Bobby Sand death anniversary today

D-Boy

Just ignore Futurehope he trawls these threads just for a troll from his Union flag bedecked garrisson an hours drive from Dublin :rolleyes:
Maybe someday when this country grows a backbone we can recognise the deaths of the hunger strikers and mark it officially.

LordSutch

D-Boy wrote: »

Maybe someday when this country grows a backbone we can recognise the deaths of the hunger strikers and mark it officially.

Dear God, I hope not .........

Anyway, it isnt remotely possible seeing as the memory is strictly a 'Sinn Fein-Hard line Republican' event.

prinz

D-Boy wrote: »

Just ignore Futurehope he trawls these threads just for a troll from his Union flag bedecked garrisson an hours drive from Dublin :rolleyes:
Maybe someday when this country grows a backbone we can recognise the deaths of the hunger strikers and mark it officially.

And how would we do that? National day of dirty protest? Day of fast?

If this country grew a backbone we'd grow up and ignore them.

Oh and I'm IN Dublin, and a proud citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

And I have no problem with the Union flag, as it represented Ireland, in the past, as much as any of the other nations making up the Kingdom.

Happy Monday

D-Boy wrote: »

Maybe someday when this country grows a backbone we can recognise the deaths of the hunger strikers and mark it officially.

Unlikely - the hunger strikers never had the support of people south of the Border outside of some border regions.

The GFA is an acknowledgement by people in the Republic of Ireland of the existence of Northern Ireland as a functioning region within the UK.

The reality is that Sinn Fein types disgust people in the South - I'm from Galway.

Plus Irish governments - notably FF - have let IRA men die on hunger strike since the formation of the Free State notably during WW2.

There are no memorials to them are there??

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

Nobody is denying that a part of Ireland is in the UK.

Would that that were the case.

What Republicans would argue is that just because some Irish counties are in the UK they are no less Irish. [...] The issue of contention is should part of Ireland come under British jurisdiction, not whether it does or not.

That question was put to the Irish people in 1998, and by an overwhelming majority we said "yes, it should" - until there's a peaceful and democratic agreement that it shouldn't.

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

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.

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?

Of course there were those who stopped and thought for a minute, just as there were those in the US that stopped and wondered why it was Mohamed Atta wanted to kill people or the Israelis who stop for a minute and wonder why a girl who has a year left on her college degree decides to strap 4 kilos of high explosive on themselves and enter a shopping centre. The whole situation in NI with the gerrymandering etc was so alien to life in England that I don’t think people could comprehend it. Catholic and Protestant live alongside each other; go to school together and work together in England, so how could they not in NI?

The view most people had was that it was a minority of people in Northern Ireland trying to force unification against the will of the majority, it was never seen as a community trying to defend itself. As I said earlier, how do you justify defending Human rights by committing atrocities? You can’t, but you do make it very easy for people on the outside to turn against your cause.

To most, Bobby Sands was just another member of the IRA who couldn’t get his hands on guns or bombs, so decided to try another way of holding the British government to ransom, theonly difference was that it made a refreshing difference that he was killing himself rather than other people.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course there were those who stopped and thought for a minute, just as there were those in the US that stopped and wondered why it was Mohamed Atta .

Aka the 'Boogie man'.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the Israelis who stop for a minute and wonder why a girl who has a year left on her college degree decides to strap 4 kilos of high explosive on themselves and enter a shopping centre. .

...because of the occupation and colonisation of her people, and the fact that they had killed her brother and her cousin in front of her. They had killed her fiance 7 years before.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As I said earlier, how do you justify defending Human rights by committing atrocities? You can’t,.

Well it seems to have been one of the excuses used for Iraq. 'freeing people from Saddam' and all that. However, in relation to NI the absence of a reforming intitiative and a failure to take on entrenched Unionist sectarianism made violence inevitable.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

blah blah blah

I was trying to keep to the subject.

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course there were those who stopped and thought for a minute, just as there were those in the US that stopped and wondered why it was Mohamed Atta wanted to kill people or the Israelis who stop for a minute and wonder why a girl who has a year left on her college degree decides to strap 4 kilos of high explosive on themselves and enter a shopping centre. The whole situation in NI with the gerrymandering etc was so alien to life in England that I don’t think people could comprehend it. Catholic and Protestant live alongside each other; go to school together and work together in England, so how could they not in NI?

The view most people had was that it was a minority of people in Northern Ireland trying to force unification against the will of the majority, it was never seen as a community trying to defend itself. As I said earlier, how do you justify defending Human rights by committing atrocities? You can’t, but you do make it very easy for people on the outside to turn against your cause.

