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

gallag

Bobby sands believed that murdering innocent civilians was an acceptable way to achieve a united ireland against the will of the majority of people in N.I. I still admire his commitment though, very few people will starve to death for their beliefs. Its also worth noting that SF has the hunger strikers blood on their hands, but using death as a tool to circumvent democracy was nothing new to them.

That sands burger bar has to be the most tacky thing ever.

.jacksparrow.

gallag wrote: »

Bobby sands believed that murdering innocent civilians was an acceptable way to achieve a united ireland against the will of the majority of people in N.I. I still admire his commitment though, very few people will starve to death for their beliefs. Its also worth noting that SF has the hunger strikers blood on their hands, but using death as a tool to circumvent democracy was nothing new to them.

That sands burger bar has to be the most tacky thing ever.

He believed in murdering innocent civilians? I missed that memo
He must have got these ideals from the BA.

Sunnyisland

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:)

Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

727 Civilians
1080 British Security Forces
187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
10 Irish security.

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

---

The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

512 Civilians
1012 British Security Forces
141 Republican paramilitaries
39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
7 Irish security

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

---

Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

868 Civilians
14 British Security
41 Republican paramilitaries.
93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA.

*in their "Status summary" CAIN counts ex-paramilitaries as paramilitaries and ex-UDR/RUC as British Security.*

To get a full break down you can create cross tabulations: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/selecttabs.html


originally posted by exile1798 in 2011,


A lot of people here like to see & hear just one side of the coin.I have always said that there was more than one side to this conflict/war and imo the more people who accept this the better the future for all will be. Acceptance is the key.

ps I am 51.

gallag

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

He believed in murdering innocent civilians? I missed that memo
He must have got these ideals from the BA.

Do you need a memo? He was a IRA commander and the IRA killed innocent civilians.

Madd Finn

Are there any people under the age of 30 nowadays who were given the name Robert but are known as "Bobby"?

I reckon if he was growing up today he'd be called "Rob".

That's if he wasn't called Wayne or Keith.

.jacksparrow.

gallag wrote: »

Do you need a memo? He was a IRA commander and the IRA killed innocent civilians.

You said he targeted innocent civilians and accepted this, I don't think you can back this up with any evidence, but who knows.

Phoebas

realies wrote: »

35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.
[...]

The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

Interesting.
The civilians killed by republicans were 'caught up' in the violence, but the ones killed by loyalists were 'intentionally and wilfully murdered'.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Interesting.
The civilians killed by republicans were 'caught up' in the violence, but the ones killed by loyalists were 'intentionally and wilfully murdered'.

Google the Shankill butchers Phoebas.....

Come back to me when you've that one googled, I've a lot more for you to educate yourself on after that.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Google the Shankill butchers Phoebas.....

Come back to me when you've that one googled, I've a lot more for you to educate yourself on after that.

Why do you think I'm not educated on the Shankill butchers?
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that the loyalists didn't intentionally and wilfully murder people. Clearly they did, as did republicans. I just find it odd that republican murders were framed in a more benign way compared to loyalist murders

Nodin

Phoebas wrote: »

Why do you think I'm not educated on the Shankill butchers?
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that the loyalists didn't intentionally and wilfully murder people. Clearly they did, as did republicans. I just find it odd that republican murders were framed in a more benign way compared to loyalist murders

What they're saying is that many civillians were unintentionally killed by one and intentionally killed by the other.

Fr Tod Umptious

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

You said he targeted innocent civilians and accepted this, I don't think you can back this up with any evidence, but who knows.

ok we have reached the part of the thread where the terrorist apologists start splitting hairs.
The lock is now estimated at 11.36am on Wednesday

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Why do you think I'm not educated on the Shankill butchers?
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that the loyalists didn't intentionally and wilfully murder people. Clearly they did, as did republicans. I just find it odd that republican murders were framed in a more benign way compared to loyalist murders

Because you said:

Phoebas wrote: »

Interesting.
The civilians killed by republicans were 'caught up' in the violence, but the ones killed by loyalists were 'intentionally and wilfully murdered'.

There are countless examples of Loyalist's murdering people in the north for nothing more than their religion.

The Shankill butchers. Who actively hunted catholics, tortured and mutilated them before executing their victims.

The many pub shootings that happened over the years, innocent people shot down in a hail of bullets for nothing more than committing the carinal sin of being born a 'fenian'.

