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

droidman123

Its actually sad that this argument is even going on.in any other country bobby sands would be a hero and his anniversary would be celebrated accordingly. Even the easter rising celebrations is a low key affair every year,its disgusting.

cameramonkey

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

Have you a link to prove this or did you make it up?

Hidalgo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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.

It was a civil rights march

pablomakaveli

Hidalgo wrote: »

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

They were acting on their own when they opened fire. When they did that they were no longer acting on behalf of the British government or the military.

pablomakaveli

Hidalgo wrote: »

It was a civil rights march

In an area where there were armed Provos.

Rascasse

realies wrote: »

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.

Haha, had to copy and paste a bit about Mandela to give a bit of credibility. IRA apologists love South African comparison, when really there is none.

By the way, having just checked my copy of "Long Walk To Freedom", Mandela was so "directly influenced" that Sands doesn't even get a mention.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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.



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.

No one can resist prolonged torture, not even the most strong willed. I was reading about the Hanoi Hilton after I saw the vietnam thread on after hours. There American soldiers were exposed to constant torture to break their will and agree to make propaganda material for the North Vietnamese. Apparently it was a code among the prisoners that you had to resist physical torture until you reach the point of insanity then give them anything you want. They didn't expect you to resist torture indefinitely because having gone through the same thing themselves they knew it was too much to expect.

Your attempts at derailing this are frankly confusing.

Hidalgo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They were acting on their own when they opened fire. When they did that they were no longer acting on behalf of the British government or the military.

They're still part of the legal arm of the state i.e the British government.

cameramonkey

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Who was he convicted of murdering?

Seaneh

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Your last line is just unsubstantiated republican propaganda.

It's not actually.
In both the UK and the US there is a massively disproportionate number of ex-servicemen in the prison system. It's actually pretty interesting to study from a sociological and psychological point of view.

pablomakaveli

Hidalgo wrote: »

They're still part of the legal arm of the state i.e the British government.

Which is irrelevant since they acted on their own.

.jacksparrow.

droidman123 wrote: »

Its actually sad that this argument is even going on.in any other country bobby sands would be a hero and his anniversary would be celebrated accordingly. Even the easter rising celebrations is a low key affair every year,its disgusting.

That's because as a nation we are anything but the fighting Irish, just look at the current situation, everyone giving out but no proper marches or refusal to accept the policies

We are a nation that needs to be told how to live.

Seaneh

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who was he convicted of murdering?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he was convicted for possession of a firearm that have been used in a gunfight with the RUC, not murder.

He wasn't even in possession of the gun, it was in a car he happened to be travelling in with 2 other men, it wasn't even his car.

pablomakaveli

Seaneh wrote: »

It's not actually.
In both the UK and the US there is a massively disproportionate number of ex-servicemen in the prison system. It's actually pretty interesting to study from a sociological and psychological point of view.

Try reading this thread where its been pointed out the figures are skewed.

The sheer number of ex-servicemen in both countries would completely dwarf other professions meaning the results will be skewed.

For example if you had 200,000 ex military and 30,000 ex-teachers with about 1% of each group winding up in prison then the ex military numbers would be larger simply due to the greater numbers of ex servicemen as a whole.

carab

“Ní bhrisfidh siad mé mar tá an fonn saoirse agus saoirse mhuintir na hEireann i mo chroí. Tiocfaidh lá éigin nuair a bheidh an fonn saoirse seo le taispeáint ag daoine go léir na hEireann ansin tchífidh muid eirí na gealaí.”

RIP Bobby Sands, Go dtuga Dia suaimhneas síoraí dó.

Seaneh

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Which is irrelevant since they acted on their own.

What is relevant is that the military lied about it for 40 years following it and the british government helped them with the cover up. That's pretty disgusting.

And then you have the fact that the british government, through MI5, supplied arms and monies to loyalist paramilitary groups in the last 60's and 70's, which were then used to murder nationalist civilians.

