Bobby Sand death anniversary today

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

I often see you and a few others quick to attack Republican history, but never have I seen you attack loyalist history with the same veracity. I have no qualms with you attacking the history of the IRA - it has had it's fair share of dark moments, but I would like to see a little consistency with your attacks.

I've never had a loyalist claim to have done anything in my name. I've never had a loyalist supporter berate me as unpatriotic or somehow "un-Irish" for refusing to subscribe to their worldview.

There's plenty of people only too happy to attack the relatively few unionists and loyalists on this forum; all too often with obvious hate and vitriol.

When you start calling your fellow Republicans to task for their one-sided approach to debates on Northern Ireland, I'll take on board your request for "balance" from me.

dlofnep

Nobody claimed anything in your name. You pick and choose your battles. Which is perfectly fine, considering you are a unionist.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Nobody claimed anything in your name.

No? The IRA have never claimed to act on behalf of the people of Ireland? They've always freely admitted that their actions have been anti-democratic, and directly contrary to the wishes of the majority of Irish people? News to me.

You pick and choose your battles. Which is perfectly fine, considering you are a unionist.

I'm not a unionist. The fact that you think I am is merely an indication of how deeply skewed your perspective is.

Happy Monday

dlofnep wrote: »

British presence in the north prolonged the IRA's campaign in the north.

British army is still in the North - the IRA has disbanded - makes you think what all that fighting was for?

And - this may be news to some Republicans - all parties on these islands including Sinn Fein accept Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom.

Wonder what one Robert Gerard Sands would make of this outcome? :eek:

junder

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Why do people here constantly talk about the IRA's killings but fail to mention the British Army and their murders and oppressive rule of our native Irish brothers in the north? Its like im talkin to a bunch of unionists

have you actully been reading this thread? most of the posts are justifications of the IRA's actions and the glorification of its members. Ironic really, perfectly ok for the IRA to act outside the law and be venerated for it and yet if anybody else acts outside the law most of you cry foul.

Joey the lips

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you said in this post but what exactly are you saying is the link between the Shankill butchers and the British government?

They weren't supported by the government, the government didnt supply them with weapons, they were an autonomous branch of the UVF led by Lenny Murphy. Vast majority of Unionists/Loyalists view them as shameful and abhorrent

Thats a fair point it was not the british goverment but its agents the RUC and the UDR the links are clearly there and acknowledged in the book written on the event. If I find it I will tell you which one, lenny was a former UDR member and one of the other lads was getting UDR and RUC inside information on who was catholic and who was suspect IRA.

And weapons previously confiscated by the UDR were used in a number of attacks again if I find the book will quote exact sources but def listed in the shankill butchers

Joey the lips

junder wrote: »

have you actully been reading this thread? most of the posts are justifications of the IRA's actions and the glorification of its members. Ironic really, perfectly ok for the IRA to act outside the law and be venerated for it and yet if anybody else acts outside the law most of you cry foul.

Lovely for you to point that out but as I constantly said and it was me who started the thread

If conditions that caused the IRA did not exist the IRA would not have resulted So yes its correct to cry foul but I also said that this thread has escalated into the usual north south catholic prodestant sectarian bashing crap that looses most people and as can be seen by those commenting near the end they are no longer commenting on the subject matter.

Infact the most sensible comment Came from fratton fred when he said

"Very nice romantic view of the IRA there and I can understand that people want to defend their community from attacks, which is why I, as an Englishman, consider all members of the IRA and their supporters scum and will never lose any sleep over a few that decide to do us all a favour by killing themselves"

What does this tell us?? Tells us much!

Tells us

1. Dont care about Boby sands
2. Dont care about the IRA

But more importantly

3. I can understand that people want to defend their community from attacks - The very reason that caused the formation of the Provisional IRA because Pat Rabbite and the Official IRA failed to take notice of the community

But the sad thing is fratton and all you mis posters is this is about bobby sands contrabution to IRISH politics and not the IRA's, Although thanks for helping those who defended the IRA do it well.

No doubt you have contributed to there fame!

turgon

In fairness Joey the Lips, considering the way this thread has gone, isnt it fair to say that Bobby Sands is only really linked with IRA/extreme republicanism rather than Irish politics in general?

Sure he got elected to Westminster but he was primarily an IRA fighter rather than some SDLP man.