While the loyalists did target Republicans in some instances, loyalist paramilitaries tended to go for the softer targets, those like 61 year old Sean Brown, Chairman of a GAA hall in County Derry abducted, shot and killed and his car burned out, or Fergal McCusker 28 years old from Maghera, shot dead by loyalists only 2 weeks after he returned to Ireland from Boston.

Two examples of people shot by Loyalists, for nothing more than the heinous crime of being a catholic.

Phoebas

Nodin wrote: »

What they're saying is that many civillians were unintentionally killed by one and intentionally killed by the other.

Yeah I get that. It's not true of course. Both loyalists and republicans intentionally killed civilians. (And both loyalists and republicans unintentionally killed civilians too).

bennyl10

Bobby Sands was, no matter how you try and spin it, a murderer of civilians. He was a commander of The I.R.A.
Yes it was sad to see him die, and yes the British probably should have tried a little bit harder with the prisoners, but should we really be making him out to be a hero?..

He is far from a hero. He was a terrorist.

johnnyskeleton

bennyl10 wrote: »

Bobby Sands was, no matter how you try and spin it, a murderer of civilians. He was a commander of The I.R.A.
Yes it was sad to see him die, and yes the British probably should have tried a little bit harder with the prisoners, but should we really be making him out to be a hero?..

He is far from a hero. He was a terrorist.

So was nelson Mandela, from a certain point of view. And George Washington.

Indeed FDR and chruchill killed more civilians than any of them yet, because they were on the side of two large world powers, they are war heroes.

Fr Tod Umptious

briany wrote: »

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.

a few years ago a monument to him and the others was put up in Tralee, close to the junction of the Listowel road and the road that passes the main ITT gate, it was quiet a prominent location and a busy spot.
However try have now bypassed that road and the monument now sits at the end of an obscure cul de sac, no loss if you ask me

Banjo String

bennyl10 wrote: »

Bobby Sands was, no matter how you try and spin it, a murderer of civilians. He was a commander of The I.R.A.
Yes it was sad to see him die, and yes the British probably should have tried a little bit harder with the prisoners, but should we really be making him out to be a hero?..

He is far from a hero. He was a terrorist.

Hi Benny, could you post a link (just one will do) that backs up your claim that Bobby killed a civillian, never mind civillians.

Take your time now.

Banjo String

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

a few years ago a monument to him and the others was put up in Tralee, close to the junction of the Listed road and the road that passes the main ITT gate, it was quiet a prominent location and a busy spot.
However try have now bypassed that road and the monument now sits at the end of an obscure cul de sac, no loss if you ask me

We didn't.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

There are countless examples of Loyalist's murdering people in the north for nothing more than their religion.

And I never suggested they didn't?

SamHall wrote: »

The Shankill butchers. Who actively hunted catholics, tortured and mutilated them before executing their victims.

Yeah. I know all about that. I don't know who you read my post and came to the conclusion that I wasn't aware of what the Shankill butchers did?

SamHall wrote: »

The many pub shootings that happened over the years, innocent people shot down in a hail of bullets for nothing more than committing the carinal sin of being born a 'fenian'.

Yeah. I'm aware of that. Why did you think I wasn't.

SamHall wrote: »

While the loyalists did target Republicans in some instances, loyalist paramilitaries tended to go for the softer targets, those like 61 year old Sean Brown, Chairman of a GAA hall in County Derry abducted, shot and killed and his car burned out, or Fergal McCusker 28 years old from Maghera, shot dead by loyalists only 2 weeks after he returned to Ireland from Boston.

They sure did. I was already fully educated about that.

SamHall wrote: »

Two examples of people shot by Loyalists, for nothing more than the heinous crime of being a catholic.

I remember it all very well.


So why did you think I need an education? It seems to be a common reaction that anyone deviating from the republican script are in need of re-education.

R P McMurphy

SamHall wrote: »

Hi Benny, could you post a link (just one will do) that backs up your claim that Bobby killed a civillian, never mind civillians.

Take your time now.

Never mind a link about killing civilians ... a link about killing anyone would do

Fr Tod Umptious

SamHall wrote: »

We didn't.

just giving an opinion which is what this place is for.
But hey, it does not suprise me that some here do not like contrary opinions to theirs

Banjo String

So why did you think I need an education? It seems to be a common reaction that anyone deviating from the republican script are in need of re-education.