To most, Bobby Sands was just another member of the IRA who couldn’t get his hands on guns or bombs, so decided to try another way of holding the British government to ransom, theonly difference was that it made a refreshing difference that he was killing himself rather than other people.

Fred, getting away from the wider English view of NI. The questions I asked in my last post were specifically about Bobby Sands and the Hunger strike which is what this thread is about. The questions were not directed at you personally, I don't expect one person to answer for an entire country.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was trying to keep to the subject.

Bringing in strange 'boogie men' to cast aspersion by comparison is hardly the way the way to go about it. Nor does 'quoting' me in such a fashion help the tone, IMO.

There's a question or two here - on topic - that haven't been answered
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60132354&postcount=105

djpbarry

Nodin wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the Israelis who stop for a minute and wonder why a girl who has a year left on her college degree decides to strap 4 kilos of high explosive on themselves and enter a shopping centre.

...because of the occupation and colonisation of her people, and the fact that they had killed her brother and her cousin in front of her. They had killed her fiance 7 years before.

I’m sure blowing up a few of “their” brothers, cousins and fiancés would make everything all better.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Bringing in strange 'boogie men' to cast aspersion by comparison is hardly the way the way to go about it. Nor does 'quoting' me in such a fashion help the tone, IMO.

There's a question or two here - on topic - that haven't been answered
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60132354&postcount=105

I was trying to ignore them to keep this as on track as possible, but i will answer one of your questions about when did Bobby Sands decide to kill people.

OK, we will never know what his intentions were regarding being in the IRA, but it is reasonable to deduce that if he wasn't prepared to kill people then he wouldn't have joined.

Let me ask you a question, the marines that the IRA killed in deal. did they join the army with the intention to kill people? probably not, they joined as musicians and battlefield medics, yet they were deemed justifiable targets by the IRA. If they are targets because they were in the British Army, then why would Boby Sands not be considered an equal of any other member of the IRA? why should he be viewed differently?

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Fred, getting away from the wider English view of NI. The questions I asked in my last post were specifically about Bobby Sands and the Hunger strike which is what this thread is about. The questions were not directed at you personally, I don't expect one person to answer for an entire country.

Of course, but it was something that interested me at the time. I was in my early teens and asked a lot of questions, probably because my own appreciation of events was growing at the time and this was big news.

I was trying to give an idea of how Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikers were viewed in Britain.

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

did they join the army with the intention to kill people? probably not, they joined as musicians and battlefield medics

They joined to play music and do dressings? They must have gotten some fright when they saw the guns.

Every army has as it's primary objective the ability to kill as many of the enemy with as few casualties of your own. The music and bandages are what you hear before the killing starts and what you put on after it's finished.

I think Bobby Sands and the Marines all knew what they were signing up for

IIMII

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sure blowing up a few of “their” brothers, cousins and fiancés would make everything all better.

No, but George Bush used the same logic post 9/11

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course, but it was something that interested me at the time. I was in my early teens and asked a lot of questions, probably because my own appreciation of events was growing at the time and this was big news.

I was trying to give an idea of how Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikers were viewed in Britain.

I know where you are coming from Fred. Just out of interest though, what did you think when you heard the news that a prisoner had been elected to Parliament and when you seen the news coverage on TV of 100,000 people at Sands funeral?

jimmmy

Happy Monday wrote: »

Unlikely - the hunger strikers never had the support of people south of the Border outside of some border regions.

The GFA is an acknowledgement by people in the Republic of Ireland of the existence of Northern Ireland as a functioning region within the UK.

The reality is that Sinn Fein types disgust people in the South - I'm from Galway.

Plus Irish governments - notably FF - have let IRA men die on hunger strike since the formation of the Free State notably during WW2.

There are no memorials to them are there??

I agree with you there. Dev was right to let the IRA die on hunger strike in Irish prison during WW2. The IRA had little support. Over 105,000 peoople from Ireland joined the British forces during the war, and they are the real heroes. IRA people ( or anyone from the UVF) who murder, terrorise, and who may decide to starve themselves deserve little support or sympathy.

IIMII

I remember going through Tallaght thinking that it looked like West Belfast with all the black flags, graffiti and murals. Very tense times

IIMII

jimmmy wrote: »

people ... who murder, terrorise... deserve little support or sympathy.

Agree 100%

Nodin

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sure blowing up a few of “their” brothers, cousins and fiancés would make everything all better.

One might say the same regarding the similarily cyclical destruction of her parents and neighbours houses, subsequent to that bombing. However, whether an act is in ways self defeating or not is another question. I merely point out that - contrary to what some seem to believe - such things are usually caused by very real issues and events, not some phantom concerns or madness.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I was trying to ignore them to keep this as on track as possible,.