That IS directing a campaign on a civilian population, and it was done, thryough a proxy, by the British government.

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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.

Nice to see you acknowledge there was a war.

Bobby Sands would most likely never have seen the inside of a prison cell, had there not been a war going on in the north.

Sunnyisland

The Irish did not invent the hunger strike; history may even record Mahatma Gandhi as its chief exponent, with his seventeen strikes against British colonial rule. In the 1990's, the hunger strike is more commonly found as a means of protest in the republics of the former Soviet Union than it is in Ireland. No one can deny, however, that dramatic hunger strikes in Ireland since the 1916 Easter Rising have made the world aware of the continuing tension between Ireland and England.

The use of the hunger strike as a political weapon in Ireland exploded after the 1916 Easter Rising. In 1917, Thomas Ashe struck for political prisoner status while in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin. Force fed, Ashe died in prison and 40,000 mourners marched in his funeral procession, 9,000 wearing the uniform of the Irish Volunteers. Then in 1920, the Lord Mayor of Cork, Terence MacSwiney staged a hunger strike that was followed around the world. MacSwiney, an IRA commander in the Cork area, was arrested at an IRA meeting and sentenced to two years for sedition. Poet, playwright, philosopher, Mayor MacSwiney insisted Britain had no jurisdiction in Ireland. He died after seventy-three days of fasting, believing that "It is not those who inflict the most but those who suffer the most who will conquer."

The strike generated a spate of commentary on its efficacy and morality. Those who supported MacSwiney called his act noble, a response to tyranny, and his refusal to eat morally justifiable. Opponents judged the fast to death as suicide and, therefore, morally wrong. The Westminster Gazette's editorial at the time called MacSwiney a martyr and stated, "He has won his battle."

Bobby Sands, along with nine other inmates of the Maze/Long Kesh Prison in Northern Ireland, fasted unto death in 1981. They too sought political prisoner status. When Sands died after sixty-six days of fasting, many governments and publications from such diverse countries as Spain, France, Russia, Mexico, Mozambique and Poland expressed sympathy for Sands, an elected member of Parliament. The New York Times said he had "bested an implacable British Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher]."

(Written by John Walsh and originally printed in September 1993)

In bold as it continues today & some opinions will never change.

wolfpawnat

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.

+1 Many do not have the dedication to anything in this life to sacrifice themselves in such a painful way! Your body and mind wasting away slowly, 66 days is a long death!

The other thing that everyone has to given Bobby Sands and the rest of the Hunger Strikers. They sacrificed themselves, meaning they did not physically harm innocent civilians in their protest, making them far more respectful of human life than many of their peers, the RUC, and the British Government! They caused their families suffering, but to this day Sand's sisters seem to stand by his decision!

RIP to an Irish Patriot.

Death and Taxes

will be having a thread for every self serving criminal who commited suicide while in jail, or just a select few?

RandomName2

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who was he convicted of murdering?

Implicated in 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing. Apparently a sloppy mess of of a conviction - but as I already said, the conviction was separate from his hunger strike which basically went along the lines of 'Sure, okay, you convicted me, but both I and my companions demand to be treated as a prisoners of war'.

wolfpawnat

RandomName2 wrote: »

Implicated in 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing. Apparently a sloppy mess of of a conviction - but as I already said, the conviction was separate from his hunger strike.

The choice word there. Internment without proof or trial in the late 70's and 80's was more in fashion than an iphone these days!!

Seaneh

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Try reading this thread where its been pointed out the figures are skewed.

The sheer number of ex-servicemen in both countries would completely dwarf other professions meaning the results will be skewed.

For example if you had 200,000 ex military and 30,000 ex-teachers with about 1% of each group winding up in prison then the ex military numbers would be larger simply due to the greater numbers of ex servicemen as a whole.

See, this is why I used the word disproportionate.

The percentage of former military service personal who end up in the criminal system post military career is extremely disproportionate. Massively so. Especially the percentage who commit violent crimes.