Dub973

Joey the lips wrote: »

Today is the anniversary of the death of boby sands. i believe his contrabution to irish politics has been far wide reaching than any campagn that he would have been involved in, As this is a political discussion thread anybody any views on his and the death of the 10 hunger strikers contrabution to politics in ireland. Bearing in mind it was Margret thatcher who was in power at the time its worth reflecting that the "belief" to their cause has far outweighed anything thatcher has achieved


Bobby and the boys are gone,but will never be forgotten. Legends,the lot of them

ilkhanid

A few point here....

"There is no doubt in my mind that the british govt done more for recruiitment in the IRA than the IRA could have ever done, ie

The Hunger Strike
The Bermingham 6
The Guildford 4
The Maguire family
Bloody sunday
The Shankill Butchers..."

Remember that the actions of the IRA-and INLA- did a lot to encourage recruitment for the UDA and the UVF, ie

The Bayardo bar
Darkley church
Tullyvallen Orange Hall
Frizzels Fishmongers
Kingsmills
Teebane

This cuts both ways you know....

dlofnep

Happy Monday wrote: »

British army is still in the North - the IRA has disbanded - makes you think what all that fighting was for?

They disbanded because thankfully, the British military eased it's attacks on the Catholic community - which gave way for the peace-process.

All the fighting was due to an oppressive force in Ireland which attacked, and supported the attacks on catholic communities while supressing their identity and civil rights. The fighting was a counter-balance to an overly-aggressive military force.

Happy Monday wrote: »

And - this may be news to some Republicans - all parties on these islands including Sinn Fein accept Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom.

As a temporary process, while we work under the GFA to achieve Irish Unity through peaceful means. Giving the fact that every poll every taking in the south has always demonstrated a desire for reunification - I'd say it's safe to say that the GFA was seen by all to be an alternative to Irish Reunification.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a unionist. The fact that you think I am is merely an indication of how deeply skewed your perspective is.

Actions speak louder than words.. And when you consistently attack Republican principles, without questioning the loyalist ones (in the very same thread may I add) - then you certainly demonstrate a hint of sympathy towards Unionism.

If you support the Union as a permanant system, without question - then you are a unionist. It's not an insult, or a dig - It is what it is.

ilkhanid

"Yes of course. What's wrong with wanting to remove a force by arms that kills innocent children on the streets? Nobody was manipulated. Young people had members of their families murdered, had members of their family locked up without trial, were repeatedly attacked by British security forces. There was great merit in their attacks against the British security services."

"The fighting was a counter-balance to an overly-aggressive military force. "

"fighting?". I might have had some respect for the IRA and their like in the INLA, if they had restricted their attacks to British security forces, or even the RIC. But soon they were assassinating,attacking and destroying...Judges,Unionist politicians (who I remind you are still civilians..Unionist or not),people who used to be in the security forces,family members of judges or members of the security forces,people who looked like members of the security forces,civilians who worked on security force bases or buildings,business men-some foreign-who provided jobs in Northern Ireland, factories, shops, businesses ("economic warfare" supposedly), members of the security forces-or anybody really-in the Republic who got in their way,people who drank in bars frequented by loyalist paramilitaries,orangemen,loyalist civilians and census collectors.
This talk about attacks on the security forces, about the 'noble' armed struggle creates a fog about the savage,nihilistic and often indiscriminate nature of this campaign of violence.

djpbarry

Joey the lips wrote: »

If conditions that caused the IRA did not exist the IRA would not have resulted

The problem is that the prerequisite conditions for the IRA’s existence were (and still are) set by the IRA themselves. In other words, terrorist groups can always find ways to justify their actions.

Joey the lips wrote: »

But the sad thing is fratton and all you mis posters is this is about bobby sands contrabution to IRISH politics…

What (positive) contribution did he and his fellow poo-protestors make?

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

All the fighting was due to an oppressive force in Ireland…

Pretty sure it was in the UK.

dlofnep wrote: »

I'd say it's safe to say that the GFA was seen by all to be an alternative to Irish Reunification.

I’d say it’s safe to say that the GFA was seen by all to be an alternative to people blowing the bejesus out of each other.

dlofnep wrote: »

Actions speak louder than words..

Interesting; how do I post my actions?

dlofnep wrote: »

If you support the Union as a permanant system, without question - then you are a unionist.

Unless I am very much mistaken, nobody has stated this as their position.

