificing other people against their will.
Guess we know whose transfers they are chasing in the upcoming election.
justice ministers and legitimate violence go hand in hand it seems.
You have to ask yourself, what future would the alliance party have without partition, likewise with the SDLP?
In a way they are mirror images of one another.
The SDLP being from a nationalist background, they pay lip service to a united country but try to cast their net for votes all over but do very little work on the ground in many of those areas and would be a non entity with independence.
The Alliance are a pro union party who want to distance themselves from the tribal elements of the national question again to cast their net for votes all over but do very little work on the ground in many of those areas and again would be a non entity with independence.
Their future leader would not benefit from a trip to the commemoration and what harm in turning it down would insulting the southern state at the same time do her chances in east Belfast?
Might have a different impact in other areas but the party leader needs to have a good showing and the holier than though attitude might just deliver it.
paddy
“By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy”
You know well enough the state was not declared until 1919 after the 1918 elections.
If David Ford snubbed a celebration of that anniversary, say, or the treaty in 1921 then you might have a point.
There is no iron law that says the rising gave birth to independence (for the 26 anyway).
No one who chooses not to celebrate it should be labelled as Unionist on that account; it simply does not follow.
This all smacks of the same kind of pressure put on politicians and public figures over poppy wearing.
“By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy”
You know well enough the state was not declared until 1919 after the 1918 elections.”
That doesn’t really matter gio.
What happened, happened and cannot be undone.
If the rising did not give birth to the republic and the state did not want to accept that it was born out of rebellion, then why is there such a big thing about it, tv programs, the papers filled with it. Why would the state choose the tri colour as its flag, the flag of the all island Irish nation that was declared in 1916 which they adopted and confirmed the 32 counties now the whole of the island as written in the constitution.
That is not the flag of a 26 county state.
The truth is, the Irish state was born out if violence, violence to remove british rule from Ireland just as so many nations around the world who were once part of an empire.
Lets hope the lesson learned is not to trust unionists or the british from whatever quarter and whatever the size of their u.
Also, it is also nothing like the poppy. No one is expected to wear a badge to show they are pro or anti rising and nor should they.
jessica
Some people simply do not feel the rising is worth celebrating.
Whether you agree or not surely you respect the right of David Ford and others to hold that view. The rising is not sacred scripture,it can be challenged.
And do you accept that holding that view does not in itself make one a Unionist or somehow a bad Irish man/woman?
“Some people simply do not feel the rising is worth celebrating.
Whether you agree or not surely you respect the right of David Ford and others to hold that view.”
gio, some unionists simply detest the southern state, just look how many Irish flags are burned here each year.
The Alliance party for a long time now have claimed they were above such tribalism.
Ireland does not yet have independence and the commemoration of the rising is the closest we have, and it isn’t even an annual event but it is happening.
To snub this invitation on grounds that it is wrong to celebrate violence, is saying the southern state is wrong to be celebrating the centenary of the rising at all and has proven the Alliance party are a unionist party or will put that community first.
They have snubbed an internationally accepted state invitation on tribal political electioneering grounds and are likely to benefit from it in particular in east belfast.
Should we recognise the 12th of July as a public holiday and is it right to celebrate a violent victory of protestants over Catholics at all each year, in a country which is majority catholic?
jessica
Do you think it is possible to be a republican or nationalist and also have reservations about the rising?
You seem to be saying it is indeed sacred and cannot be challenged.
“Do you think it is possible to be a republican or nationalist and also have reservations about the rising?
You seem to be saying it is indeed sacred and cannot be challenged.”
Who said there was anything sacred about it?
It was an event in our history which inspired change, that’s all.
It happened and cannot be undone.
A majority of people on this island hold great respect those who gave their lives for Irish freedom and wish to celebrate the event.
Hundreds of thousands of people are not turning out to show their support for violence, in fact most will be anti violence but pro freedom.
The fact not only you but many in the media are entitled to challenge it shows how successful it has been. Ireland is evolving into a very tolerant place at least the parts where british rule has been removed.
Can you imagine questioning the legitimacy of british rule over its history?
Even over a far away island such as the falklands, you would be slapped down for speaking out against the british state. Anyone who contradicts the british military is in for it, just ask Jeremy Corbyn.
I want nothing to do with such a state. These things are not in the irish mindset. Ireland cannot be ruled by britain period.
Attempts to try and label anyone who wants to celebrate the rising this weekend as therefore supporting violence is following the lead of ignorance and bigotry and will simply be ignored. You will change nothing other than lose the respect from those people you insult.
“Do you think it is possible to be a republican or nationalist and also have reservations about the rising?”
I know you keep saying you are a republican gio, and I am not disputing that you are – more because I don’t really care whether you are or not than anything else.
But all the same, you do come across to me more as a unionist pretending to be a nationalist with the aim of persuading other nationalists to hold views that you would like them to hold.
None of the injustices attributed to the british state get more than lip service from you, yet anything in the media attacking Sinn Fein you jump all over it.
