What did Bobby Sands die for?

seiphil

The Rook wrote: »

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!

What innocent men, women and children?

You sound like British media...

Whether you like it or not there is no difference in Bobby Sands or James Connolly.

2 heroes who died trying to free their country of a foreign occupation. Theres more blood on the hands of any British, American, French, Canadian or any other active army then there are on ANY Irish republican.

Manic Moran

seiphil wrote: »

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.

And a lot of good it did in the long run, too. Or have I missed out on the fact that Northern Ireland is no longer still a part of Her Majesty's United Kingdom?

IMHO, they should have been treated like every other prisoner there. If the population gets uniforms, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries). If the population gets a visitor and a package a week, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries).
Doesn't seem that hard a concept to me.

On the larger scale, I am not a big believer in dying for your country.

NTM

seiphil

Manic Moran wrote: »

And a lot of good it did in the long run, too. Or have I missed out on the fact that Northern Ireland is no longer still a part of Her Majesty's United Kingdom?

IMHO, they should have been treated like every other prisoner there. If the population gets uniforms, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries). If the population gets a visitor and a package a week, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries).
Doesn't seem that hard a concept to me.

NTM

I see what your saying but members of the IRA and republicans don't see it like that.

The IRA is a peoples army, they don't see themselves as criminals and in their areas they are not seen as criminals but saviours.

Sands and co in their eyes and the eyes of many were in a war, so when they were arrested they wanted to be treated like POW's.

This would be the same with any army.

At the end of the day it goes down to personal views and opinions.

Some see the IRA as terrorist's others as freedom fighters. It will always be a conflicted argument with both sides believing they are correct.

mikemac

Bobby Sands may have got the attention and he died first but don't forget the other nine. They are not forgotten

Even from your background OP, a more appropriate thread title would have been on the ten, not just Bobby Sands.
Don't hold Bobby Sands up and not mention the other nine, he was no more or no less then them

getz

seiphil wrote: »

I see what your saying but members of the IRA and republicans don't see it like that.

The IRA is a peoples army, they don't see themselves as criminals and in their areas they are not seen as criminals but saviours.

Sands and co in their eyes and the eyes of many were in a war, so when they were arrested they wanted to be treated like POW's.

This would be the same with any army.

At the end of the day it goes down to personal views and opinions.

Some see the IRA as terrorist's others as freedom fighters. It will always be a conflicted argument with both sides believing they are correct.

i think you should read the geneva convention,and you will find that the IRA never even matched any of the criteria,

lugha

seiphil wrote: »

Whether you like it or not there is no difference in Bobby Sands or James Connolly.

Sands, according to his sister, would now be in the ranks of the dissidents had he lived.
But you are right. There is no great difference between the 1916 lot, PIRA, CIRA and RIRA. Most Irish people would have agreed with their ends but not with their means. Which of course presents a dilemma for the modern day nationalist. The want to reject the dissidents and in most cases PIRA too, but cannot countenance doing this for the 1916 "heroes"

COYW

Stheno wrote: »

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

I was alive at the time also and dont remember much about him at all. The name rings a bell but thats about it. Then again, I certainly wouldnt class him as a of hero of mine.

Terrontress

The difference between the 1916 rebels and the hunger-strikers is that the rebels were executed and the hunger-strikers killed themselves.

Both groups knew they were involved in criminal activity. The only reason why the hunger-strikers were in a position to martyr themselves was because they got caught. There was no bravery to their crimes.

They must have had incredible presence of mind and bravery to go through with their suicide in such a protracted and public manner.

As regards the poster who claims that in the 'IRA areas' that they have had full support, that is nonsense. Joe Hendron of the SDLP held West Belfast for most of the nineties and it was only when SF started talking about peace that people started looking toward them again. Everyone was sick of the IRA and it was good riddance to bad rubbish.

seiphil

Terrontress wrote: »

The difference between the 1916 rebels and the hunger-strikers is that the rebels were executed and the hunger-strikers killed themselves.

Both groups knew they were involved in criminal activity. The only reason why the hunger-strikers were in a position to martyr themselves was because they got caught. There was no bravery to their crimes.

They must have had incredible presence of mind and bravery to go through with their suicide in such a protracted and public manner.