Rascasse

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The choice word there. Internment without proof or trial in the late 70's and 80's was more in fashion than an iphone these days!!

Early 70's, not 80's.

wolfpawnat

Rascasse wrote: »

Early 70's, not 80's.

My apologies, you are correct, early 70's are the dates for Operation Demetrius, and '77 when it went to the European Court of Human Rights.

But still, Sands was merely implicated, not convicted, innocent until proven guilty meant toss all in the six counties (apparently still does) in that time.

RandomName2

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The choice word there. Internment without proof or trial in the late 70's and 80's was more in fashion than an iphone these days!!

Well, yes. He may well have carried out the bombing. He may have been part of a group that carried out the bombing. Companions of his may have carried out the bombing, and he may have had no direct act or part. There's even a slight possibility that the evidence was in some way falsified.

However, he did stand trial and was actually convicted.

But it was the fact that the bombing was treated as a criminal act, and not an act of war, that was the sticking point!

Gosub

There are people on here saying that this or that wasn't British government policy. How could you possibly know what was policy at that time. A lot of policy was shrouded in secrecy. The SAS worked under the government. Are you privy to their orders at the time?

It would take a lot to convince me that there wasn't a shoot-to-kill policy and that the British government didn't have a hand in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. But that's just my belief. If the whole truth ever came out - which it won't - I think the British would have a lot of hard questions to answer. At least the policy of the IRA was well known and there was little or no hiding behind a veil of innocent governance.

All parties have blood on their hands, that's what happens in a conflict. The IRA's bloody hands are paraded by the current Irish government for all to see. How about the blood on British hands? It only becomes visible after many, many years and much pressure. Even then, it's only a small percentage of what they really did. And as for torture? It was common knowledge in Belfast at the time that Maghaberry prison was torture central.

I would be in favour of putting it all behind us, but will that ever happen? Will the current Irish government ever stop bringing up the history of SF every time they can't answer a question?

wolfpawnat

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, yes. He may well have carried out the bombing. He may have been part of a group that carried out the bombing. Companions of his may have carried out the bombing, and he may have had no direct act or part. There's even a slight possibility that the evidence was in some way falsified.

But it was the fact that the bombing was treated as a criminal act, and not an act of war, that was the sticking point!

What I find interesting about the Troubles as a whole, when it suited people, acts were seem as "Acts of War" but then when things went against them, the perpetrators and the acts were seen as "Criminal Acts". Now I say that about both sides. And as I have said many a time before, I do not condone the deaths of civilians by anyone!

Rascasse

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My apologies, you are correct, early 70's are the dates for Operation Demetrius, and '77 when it went to the European Court of Human Rights.

But still, Sands was merely implicated, not convicted, innocent until proven guilty meant toss all in the six counties (apparently still does) in that time.

Sands was never, to my knowledge at least, interred. He was held on remand and jailed on conviction, but not interred. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean you get bail if charged with a serious crime.

wolfpawnat

Rascasse wrote: »

Sands was never, to my knowledge at least, interred. He was held on remand and jailed on conviction, but not interred. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean you get bail if charged with a serious crime.

Of course not I would not like to think of a suspected bomber being allowed wander the streets today, but to accuse him of being X, Y and Z when many times evidence was falsified or overlooked (Guilford Four being an example) and not acknowledging his protest was one that harmed no one but himself irks me.

Dr. Nooooo!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

Thats Bobby Sands, MP, to you.

RandomName2

Dr. Nooooo! wrote: »

Thats Bobby Sands, MP, to you.

As I already said, it seems odd for someone to call themselves a soldier and then run for election to that same government which they are fighting, that they have declared they were no citizen of. Or wait, was he actually considering no longer engaging in PIRA activities, but instead conducting a purely political opposition.... from prison... whilst dying from being on hunger strike... for not being considered a soldier?

mike65

Is this the "get to know your Boards.ie Provos" thread?

wolfpawnat

mike65 wrote: »

Is this the "get to know your Boards.ie Provos" thread?

