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

Norwesterner

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

Actually, they did.
If you read General Frank Kitson's book on counterinsurgency, which was a blueprint for British strategy in Ireland you'd know this.
They delibeately set up "counter-gangs" like the UDA, armed and directed them, turned them on and off depending on the political climate.
From 1970 up to the 90's, loyalist terror gangs received direction and arms from british military agents.
The big haul of guns from South Africa was brought into the country by a British agent, and led to te deaths of hundreds of Catholics.
Some of the biggest atrocities (Dublin, Monaghan, Miami showband, Mc Gurks bar, Loughinisland...) were carried out by men in the direct pay of H.M Services.

cameramonkey

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

where did he bomb and who was murdered?

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Have you a link to a UK government site that says there are two things meant by the UK government. You seem to be confusing parliament and government.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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..

Do you have a link for that statement. I think the reasons SF did not take up their seats was because they believed that the UK had no sovereignty over Ireland.That has been stated over and over again by republicans but if you can show a link to your stated reason I would be interested.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Really, that's interesting, how many years in the previous 40 did Irish nationalist parties hold the balance of power?

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Have you a link to this SF aim. By gaining seats in an election of course you deny your rivals seats. Are you saying that anyone in 1918 actually thought the IIP would gain seats? Everyone knew they were in for a hiding.

I believe SF ran in 1918 to show that they were the new boys in town. The IPP were an irrelevance.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sands and co were not political.

Do you really believe that? His aim was to get political status but you say he was not political. Your posting are beginning to defy logic,history and sense.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Wrong again, their first serious action was to partake in the 1916 rising which of course was a military uprising against the UK with no democratic mandate. You seem to be trying to defy history again here but it keeps on catching you out.

Your grasp of historical fact seems tenuous but you have outdone yourself with this latest posts.

not yet

Go and have a listen to ''The time has come'' About Patsy o' Hara's last hours....powerful stuff.

RIP The 10 and all other Irishmen who stood up to the British and died for their Country.

oscarBravo

cameramonkey wrote: »

...I would have to say either that you are very naive about politics in Ireland or you just are ignorant of Irish history.

It's astonishing how pretty much every single person who disagrees with Republican orthodoxy is promptly pounced upon and lambasted with accusations of naivety and ignorance. It's a type of defensiveness that tends not to characterise other political conversations, and betrays a stubborn refusal to even contemplate any other perspective as having the slightest potential for validity.

oscarBravo

cameramonkey wrote: »

Have you a link to a UK government site that says there are two things meant by the UK government. You seem to be confusing parliament and government.

Look up the concept of "branches of government".

cameramonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's astonishing how pretty much every single person who disagrees with Republican orthodoxy is promptly pounced upon and lambasted with accusations of naivety and ignorance. It's a type of defensiveness that tends not to characterise other political conversations, and betrays a stubborn refusal to even contemplate any other perspective as having the slightest potential for validity.

We all have opinions but he has made statements that are not true. I am saying that either he is naive or ignorant and I believe that is a correct. He needs to get his facts right.

I belive that your opinion on political conversations is wrong and many pro British posters on this site could be described as you put it "It's a type of defensiveness that tends not to characterise other political conversations, and betrays a stubborn refusal to even contemplate any other perspective as having the slightest potential for validity."

You just have one opinion and I another.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's astonishing how pretty much every single person who disagrees with Republican orthodoxy is promptly pounced upon and lambasted with accusations of naivety and ignorance.

There is no monolithic republican orthodoxy. There was one thing that stopped the BA, unionist militias and their degenerate proxies from going on their murderous rampages in Catholic neighbourhoods - guns in the hands of Republicans who were willing to use them.

If you get butt-hurt over being called out on your naivety then I suggest you don't post to save yourself the stress.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There is no monolithic republican orthodoxy. There was one thing that stopped the BA, unionist militias and their degenerate proxies from going on their murderous rampages in Catholic neighbourhoods - guns in the hands of Republicans who were willing to use them.

... according to the republican orthodoxy.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... according to the republican orthodoxy.

Republican orthodoxy only exists in your mind.

RandomName2

cameramonkey wrote: »

where did he bomb and who was murdered?

It was claimed that he was guilty in some form for the 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing which killed four civilians. The evidence for such a conviction seems somewhat flimsy though.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Have you a link to a UK government site that says there are two things meant by the UK government. You seem to be confusing parliament and government.

See oscarbravo above.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Do you have a link for that statement. I think the reasons SF did not take up their seats was because they believed that the UK had no sovereignty over Ireland.That has been stated over and over again by republicans but if you can show a link to your stated reason I would be interested.

