black flags accross bridge of peace

Quality

what were the black flags accross the bridge of peace for today?

delly

Its a republican thing AFAIK, maybe to mark the anniversary of the death of Bobby Sands or other hunger strikers?

In_tuition

Whatever momument is at the bottom of the Grove Hill, it's to mark the anniversary. Was driving by the market at around 2.30pm yesterday and there was a crowd of around 150-200 people getting ready to march, march band and all. Cops were patrolling nearby streets to leading down to the Bridge of Peace.

lucernarian

Ah yeah, that's the 13 hunger strikers memorial thingy they have every year.

garrincha62

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Ah yeah, that's the 13 hunger strikers memorial thingy they have every year.

It is a strange ritual alright. Drogheda can be an odd town.

Bigdeadlydave

How is it a strange ritual?

starn

13 people wake up one morning and decide they dont want to eat there corn flakes anymore, and a minority of the town decide to commemerate them. That is strange.

garrincha62

starn wrote: »

13 people wake up one morning and decide they dont want to eat there corn flakes anymore, and a minority of the town decide to commemerate them. That is strange.

And decide to comemorate them by standing on a bridge waving black pieces of cloth at cars...if that is not odd I don't know what is.

Bigdeadlydave

Well the hunger strikers are an important part of our history so commemorating their deaths is not that strange, after all they were martyrs for their cause.

starn

starn wrote: »

13 people wake up one morning and decide they dont want to eat there corn flakes anymore, and a minority of the town decide to commemerate them. That is strange.

Condescending much?

garrincha62

I suppose it isn't strange if you come from a Sinn Féin/IRA background. I don't though and it just strikes me as bizarre. Surely there is a less weird way of commemorating them?

dlofnep

starn wrote: »

13 people wake up one morning and decide they dont want to eat there corn flakes anymore, and a minority of the town decide to commemerate them. That is strange.

You find the idea of people commemorating people who gave their life for a cause that they identify and empathise with as strange? I'm not sure what's so strange about it.

dlofnep

garrincha62 wrote: »

I suppose it isn't strange if you come from a Sinn Féin/IRA background. I don't though and it just strikes me as bizarre. Surely there is a less weird way of commemorating them?

What's weird, and what's not weird? People wearing a poppy to commemorate a war might be weird to some. It's subjective, and seriously - not worth debating over.

starn

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Well the hunger strikers are an important part of our history so commemorating their deaths is not that strange, after all they were martyrs for their cause.

No there not. They were all in jail for good reasons, if they didnt want there shreddies in the morning thats there problem. These people shoukld NOT be commenerated.

dlofnep

starn wrote: »

No there not. They were all in jail for good reasons, if they didnt want there shreddies in the morning thats there problem. These people shoukld NOT be commenerated.

In your opinion. Other people might disagree with your opinion.

I find your lack of understanding of the issue to be either slightly amusing, or a little sad. You either understand that they went on hunger strike, for the principle of being classified as prisoners of war - and are purposely trying to create heat in the thread, by acting ignorant about the issue. Or you are infact, uneducated about the issue. So which one is it?

You don't have to agree with their principles, to understand the reason why they engaged with a hungrstrike. Acting ignorant about the topic doesn't do you any favours.

garrincha62

garrincha62 wrote: »

I suppose it isn't strange if you come from a Sinn Féin/IRA background. I don't though and it just strikes me as bizarre. Surely there is a less weird way of commemorating them?

I'm not from a Sinn Fein background at all. Wouldn't never vote for them etc.

The hunger strikers at least had conviction and died because for their beliefs. If any of the current politicians had this kind of spine, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in.

Plus commemerating them? Is it any less bizarre than commerating the 1916 rising and its leaders?

starn

starn wrote: »

No there not. They were all in jail for good reasons, if they didnt want there shreddies in the morning thats there problem. These people shoukld NOT be commenerated.