I would have thought examining the motivations and deeds of Bobby Sands was about as on-track as good be.....

Fratton Fred wrote:

OK, we will never know what his intentions were regarding being in the IRA, but it is reasonable to deduce that if he wasn't prepared to kill people then he wouldn't have joined.,.

Not entirely true of vall volunteers, generally speaking, but as he was in an active service unit he was doubtless prepared to kill, yes. That was never in question, nor did I suggest such. You stated that he took up arms "in support of killing innocents". Its that I took issue with.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Let me ask you a question, the marines that the IRA killed in deal. did they join the army with the intention to kill people? probably not, they joined as musicians and battlefield medics, yet they were deemed justifiable targets by the IRA. If they are targets because they were in the British Army, then why would Boby Sands not be considered an equal of any other member of the IRA? why should he be viewed differently? .,.

.....because he showed uncommon bravery in pursuit of his goals. One might ask why he shouldn't be viewed in the same light as some view the Marines.

O'Coonassa

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Notice anything?

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

lolz they're actually flying the Young Irelanders flag the way it was meant to be flown. I call that progress.

Serenity Now!

O'Coonassa wrote: »

lolz they're actually flying the Young Irelanders flag the way it was meant to be flown. I call that progress.

They're 'flying' the national flag of Ivory Coast and nothing more.
Classic. :rolleyes:

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Not entirely true of vall volunteers, generally speaking, but as he was in an active service unit he was doubtless prepared to kill, yes. That was never in question, nor did I suggest such. You stated that he took up arms "in support of killing innocents". Its that I took issue with.
.....because he showed uncommon bravery in pursuit of his goals. One might ask why he shouldn't be viewed in the same light as some view the Marines.

Perhaps because one is part of a legitimate armed force, governed by the rule of law, and sanctioned by popular mandate, and the other was part of a terrorist organisation, governed by bloodthirsty scum, with very little popular support and no legal standing or accountability at all.

Of course he took up arms in support of killing innocents. It's what they did, it's what they were morbidly good at. Killing shopkeepers, linenworkers, shooting up pubs, carbombings, blowing up bandsmen, attacking the B.F.G., abducting and 'disappearing' mothers, teenage boys etc. Big brave men indeed.


Uncommon bravery in pursuit of your goals is donning a uniform, and patrolling the streets, establishing law and order and to try and keep the people safe from gun-toting scum from all sides, who's stated aim was to kill, butcher and maim anyone they saw fit for whatever reason they saw fit.

IIMII

prinz wrote: »

carbombings

And the British Army weren't involved in car bombings? Or carpet bombings of civilian targets? Not that I approve of either, but come on the British Army are no saints

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps(....) saw fit.

Generalisations, oversimplifications, cherry picking, emotive language....Add in 'Nazi' and 'Osama Bin Laden' and I do believe that would be a full house.

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

And the British Army weren't involved in car bombings? Or carpet bombings of civilian targets? Not that I approve of either, but come on the British Army are no saints

Did I say they were? Any back up of British Army 'carbombings'? The last time the British Army carpetbombed anyone it was World War II, and sorry but you cannot start exptrapolating circumstances and events which are entirely unconnected to anything in Northern Ireland.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

.....because he showed uncommon bravery in pursuit of his goals. One might ask why he shouldn't be viewed in the same light as some view the Marines.

Nodin wrote: »

Generalisations, oversimplifications, cherry picking, emotive language....Add in 'Nazi' and 'Osama Bin Laden' and I do believe that would be a full house.

Oversimplification? Good one Nodin. Did you just compare a terrorist fool with a British Marine?

Why, what have Bin Laden and the Nazis to do with RA murderers? Other than the obvious links between the old IRA and their Nazi friends of course.

IIMII

I understand now.

British Army = Good (pacifists, medics, heroes etc)
British Army Enemies = Bad (evil, animals, terrorists, fascists, communists, Nazis etc)

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

I understand now.

British Army = Good (pacifists, medics, heroes etc)
British Army Enemies = Bad (evil, animals, terrorists, fascists, communists, Nazis etc)

Once again nobody said anything of the sort. This thread is not about the British Army, if you want to thrash that one out start a new thread on the highs and lows of the B.A.

It is the typical retort of sympathizers and those in denial, who refuse to accept the fact that the IRA are terrorists. Saying the British Army are no saints either is a tacit acceptance that the what I and others have said re Bobby Sands and his ilk is true.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Oversimplification? Good one Nodin. Did you just compare a terrorist fool with a British Marine?.

I never received the God enscribed memo which stated that wearing a uniform served as a guarantee of personal decency and the validity of ones cause.

prinz wrote: »

Why, what (....)course.

No points, as you received help from the audience.