As regards the poster who claims that in the 'IRA areas' that they have had full support, that is nonsense. Joe Hendron of the SDLP held West Belfast for most of the nineties and it was only when SF started talking about peace that people started looking toward them again. Everyone was sick of the IRA and it was good riddance to bad rubbish.

I was referring to South Belfast and the Bogside more then aintin.

And when they did leave these places have been terrorised by hoods.

Now once again they are wanted back to sort out the anti-social problems.

SEPT 23 1989

Any death in the cause of a United Ireland has been a waste

Terrontress

seiphil wrote: »

I was referring to South Belfast and the Bogside more then aintin.

And when they did leave these places have been terrorised by hoods.

Now once again they are wanted back to sort out the anti-social problems.

You mentioned IRA areas and did not include West Belfast!?!

And where in South Belfast are you referring to? The Markets and Lower Ormeau? There are probably no more than a few thousand people in those neighbourhoods. And the SDLP and Workers Party have a very significant presence there.

seiphil

Terrontress wrote: »

You mentioned IRA areas and did not include West Belfast!?!

And where in South Belfast are you referring to? The Markets and Lower Ormeau? There are probably no more than a few thousand people in those neighbourhoods. And the SDLP and Workers Party have a very significant presence there.

I would add Donegal Road to that.

I would also include parts of West Belfast and Ardoyne from the North.

Then you have the Bogside, Lurgan, Places in Fermanagh and other spots all over the North

Terrontress

seiphil wrote: »

I would add Donegal Road to that.

Jesus Christ, I wouldn't!

I am guessing that you don't know Belfast very well. Or the rest of the North. I don't believe that many of the areas you mention had strong electoral representation from SF toward the end of the IRA's campaign

Wolfe Tone

The Rook wrote: »

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!

Tbh I am confused as to how you could class Bobby Sands as a terrorist when he had more apparent and clear support from the people, illustrated by the fact he was elected an MP, than the men of 1916 had before they were killed.


In fact the only reason I think you feel the men of 1916 are not terrorists is because they got a republic in the end.

Het-Field

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Tbh I am confused as to how you could class Bobby Sands as a terrorist when he had more apparent and clear support from the people, illustrated by the fact he was elected an MP, than the men of 1916 had before they were killed.


In fact the only reason I think you feel the men of 1916 are not terrorists is because they got a republic in the end.

So the end justifies the means ?

Further, I would suggest that your view is over-simplistic. The Republic was declared by John A Costello. Offers were on the table at the time the 1916ers took up arms. It has also been argued that what really irked the Irish people was the executions without the use of fair procedures.

I would also like to know how you would classify the actions by the rebels in Bolands Mill ? Heroic or terrorist. Bear in mind, the actions taken were with a view to silencing dissent.

Wolfe Tone

Het-Field wrote: »

Further, I would suggest that your view is over-simplistic. The Republic was declared by John A Costello.

Apologies, I should have said "relative independence"

Offers were on the table at the time the 1916ers took up arms.

Home rule? :rolleyes:

It has also been argued that what really irked the Irish people was the executions without the use of fair procedures.

They where made into martyrs by the Brits, just like the hunger strikers were.

I would also like to know how you would classify the actions by the rebels in Bolands Mill ? Heroic or terrorist. Bear in mind, the actions taken were with a view to silencing dissent.

Much like with the PIRA I disagree with some of their actions, yet agree with the use of force and the need for an armed campaign.

mgmt

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They where made into martyrs by the Brits, just like the hunger strikers were.

Much like with the PIRA I disagree with some of their actions, yet agree with the use of force and the need for an armed campaign.

Honestly how? The PIRA were going against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of NI.

Wolfe Tone

mgmt wrote: »

Honestly how? The PIRA were going against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of NI.

I dont think the civil rights campaign would have ever achieved anything without force.


If it wasnt for the PIRA nationalists would be living the same as they where in the 60s. Thats my belief.

It wasn't me!

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If it wasnt for the PIRA nationalists would be living the same as they where in the 60s. Thats my belief.

Considering nothing else on earth is the same as it was in the 60s, there is absolutely no logical basis for that assumption, at all.

Wolfe Tone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Considering nothing else on earth is the same as it was in the 60s, there is absolutely no logical basis for that assumption, at all.

So you are saying if they were all good little boys and put up with the sh!te way they were treated the unionists would for some reason start treating them as equals?

