What did Bobby Sands die for?

KeithAFC

An interesting one this is because as far as i know, he wanted political status.

1. the right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. the right not to do prison work;
3. the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
4. the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
5. full restoration of remission lost through the protest

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Was it really worth it to starve yourself to death to prove a point?

chucken1

Keith, Im not getting into this discussion,but you being too young is why you dont remember Bobby Sands.

Its nothing to do with you being a unionist.

Einhard

This is going to end well...

Wolfe Tone

Bobby Sands wanted to be treated as what he was, a political prisoner, a prisoner of war. He had the courage and conviction to stick to his principles to the very end, backed all the way by his peers and the people. He was prepared to die, and ultimately did, for what he believed in.

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken.


They won't break me because the desire for freedom, and the freedom of the Irish people, is in my heart. The day will dawn when all the people of Ireland will have the desire for freedom to show. It is then that we will see the rising of the moon.


We must see our present fight right through to the very end."


-Bobby Sands, MP





Bobby Sands was no criminal. He was a hero.

Einhard

TheProdigy wrote: »

I suppose you could ask that cúnt Thatcher was it worth 10 lives to refuse the above?

Thatcher didn't kill the hunger strikers.

KeithAFC

TheProdigy wrote: »

I suppose you could ask that cúnt Thatcher was it worth 10 lives to refuse the above?

Was it worth it though? I agree, you could ask Thatcher the same question but do most Irish people think it was worth it? I know some Loyalists actually supported him and he was obviously very brave in that regard.

Einhard

KeithAFC wrote: »

Was it worth it though?

I don't really thinka nyone could answer that, except the man himself, and perhaps his family. He obviously thought it was, and so, in that respect, it was.

Athlone_Bhoy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Was it worth it though? I agree, you could ask Thatcher the same question but do most Irish people think it was worth it? I know some Loyalists actually supported him and he was obviously very brave in that regard.

Not only just Sands but 9 more after him not to mention the number on the protest.

Are we finaling turning you KeithAFC?

TheProdigy

Einhard wrote: »

Thatcher didn't kill the hunger strikers.

That is dependant on what context you perceive the situation, had she accepted their political status they wouldn't have died so she was indeed the fundamental aspect which contributed to their deaths. From that view you could argue she did kill them essentially.

KeithAFC

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Not only just Sands but 9 more after him not to mention the number on the protest.

Are we finaling turning you KeithAFC?

No. Im just curious as to what the general view of his death is on here.

Wolfe Tone

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Keith, I honestly don't know how you couldn't if you where alive at the time.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Keith, I honestly don't know how you couldn't if you where alive at the time.

No, i meant by going to ceremonies etc.

Wolfe Tone

Fair enough, pretty sure I am not the only one who picked it up that way.

Stheno

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Keith, I honestly don't know how you couldn't if you where alive at the time.

I was eight at the time and don't remember it much despite growing up across from Portlaoise Prison.

chucken1

KeithAFC wrote: »

An interesting one this is because as far as i know, he wanted political status.

1. the right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. the right not to do prison work;
3. the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
4. the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
5. full restoration of remission lost through the protest

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Was it really worth it to starve yourself to death to prove a point?[/QUOTE]

I said I would'nt get into the discussion..but Keith..Do you know what that point was?

Pauleta

He threw a tantrum because they wanted new clothes

Einhard

TheProdigy wrote: »

That is dependant on what context you perceive the situation, had she accepted their political status they wouldn't have died so she was indeed the fundamental aspect which contributed to their deaths. From that view you could argue she did kill them essentially.

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants, and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths? I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

Wolfe Tone

Pauleta wrote: »

He threw a tantrum because they wanted new clothes

Thats an AH answer, I don't think anyone could seriously condense it to that tbf.


If that is your understanding of the situation...... oh dear.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants, and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths? I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

In fairness, Bobby Sands was no ordinary prisoner, he was elected as an MP while in jail. He was clearly a political prisoner.


