Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

bobbysands81

Loved by many, scorned by a few but remembered by all.

How this country could do with someone like Bobby now.

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

EireGreg

R.I.P A true Irish warrior
Gone but not forgotten

32

wingsof daun

A lot of countries could do with Bobby now. There's too much corruption, too many have sold out their country for money and high positions. Many paid to stay silent. Imperialism has more recently targeted Africa. Nations and countries worldwide remain in a constant battle against it.

Phoebas

bobbysands81 wrote: »

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

And then he went and starved himself to death. Sounds like a broken man to me.

riffmongous

Phoebas wrote: »

And then he went and starved himself to death. Sounds like a broken man to me.

great reasoning there :rolleyes:

RIP

Iwasfrozen

bobbysands81 wrote: »

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

They had torture but they choose not to use it.

belcampprisoner

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/04/guantanamo-hunger-strike



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

KyussBishop

Phoebas wrote: »

And then he went and starved himself to death. Sounds like a broken man to me.

Starvation is a pretty horrible way to go, and it takes enormous effort to force yourself through it; so, whatever personal/political criticisms people may have of Bobby Sands, it has to be admired, the sheer determination, integrity of personal principles, and incredible willpower that it takes, to tortuously starve yourself to death over two months, in protest.

There aren't a whole lot of people who have both 1: the level of self-determination and willpower needed to be capable of that, or 2: the strength of belief in principals, and personal dedication to them, required in order to actually voluntarily choose that fate.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They had torture but they choose not to use it.

If they'd have started torturing Republican prisoners routinely (they already used torture in some cases) the backlash would have been even worse than what happened after the hunger strikers.

There was a large Irish diaspora to be worried about in the UK and considerable support for Republicans that would have been even more energized had they dared.

They knew better than to kick that hornets nest.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If they'd have started torturing Republican prisoners routinely (they already used torture in some cases) the backlash would have been even worse than what happened after the hunger strikers.

There was a large Irish diaspora to be worried about in the UK and considerable support for Republicans that would have been even more energized had they dared.

They knew better than to kick that hornets nest.

I'm not saying they would have done it, I'm pointing out the quote was wrong.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm pointing out the quote was wrong.

You can't say it was wrong, you see, because the only way of proving if the quote was wrong would be to set up a replicable experiment where Bobby Sands could have lived over-and-over again and 50% of the time he was tortured (to what ends?) and 50% of the time he was let be. After this incredible experiment if Bobby sands had 'broke' more times than not we might be able to draw the conclusion on whether the quote was wrong or not.

Now I know you have a penchant for alternate realities but let's just work with the reality we have instead of those you'd like to conjure to underpin your dogma.

In short, you don't even understand what you are saying.

Norwesterner

Bobby and his comrades died for political status, only for it to be later to be used and sold as a bargaining chip in the GFA negotiations.
At the stroke of a pen, Republican prisoners in the North lost their political status in 1998.
Now, it's not just Tories who criminalise Republican prisoners, it's " New SF" Ministers as well.

A travesty how it all turned out, and one has to wonder if they died in vain.
Certainly seems like it in my opinion.
Incidentally, the family of Bobby Sands have been fighting for years to try and stop SF from profiteering on Bobbys writings and merchandise etc.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You can't say it was wrong, you see, because the only way of proving if the quote was wrong would be to set up a replicable experiment where Bobby Sands could have lived over-and-over again and 50% of the time he was tortured (to what ends?) and 50% of the time he was let be. After this incredible experiment if Bobby sands had 'broke' more times than not we might be able to draw the conclusion on whether the quote was wrong or not.

Now I know you have a penchant for alternate realities but let's just work with the reality we have instead of those you'd like to conjure to underpin your dogma.

In short, you don't even understand what you are saying.

You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Everyone breaks under sustained torture. Everyone. Stop talking crap about alternate realities this is a serious subject.

Colash

32

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everyone breaks under sustained torture. Everyone.

Even people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause? So they can be tortured into not not sacrificing their lives? More rubbish.

Stop talking crap about alternate realities

I'll make it simple for you. When you say 'should have' and 'would have' you make an assertion about your beliefs of what might have happened in some alternative universe. Why should anyone give a shit about your beliefs? The fact that you present your beliefs as some sort of rational argument is only evidence of your own poor reasoning.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Violence would have broken out over the national issue anyway.