No, that was about 4 years ago.

mike65

It does have the whiff of historical irrelevance about it.

wolfpawnat

mike65 wrote: »

It does have the whiff of historical irrelevance about it.

Well since the Provo's are gone with well over a decade.

Sure there was a thread dedicated to the death of Thatcher, why not one to someone of the opposing side?

Sunnyisland

mike65 wrote: »

It does have the whiff of historical irrelevance about it.

Bobby Sands and the other nine who died on hunger strike over 30 years ago continue to provide inspiration to political prisoners everywhere.

Iwasfrozen

realies wrote: »

Bobby Sands and the other nine who died on hunger strike over 30 years ago continue to provide inspiration to political prisoners everywhere.

You mean terrorists.

Sunnyisland

I Was Frozen wrote: »

You mean terrorists.

Well they might inspire inspiration to them to :P:)

Iwasfrozen

realies wrote: »

Well they might inspire inspiration to them to :P:)

lol no doubt they already do, the Brits should never have let him die a martyr.

Duiske

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

That would be your personnel opinion. Many do not share it.

Mr.Micro

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol no doubt they already do, the Brits should never have let him die a martyr.

Tbh not a martyr to everyone. One man of all the people that died over the years, who to the most part were innocent victims trying to live their lives. These poor people are forgotten to most people or unknown apart from their families and friends.

pablomakaveli

Duiske wrote: »

That would be your personnel opinion. Many do not share it.

Not as many as you'd like to think.

Sunnyisland

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Tbh not a martyr to everyone. One man of all the people that died over the years, who to the most part were innocent victims trying to live their lives. These poor people are forgotten to most people or unknown apart from their families and friends.

Unfortunately that is the case in the majority of the worlds conflicts,There are hero,s & villains decided by the winners & losers,and all the while the innocent are forgotten by the majority unless as you rightly pointed out there families and friends.

Sunnyisland

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Not as many as you'd like to think.

But a lot more than you would acknowledge.

_Kaiser_

Ah good ole Ireland. Still firmly stuck in the past I see with the old 800 years nonsense

Just on one point:

R P McMurphy wrote: »

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

Answer would have to be YES as that's what's going on EVEN NOW

Many Irish people are now living as 2nd class citizens as their country is mismanaged to keep the politicians and their hangers-on in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to, and to ensure that the EU is kept happy.

Many are not afforded any protection by the State in economic terms - ask the self-employed who get nothing if/when work dries up, low to middle class earners who are carrying the can for the rest, or those who have lost their pensions so that the senior bondholders could be protected (as featured on Prime Time during the week).

Many people (particularly in rural areas or certain parts of our major cities) live in a situation where crime, drug abuse and apathy from the State is the norm and while they may not be burned out of their homes, if the banks have their way may of them will yet be forced out (as owners or tenants).

And yes, despite all this many Irish people still continue to back the failed policies of political parties (FF and FG) that are in the end so similar that they are 2 sides of the same coin and outright reject anything "different" that might offer a new approach - so yes in that they could be considered to be still bending over.

Interesting eh what "Irish freedom" has done for the country really. Can't blame "The Brits" for any of that.

To quote from Escape from LA - "The more things change the more they stay the same"

cameramonkey

RandomName2 wrote: »

Implicated in 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing. Apparently a sloppy mess of of a conviction - but as I already said, the conviction was separate from his hunger strike which basically went along the lines of 'Sure, okay, you convicted me, but both I and my companions demand to be treated as a prisoners of war'.

You said he was convicted of murder, I was just wondering who he had killed or are you now saying that you were wrong and he was not convinced of murder?

cameramonkey

RandomName2 wrote: »

As I already said, it seems odd for someone to call themselves a soldier and then run for election to that same government which they are fighting, that they have declared they were no citizen of. Or wait, was he actually considering no longer engaging in PIRA activities, but instead conducting a purely political opposition.... from prison... whilst dying from being on hunger strike... for not being considered a soldier?