Future generations will not be sectarian and will not be pro division so unionism is on a downward spiral to extinction and nationalism will likewise be irrelevant at some point in the future. We will just be people living together on this island and for better or worse managing our own affairs and doing the best we can with what we have.
jessica
Given that you accept people are entitled to have a different view of the rising and still be republican, then I don’t see why David Ford should not be entitled to make that personal decision,particularly as he is so widely viewed as a unionist anyway.
As far as I know he is not making any condemnation of others for disagreeing with him, and he is certainly not denying the legitimacy of the state despite paddy’s claim.
“Given that you accept people are entitled to have a different view of the rising and still be republican, then I don’t see why David Ford should not be entitled to make that personal decision,particularly as he is so widely viewed as a unionist anyway.
As far as I know he is not making any condemnation of others for disagreeing with him, and he is certainly not denying the legitimacy of the state despite paddy’s claim.”
He is indeed, and both the Irish people all over this island and the southern state are also entitled to feel snubbed and offended by his stance or at least the reason he gave.
I never said anything about still being republican. Personally I am disliking that term more and more. Perhaps this is part of the changes we are undergoing.
I seem to be thinking new things though I don’t know why.
I don’t want to be labelled a nationalist or republican any more, I am simply Irish. That is all I want to be called.
I want a future where there are no nationalists, republicans or unionists, just people, just like the leaders of the rebellion envisaged.
Perhaps there final legacy has not yet been written and their dream can yet be fulfilled.
jessica
So do you think it is possible to be a republican and have reservations about the rising?
Or is there only one acceptable narrative?
“So do you think it is possible to be a republican and have reservations about the rising?
Or is there only one acceptable narrative?”
gio, where are you getting this one narrative from?
Nothing has one point of view. I know the vast, vast majority of people do not see the rising as violence for the sake of it, glorification of violence or support for violence in any way.
If you read the words in the proclamation, what they wanted is not unreasonable and in fact I believe we have a duty to fulfil that proclamation and for the leaders who were executed to be treated much like the founding fathers of the USA.
When Britain eventually leave which will be through peaceful means only, I want to see Ireland finally have our own independence day as the biggest national holiday just the same as independence day in the US. The connection to the rising is permanent and cannot be undone. If that is your agenda you are on as thankless a task as someone foolish enough to try to persuade unionists that they are Irish.
There are many points of view on many aspects of the proclamation.
Would you like to discuss it in more detail or are you happy to just condemn the rising over one point of view only.
To be honest, that is more of a unionist thing were their point of view supersedes all others, that’s how it is and no point discussing it any further.
They don’t even want to know how many people want unification or even if we would be economically better off which I think more and more people are realising would be the case.
jessica
So do you think it is possible to be a republican and have reservations about the rising?
“So do you think it is possible to be a republican and have reservations about the rising?”
Yes
If you consider Irish republicanism as wanting british out of ireland then yes, there were always different views on how to achieve this, the IRA split over whether or not to take up arms when the british forces started the conflict by murdering innocent catholics in their homes and streets.
That is how the PIRA came about is it not?
I believe the PIRA were right to fight. Yet, I am very much anti violence, I dont think any conflict or war can be called justified or any killing for that matter.
I hate the idea of this just war theory
Do you accept it is possible to support the rising and still be anti-violence?
Well …Belfastdan and Antonio …that was the very point I was trying to get across to MT..
.“By this act they are basically telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that their own state lacks legitimacy”.
…Just whose “state” was I referring to and from whose perspective is either “state” actually legitimate ?….and in whose eyes is that legitimacy bestowed and when is political violence supposedly “just” ?…who makes it so?..It obviously depends on how much you have to gain from the violence and precious little to do with any kind of morality
.I’m watching the latest outrage in Belgium as I type . This is the end result of Blair and Bush’s adventures seeking to control Iraq and the Middle East…we’ll all wring our hands at the deaths but what lit the fuse that started this spate of attacks.?
“…Just whose “state” was I referring to and from whose perspective is either “state” actually legitimate ?”
The citizens’ of Southern Ireland, which is legitimate from the perspectives of democracy, human rights, international law.
“….and in whose eyes is that legitimacy bestowed and when is political violence supposedly “just” ?…”
In the western world we have centuries of moral philosophy and legal history thst tells us when violence is just.
“It obviously depends on how much you have to gain from the violence and precious little to do with any kind of morality”
It doesn’t.
Gio see…above…”It’s ambivalent Mt, because “their own state lacks legitimacy ” …
can apply both to themselves and to the Republic of Ireland…depending on your point of view..
..also ask yourself why 1916 is being recognised at all …why is it being remembered as a special year?
paddy
Yes I understand why it is being remembered and I appreciate that people tend to idealise those who sacrifice their lives (and the lives of others) in such ‘heroic’ fashion, rather than those who take the long and often thankless non violent path.
As you say yourself a poetic romantic mindset.
Not everyone buys it and those who differ should not in my view be vilified, when they are simply suggesting another way might have been as, if not more, effective.
I can’t help feeling that to question the rising has now become heresy to some.
Ford is not refusing to recognise the Irish State and to suggest as much is hyperbole.
“Ford is not refusing to recognise the Irish State and to suggest as much is hyperbole.”
That is absolute rubbish.