It wasn't me!

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So you are saying if they were all good little boys and put up with the sh!te way they were treated the unionists would for some reason start treating them as equals?

Are you saying northern Ireland is the one place on earth which wouldn't have undergone social changes over the last fifty years? I never said any such thing as you suggest, but the idea that unless there were an armed campaign that absolutely nothing would be different is utterly laughable.

Wolfe Tone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Are you saying northern Ireland is the one place on earth which wouldn't have undergone social changes over the last fifty years? I never said any such thing as you suggest, but the idea that unless there were an armed campaign that absolutely nothing would be different is utterly laughable.

So unionists would have started to treat nationalists as humans for no reason? They would suddenly wake up one day and do that? I could understand arguing that the civil rights movement would have resulted in a change by itself, but what is laughable here is you saying that things would just change for no reason.

It wasn't me!

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So unionists would have started to treat nationalists as humans for no reason? They would suddenly wake up one day and do that? I could understand arguing that the civil rights movement would have resulted in a change by itself, but what is laughable here is you saying that things would just change for no reason.

I'm not suggesting this. You're completely failing to grasp the concept that history is not sedentary. You really believe that without an armed campaign, absolutely nothing else would have happened to make ground, that in fifty years no conversations would be had, no different political perspectives would arise and absolutely no movements would have been made? If you really believe that there's only ever been one determinant factor in the history of change in northern Ireland and that without it things would be the same as in the 60s, you have absolutely zero understanding of history.

Duiske

Was it worth it ? I'm not sure, but the election of Sand's to Westminster and Kieran Doherty and Paddy Agnew to the Dail was a huge turning point, and probably ignited the view in certain sections of the republican leadership that there was another way forward.

Wolfe Tone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I'm not suggesting this. You're completely failing to grasp the concept that history is not sedentary. You really believe that without an armed campaign, absolutely nothing else would have happened to make ground, that in fifty years no conversations would be had, no different political perspectives would arise and absolutely no movements would have been made? If you really believe that there's only ever been one determinant factor in the history of change in northern Ireland and that without it things would be the same as in the 60s, you have absolutely zero understanding of history.

You could argue that it would have gotten worse instead of better using your logic.


What I am saying is that the civil rights movement would have gotten no where by itself.

Wolfe Tone

Duiske wrote: »

Was it worth it ? I'm not sure, but the election of Sand's to Westminster and Kieran Doherty and Paddy Agnew to the Dail was a huge turning point, and probably ignited the view in certain sections of the republican leadership that there was another way forward.

It put the ballot box in their hands all right.

It wasn't me!

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You could argue that it would have gotten worse instead of better using your logic.


What I am saying is that the civil rights movement would have gotten no where by itself.

You could, though there's no useful evidence either way. The important thing is to remember that history as a narrative is not sedentary.

To the second statement, you have no evidence for this, as it's impossible for you to predict the course of fifty years of mighthavebeen history.

Terrontress

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Tbh I am confused as to how you could class Bobby Sands as a terrorist when he had more apparent and clear support from the people, illustrated by the fact he was elected an MP, than the men of 1916 had before they were killed.


In fact the only reason I think you feel the men of 1916 are not terrorists is because they got a republic in the end.

Sands was elected in to one of the least populous constituencies in the UK, a constituency in which he never lived. I'm not sure his election was a ringing endorsement by any group of people.

OhNoYouDidn't

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You could, though there's no useful evidence either way. The important thing is to remember that history as a narrative is not sedentary.

To the second statement, you have no evidence for this, as it's impossible for you to predict the course of fifty years of mighthavebeen history.

But he is right. The civil rights movement got beaten off the streets by the peelers and loyalists. The sticks and later provo's got torn into the Stormont regieme, and viola, direct rule and full civil rights. There was NOTHING happening organically within the unionist tradition that was going to give civil rights to the minority. I find it very hard to believe that left to their own devices they would have ceded one inch.

Wolfe Tone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You could, though there's no useful evidence either way. The important thing is to remember that history as a narrative is not sedentary.

To the second statement, you have no evidence for this, as it's impossible for you to predict the course of fifty years of mighthavebeen history.

You can look at history, they never listened to "peaceful protest". Look where that got the people at bloody sunday.