Well it all stemmed from this post:

Phoebas wrote: »

Interesting.
The civilians killed by republicans were 'caught up' in the violence, but the ones killed by loyalists were 'intentionally and wilfully murdered'.

I assumed from that post that you may have missed the various news articles proving beyond any shadow of a doubt , that loyalist death squads, in many instances, in collusion with the security forces, were indeed guilty of 'intentionally and wilfully murdering' innocent civillians.

Loughlinisland, Greysteel, etc etc etc.

Hence why I thought you may needed to educate yourself on loyalist attrocities.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Hi Benny, could you post a link (just one will do) that backs up your claim that Bobby killed a civillian, never mind civillians.

Take your time now.

I think the charge was that he was a murderer, not that he killed anyone. So an IRA commander could sanction murders (and be a murderer) without actually killing someone.

Sands was a commander in Long Kesh, but that obviously doesn't mean that he sanctioned any killings at all, although prison officers were targeted during his time.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Well it all stemmed from this post:



I assumed from that post that you may have missed the various news articles proving beyond any shadow of a doubt , that loyalist death squads, in many instances, in collusion with the security forces, were indeed guilty of 'intentionally and wilfully murdering' innocent civillians.

Loughlinisland, Greysteel, etc etc etc.

Hence why I thought you may needed to educate yourself on loyalist attrocities.

I didn't suggest at all that loyalists didn't intentionally and wilfully murder innocent civilians.
Its pretty bloody obvious to everyone that they did.

ONeill2013

SamHall wrote: »

Because you said:



There are countless examples of Loyalist's murdering people in the north for nothing more than their religion.

The Shankill butchers. Who actively hunted catholics, tortured and mutilated them before executing their victims.

The many pub shootings that happened over the years, innocent people shot down in a hail of bullets for nothing more than committing the carinal sin of being born a 'fenian'.

While the loyalists did target Republicans in some instances, loyalist paramilitaries tended to go for the softer targets, those like 61 year old Sean Brown, Chairman of a GAA hall in County Derry abducted, shot and killed and his car burned out, or Fergal McCusker 28 years old from Maghera, shot dead by loyalists only 2 weeks after he returned to Ireland from Boston.

Two examples of people shot by Loyalists, for nothing more than the heinous crime of being a catholic.

Here's the crimewatch re-enactment of that murder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbFFyS7V4-Y

Chinasea

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

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.

“Seas of blood have been shed for the sake of patriotism. One would expect the harm and irrationality of patriotism to be self-evident to everyone. But the surprising fact is that cultured and learned people not only do not notice the harm and stupidity of patriotism, they resist every unveiling of it with the greatest obstinacy and passion, and continue to praise it as beneficent and elevating.” Leo Tolstoy

RandomName2

Are people here actually attempting to provide arguments that the Republican paramilitaries were nicer terrorists than Loyalist paramilitaries.

Really? :pac:

Next up: Saddam vs Stalin. Which was the more pleasant dictator?

SamHall wrote: »

Hi Benny, could you post a link (just one will do) that backs up your claim that Bobby killed a civillian, never mind civillians.

Take your time now.

Not my claim but "English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, p. 196–198". Implicated in the bombing of a furniture shop which killed four civilians (two of whom were infants). Sloppy prosecution, although Sands ultimately didn't seem too aggrieved by it; instead opposed the fact that such a bombing was not considered a military act.

pablomakaveli

Nodin wrote: »

What they're saying is that many civillians were unintentionally killed by one and intentionally killed by the other.

So basically Republicans weren't as bad as Loyalists because some of the civilians they killed were killed unintentionally?

That isnt exactly going to give them the moral high ground. Both sides killed civilians intentionally. Trying to trot out numbers and say well the loyalists killed more civilians than us doesn't really mean a whole lot. Both sides were as bad as each other.

Both sides did terrible things. There were no good guys.

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

Are people here actually attempting to provide arguments that the Republican paramilitaries were nicer terrorists than Loyalist paramilitaries.

No not at all. Just asserting the fact that the loyalists tended to actively target innocent civilians based on religion.

Keep looking for something that's not there though by all means.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not my claim but "English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, p. 196–198". Implicated in the bombing of a furniture shop which killed four civilians (two of whom were infants). Sloppy prosecution, although Sands ultimately didn't seem too aggrieved by it; instead opposed the fact that such a bombing was not considered a military act.