No one said he was refusing to recognise the state exists and everyone is entitled to question the rising if they choose.
Most would welcome reasonable debate, but we wont accept ridiculous statements that it is pro violence.
At the very best it was a snub he was prepared to make towards an invitation from that state for electoral reasons.
By suggesting the reason was being opposed to the celebration of violence is insulting and let me tell you, the damage is done.
There will be hundreds of thousands of people travelling there. The majority of this nation which covers the whole of the island will be celebrating.
We are not a pro violence nation.
He will get the electoral gains in east belfast over this, but there will be many who will see it for what it was so in other parts he will certainly lose transfers pushing the alliance party ever closer to its natural position as a pro union party.
jessica
“No one said he was refusing to recognise the state exists”
Paddy is saying that! You said it yourself.
If you are accepting that it is quite possible to be a republican and have reservations about the rising then I see no reason why Ford should be condemned for not wanting to celebrate it.
I don’t entirely understand your point about violence.
You say the PIRA were right to fight, yet you do not believe violence is ever justified. That is contradictory so maybe you can clarify your definitions of ‘justified’ and ‘right’.
“I don’t entirely understand your point about violence.
You say the PIRA were right to fight, yet you do not believe violence is ever justified. That is contradictory so maybe you can clarify your definitions of ‘justified’ and ‘right'”
Let me try and be clear.
I think violence is wrong absolutely.
I also think it is wrong to try to justify conflicts because of the cost in human tragedy and because it dehumanises participants usually on the losing side and makes killing seem acceptable.
Now, on the other side of the coin, if conflict is here, there are those who would rather die than get involved. I respect someone’s choice in that regard, but I would consider them a coward for doing so, just as Ghandi did.
There are situations where we have to make terrible choices and if conflict was brought to me and I was involved, I would do my damndest to kill as many enemy as possible, to cause as much bloody chaos and mayhem as possible and to destroy as much of my enemy as I could even if it cost me my life.
That is what conflict is. To try to sweeten it up as justified and non justified, good guys and bad guys is total crap and ignores the reality.
There are too many arm chair generals with such crap opinions. If you think violence is justified, I think you should do a spell in the army and go see conflict for yourself first hand, then when you come back tell me if you feel you were justified in the killing you undertook.
You sicken me with your justified violence and promoting what side was right and who was wrong.
“Paddy is saying that! You said it yourself.
If you are accepting that it is quite possible to be a republican and have reservations about the rising then I see no reason why Ford should be condemned for not wanting to celebrate it.”
Rubbish, he was asked to attend the commemoration of an important event to the Irish people. His excuse was insulting and a pathetic cover for purely electoral gain in east Belfast.
I will be there and I am not going to celebrate violence but because I am proud of the people who make up the Irish nation and want to be there on an important occasion to celebrate with them.
I am disgusted with him for even suggesting that it is about celebrating violence.
At least everyone has seem the Alliance party’s true colours now.
jessica
That is no clearer.
(I’m pretty sure Gandhi did not view those who would rather die than choose violence as cowards but never mind that)
You believe the PIRA was right to fight and in a conflict you would do your best to wreak bloody mayhem.
Yet I sicken you for trying to justify violence as a last resort?
I give up.
“You believe the PIRA was right to fight and in a conflict you would do your best to wreak bloody mayhem.
Yet I sicken you for trying to justify violence as a last resort? I give up.”
There is no such thing as a friendly conflict gio.
It is a line that is crossed when everything goes out the window.
The days when wars can be decided by parliament and kids sent to their deaths marching toward enemy gunfire are over.
Today it is bombing from planes and drones on the state side and suicide bombers on the other.
I don’t see any difference and I will not condemn one over the other.
You seem to support the idea that states can use terror when it suits them, to overthrow someone in a far away country they don’t like for example. But then condemn the desperate actions of individuals who have been pushed over a line and are going to hit back whatever way they can.
You want your cake and eat it.
It is up to you if you want to justify violence, I am making the point that there will often be consequences even to justified violence.
It is a vicious circle.
“(I’m pretty sure Gandhi did not view those who would rather die than choose violence as cowards but never mind that)”
Let me try again:
Violence can never be justified, not ever, but there is a point when a nation or a community when faced with senseless aggression and violence, has to make a choice.
The choice to fight back or to allow your peoples suffering to go on while you do nothing.
The reason the choice is so stark, is because it does not justify the violence you are about to engage in, but you have been pushed to the point where your human nature has triggered a response and you have accepted to become a part of that conflict and conflict involves unjustifiable acts of violence.
But the most pointless thing about conflict, is that every single unjustifiable act of violence that is perpetrated, has the potential to trigger another response somewhere else and bring someone else into the conflict who has a different reason, a different outlook and will in turn continue the spiral of violence which can go on for generations and cause senseless tragedy.
Just war theory is a means of persuading the common people that their nation is fighting for a just cause, when it is secretly building up tensions somewhere to cause conflict to get cheap oil, sell weapons, change other nations government to suit their agenda, to start wars where new weapons can be tested and then sold on to new customers, country’s can be destroyed so they can then be forced to borrow money from the people who destroyed it in the first place giving them interest and at the same time have the money loaned returned by getting contracts to do the rebuilding.