Joey the lips

turgon wrote: »

In fairness Joey the Lips, considering the way this thread has gone, isnt it fair to say that Bobby Sands is only really linked with IRA/extreme republicanism rather than Irish politics in general?

Sure he got elected to Westminster but he was primarily an IRA fighter rather than some SDLP man.

In fairness you have not followed the link at the start of the thread to understand bobby sands contrabution and the fact he got elected proves he had the support of the people....In fairness!

ilkhanid wrote: »

A few point here....

"There is no doubt in my mind that the british govt done more for recruiitment in the IRA than the IRA could have ever done, ie

The Hunger Strike
The Bermingham 6
The Guildford 4
The Maguire family
Bloody sunday
The Shankill Butchers..."

Remember that the actions of the IRA-and INLA- did a lot to encourage recruitment for the UDA and the UVF, ie

The Bayardo bar
Darkley church
Tullyvallen Orange Hall
Frizzels Fishmongers
Kingsmills
Teebane

This cuts both ways you know....

djpbarry wrote: »

The problem is that the prerequisite conditions for the IRA’s existence were (and still are) set by the IRA themselves. In other words, terrorist groups can always find ways to justify their actions.
What (positive) contribution did he and his fellow poo-protestors make?

And your point is they both did wrong! yes fine but if the original conditions did not exist they would have never formed! The rest of the other thread is just rambelings I think

ilkhanid

The actions of the IRA cited above, are a perfect example of the muddled thinking, full of evasions and contradictions of the IRA in general and people like Bobby Sands in particular.
They claimed to be fighting at different times 1. To defend the Catholic population against Loyalist /British army attacks....a purpose which they carried out with little success, and has been said here....how do you defend the nationalist community by blowing up furniture shops? 2. To secure civil rights and an end to discrimination for the Catholic community and to 3. Bring about a United Ireland. Well, which was it? Their campaign did'nt achieve the first or the third and the second might have been achieved by other means. Of course,the objective of the destruction of and/or subjugation of the Unionist community and a demented assault on all civil society in the North as a whole, expressed in an incoherent rage and lust for vengeance rationalized in their own self-deluding minds into a campaign for civil rights,goes unmentioned now.And this is what it often descended into. Highly embarrassing.
The struggle did'nt end because of an end to attacks on the Nationalist community. In fact, UVF and UDA assaults on that community were increasing in ferocity and efficiency right up to the ceasefires,but because the analysis of the Republican movement began to demonstrate to them their own muddled thinking and show them the folly of their path and the dead end it was leading them to.
In a way, the death of Sands-and more importantly his election- began the process of thought and re-evaluation that led them to this conclusion. So, it could have been said to have had a positive outcome....but probably not in the way that he thought at the time.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Actions speak louder than words.

All you have to judge me by are my words. My words say: I am not a unionist, and I reiterate that to call me such is a reflection of your own worldview.

And when you consistently attack Republican principles...

I don't attack Republican principles. I consistently point out the hair-brained delusional view that Northern Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom for what it is. If the flat-earth Republicans can't cope with having reality pointed out to them, that still doesn't make me a unionist.

...without questioning the loyalist ones (in the very same thread may I add) - then you certainly demonstrate a hint of sympathy towards Unionism.

I have sympathy for Unionism. I have sympathy for Nationalism. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who wants to force their worldview on others through violence or intimidation.

If having a "hint of sympathy towards Unionism" makes me a unionist, then - at the risk of being repetitive - this betrays a deeply skewed worldview on your part rather than saying anything about me.

If you support the Union as a permanant system, without question - then you are a unionist. It's not an insult, or a dig - It is what it is.

Fair enough. Now all you have to do is find one single post I've made on this forum where I've ever said that I support the Union as a permanent system, without question.

I'll be here.

Happy Monday

dlofnep wrote: »

They disbanded because thankfully, the British military eased it's attacks on the Catholic community - which gave way for the peace-process.

Not true - the IRA bombing of the fish shop on the Shankhill happened in October 1993. This action gave rise to concerted attacks by the UVF and UFF in particular on nationalist targets in Belfast and further afield.

We all remember the shooting dead of people in Greysteel during the Ireland-Italy world cup game in June 1994 - the first IRA ceasfire followed at the end of August 1994.

All evidence points to a recognition by the ageing leadership of the IRA that any actions carried out by them would be matched by Adair and Wright.