It's hardly relevant whether or not they believed that the UK had no sovereignty over Ireland. Was that the reason they didn't take their seats in the Dail and Stormont too? I thought it was meant to be the Oath of Allegiance that was the sticking point, not sovereignty. :rolleyes:

Sorry for the sarcasm but it really isn't relevant. The point isn't about their cause, but their means. Some of the SFs have felt that abstenstionism was likely to be their most successful course of action. Ideology is mainly justification.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Really, that's interesting, how many years in the previous 40 did Irish nationalist parties hold the balance of power?

Three times; three governments; three Home Rule Bills.

Not to mention their presence generating various legislation such as the Local Government of Ireland Act (1898), etc.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Have you a link to this SF aim. By gaining seats in an election of course you deny your rivals seats. Are you saying that anyone in 1918 actually thought the IIP would gain seats? Everyone knew they were in for a hiding.

How would they gain seats when up to that point they had all but one nationalist seat in the country. :pac:

The IPP's ballot was still very high, with some 220,000 votes. But by reducing the IPP to merely 6 seats it could be pretty much guaranteed that it would have little influence in the coming political crises.

cameramonkey wrote: »

I believe SF ran in 1918 to show that they were the new boys in town.

Sinn Fein 2 ran in 1918 in order to set up an independent parliament and throw the country into direct conflict with Whitehall.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Do you really believe that? His aim was to get political status but you say he was not political. Your posting are beginning to defy logic,history and sense.

His aim was for himself, and his fellow prisoners, to be incarcerated as soldiers, not as criminals. That was their argument. That was what the dirty protest and blanket protest were also in relation to.

cameramonkey wrote: »

Wrong again, their first serious action was to partake in the 1916 rising which of course was a military uprising against the UK with no democratic mandate. You seem to be trying to defy history again here but it keeps on catching you out. Your grasp of historical fact seems tenuous but you have outdone yourself with this latest posts.

Didn't realise that DeV was standing for office around the time of 1916. Could have sworn that his entry into politics came a bit later.

The only person that you mentioned who was in the political sphere during the 1916 Rising was W.T. Cosgrave, and he never got a chance to be an abstentionist (in relation to Westminster) as he was elected to the Dublin City Council. But Griffith's policy was not really a belligerent one; it went along the lines of just setting up your own shop (dual-monarchy style) - with inherent de facto power, and de jure legitimacy through election. Sinn Fein 2 kept the 'setting up your own shop' aspect, threw out dual monarchy, and added guns to the mix. Machiavelli's sentiments about armed prophets, eh? But abstentionism was not a means to seek reform in this case, but a consequence of abandonment of a political sphere. Quite different tbh.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Republican orthodoxy only exists in your mind.

... according to the, nah you're making this too easy

Look of course it exists, an orthodoxy is an adherence to a set of beliefs or opinions considered normal to that particular ideology.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Look of course it exists, an orthodoxy is an adherence to a set of beliefs or opinions considered normal to that particular ideology.

Yes. I can google definitions too.

Now google 'monolithic' too and consider what I wrote again.

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. I can google definitions too.

Now google 'monolithic' too and consider what I wrote again.

You aren't suggesting that republicans suffered a split at some point? :eek:

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. I can google definitions too.

Now google 'monolithic' too and consider what I wrote again.

Googled it, is this what you meant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith

I thought you meant something that was indivisible though. But google says otherwise.

Iwasfrozen

RandomName2 wrote: »

You aren't suggesting that republicans suffered a split at some point? :eek:

No silly random name, don't you know the Republican cause has been unified from Wolfe Tone to Adams? It's easy as long as you brand people who disagree with you as not Republican.

RandomName2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No silly random name, don't you know the Republican cause has been unified from Wolfe Tone to Adams? It's easy as long as you brand people who disagree with you as not Republican.

Of course! The continuity movement, after all. Sinn Fein has been a single party since 1905, apparently!

Chuck Stone

*sigh*

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I thought you meant something that was indivisible though. But google says otherwise.

See #3.

mon·o·lith·ic (mn-lthk)
adj.

1. Constituting a monolith: a monolithic sculpture.
2. Massive, solid, and uniform: the monolithic proportions of Stalinist architecture.
3. Constituting or acting as a single, often rigid, uniform whole: a monolithic worldwide movement.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monolithic

There is no single, rigid, uniform Republicanism just as there is no single, rigid, uniform, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Christianity, Islam etc.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

*sigh*

Psst, I know.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There is no single, rigid, uniform Republicanism just as there is no single, rigid, uniform, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Christianity, Islam etc.

Yep all of which have orthodoxies. You're the only one who mentioned the m word.

Iwasfrozen

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course! The continuity movement, after all. Sinn Fein has been a single party since 1905, apparently!