Justified violence is the vocabulary of the worlds greatest terrorists of which the US and UK are leading the way.
Your use of justified violence is purely so you can use it against republicans who had the courage to stand up against British aggression.
Here are some quotes from Mahatma Gandhi you might be interested in reading gio.
He was a good man.
“Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desires revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women.”
“A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.”
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”
“I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.”
“But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier…But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature”
jessica
Gandhi argued that non-violence required more courage than violence.
If those who formed the PIRA had had the courage to pursue non violent methods it would have been better for all of us, I am sure you agree.
I don’t agree that violence is always wrong as you appear to be saying (except republican violence) it is part of nature and part of human nature.
I do think the principle of last resort is valid and maybe even something we could agree about even if we disagree on whether it applied in our conflict.
Here is another interesting quotation from Gandhi:
“it is not the blood that the Irishmen have taken which has given them what appears to be their liberty. But it is the gallons of blood they have willingly given themselves.”
“Gandhi argued that non-violence required more courage than violence.”
I would agree completely.
The hunger strikers are a prefect example of how non-violence in conflict would require more courage and determination than armed actions.
“If those who formed the PIRA had had the courage to pursue non violent methods it would have been better for all of us, I am sure you agree.”
Not in the slightest.
Unionism started the conflict not the PIRA.
The people in the communities that the PIRA came out off, were crying out for protection and the only protection that worked was the PIRA.
Had the PIRA not been there, I am certain that there would have been a radical reduction in the catholic population to maintain the protestant majority.
That was the driving factor behind unionism starting the violence in the first place and the British army watched armed loyalists attack catholic communities proving that they would not have stopped it.
I can see why unionists would have liked the PIRA not to have fought back but they did and as a result, we will soon have a catholic majority.
That would not be the case had they not and we own them a great debt.
That is how their history will be recorded in the longer term gio, when the north is also free of British rule and Ireland finally has its independence.
“I don’t agree that violence is always wrong as you appear to be saying (except republican violence) it is part of nature and part of human nature.”
I have never said republican violence was not wrong. All violence is wrong.
I am saying that conflict is the doing of very wrong things on a massive scale.
When you start thinking some violence is ok, then where do you draw the line?
“I do think the principle of last resort is valid and maybe even something we could agree about even if we disagree on whether it applied in our conflict.”
Possibly.
I believe there is a point where you have to make a choice and I believe that is what Gandhi means in his quotes.
The best response is not to retaliate at all as once you do, you risk the violence escalating into conflict.
Non violent response takes the most courage as it means you could lose your life needlessly as many many more Irish people have at the hands of the British than vice versa.
Lets look at what happened here.
Unionism was attacking civil rights marches for reasons of pure bigotry.
The police force joined in and even killed innocent Catholics in a blood rage such as Samuel Devenny.
The IRA did not respond.
The UVF bombed infrastructure, the British army came over and still the IRA did nothing.
In the August 1969 riots, pressure was being applied on the IRA for doing nothing. At this point, Gandhi’s reasoning about non violence was getting to the point of where you have to decide whether doing nothing is right.
Gandhi considers doing nothing when your people are suffering as a result, is the worst type of cowardice and I agree.
Irish people have proven over many centuries that we are not cowards.
By the end of 1969 a decision was made and PIRA were born to fight back.
This is were the risk of violence becoming conflict comes into play and why I blame the British for all of the conflict.
Had they not allowed it to get to this point then there would not have been a conflict.
When conflict starts it escalates and what happened here was no different.
“Here is another interesting quotation from Gandhi:
“it is not the blood that the Irishmen have taken which has given them what appears to be their liberty. But it is the gallons of blood they have willingly given themselves.”
And what do you think that means gio?
What I think
We were never likely to drive Britain out militarily, but we have proven that Irish men and women will fight and die for Irish freedom for as long as it takes until it is achieved. I would happily give my life now for Ireland to be free from British rule.
It is that strength of conviction that neither the British or unionists can match and it is why I know that we will achieve our liberty.
“The hunger strikers are a prefect example of how non-violence in conflict would require more courage and determination than armed actions.”
The hunger strikers weren’t non-violent. They were men of violence, all convicted of serious violent crimes, and members of terrorist organizations.
“The hunger strikers weren’t non-violent. They were men of violence, all convicted of serious violent crimes, and members of terrorist organizations.”
Convicted by a terrorist state.
And they used non violent methods to break thatcher’s criminalisation tactics.
Jessica
Your post is a mass of contradictions.
Gandhi, in the quote I gave, is clearly saying passive resistance (the blood given) is more effective than violence (the blood taken).
Yet you continue to support the actions of the PIRA when non violence would have been the better way and in keeping with Gandhi’s teaching which you claim to admire.
The PIRA did not have the moral courage to use non violent methods and once again you talk of Irish men and women prepared to die for Ireland but you forget to mention they were prepared to kill for Ireland too. Why do you omit that bit?
“Your post is a mass of contradictions.
Gandhi, in the quote I gave, is clearly saying passive resistance (the blood given) is more effective than violence (the blood taken).”