Did Sands run for election to be part of the government? Was that part of his election manifesto? Are you mistaking running to be an MP with the intention of forming a government?

Again Irish history is awash with republicans who during the wars against the British stood to be elected in Westminster. They like Sands had no intention of taking their seats but were using the elections to show that they had a mandate. Collins, Dev, Cosgrave, Boland, O'Higgins, Brugha to name but a few all stood in Westminster elections having been republican volunteers or who were active volunteers when they stood.

Why do you think it is odd, I would have to say either that you are very naive about politics in Ireland or you just are ignorant of Irish history.

cameramonkey

mike65 wrote: »

Is this the "get to know your Boards.ie Provos" thread?

No, I think it is get to know your Irish Quisling thread.

RandomName2

cameramonkey wrote: »

You said he was convicted of murder, I was just wondering who he had killed or are you now saying that you were wrong and he was not convinced of murder?

Deliberately bombing a location causing death ≠ murder? Semantics, surely? Besides, hardly relevant is it?

cameramonkey wrote: »

Did Sands run for election to be part of the government? Was that part of his election manifesto? Are you mistaking running to be an MP with the intention of forming a government?

There's two things meant by government. The executive bodies of the House of Commons and House of Lords, etc. are the 'government'. This is what Sands sought, and was successfully elected to. However, among MPs in the House of Commons there has to be a plurality or absolute majority for legislation to pass, so 'governments' are formed among the members, generally based on party political grounds. Sands would not have been part of that for several reasons which do not require elaboration.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Again Irish history is awash with republicans who during the wars against the British stood to be elected in Westminster. They like Sands had no intention of taking their seats but were using the elections to show that they had a mandate.

Collins, Dev, Cosgrave, Boland, O'Higgins, Brugha to name but a few all stood in Westminster elections having been republican volunteers or who were active volunteers when they sood.

A mandate to do what? To govern? :rolleyes:

You are mixing up different types of republicans there. The reason why they did not take their seats was not only symbolic, but due to the fact that they were in a political minority. Rather than be outvoted they would absent themselves.

Of course the main nationalist movements for some 40 years had gone along the lines of being a swing vote in Westminster; a slow but quite effective methodology. But when Sinn Fein 2 sought to supplant the IPP they could hardly stand on the same political platform. No: complete abstention from the political process was the order of the day; and the 1918 election was as much to keep the IPP from gaining seats as it was to show the strength of the new Republican party.

Different Sinn Fein parties have also engaged in elections to show that they have support, but would not consider actually taking their seats because the Parliament that they have been elected to was 'the enemy'. Sinn Fein 5 became a bit of a laughing stock in the Republic of Ireland with that particular stance; still viewing the Dail as an illegitimate body.

When I said 'it's odd' I was being ironic.

Sands and co were not political. They had no interest in voting on legislation. They were willing to engage in the UK elections as a means of attracting attention to their cause. But such an action belied the whole notion of their cause as a purely military one. Sands was demonstrably not a soldier and seeking, and achieving, election as an MP helps put paid to that notion.

It would be like an Algerian in the 1960s seeking election in France, and then refusing to take his seat because he didn't recognise the legitimacy of France's control over Algeria!

Collins, Dev, Cosgrave, Boland, O'Higgins, Brugha were all political. Politics superseded war, not the other way around. Tellingly, their first actions were to form an Irish Parliament of sorts, and soon claimed that the Irish Volunteers was the army of this independent parliament. Of course, Ireland was due to get it's own parliament in 1918 anyway due to the work of the IPP. The Dail formed by Dev and co. claimed that Home Rule would no longer be enough, and that this state would fight for absolute independence. When Dev was unhappy with the conclusion of this conflict which created the Irish Free State both himself, and the anti-treaty side, then decided to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Dail. After a civil war to decide the matter, several years later Fianna Fail accepted that it is easier (and more legitimate) to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. And so FF became the most powerful party since... abstentionism ftw. Woot.