Oh yes, of course. And their goals have been constant throughout the last century.

losthorizon

I would love if most of the people posting here had to give their ages it would be most illuminating. They obviously didnt have to live through the killings of the 80s or were just babies and really had no consciousness of it.

It would be it interesting.


**** off PIRA and other secterian groups on either side

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLo7z50Tt2g

Nodin

losthorizon wrote: »

I would love if most of the people posting here had to give their ages it would be most illuminating. They obviously didnt have to live through the killings of the 80s or were just babies and really had no consciousness of it.

It would be it interesting.

43.

If you can find a situation thats degenerated into armed conflict where there hasn't been killings, please share it with the rest of us.

LordSutch

bobbysands81 wrote: »

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."

Hmm, my memories of his death are the homemade black flags tied to the lamposts in some of the less salubrious estates in South Dublin.

guinnessdrinker

LordSutch wrote: »

Hmm, my memories of his death are the homemade black flags tied to the lamposts in some of the less salubrious estates in South Dublin.

You didn't see any homemade black flags in any of the "pleasant" estates of South Dublin then?

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

Hmm, my memories of his death are the homemade black flags tied to the lamposts in some of the less salubrious estates in South Dublin.

You can console yourself so that some of the more lucrative parts of the world have streets and boulevards named in his honour these days.

Here's one from Frances Le Mans region for starters.



http://www.meilleursagents.com/prix-immobilier/le-mans-72000/boulevard-bobby-sands-202527893/

Chuck Stone

losthorizon wrote: »

I would love if most of the people posting here had to give their ages it would be most illuminating.

I was too young to fully understand what was going on in the 80's but I was aware that I was not growing up in a normal society. I grew up in a town largely unaffected by the troubles, overtly, but my Father, Mother, Uncles, Aunts and Cousins have plenty of first person experiences of what it was like to be a second class citizen.

LordSutch

SamHall wrote: »

You can console yourself so that some of the more lucrative parts of the world have streets and boulevards named in his honour these days.

The Iron Lady (his nemisis) has/will have at least one street named after her too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/12/margaret-thatcher-madrid-street-name

not yet

48, and I had family who were treated like dogs in norn Ireland in the 60s 70s. I can only imagine how things would be now if the IRA did not resist British occupation.

I'll Have a guess...Catholics would still be treat like filth by the ruling classes of unionism.

Bertie Woot

When Bobby Sands died the children at my school cheered. They did the same whenever every other IRA hunger striker died, as they didn't view them as patriotic Irish freedom fighters, no. They viewed them as cold-blooded murderers who were starving themselves to death.

losthorizon

Nodin wrote: »

43.

If you can find a situation thats degenerated into armed conflict where there hasn't been killings, please share it with the rest of us.

The thing was it wasnt an armed conflict. It was random acts of killings mostly based on religion.

0066ad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

When Bobby Sands died the children at my school cheered. They did the same whenever every other IRA hunger striker died, as they didn't view them as patriotic Irish freedom fighters, no. They viewed them as cold-blooded murderers who were starving themselves to death.

Why would the children cheer? Surely they knew nothing about Irish
patriotic freedom fighters and were only trying to appease the teacher who
was teaching them these claims. They did the same with every other hunger
striker who died? Did the teacher tell them to clap and cheer "yeah another one
of them is died" or decide all this by themselves.

As for cold blooded murders who did Bobby Sands kill?

Fr Tod Umptious

SamHall wrote: »

You can console yourself so that some of the more lucrative parts of the world have streets and boulevards named in his honour these days.

Here's one from Frances Le Mans region for starters.



http://www.meilleursagents.com/prix-immobilier/le-mans-72000/boulevard-bobby-sands-202527893/

Le Mans is a inland town in western France, hardly lucrative, it's certainly not Nice or St. Tropez.

0066ad

losthorizon wrote: »

The thing was it wasnt an armed conflict. It was random acts of killings mostly based on religion.

You are right it was random acts of killings, the first 6 bombings in the
troubles were by UPV and then another by UVF. What would you do if you
were in that situation? just sit back and say ahh sure lads this is great let
them beat our sisters, brothers and parents it's nothing to do with me.

0066ad

WileyCoyote wrote: »

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

Self serving criminal? he paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Would
you do the same for your believes? I doubt it very much, but all is well and
good you have an Iraqi barber a Pakistan accounted and a lithuanian
employee multiculturalism is great just as long as you benefit



Edit I'll probably be banned again! over this comment, you will report it and
I have less posts than you.

Nodin

losthorizon wrote: »

The thing was it wasnt an armed conflict. It was random acts of killings mostly based on religion.

I'd suggest your knowledge of the conflict needs expanding, tbh.

Nodin

0066ad wrote: »

Self serving criminal? he paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Would
you do the same for your believes? I doubt it very much, but all is well and
good you have an Iraqi barber a Pakistan accounted and a lithuanian
employee multiculturalism is great just as long as you benefit
.