I don’t agree with you gio, unlike you, I have explained my thinking in my interpretation which ties in with all of his quotes, you are just picking and choosing in isolation to suit your agenda.
How does your interpretation for example sit with his other comments such as.
“I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.”
And what did he mean by violence being a risk?
I would say because retaliation leads to counter retaliation and a circle of violence which leads to conflict which has a mind of its own. That is why it is such an important decision to make.
“Yet you continue to support the actions of the PIRA when non violence would have been the better way and in keeping with Gandhi’s teaching which you claim to admire.”
There were 10 years of non violent methods gio, the civil rights movement started in the early 60s and when they were getting somewhere they were attacked violently by unionism who reignited the conflict and started the use of violence to keep Catholics down.
It was Catholics using non violent methods that led to unionist terrorism in the first place, all before PIRA existed.
Why do you keep omitting these facts?
jessica
How do you interpret the quotation I gave if it does not mean to suggest non violence would have been more effective in the Irish situation.
There can be no doubt that is what he is saying.
Gandhi as we agree I think, did say that violence was permissible as a defensive act when non-violence is not an option.
In other words it is justified as a last resort which is what I have been arguing.
That is part of just war theory
Because Ireland has tried both over the centuries and the only one to work was a mixture of both
And it is quite clear from Gandhi other quotes that he would not have considered taking up arms as wrong
As for your just war theory I would be certain he would not have approved
that is nothing more than an excuse for western terrorism against weaker nations to rape their natural resources
“As for your just war theory I would be certain he would not have approved
that is nothing more than an excuse for western terrorism against weaker nations to rape their natural resources”
Eh? Under just war theory, western terrorism (or terrorism by anyone) would not be justified against weaker (or stronger) nations to rape their natural resources.
“Eh? Under just war theory, western terrorism (or terrorism by anyone) would not be justified against weaker (or stronger) nations to rape their natural resources.”
So you don’t believe the wests military exploits in the middle east since the Kuwait war have been about oil?
That’s right, some where about WMDs
I suppose we are all indulging in “What If” when we argue what may have developed peacefully had the Rising of 1916 not taken place .Would an independant 32 county Ireland , managing its own affairs have developed over the ensuing 100 years? Would peaceful political tinkering have delivered that instead of the situation we have at present, which is actually a still -festering sore for many, especially here in Norneverland where we have the remains of Irish unionism squeezed into six counties for their own sense of security(with a scattering in the south of the island )…and a substantial other proportion of Irishmen who feel/felt abandoned and disparaged by both their Irish unionist neighbours and also their southern Irish kin who left them to get on with it for fifty years?
We can play that game about Norneverland too . How would things have turned out had Paisley not attacked the Civil Rights movement.? What would have happened if he’d shut his huge guldering mouth and allowed a few reforms through the system? That would have been the end of it maybe.There was certainly no IRA activity throughout my teenage years.They just didn’t come into it .
The fact is we had a specific set of circumstances in 1916 which eventually delivered the splintered Ireland we all live in. The 1916 Rising was the spark for all of it when you think about it.That’s why it is recognised and remembered .There’s no point in pretending whether or not it was a good or bad thing now that it’s ancient history being remembered .You might think it was the worst/best thing ever but it was “The Event” which is why I find it difficult to imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to remember it .
Lots of situations are the product of violence and violent acts . Take a look at the history of the kings of England and you’ll read a story of murder and mayhem, thievery and casual brutality right down through the ages. You’ll read a story of fratricide, matricide, patricide , and many other “cides” besides(!). You’ll read a story of thievery and stolen lands. It’s what eventually delivered the current monarchy and parliament for all its horror .
Is violence justified ? it probably isn’t , but the human animal besides being thoughtful, inventive , artistic, creative , moral/immoral and many other things…. is also a killer-ape of world -conquering status. The very best at the toppermost of the tree. As someone has pointed out , when someone breaks into your home with murder or theft on his mind , your first reaction might not be to reason with him but rather to attack him. When that person and his friends decide to steal your home…or your country what would a reasonable man do?
I suppose that David would be equally aghast at receiving an invite to celebrate America’s Independence Day celebrations!
“I suppose that David would be equally aghast at receiving an invite to celebrate America’s Independence Day celebrations”
Why do you suppose that?
Well the Americans did not politely ask the British to leave but did so by force of arms. So given David’s aversion to such actions one would think that he would feel the same about any nation that achieved its independence through violent means.
.
“Well the Americans did not politely ask the British to leave but did so by force of arms. So given David’s aversion to such actions one would think that he would feel the same about any nation that achieved its independence through violent means.”
But Ford’s objection isn’t to the absence of a polite request. It’s to unjustified violence.
“But Ford’s objection isn’t to the absence of a polite request. It’s to unjustified violence.”
I wish you would stop putting out this crap about there being a justifiable violence.
I am sure dissidents feel their violence is justified. This nonsense isn’t really helping.
jessica
Violence as a last resort is justified. If someone breaks into your home and tries to kill your family I expect you would use violence to try and stop them, as would I.
That would be justified would it not?
“Violence as a last resort is justified. If someone breaks into your home and tries to kill your family I expect you would use violence to try and stop them, as would I.