Belief.

Do you agree with my statement that anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully?

Belief.

Phoebas

KyussBishop wrote: »

Starvation is a pretty horrible way to go, and it takes enormous effort to force yourself through it; so, whatever personal/political criticisms people may have of Bobby Sands, it has to be admired, the sheer determination, integrity of personal principles, and incredible willpower that it takes, to tortuously starve yourself to death over two months, in protest.

There aren't a whole lot of people who have both 1: the level of self-determination and willpower needed to be capable of that, or 2: the strength of belief in principals, and personal dedication to them, required in order to actually voluntarily choose that fate.

There's no doubting his level of determination, but it doesn't have to be admired at all.

pablomakaveli

Going to break this republican circlejerk by reminding people the man was a terrorist and doesn't deserve his martyr status.

Banjo String

They will not criminalise us, rob us of our true identity, steal our individualism, depoliticise us, churn us out as systemised, institutionalised, decent law-abiding robots. We refuse to lie here in dishonor! We are not criminals, but Irishmen! This is the crime of which we stand accused. Never will they label our liberation struggle as criminal!


R.I.P Bobby.

codladh go maith mo chara.

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

fgoig to break this republican circlejerk by reminding people the man was a terrorist and doesn't deserve his martyr status.

The man wasn't a terrorist. The British themselves conceded to this fact when they ultimately granted political status to the prisoners.

Based on this alone, Your post couldn't be further from the truth.

R P McMurphy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Going to break this republican circlejerk by reminding people the man was a terrorist and doesn't deserve his martyr status.

Just out of interest, if you were forced to live as a second class citizen, not afforded any protection by the state and watched your family come under attack and be burned out of your house would you continue to bend over

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

The man wasn't a terrorist. The British themselves conceded to this fact when they ultimately granted political status to the prisoners.

Based on this alone, Your post couldn't be further from the truth.

He was a Provo, a member of a terrorist organization. In my eyes he's a terrorist and nothing more.

Fr Tod Umptious

common criminal who committed suicide, don't see what the big deal is.

droidman123

pablomakaveli wrote: »

He was a Provo, a member of a terrorist organization. In my eyes he's a terrorist and nothing more.

The biggest terrorists this country has ever seen were the british. How do you define "terrorist" ?

pablomakaveli

droidman123 wrote: »

The biggest terrorists this country has ever seen were the british. How do you define "terrorist" ?

A member of an illegal organization that conducts a campaign of terror.

droidman123

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

common criminal who committed suicide, don't see what the big deal is.

The fact that you admit that you can't see what the big deal is confirms your ignorance of the topic.

droidman123

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A member of an illegal organization that conducts a campaign of terror.

Fine,so are you saying the British never conducted a campaign if terror in this country?

pablomakaveli

droidman123 wrote: »

Fine,so are you saying the British never conducted a campaign if terror in this country?

Well no they didnt. Their operations in NI did not include the objective of a campaign of terror.

droidman123

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well no they didnt. Their operations in NI did not include the objective of a campaign of terror.

Well you are very blinded then.

pablomakaveli

droidman123 wrote: »

Well you are very blinded then.

I could level the same accusation at you.

droidman123

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I could level the same accusation at you.

Are you seriously saying the British never terrorised catholic communities in the north?

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well no they didnt. Their operations in NI did not include the objective of a campaign of terror.

You've heard about bloody Sunday, right? (For starters)

RandomName2

SamHall wrote: »

The man wasn't a terrorist. The British themselves conceded to this fact when they ultimately granted political status to the prisoners.

Based on this alone, Your post couldn't be further from the truth.

Well Sands was certainly an active member of the PIRA.

Mind you, his conviction for murder was certainly very shaky; seemingly based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

But his protest apparently wasn't over his conviction, but rather part of the movement which opposed paramilitary members being treated as criminals.

So whether or not you believe that his protest had any merit will be largely predicated on whether you see the PIRA as criminals or soldiers.

Quite honestly, it's hard to say how an organisation which doesn't wear a uniform during operations or is represented by any government is an army, strictly speaking. Members like Sands were members of a state, their actions were against that state that they were citizens of, and they were convicted and imprisoned by that same state.

