Impressed with Paul Gallagher’s CV, I decided to google Castleknock College, his alma mater, where he made his disparaging remarks on the 1916 leaders. As he is a Kerryman, I thought he might be a spiritual love child of Bishop Moriarty or a descendant of an actual love child of the anti-Fenian prelate.
Castleknock’s website records that the college won the Leinster Colleges Senior HURLING CUP in 1918, but that same year prohibited Gaelic Games there, a prohibition which is still in force. Shades of the Statutes of Kilkenny. What price a Liberal Education?
Nineteen eighteen saw the comprehensive defeat of John Redmond’s Imperialist warmongering party by Sinn Feiners led by the surviving 1916 insurgents who stood on a Republican platform. Redmondism roughed up their rivals from the 1890s on, beating up James Connolly in Cobh for daring to write a defence of socialism against a Jesuit attack, long before the establishment of the Citizen Army. Redmondite thugs beat up Desmond Fitzgerald in Kerry for daring to speak against enlistment in the British Forces.In 1918 the British forbade groups of more than a handful of people assembling in Ireland without British permission. So the Gaelic Athletic Association organised 1500 simultaneous games all over Ireland. Counting only teams and referees, and ignoring linesmen and spectators that would involve 45,000 persons, outnumbering all the Constabulary in the country. Is that why Castleknock forsook its self-respect?
I boobed when I wrote of Henry VII whoring in Paris when I meant Edward VII. As Professor Hart could interview a Kilmichael veteran after that veteran was dead, perhaps the best whores in Paris could coax a long departed Tudor monarch for one last rising?
Still unable to address Gallagher’s argument, poor Donal resorts to an attack on the school he attended.
You don’t seem to have the same trouble when it comes to present day Sinn Féin leaders. All’s fair when it comes to transferring their ancient past to their present day policies. I’m surprised at you tam, denigrating the founders of the state in which you live.
Anyone who supports terrorism deserves to be denigrated for supporting terrorism. Attacking the school they attended would be irrelevant.
can you define “terrorism” for me Tam and do you consider invasion of another country (imperialism) an act of “terrorism”.
There a lots of definiton out there. I found this attempt at a consensus one.
“There is no universally agreed-on definition of terrorism. At best, we have a “most
universally accepted” definition of terrorism, which is the following: terrorism is the use
of violence to create fear (i.e., terror, psychic fear) for (1) political, (2) religious, or (3) ideological reasons (ideologies are systems of belief derived from worldviews that frame human social and political conditions). The terror is intentionally aimed at noncombatant targets (i.e., civilians or iconic symbols), and the objective is to achieve the greatest attainable publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The meaning of terrorism is socially constructed. Terrorism is different from murder, assault, arson, demolition of property, or the
threat of the same; the reason is that the impact of terrorist violence and damage reaches more than the immediate target victims (e.g., government or military). It is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society (e.g., civilians or even society as a whole).
Terrorism is distinct from regular crime because of its powerful objectives. The change is desired so desperately that the inability to achieve change is perceived as a worse consequence than the deaths of civilians. Terrorist acts are both mala prohibita acts and mala in se acts. Mala prohibita acts are “crimes that are made illegal by legislation”; mala in se acts
are crimes “that are immoral or wrong in themselves.” Terrorism is, first and foremost, a method, and it is used in times of peace and conflict.
A terrorist organization is an illicit clandestine organization that generally consists of planners, trainers, and actual bombers/killers. A terrorist organization can have various structures, such as an identifiable hierarchy of command, a horizontal structure where leaders are non-identifiable or have no major role, or a cell structure where the terrorists can be
“lone wolves.” Terrorism is also asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare refers to the use of random/unpredictable violence by a weak group (i.e., one with a smaller force) against a stronger power (i.e., military, government, or even society in general) to gain advantage.
Asymmetrical warfare is fought between grossly unequal sides. The less powerful force does not attack the more powerful force under the conventional rules of war because it cannot win by following these tactics. The centrality of asymmetric warfare is the use of unexpected and unconventional tactics in combat. This is similar to the notion of war without front lines, a war waged in the shadows against an indescribable enemy, without a clear understanding of where it would lead or how it would end.”
Obviously an invasion of one country by another isn’t terrorism. It’s warfare.
Tam, thanks for that long reply, which leads me to the question of :what is the difference between terrorism and warfare? actually it is your definition that interests me rather than Wikipedia or other sources………….
Warfare is violent conflict between states or societies or factions in which parties to the conflict have control of territory and seek to defend or extend that control or remove it from the other party.
Terrorism may happen as part of warfare but more typically happens in peacetime.
Terrorism – the war of the poor against the rich. War – the terrorism of the rich against the poor.
A slur on the poor.
“Obviously an invasion of one country by another isn’t terrorism. It’s warfare.”
Lmao! No words.
That’s a pity, because it might be interesting to know what it is you find funny.
On the other hand, It probably wouldn’t.
thanks Tam for the explanation of warfare, however, still seeking an explanation of what “terrorism” is……………
I already provided that.
“That’s a pity, because it might be interesting to know what it is you find funny.”
Eh I find your comments funny…..thought that would be obvious?
“On the other hand, It probably wouldn’t.”
Either you do or you don’t, I ain’t fussed.
But why do you find them funny?
My father used to put a sheepskin rug on his back and terrorise us children. Should I denigrate him? The Britishers used to assault and terrorise people at checkpoints. Should we denigrate them? They used to send terrorists to mainland Europe to attack and terrorise the Nazis behind the lines knowing that the Nazis would wipe out a French village in revenge. Should we denigrate them? Should we denigrate the present British administration for terrorising people in the Middle East? Again in somebody else’s country. And you obsess about the dispossessed Irish and their ineffective attempts to regain their independence.
Of course anyone who assaults somebody at a checkpoint should be denigrated.
It’s ‘whataboutery’ but 1) SF didn’t do ‘terrorism’ that 2) was the IRA[s], INLA – and let’s not forget the UVF (from 1966) and the UDA / UFF (+ Red Hand Commandos, Orange Volunteers, Ulster Resistance & Lord knows wot else).
SF supported It though, and were the political wing of a terrorist movement. And they still seek to legitimise it.
One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”. Whether there are better ways of fighting for freedom is another matter, and is also relative.
A fatuous cliche. ‘Freedom fighters’ can be terrorists.
Simply marvellous! Beautiful piece of writing! I was shaking from laughter.
Speaking of James Connolly on both sides of the Atlantic and all , it brought to mind to mind a wonderful ceremony in Troy NY where I had the privilege of being part of a color party unveiling a bust of the man! I believe Sean Cronin spoke accompanied a Vincent Conlon who was the driver of a lorrt load of volunteers one night moons ago!
Did those at the ceremony know that Connolly was a Marxist?
What you mean he was in favour of sharing the state’s wealth to help the less well off? How awful.
Well most Americans are viscerally opposed to that. But no I meant Marxist.