That would be justified would it not?”
No, not at all gio.
I would defend myself and my family to the best of my ability. but I most certainly would not try to use the wrong doing to justify the use of violence.
That is where you and I differ im afraid.
Let me try to explain to you why.
If someone came into my home as you suggest, and I took out a baseball bat and bashed them over the head, then proceeded to beat them into a bloody pulp as they lay on the ground, I would say it is not only not justified but illegal.
It is wrong to justify violence period.
I accept that a line can be crossed and war or conflict begins, and when that happens a line is crossed and combatants have then to take lives and do dastardly deeds that they would not outside of conflict contemplate.
In every conflict there will be people involved for the hell of it, those people would most likely have taken a violent path anyway.
But it is wrong to condemn the IRA for their role in the conflict while treating those who did the same deeds on the British side as justified.
I don’t even want to share this space with those who think like that to the extent I would reject Irish unity if it meant sharing with such people.
Justified and non justified violence is simply a tactic used to vilify republicans and I think all of those engaging in this behaviour should be ignored as trouble makers and those who wish to move on allowed to do so.
You do realise that by your own analogy, you are justifying the IRA violence in the conflict and vilifying the British state forces who killed first in starting the conflict and the unionist population who initiated the violence in the first place.
jessica
Yes if you take your baseball bat and beat an intruder to a pulp that would would not be justified.
However if you knock him unconscious with one blow just before he attacks your child say, that would be justified, would you not agree?
The analogy would only apply to the PIRA actions if they were a last resort. Unfortunately they took their baseball bat (often literally) and kept beating long after any argument for last resort could have been considered.
Trying to justify violence is a very grey and murky area gio. In my experience any justification of violence leads to further violence.
Do you agree with parents beating their children for example. I don’t.
I would do anything to protect my children but I would not use it as an analogy or an excuse to justify violence is ok in certain circumstances.
To each their own but answer me this, why do you even want to justify violence in the first place?
PIRA were not defensive by the way. They made a deliberate choice to go to war against the British for what they were doing in our country.
From that point on, we were in a conflict situation and rules of war apply. That is a different situation and PIRA were not the most despicably behaved combatant in the conflict.
Britain made a propaganda decision to back off and portray itself no longer as a combatant but an arbitrator of two factions in a conflict while at the same time running the conflict through the intelligence agencies via loyalist and republican paramilitaries on a covert basis.
Utterly despicable.
jessica
“I would do anything to protect my children but I would not use it as an analogy or an excuse to justify violence”
In fact it was you not I, who drew the analogy between defending ones family and the PIRA in your comment at 1:28.
I still find what you are saying confusing when you say violence is never justified but the PIRA were right to fight. Can you explain?
If you say you would do anything to protect your children then that would mean violence in their defence would be justifiable would it not?
Broadly speaking violence as a last resort to an immediate threat may (arguably) be considered morally right, by most people and most societies, would you agree?
Finally as should be obvious I do not support anyone beating children though ironically, the PIRA, whom you so admire, were quite the experts in that field.
“In fact it was you not I, who drew the analogy between defending ones family and the PIRA in your comment at 1:28.”
Not to justify violence I didn’t.
I used it to show that even then violence was not justified.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, they just lead to conflict.
“I still find what you are saying confusing when you say violence is never justified but the PIRA were right to fight. Can you explain?”
I can try.
Dissidents are wrong today to use violence for whatever reason they choose to do so.
People joined PIRA to stop what was happening in their society which was beyond their control. This did not happen overnight, the british army were here to stop unionist attacks in March 1969, by August the riots were at their worst, by the time the british army were also killing in 1969 it was inevitable that the IRA would be reborn and they were in 1970.
Based on what I have lived through, read and heard from people I have met with more life experience, I have chosen sides and I 100% agree that republicans were right to take a stand to stop what would have happened otherwise.
I can understand it is easy to get caught up in condemnation and have heard enough false condemnation from unionists to see through it.
Supporting PIRA in conflict does not mean I support every action they undertook, but the reason they got were they were in the first place.
Personally, I would attribute Britain with more of the blame for the death toll than PIRA, no matter who or what did the deed, including suicides and lives ruined for they took the decision to deny independence, to allow a threatening unionist population total control over a region under their responsibility and for supporting unionist bigotry militarily leading to decades of conflict.
I hold little animosity towards the loyalists or republican paramilitaries, they are not armies as such, just civilians who witnessed wrong doing on both sides and rightly or wrongly got caught up the in the cycle of violence which comes with conflict.
“Broadly speaking violence as a last resort to an immediate threat may (arguably) be considered morally right, by most people and most societies, would you agree?”
If you cannot justify every single act of violence, how can you justify any as they are all interconnected?
Had I not experienced it I would probably agree with you. But once you start it is not so easy to stop. Violence has stopped and we take it far too much for granted that it will not start again.
I would not recommend any justification of violence. Accepting a conflict took place and choosing sides is one thing, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking any of it was a good thing. One sided condemnation does exactly that. It suggests there is good violence and bad. I would rather say there is only bad violence.
Does that make sense?