Remember that this is separate from the consideration of whether such people had due grievances. Seeing that they had been effectively disenfranchised by their state, they demonstrably did. But that still does not make them soldiers. How many solders become members of parliament of the country they are fighting against whilst they are POWs? Bobby Sands was clearly a civilian.

So while one may reflect upon his suffering, and his dedication to his cause, it is an altogether different thing to say that that suffering meant that he was right. Indeed, the man arguably, ultimately, became subsumed by the cause.

Fr Tod Umptious

droidman123 wrote: »

The fact that you admit that you can't see what the big deal is confirms your ignorance of the topic.

I am just taking it for what it is.
He got caught committing a crime, went to prison and committed suicide there.

Anyone whose see some sort of glory in what he and others did are just apologists for murderers and criminals

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

You've heard about bloody Sunday, right? (For starters)

That was a tragedy carried out by idiots in the Para regiment. It wasn't the mandated way of dealing with disturbances.

one ill cat

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well no they didnt. Their operations in NI did not include the objective of a campaign of terror.

The level of ignorance of this is quite scary.

Go Google - 'The B Specials', 'Bloody Sunday' and 'The Shankill Butchers' to get you started. It's been well documented & proven that the British government/army armed & provided intelligence to Loyalist terrorists. On Bloody Sunday they just opened fire themselves without getting anyone else to do their dirty work for them. But then you'd know that if you'd bothered watching any of the news around the huge inquiry into it, only a few years ago.

The discrimination was so bad in the 1980s that you can read all about it in independently published history text books. Text books I used for GCSE History, a UK level exam.

Sometimes the level of ignorance I encounter within this country about its own history is horrific.

Not to derail this thread but I suggest you at least look into what you're posting before making ignorant & clearly false statements.

droidman123

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I am just taking it for what it is.
He got caught committing a crime, went to prison and committed suicide there.

Anyone whose see some sort of glory in what he and others did are just apologists for murderers and criminals

You should read some history books if you really think it was as simple as that.

pablomakaveli

one ill cat wrote: »

The level of ignorance of this is quite scary.

Go Google - 'The B Specials', 'Bloody Sunday' and 'The Shankill Butchers' to get you started. It's been well documented & proven that the British government/army armed & provided intelligence to Loyalist terrorists. On Bloody Sunday they just opened fire themselves without getting anyone else to do their dirty work for them. But then you'd know that if you'd bothered watching any of the news around the huge inquiry into it, only a few years ago.

The discrimination was so bad in the 1980s that you can read all about it in independently published history text books. Text books I used for GCSE History, a UK level exam.

Sometimes the level of ignorance I encounter within this country about its own history is horrific.

Not to derail this thread but I suggest you at least look into what you're posting before making ignorant & clearly false statements.

I'm aware of the B specials and Shankill Butchers but they weren't part of the British army. I've addressed Bloody Sunday above.

The discrimination you mention came from the Unionist side.

I'm in no way ignorant to the Troubles but i dont look at it solely through the Republican viewpoint either.

pablomakaveli

droidman123 wrote: »

You should read some history books if you really think it was as simple as that.

Would they be history books from the Republican view of events?

Some people on here think not abiding by the Republican version of events equals an ignorance of events.

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

That was a tragedy carried out by idiots in the Para regiment. It wasn't the mandated way of dealing with disturbances.

They open fired, and shot dead fourteen innocent civil rights demonstrators

The regiment, and British govt covered up, and consistently lied about what happened for almost forty years afterward.

Your posts are so inaccurate I don't know where to begin tbh.

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

They open fired, and shot dead fourteen innocent civil rights demonstrators

The regiment, and British govt covered up, and consistently lied about what happened for almost forty years afterward.

Your posts are so inaccurate I don't know where to begin tbh.

How are they inaccurate?

I said opening fire like they did wasn't mandated and it wasn't.

I never said they were right in doing so either.

one ill cat

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'm aware of the B specials and Shankill Butchers but they weren't part of the British army. I've addressed Bloody Sunday above.

The discrimination you mention came from the Unionist side.

I'm in no way ignorant to the Troubles but i dont look at it solely through the Republican viewpoint either.