That's not a link that backs up the earlier claim that Bobby Sands was a murderer.

.jacksparrow.

Chinasea wrote: »

“Seas of blood have been shed for the sake of patriotism. One would expect the harm and irrationality of patriotism to be self-evident to everyone. But the surprising fact is that cultured and learned people not only do not notice the harm and stupidity of patriotism, they resist every unveiling of it with the greatest obstinacy and passion, and continue to praise it as beneficent and elevating.” Leo Tolstoy

Well that's 15 seconds of my life I will never get back.

LordSutch

I have just changed my babies nappy, which made me think - Surely there was the most awful stink in the prison cells with all that poo smeared over the walls by Sands and his IRA mates? I mean if one babies nappy can make me gag, then what about a whole room covered in daily fresh human poo!

Serious question, I guess it stank, right?

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

riffmongous

LordSutch wrote: »

I have just changed my babies nappy, which made me think - Surely there was the most awful stink in the prison cells with all that poo smeared over the walls by Sands and his IRA mates? I mean if one babies nappy can make me gag, then what about a whole room covered in daily fresh human poo!

Serious question, I guess it stank, right?

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

Is it possible you get used to it if you are surrounded by it? If its constant your brain might filter it out after a while, whereas guards who come to your cell will have no tolerance for it..

I just know I have colleagues who work in a lab that deals with waste water and never complain about the smell, but every time I am near the place I want to wretch.

Chuck Stone

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Both sides were as bad as each other.

Bollocks. This conclusion can only be drawn by someone who completely refuses to consider the statistics. Trying to claim 'both sides' were equally as bad only exposes your own bias.

Loyalist death squads MO was to kill civilians. Of the hundreds of people Loyalists killed only 4% were republicans. Yes 4%. 85% were civilians and primarily innocent Catholics or Protestants mistaken for Catholics.

Of the PIRA's killings ~70% were state forces.

Btw the Army you're a member of have a pretty shameful record of murdering civilians in the north too with 50% of their killings being civilians.

Even experts in the BA would pour scorn on your appraisal.

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

RandomName2

SamHall wrote: »

No not at all. Just asserting the fact that the loyalists tended to actively target innocent civilians based on religion.

Keep looking for something that's not there though by all means.

Oh yeah, loyalists went out of their way to target innocent civilians, and went to pains to avoid Republican paramilitaries as targets. Same the other way round as well, really. But you wouldn't get that impression by the whole page of comments on the preceding page.

SamHall wrote: »

That's not a link that backs up the earlier claim that Bobby Sands was a murderer.

You require all evidence to be provided in hypertext references? Unfortunately Google search is spammed by links to bobbysands.com and a news item covering this.

LordSutch wrote: »

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

Because they weren't being treated as POWs

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

I have just changed my babies nappy, which made me think - Surely there was the most awful stink in the prison cells with all that poo smeared over the walls by Sands and his IRA mates? I mean if one babies nappy can make me gag, then what about a whole room covered in daily fresh human poo!

Serious question, I guess it stank, right?

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

of course it stank.

They refused to wear a convicts uniform, they were prisoners of war, not criminals.
The Brits then made those who refused to put on a uniform go naked, so the men then write the only garment they had, their blankets.

The prisoners had to slop out their chamber pots on a daily basis, but the Brits then refused any prisoner from doing that unless they put on the uniform, the prisoners still refused.

At first, the chamber pots were emptied out the window of the cell, then the screws blocked the Windows up, so they then threw the contents of the pots under the cell doors, but the screws started to push the urine and faeces back under the doors, saturating the mattresses and floor of the cell.

After that, the chamber pot used to sit in a corner of the cell overflowing, the prisoners then had only one thing left to do, they were forced to tear pieces from their sponge mattresses and smear the faeces on the walls and ceilings, this made it dry out considerably quicker, and thus the smell was not as strong.

It was a hellish existence for any man to endure. This was a form of torture that went on for years.

The prisoners didn't yield an inch though.

macsauce

No, I don't have to remember or admire him. He was a terrorist scumbag.

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh yeah, loyalists went out of their way to target innocent civilians, and went to pains to avoid Republican paramilitaries as targets. Same the other way round as well, really. But you wouldn't get that impression by the whole page of comments on the preceding page.

I've already given more than enough examples of loyalist death squads murdering innocent civilians for nothing more than their religion.

What have you got to counter that?