“Finally as should be obvious I do not support anyone beating children though ironically, the PIRA, whom you so admire, were quite the experts in that field.”
As a child in school uniform, a british soldier put his rifle butt in my forehead and I walked home about a mile with blood streaming down my forehead into my eyes before my mother cleaned me up.
I could quite easily say the british army are also experts in that field. Would you not agree?
“If you say you would do anything to protect your children then that would mean violence in their defence would be justifiable would it not?”
What I would do to protect my children is most certainly not justifiable and but I would be happily locked up for life to ensure their safety.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right, they just lead to conflict.”
So why do you support wrongs committed by PIRA?
“People joined PIRA to stop what was happening in their society which was beyond their control. ”
People joined UVF and UDA to stop what was happening in their society which was beyond their control. So by your own logic you should support UVF and UDA.
“Based on what I have lived through, read and heard from people I have met with more life experience, I have chosen sides and I 100% agree that republicans were right to take a stand to stop what would have happened otherwise.”
What did they stop happening?
“Supporting PIRA in conflict does not mean I support every action they undertook, but the reason they got were they were in the first place.”
What actions do you support?
“Personally, I would attribute Britain with more of the blame for the death toll than PIRA, no matter who or what did the deed, including suicides and lives ruined for they took the decision to deny independence, to allow a threatening unionist population total control over a region under their responsibility and for supporting unionist bigotry militarily leading to decades of conflict.”
“The British” rather than the PIRA were to blame for murders and bombings carried out by the PIRA?
“As a child in school uniform, a british soldier put his rifle butt in my forehead and I walked home about a mile with blood streaming down my forehead into my eyes before my mother cleaned me up.”
And because of that you supported PIRA inflicting far far worse suffering on others?
“So why do you support wrongs committed by PIRA? ”
I don’t support the wrongs committed by PIRA, I support them for fighting against the British in the conflict.
I accept that means supporting wrong doings, but how is that any different from the British public supporting the British squaddies going into Iraq and the wrongs they committed in that conflict?
The worst thing you could do is say such actions were not wrong and that is where we differ.
“People joined UVF and UDA to stop what was happening in their society which was beyond their control. So by your own logic you should support UVF and UDA.”
Yes, I can understand completely the reasons loyalists took up arms.
It is no different than the reasons young republicans joined after similar wrongs such as bloody Sunday.
Conflict is a bloody spiral of violence that is easy to start but much more difficult to stop.
I have said many times I hold no animosity towards the working class loyalists who took up arms, in fact I believe we would be better off had they been able to put their own political party together and not handed total control over to mainstream parties who treat them like cannon fodder, there to be used and dumped on when it suits. They have a better understanding of the reality of what actually happened than most.
I wish Sinn Fein could do more to help their community, but we cannot step on toes but I hope one day that will be the case and their help .
It is Britain I hold responsible for what happened here. They could have prevented conflict but chose not to.
“And because of that you supported PIRA inflicting far far worse suffering on others?”
I have explained my reasons for supporting the PIRA but I don’t see the suffering being worse on one side than the other.
The British have always saw Irish suffering as less important than British suffering. It isn’t. It is just the same.
“I don’t support the wrongs committed by PIRA, I support them for fighting against the British in the conflict.”
Murder is wrong, Jessica, and you supported PIRA murder.
“I accept that means supporting wrong doings”
So you don’t support wrongs but you support wrongdoings? OK.
“but how is that any different from the British public supporting the British squaddies going into Iraq and the wrongs they committed in that conflict?”
If members of the British public supported war crimes in Iraq it isn’t much different. But I don’t think many did.
“Yes, I can understand completely the reasons loyalists took up arms.
It is no different than the reasons young republicans joined after similar wrongs such as bloody Sunday.”
So you supported loyalist terrorists too?
“I have explained my reasons for supporting the PIRA but I don’t see the suffering being worse on one side than the other.”
You don’t think mass murder is worse than a flesh wound?
“If members of the British public supported war crimes in Iraq it isn’t much different. But I don’t think many did.”
Every single person who wears a poppy supports the mass murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by the British army.
It isn’t so easy to come out and say it, but it is what it is.
“Every single person who wears a poppy supports the mass murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by the British army.”
You’re just being silly now.
“Every single person who wears a poppy supports the mass murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by the British army.”
You’re just being silly now.”
Really, I would say that is the factual reality which can be proven in casualty statistics.
It is people who become desensitised to such realities much the way we were here.
You say you support the brutish army in Iraq or the Falklands and it is as if they went there to build homes when in reality they went there to kill.
I say I support PIRA in the conflict and I am a terrorist supporter.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I say Britain is the greater terrorist and your support for them is no different in my opinion.
“Every single person who wears a poppy supports the mass murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by the British army.”
You’re just being silly now.”
“Really, I would say that is the factual reality which can be proven in casualty statistics.”
How could it be proven in “casualtystatistics”?
Enough of your nonsense, please.
“How could it be proven in “casualtystatistics”?
Enough of your nonsense, please.”
They show how many people were killed by the british in those conflicts.
They show how many 16 year old Argentinian kids the Ghurkhas murdered over the Falkland islands for example?