FTA69

OB,

I consistently point out the hair-brained delusional view that Northern Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom for what it is. If the flat-earth Republicans can't cope with having reality pointed out to them, that still doesn't make me a unionist.

Nobody is denying that a part of Ireland is in the UK. What Republicans would argue is that just because some Irish counties are in the UK they are no less Irish. Similarly the fact Ukraine was a part of the USSR didn't negate the fact it remained "the Ukraine". The issue of contention is should part of Ireland come under British jurisdiction, not whether it does or not.

Dlofnep,

All the fighting was due to an oppressive force in Ireland which attacked, and supported the attacks on catholic communities while supressing their identity and civil rights. The fighting was a counter-balance to an overly-aggressive military force.

That's nonsense. The IRA existed long before 1969, its purpose was and is to effect a British withdrawal from Ireland. They weren't the defenderist wing of the Civil Rights Association, in fact they had nothing but disdain for NICRA and actually sought to escalate the situation with a view to militarily creating a "final push".

futurehope

Joey the lips wrote: »

However a group of men like Joe Cahill Bobby sands and Martin Doherty( Who gave his life protecting all in Window Scanlons against a UVF b@mb plot) decided enough was enough.

I had to smile at this. Joe Cahill was involved in Republican violence many years before 1969. He was convicted of murdering a policeman in the 1940s and sentenced to death. Ironically The 'Orange Statelet' showed mercy on this vermin at the request of The Pope (!!!) and he was released in 1949. Needless to say they lived to regret their compassion. I hope this sorry episode doesn't repeat itself.

futurehope

dlofnep said:

British presence in the north prolonged the IRA's campaign in the north. Collusion between British forces and loyalist terrorists ensured that the IRA would remain comfortably packed with supporters.

Very amusing. If The IRA had ceased their campaign then UK troops would have been returned to barracks. You see young man, I don't need to speculate about this - IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT WAY.

There is never good reason for internment.

I see what you mean. Republican scum can murder all round them and commit every type of atrocity, but the state (ROI or UK) must play by the Queensburry Rules? Sorry mate, that's not how the real world works - as The Republicans in Ulster found out.

futurehope

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Why do people here constantly talk about the IRA's killings but fail to mention the British Army and their murders and oppressive rule of our native Irish brothers in the north? Its like im talkin to a bunch of unionists

Perhaps because Irish Republicans were responsible for most of the carnage? :rolleyes:

futurehope

Joey the lips wrote: »

Thats a fair point it was not the british goverment but its agents the RUC and the UDR the links are clearly there and acknowledged in the book written on the event. If I find it I will tell you which one, lenny was a former UDR member and one of the other lads was getting UDR and RUC inside information on who was catholic and who was suspect IRA.

I don't recall Murphy being a member of The UDR. As for one of the 'gang' receiving information of The UDR/RUC in order to identify Catholics, I wouldn't have thought they'd have needed any help to do that in Belfast in the seventies.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Butchers killed Protestants as well as Catholics including other UVF and UDA men. Not exactly a typical UVF unit. Lawless days.

Bottle_of_Smoke

futurehope wrote: »

I don't recall Murphy being a member of The UDR. As for one of the 'gang' receiving information of The UDR/RUC in order to identify Catholics, I wouldn't have thought they'd have needed any help to do that in Belfast in the seventies.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Butchers killed Protestants as well as Catholics including other UVF and UDA men. Not exactly a typical UVF unit. Lawless days.

I don't think he was, but someone in the gang certainly was. Not that this means the british government backed them of course. They killed a lot of Protestants but that was down to their leader being a reckless nut.

Fratton Fred

Joey the lips wrote: »

But the sad thing is fratton and all you mis posters is this is about bobby sands contrabution to IRISH politics and not the IRA's, Although thanks for helping those who defended the IRA do it well.

No doubt you have contributed to there fame!

What would you consider his contribution was to British politics?

Like it or not, it is the British and more specifically the English that needed to be influenced and most saw it as a futile publicity stunt. What message did it give about Irish republicans? "I'm a member of the IRA, you know the guys who are busy blowing up pubs, restaurants and train stations and I would like to have special privilages whilst I am in prison and I will jolly well not eat until I get them". How long do you think the average Brit took to make their mind up on that one? How do you think the British felt about the Irish nationalists who voted him into westminster?