Oh dear god, you actually have no idea why they were striking? And people think we have a knowledge based economy. They went on hunger strike as they believed they should treated as a POW, not as a criminal. They weren't trying to get out of jail.:rolleyes:

garrincha62

Martyrs, jesus is this the 10th century or something??! Sure weren't they in for murdering folk anyhow.

garrincha62

garrincha62 wrote: »

Martyrs, jesus is this the 10th century or something??! Sure weren't they in for murdering folk anyhow.

Bobby Sands was never convicted of murdering anyone.

garrincha62

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not from a Sinn Fein background at all. Wouldn't never vote for them etc.

The hunger strikers at least had conviction and died because for their beliefs. If any of the current politicians had this kind of spine, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in.

Plus commemerating them? Is it any less bizarre than commerating the 1916 rising and its leaders?

Just because they had convictions and died for their beliefs doesn't make them any less stupid.

No, I find the whole 1916 thing silly too.

Are you insinuating that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now if our politicians starved themselves??

getz

garrincha62 wrote: »

I suppose it isn't strange if you come from a Sinn Féin/IRA background. I don't though and it just strikes me as bizarre. Surely there is a less weird way of commemorating them?

i take it that non of them will be commemorating the rememberance day-bombing by the IRA in 1987 ?where was the glory in killing old age pensioners who were only there to remember their dead ?they did not have a chance to decide to live or die,just for the record 11 dead 63 injured even members or the irish republics goverment.

starn

garrincha62 wrote: »

Martyrs, jesus is this the 10th century or something??! Sure weren't they in for murdering folk anyhow.

Exactly, I know exactly why they were protesting Dazzler and I couldnt give a toss. Good ridence to them.

Bigdeadlydave

garrincha62 wrote: »

Just because they had convictions and died for their beliefs doesn't make them any less stupid.

No, I find the whole 1916 thing silly too.

Are you insinuating that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now if our politicians starved themselves??

Please tell me you are just pretending to be stupid?

garrincha62

Deleted User wrote: »

Bobby Sands was never convicted of murdering anyone.

Neither was Himmler, but thats ok then.

dlofnep

garrincha62 wrote: »

J
No, I find the whole 1916 thing silly too.

Tell me your understanding of 1916, including the events that lead up to it and why Irish revolutionaries decided that it was better for Irish people to control their own affairs? Then, you can explain why you felt it was silly.

I'll await your answer.

Bigdeadlydave

garrincha62 wrote: »

Neither was Himmler, but thats ok then.

OK, my mistake, you are stupid. Comparing Bobby Sands to Himmler. Well played, troll.

starn

dlofnep wrote: »

Tell me your understanding of 1916, including the events that lead up to it and why Irish revolutionaries decided that it was better for Irish people to control their own affairs? Then, you can explain why you felt it was silly.

I'll await your answer.

Tell me if the Irish revolutionaries belived so much in Irish control of irsh affairs why didnt they stand in any of the privious general elections, win seats and then rebel.

Your heros of 16 had no mandate from the people to do what they did.

So much for self goverance

Any way Pearse was a mentaler.

Bigdeadlydave

starn wrote: »

Tell me if the Irish revolutionaries belived so much in Irish control of irsh affairs why didnt they stand in any of the privious general elections, win seats and then rebel.

Your heros of 16 had no mandate from the people to do what they did.

So much for self goverance

Any way Pearse was a mentaler, with a thing for little boys

/facepalm

garrincha62

dlofnep wrote: »

Tell me your understanding of 1916, including the events that lead up to it and why Irish revolutionaries decided that it was better for Irish people to control their own affairs? Then, you can explain why you felt it was silly.

I'll await your answer.

I will clarify, I find the whole commemoration of it silly, and overblown. I found the 90th anniversary embarrassing and think the 100 year anniversary will be worse.

I understand 1916 and the motivations of it alright. It's the vying for the tradition of it afterwards that sickens me.

garrincha62

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

OK, my mistake, you are stupid. Comparing Bobby Sands to Himmler. Well played, troll.

BDD, which way did you vote on Lisbon?

starn

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

/facepalm

Care to elaborate