RandomName2 wrote: »

You require all evidence to be provided in hypertext references? Unfortunately Google search is spammed by links to bobbysands.com and a news item covering this.

We're talking about one of the most famous men to come from this island, a man instantly recognisable to millions the world over.

Surely to God if there was solid evidence, or a link that confirmed that he murdered anyone, it wouldn't be that hard to find, spam or no spam.

Then again, there could be another perfectly good reason why you can't find one too. That reason being that it's simply not true.

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Bollocks. This conclusion can only be drawn by someone who completely refuses to consider the statistics. Trying to claim 'both sides' were equally as bad only exposes your own bias.

Loyalist death squads MO was to kill civilians. Of the hundreds of people Loyalists killed only 4% were republicans. Yes 4%. 85% were civilians and primarily innocent Catholics or Protestants mistaken for Catholics.

Jaysus. From the statistics I have seen the number of Republican Paramilitaries killed by Loyalists was 9%, not 4%. And what percentage of Republican killings were Loyalist Paramilitaries? 9% as well. Exactly the same.

So yes, only a third of Republican killings were civilians.

However Republican paramilitaries killed twice as many people as the Loyalists did. Kind of obvious that a greater percentage were British security forces. Remember, of course, that "British security forces" included the police force of Northern Ireland, not just the British army.

SamHall wrote: »

of course it stank.

They refused to wear a convicts uniform, they were prisoners of war, not criminals.

How so? What government did they represent? Did this government have international recognition? Did it engage in political dialogue as a foreign power? Where were these soldiers' uniforms? Why did they not abide by international law governing the conduct of soldiers in war? Did any of them seek to be represented, or themselves represent the foreign power that they were fighting against? Were they a unified body with a central command? Was there a chain of command between the government that they fought for and the military? Did they themselves take prisoners, and treat such prisoners in the manner that they were themselves demanding?

Were these full time soldiers? Were they paid for their service? Were they serving, at all? Where were they trained? To whom did they bear responsibilities for their actions? Could their superiors be court-martialed? Did this government that they fought on behalf of ever seek to subpoena any of their members for their conduct?

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

Jaysus. From the statistics I have seen the number of Republican Paramilitaries killed by Loyalists was 9%, not 4%. And what percentage of Republican killings were Loyalist Paramilitaries? 9% as well. Exactly the same.

So yes, only a third of Republican killings were civilians.

However Republican paramilitaries killed twice as many people as the Loyalists did. Kind of obvious that a greater percentage were British security forces. Remember, of course, that "British security forces" included the police force of Northern Ireland, not just the British army.

We were discussing the deliberate killing of completely innocent civilians.
Victims chosen for no other reason than their religion.

Something the loyalists excelled in.

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

How so? What government did they represent? Did this government have international recognition? Did it engage in political dialogue as a foreign power? Where were these soldiers' uniforms? Why did they not abide by international law governing the conduct of soldiers in war? Did any of them seek to be represented, or themselves represent the foreign power that they were fighting against?

You're aware of guerrilla warfare right?

joe swanson

Terrorist and his terrorist mates die. Won't spare a thought for them. Maybe we should remember their innocent victims instead.

LordSutch

SamHall wrote: »

of course it stank.

They refused to wear a convicts uniform, they were prisoners of war, not criminals.
The Brits then made those who refused to put on a uniform go naked, so the men then write the only garment they had, their blankets.

The prisoners had to slop out their chamber pots on a daily basis, but the Brits then refused any prisoner from doing that unless they put on the uniform, the prisoners still refused.

At first, the chamber pots were emptied out the window of the cell, then the screws blocked the Windows up, so they then threw the contents of the pots under the cell doors, but the screws started to push the urine and faeces back under the doors, saturating the mattresses and floor of the cell.

After that, the chamber pot used to sit in a corner of the cell overflowing, the prisoners then had only one thing left to do, they were forced to tear pieces from their sponge mattresses and smear the faeces on the walls and ceilings, this made it dry out considerably quicker, and thus the smell was not as strong.

It was a hellish existence for any man to endure. This was a form of torture that went on for years.

The prisoners didn't yield an inch though.

He/they were in in prison for a reason, and as such they should have abided by the prison rules. 'Rules is rules' as they say, and what those prisoners did (as you portray) was disgusting in the highest order.