“They show how many people were killed by the british in those conflicts.”
And how would that demonstrate that ‘every single person who wears a poppy supports the mass murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by the British army’?
Well if you are wearing a poppy. It means you support the British army
If you support the British army you support every thing they have ever done do you not?
“Well if you are wearing a poppy. It means you support the British army. If you support the British army you support every thing they have ever done do you not?”
Eh? No it doesn’t.
“Well if you are wearing a poppy. It means you support the British army. If you support the British army you support every thing they have ever done do you not?”
Eh? No it doesn’t.
It doesn’t what, doesn’t mean you support the British army or doesn’t mean you support their actions in conflict?
“It doesn’t what, doesn’t mean you support the British army or doesn’t mean you support their actions in conflict?”
It doesn’t mean what you said it meant: “Well if you are wearing a poppy. It means you support the British army. If you support the British army you support every thing they have ever done”.
Should read:
If you cannot justify every single act of violence that follows, how can you justify any as they are all interconnected?
I’m curious as to whether David Ford will refuse to attend commemorations of the Somme on the basis of pacifist principles, or perhaps he views World war One as legitimate violence.
It will be interesting to see.
I meant to slip my last comment in after Belfastdan and Antonio…that might make a bit more sense…whoops1
“I’m curious as to whether David Ford will refuse to attend commemorations of the Somme on the basis of pacifist principles, or perhaps he views World war One as legitimate violence. It will be interesting to see.”
Why would Ford refuse to attend Somme.commemorations on the basis of pacifist principles when he’s not a pacifist?
Well he sounded like a pacifist when he said I can’t attend a commemoration of a violent event. But the important point is whether he will be attending Somme/ world war one commemorations. If he does, then he is saying he thinks the deaths of millions of Germans & Turks was legitimate violence.
“Well he sounded like a pacifist when he said I can’t attend a commemoration of a violent event. But the important point is whether he will be attending Somme/ world war one commemorations. If he does, then he is saying he thinks the deaths of millions of Germans & Turks was legitimate violence.”
But he didn’t say he couldn’t attend a commemoration of a violent event. His problem was with an event that was a celebration of violence. Somme events will not be celebrating violence but rather regretting violence and reflecting in tragedy.
Regret for violence you say
Does that mean there will be an apology to Germany & Turkey for launching an unjust war against them ?
What form will this regretting of violence take ? Do you mean these various world war one commemorations will regret the deaths of all combatants equally, or will it be more a case of regretting the fact that Britain sorely underestimated the Turks (because they were racially inferior was a common belief amongst British political & military elites of the time) & received a considerable hammering at Gallipoli
Perhaps the commemorations should devote more time to the executions of teenage boys suffering from shell shock.
You say these Somme commemorations & other ww1 commemorations ‘regret violence’. I see little indication of this from the coverage of these events down the years. I see events that ignore the fundamental questions of whether ww1 was worth it? Little discussion about what the war was actually all about. German & Turkish & Austrian casualties are largely ignored which indicates these state sponsored events are an attempt to legitimise this most catastrophic event of which Britain is every bit to blame for as Germany.
If Ford attends ww1 commemorations he is a hypocrit.
“Does that mean there will be an apology to Germany & Turkey for launching an unjust war against them ?”
I wouldn’t have thought so, not least because an unjust war wasn’t “launched” against either. But also because an apology to regimes long since disappeared would be pointless.
“What form will this regretting of violence take ?”
I don’t know. I’m not party to the plans but it usually involves solemn remembrance, prayer, discussion about the tragic loss of.life.
“Do you mean these various world war one commemorations will regret the deaths of all combatants equally, or will it be more a case of regretting the fact that Britain sorely underestimated the Turks (because they were racially inferior was a common belief amongst British political & military elites of the time) & received a considerable hammering at Gallipoli”
The Turks weren’t fighting at the Somme but it’s normal for war commemorations to focus on our own servicemen.
“Perhaps the commemorations should devote more time to the executions of teenage boys suffering from shell shock.”
I’d agree thst they should be included on the memorials.to the war dead, if they hadn’t been already. I’m sure Ford would too.
“You say these Somme commemorations & other ww1 commemorations ‘regret violence’. I see little indication of this from the coverage of these events down the years. I see events that ignore the fundamental questions of whether ww1 was worth it? Little discussion about what the war was actually all about. German & Turkish & Austrian casualties are largely ignored which indicates these state sponsored events are an attempt to legitimise this most catastrophic event of which Britain is every bit to blame for as Germany.”
Really? Maybe the coverage you watch is different to what I watch. Aside from your point about the casualties of other countries I would have to disagree.
“If Ford attends ww1 commemorations he is a hypocrit.”
He’s not.
Spot on ..Antonio. It’s the selectivity that is in question.I never believed that the World War 1 was in any way justified and there are plenty who believe that .It’s worth studying how an entire generation of young men were led and fed into the first industrial war on earth for the sake of an establishment who saw them as expendable assets. That’s the thing to study when we talk about the justification for violent acts. There was slaughter on a massive scale between 1914 and 1918. In 1916 that was the backdrop the Rising was being played out against.