It was a bad move by Thatcher from both sides tbh, what good came of it from a British/Unionist pov?

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness, Bobby Sands was no ordinary prisoner, he was elected as an MP while in jail. He was clearly a political prisoner.


It was a bad move by Thatcher from both sides tbh, what good came of it from a British/Unionist pov?

David Ervine said it set a chance of peace back for 10-15 years or more.

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness, Bobby Sands was no ordinary prisoner, he was elected as an MP while in jail. He was clearly a political prisoner.

Being elected an MP shouldn't make one above the law though. Geoffrey Archer was an MP!

It was a bad move by Thatcher from both sides tbh, what good came of it from a British/Unionist pov?

Perhaps she should have adopted a more conciliatory stance from a politican POV, but that would be to her credit, and fact that she didn't, IMO, isn't something that can be used against her. Bobby Sands was aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation which murdered and inflicted horrific injuries on women and children. You may think him a hero, I don't. I don't care what his political allegiances, he was a criminal for doing so. And he deserved to be treated like one.

chucken1

KeithAFC wrote: »

David Ervine said it set a chance of peace back for 10-15 years or more.

What did? The fact that he was an elected rep or that he died?

RichieC

chucken1 wrote: »

Me?
Whats the problem?

Oh, gods, no, I meant the OP

chucken1

RichieC wrote: »

Oh, gods, no, I meant the OP

Well you got that wrong too so.

TheProdigy

Einhard wrote: »

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants, and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths? I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

As I said it depends on what perception one has obtained from the circumstances which unfolded, your view is not in collaboration with mine so arguing over the responsibility of the deaths will not result in any agreement from either of us.

In relation to other organisations such as the Red Brigades I'm sure followers or such would have viewed the Italian government responsible had such 'demands' (or moral rights as some would think) been orchestrated and not granted. Again some would believe they weren't responsible so as previously mentioned it all depends on how somebody concludes a view about events.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Being elected an MP shouldn't make one above the law though. Geoffrey Archer was an MP!

Was he elected because of his crimes?

Everyone knew of Bobby Sands "crimes" and voted for him because of them, they were not seen as a negative.

Perhaps she should have adopted a more conciliatory stance from a politican POV, but that would be to her credit, and fact that she didn't, IMO, isn't something that can be used against her. Bobby Sands was aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation which murdered and inflicted horrific injuries on women and children. You may think him a hero, I don't. I don't care what his political allegiances, he was a criminal for doing so. And he deserved to be treated like one.

I dont think there is a "perhaps" about it. It can be used against her, from a Unionist prospective she let the troubles be reignited and led to a huge upsurge in IRA membership. She made a bags of it, no two ways about it.



Even the Pope warned her about the consequences from a hungerstrike:

Pope John Paul II had hunger strikers concern
The Pope wrote to Margaret Thatcher about his "deep" concerns for republican inmates on hunger strike in the Maze Prison, previously secret papers have showed.

Pope John Paul II urged the former prime minister to "consider personally" solutions to the crisis in which seven IRA inmates deliberately starved themselves at the notorious Northern Ireland jail in the hope of winning prisoner-of-war status.

The personal message from John Paul II reads: "I am receiving disturbing news about the tension in the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland, where a number of prisoners have begun a hunger strike."

He continued: "I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Atkins, has already been asked to examine the problem and to seek possible solutions.

"In the spirit of the call for peace and reconciliation which I made at Drogheda during my pastoral visit to Ireland last year, I would express my deep concern about the tragic consequences which the agitation could have for the prisoners themselves and also the possible grave repercussions upon the whole situation in Northern Ireland.

"I would ask you to consider personally possible solutions in order to avoid irreversible consequences that could perhaps prove irreparable."

The letter was made public as part of a release of previously secret Government papers from 1980 held by the National Archives in Kew, London.

The origins of the protest lay in the 1976 decision by the British Government to treat newly convicted IRA prisoners as ordinary criminals rather than political prisoners.