If you think the republican movement is some narrow golden dawn-like venture, you're sadly mistaken.

not yet

Bertie Woot wrote: »

When Bobby Sands died the children at my school cheered. They did the same whenever every other IRA hunger striker died, as they didn't view them as patriotic Irish freedom fighters, no. They viewed them as cold-blooded murderers who were starving themselves to death.

Ha ha very deep from school children.

.jacksparrow.

losthorizon wrote: »

The thing was it wasnt an armed conflict. It was random acts of killings mostly based on religion.

Threads on boards are really gone to the dogs nowadays. How can a proper discussion be had with comments like the above thrown in.

Banjo String

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Le Mans is a inland town in western France, hardly lucrative, it's certainly not Nice or St. Tropez.

They have a 'Rue Bobby Sands' in Paris too if you're interested?
There's also one in Florence.


Want more examples?

losthorizon

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Threads on boards are really gone to the dogs nowadays. How can a proper discussion be had with comments like the above thrown in.

Its funny though that acts like these make your blood boil

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84225336&postcount=2267
but in some peoples minds crazy acts like the the Warrington bombs or the Dublin and Monaghan bombs are legitimate.

.jacksparrow.

losthorizon wrote: »

Its funny though that acts like these make your blood boil

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84225336&postcount=2267
but in some peoples minds crazy acts like the the Warrington bombs or the Dublin and Monaghan bombs are legitimate.

How long did it take you to trawl through my posts and come back with this?

A hobby wouldn't go amiss.

losthorizon

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

How long did it take you to trawl through my posts and come back with this?

A hobby wouldn't go amiss.

Not long. But you seem to have very different perspectives on people being murdered based on their location. Taking a childs life is taking a childs life. I would just like to understand why you think one is good and one is bad that is all.

.jacksparrow.

losthorizon wrote: »

Not long. But you seem to have very different perspectives on people being murdered based on their location. Taking a childs life is taking a childs life. I would just like to understand why you think one is good and one is bad that is all.

I just thought your post was a bit nonsensical, saying that all the murders which were never right imo were sectarian.

RandomName2

0066ad wrote: »

You are right it was random acts of killings, the first 6 bombings in the
troubles were by UPV and then another by UVF. What would you do if you
were in that situation? just sit back and say ahh sure lads this is great let
them beat our sisters, brothers and parents it's nothing to do with me.

But the Republican paramilitaries didn't target the UPV or UVF. They targeted the British army, civilians and the police force. They killed far more Republican paramilitaries than they did Loyalist.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries. Over 35 % of the people they killed were civilians. Real heroes.

Madam

RandomName2 wrote: »

They killed far more Republican paramilitaries than they did Loyalist..

The killed their own?

Nodin

losthorizon wrote: »

The thing was it wasnt an armed conflict. It was random acts of killings mostly based on religion.

This may be of help to you.

What is also clear from Figure A3.4 is that nationalist paramilitary violence
is primarily strategic rather than simply sectarian - especially after 1972-3.
More members of the security forces (862) are killed than Protestant civilians
(575), and since the former are overwhelmingly killed by nationalist
paramilitaries (834, and see Figure A3.8 below), it follows that nationalist
paramilitaries partially fulfill their objective of fighting 'a war of national
liberation', as opposed to a mere sectarian war.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm

RandomName2

Madam wrote: »

The killed their own?

9% of the deaths attributed to Republicans paramilitaries were of other Republican paramilitaries. Same with loyalist paramilitaries. Both targeted their own far more than each other. After all, when you target someone in your own community you can supplant them if successful. Safer too.

Madam

RandomName2 wrote: »

9% of the deaths attributed to Republicans paramilitaries were of other Republican paramilitaries. Same with loyalist paramilitaries. Both targeted their own far more than each other. After all, when you target someone in your own community you can supplant them if successful. Safer too.

I'm kind of shocked by that but what would be the overall number killed by each group. I mean 9% or what:)

RandomName2

Madam wrote: »

I'm kind of shocked by that but what would be the overall number killed by each group. I mean 9% or what:)

9 out of a hundred

Okay, Republican paramilitaries were responsible for 2,057 deaths in total: out of that only 56 were loyalist paramilitaries.

Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1019 people: 93 loyalist paramilitaries, 41 republican paramilitaries.

tdv123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DO71o2LrjY

briany

SamHall wrote: »

They have a 'Rue Bobby Sands' in Paris too if you're interested?
There's also one in Florence.


Want more examples?

Not a street exactly, but there is/was a burger restaurant in Tehran named after Bobby which I think is near his street in the city. Frankly, some would find putting his face on the front of a fast food establishment ironic at best, but whatever.