The IRA and Sinn Fein may have won support in Ireland form the Hunger Strike, but they lost it in Britain and the Irish can do all the arm waving and chest beating they like, the future of NI at the time depended more on the British public than it did on the Irish.

The general view in London at the time was "Hitler tried to bomb us into submission and he didn't succeed, so there is no way the IRA will" No British PM was ever going to concede anything to the IRA whilst they were killing innocent people, it would have been political suicide.

Bobby Sands contribution to Irish politics? two steps forward for Sinn Fein and the IRA, three steps back for Irish Nationalism in Britain.

Serenity Now!

Driseog wrote: »

I bet most of the people able to ride the high horse of moral sensibility never faced descrimination on a daily basis by a state who's sole purpose was to look after one section of society only and to deminish the rights of the other side

You can bet your house that a massive chunk of those who laud people like this as heroes never did either.

Have a look at the picture link below for a classic capture of plastic republicanism. I took it with my mobile phone because it cracked me up.
The pub is on Pearse St and is called the Padraig Pearse (Pearse was christened Patrick, not Padraig). Notice anything?

http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1cyq.jpg

guinnessdrinker

Just forgetting about the wider Republican versus Loyalist/British argument for a seccond and getting back to Bobby Sands.

Fred, you raised some interesting points in your last post.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Like it or not, it is the British and more specifically the English that needed to be influenced and most saw it as a futile publicity stunt. What message did it give about Irish republicans? "I'm a member of the IRA, you know the guys who are busy blowing up pubs, restaurants and train stations and I would like to have special privilages whilst I am in prison and I will jolly well not eat until I get them". How long do you think the average Brit took to make their mind up on that one? How do you think the British felt about the Irish nationalists who voted him into westminster?

You are right in saying it was the British that needed to be influenced, he was a prisoner in a British prison after all.

However, you are asking; what message did the hunger strike give to the British people? I don't know the answer to that but I do wonder did some British people ask themselfs; why do these prisoners feel so strongly about their demands that they wore only a blanket and lived in a cell that stenched from excrement and lay only on soaking mattresses for years? And then why did some of these prisoners go a step further and refuse to take food?

You may say it was their choice to live in those conditions and it was their own choice to refuse food and indeed it was their choice that led them to end up in the prison in the first place and you would be right of course. But again I do wonder did any British people wonder, why? Did they ever think, this is something that they would never see a British prisoner in a British prison do. Did they think, why do these Irish prisoners have this conviction or belief in what they are doing? Or did they ever look beyond the Irish versus English mentality and ask simply, what is going on over there?

I know it is hard to be objective especially when there was so much propaganda being spewed from both sides at the time but when the British line that the hunger stike had no support was proved false by Sands being elected to Westminster and then again with 100,000 people attending his funeral what did the British public then think? Did they start asking more questions and start looking for more answers or just close their eyes and try and ignore it all?

Call Bobby Sands a terrorist or a rebel or a poet, that is up to the individual but there is no doubting the conviction he had in his belief be it right or wrong.

tfitzgerald

futurehope wrote: »

Perhaps because Irish Republicans were responsible for most of the carnage? :rolleyes:

that is an unfair statement to make there was killing on both sides although i belive king rat killed more of his own men than he did innoncent taxi drivers and i would say sad dog adair did more to get rid if the scum of c company by turning them into steroid using hippies than the ira could ever have. i also belive that futurehope is stirring things a bit on these boards he hates anything green on this island of ireland

Nodin

FTA69 wrote: »

That's nonsense. The IRA existed long before 1969, its purpose was and is to effect a British withdrawal from Ireland. They weren't the defenderist wing of the Civil Rights Association, in fact they had nothing but disdain for NICRA and actually sought to escalate the situation with a view to militarily creating a "final push".

However by 1969 it was essentially defunct. They reacted to the Unionist reaction, rather than provoking it.

futurhope wrote:

Very amusing. If The IRA had ceased their campaign then UK troops would have been returned to barracks. .

...which rather ignores the problems of policing and intercommunal riots and attempted pogroms that brought about their insertion in the first place. As no remedy to the underlying causes had been inacted, a simple dissolution of one armed group would have had no effect.

futurhope wrote:

the state (ROI or UK) must play by the Queensburry Rules? Sorry mate, that's not how the real world works - as The Republicans in Ulster found out. .

So you support the use of loyalists as death squads via collusion?