The removal of "special category" status was extended to all paramilitary prisoners in March 1980.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/pope-john-paul-ii-had-hunger-strikers-concern-15042051.html#ixzz19bjlIRvg

Einhard

TheProdigy wrote: »

In relation to other organisations such as the Red Brigades I'm sure followers or such would have viewed the Italian government responsible had such 'demands' (or moral rights as some would think) been orchestrated and not granted. Again some would believe they weren't responsible so as previously mentioned it all depends on how somebody concludes a view about events.

That seems like an argument for moral relativism to me. I happen to believe that some actions are always wrong, no matter the principle behind them. The deliberate and senseless murder of civilians being one of them for example. As I said, Sands abetted such murders, and thus should not be have been treated as a political prisoner, let alone a hero.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Was he elected because of his crimes?

Fair point. But achieving a democratic mandate should not be conflated with having a moral mandate. Many people here consider George Bush and Tony Blair to be war criminals, yet both were re-elected to their respective positions after they invaded Iraq.

Everyone knew of Bobby Sands "crimes" and voted for him because of them, they were not seen as a negative.

And equally, Loyalist massacres of Catholics were not seen in the negative by many Loyalists. That must make them legitimate murders too right?

I dont think there is a "perhaps" about it. It can be used against her, from a Unionist prospective she let the troubles be reignited and led to a huge upsurge in IRA membership. She made a bags of it, no two ways about it.

Sometimes one has to take a stand on principle. The British state was being blackmailed by men who sought to murder the citizens of that state. If I had been in her position, I would have done the exact same thing. She didn't kill Sands or the others; they made that choice themselves.

Even the Pope warned her about the consequences from a hungerstrike:

Oh well, why didn't you say so? If the pope was against the policy, then surely it must have been the wrong one. Afterall, the papacy is infallible...

hotmail.com

Stheno wrote: »

I was eight at the time and don't remember it much despite growing up across from Portlaoise Prison.

And does this normally give you an advantage on the history of prisons?

I don't thinki it achieved anything, 10 men died, in an elaborate publicity stunt that got out of control.

All it did was increase IRA numbers.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Fair point. But achieving a democratic mandate should not be conflated with having a moral mandate. Many people here consider George Bush and Tony Blair to be war criminals, yet both were re-elected to their respective positions after they invaded Iraq.

Did people vote for them because of their "war crimes" or in spite of them? I think it was mainly the latter.

And equally, Loyalist massacres of Catholics were not seen in the negative by many Loyalists. That must make them legitimate murders too right?

I think it boils down to whether or not you think it was a war or not. I think many loyalists also wanted political status. I think they are who Keith referred to earlier.

Sometimes one has to take a stand on principle. The British state was being blackmailed by men who sought to murder the citizens of that state. If I had been in her position, I would have done the exact same thing. She didn't kill Sands or the others; they made that choice themselves.

But the Brits caved in on all the demands except one I believe.

Oh well, why didn't you say so? If the pope was against the policy, then surely it must have been the wrong one. Afterall, the papacy is infallible...

The point I was making was that if someone as blinkered and backward as the Pope could see what would happen....

seiphil

My view only on this but I believe that the Death of Bobby Sands and the 9 other hungerstrikers was worth it.

Its a mirror image of what Connolly and Pearse did in 1916. They knew that they could and would not defeat the British forces in Ireland but they believed that it would ignite a fire in Republican's bellies and thats what it did.

Likewise with what happened after the hungerstrikers died.

The Rook

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Bobby Sands wanted to be treated as what he was, a political prisoner, a prisoner of war.


Bobby Sands was no criminal. He was a hero.

While you're by all means entitles to your opinion I don't agree, he was a criminal, a terrorist, targeting innocent men, women and children, not a political prisoner. I know he's revered etc in some circles, but thankfully I'm not a member of any of those circles

I have family who fought in 1916 (for the Republic before anyone asks!) so I'm definitely not pro British/ Unionist, but Bobby Sands, just a terrorist in my honest opinion, and again that's something I'm entitled to!