They were funded/supported by the British, which is the point. Both sides committed horrific acts during the troubles, that's not being disputed from what I can see. But I really do think the British government's involvement in the whole mess is so very ignorantly overlooked.

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

How are they inaccurate?

I said opening fire like they did wasn't mandated and it wasn't.

I never said they were right in doing so either.

The British govt's handling of the aftermath?

Do you think that was 'mandated'?

Hidalgo

The attention that Sands' funeral garnered highlighted the international interest in the hunger strikes.
All the big US networks sent crews to cover the funeral, ABC, NBC and CBS. Massive global attention


For the 10 hunger strikers that died however, 40 civilians were killed during the conflict that was fought on the merits of the hunger strikers.

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

The British govt's handling of the aftermath?

Do you think that was 'mandated'?

They certainly should have handled it better and the paras who opened fire should have been prosecuted.

But opening fire on civilians wasn't official policy and never was.

R P McMurphy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

How are they inaccurate?

I said opening fire like they did wasn't mandated and it wasn't.

I never said they were right in doing so either.

They deployed and used live rounds against a civil rights march, murdering civilians with impunity and plunging the six counties into turmoil. Mandated or not to open fire that day the british army was a catalyst to decades or chaos. Not to mention collusion, murdering and maiming children with rubber bullets and just plain harrassment of the civilian population. People were drawn into the Republican movement that would never have been involved if living a few counties over. To look at the number of ex ba personnel in prisons once they leave the army shows the caliber of the people in their ranks

Sunnyisland

Bobby sands was also an elected MP...After a highly polarised campaign, Sands narrowly won the seat on 9 April 1981, with 30,493 votes to 29,046 for the Ulster Unionist Party candidate Harry West—and also become the youngest MP at the time.[23]. However Sands died in prison less than a month afterwards, without ever having taken his seat in the Commons[24].
Following Sands' success, the British Government introduced the Representation of the People Act 1981 which prevents prisoners serving jail terms of more than one year in either the UK or the Republic of Ireland from being nominated as candidates in British elections.[25][26] This law was introduced in order to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament.[27]

News of the death of Bobby Sands influenced the way in which political prisoners and the ANC in South Africa responded to their own situation, and inspired a new way of resistance.[38][39] Nelson Mandela was said to have been "directly influenced by Bobby Sands",[38] and instigated a successful Hunger Strike on Robben Island.

RIP Bobby Sands.

pablomakaveli

R P McMurphy wrote: »

They deployed and used live rounds against a civil rights march, murdering civilians with impunity and plunging the six counties into turmoil. Mandated or not to open fire that day the british army was a catalyst to decades or chaos. Not to mention collusion, murdering and maiming children with rubber bullets and just plain harrassment of the civilian population. People were drawn into the Republican movement that would never have been involved if living a few counties over. To look at the number of ex ba personnel in prisons once they leave the army shows the caliber of the people in their ranks

In a warzone soldiers will deploy with live rounds especially when the enemy (in this case the Provos) are also armed with live rounds.

Opening fire on civilians was wrong but it was an act of idiocy. Not a deliberate attempt to inflame the whole situation.

Your last line is just unsubstantiated republican propaganda.

dh0011

some in this thread have said that Bobby Sands was a terrorist. I disagree. Aside from the fact that he was living under a repressive regime in the North, where the government openly discriminated against catholic nationalists [dies anybody need to be reminded about bloody sunday or the B specials burning Catholic housing for fun], he inspired people worldwide. The Indian government and palestinian freedom fighters all mourned his loss.

A true Irish hero in my opinion. Ar dhies de a raibh a anam.

.jacksparrow.

Any man who stands by while their family is burned out of their house is a coward, but the people who judge them are the bigger cowards.

cameramonkey

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They had torture but they choose not to use it.

They tried that, it didnt work. You need to read a bit more history, get a bit of knowledge before you make ill informed comments.

Hidalgo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They certainly should have handled it better and the paras who opened fire should have been prosecuted.

But opening fire on civilians wasn't official policy and never was.

That's a bit of an understatement.
Even if opening fire wasn't official policy, the soldiers involved were acting on behalf of the British government as its military arm if you will