God help those prison guards (screws) having to endure that kind of carry on every day, it must have been an horrendous job cleaning out those poo covered cells every bloody day, and all because Sands and Co wanted to be classed as something other than common criminals (which they were) in the eyes of the law, albeit with some cocky notion that they were freedom fighters on a political mission!

Now before you Provo supporters all get on your horses > I'm not just saying this to stir up a hornets nest in the Pro IRA camp, but what I am portraying is the other side of the story from the Prison Guards point of view, and surely that aspect is rarely told, but should be heard.

Because to the Prison Guards/authorities, these prisoners were just common criminals like all the rest I guess.

PS: I presume "the Brits" you speak of SamHall are the Prison Guards/Screws?

Nodin

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So basically Republicans weren't as bad as Loyalists because some of the civilians they killed were killed unintentionally?
.....

As stated earlier -

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

(my bold)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm

As regards loyalist violence

The final striking feature of Figure A3.7 is that loyalist paramilitaries kill civilians almost exclusively. This feature of their activities has been consistent since their first eruption (Boulton 1973; Dillon and I,ehane 1973).

(my bold)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm

Loyalism was slow to develop a political outlook of any depth, and only developed sophistication in attacks and methodology much later in the conflict.

RandomName2

SamHall wrote: »

statistics

Sorry, my bad.

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
1080 (~52%) were members of the British security forces
728 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
56 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
10 (~0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
868 (~85.4%) were civilians
93 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1.3%) were members of the British security forces

Source: Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland

SamHall wrote: »

You're aware of guerrilla warfare right?

Yes. In this case being fought by several disjointed, competing terrorist organisations that were seeking to destabilise the government through bombing campaigns, ambushes, kidnappings, arson, and intimidation.

SamHall wrote: »

We were discussing the deliberate killing of completely innocent civilians.
Victims chosen for no other reason than their religion.

Something the loyalists excelled in.

That much we can agree on.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

He/they were in in prison for a reason, and as such they should have abided by the prison rules. 'Rules is rules' as they say, and what those prisoners did (as you portray) was disgusting in the highest order. ?

"lie down, croppy, lie down" is the song you're thinking of.

LordSutch wrote: »

God help those prison guards (screws) having to endure that kind of carry on every day.......

The poor dears.

This isn't "to stir up a hornets nest "?

gallag

The same people pretending that the IRA had a higher moral code because they had a lower percentage of civilians killed, of course they did, they were the only group that targeted non civilians, the uvf, uda etc did not target the army, police etc so they naturally had a higher ratio of civilian totals. The ira still killed more civilians than any other group, just so happens that they also murdered a lot of non civilian police/army/prision guards etc.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

He/they were in in prison for a reason, and as such they should have abided by the prison rules. 'Rules is rules' as they say, and what those prisoners did (as you portray) was disgusting in the highest order.

Many were sentenced without a trial or jury in a diplock court, so this bit is complete tripe tbh.

How many of the prisoners would ever have seen the inside of a prison has it not have been four the troubles?

Also, thankfully the Brits didn't share your view when they gave in to the prisoners demands.

LordSutch wrote: »

God help those prison guards (screws) having to endure that kind of carry on every day, it must have been an horrendous job cleaning out those poo covered cells every bloody day, and all because Sands and Co wanted to be classed as something other than common criminals (which they were) in the eyes of the law, albeit with some cocky notion that they were freedom fighters on a political mission!

The screws got to go home everyday. Unlike the prisoners, as already said, some imprisoned without trial.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the cells were cleaned daily?

I can't help but feel that you know all about the protests.

LordSutch wrote: »

Now before you Provo supporters all get on your horses > I'm not just saying this to stir up a hornets nest in the Pro IRA camp, but what I am portraying is the other side of the story from the Prison Guards point of view, and surely that aspect is rarely told, but should be heard.

PS: I presume "the Brits" you speak of SamHall are the Prison Guards/Screws?

No. Many of the screws were Irishmen.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

Loyalism was slow to develop a political outlook of any depth, and only developed sophistication in attacks and methodology much later in the conflict.

There was method in the madness. It stemmed from an ingrained philosophy that Nationalists could be driven out altogether through terror. Luckily their apparent disinterest in politics (directly) had the effect of making the main Unionist parties of the north less tainted by association. The unionist parties were criticised for not curbing the violence, not for having members who were actually guilty of it.

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

There was method in the madness. It stemmed from an ingrained philosophy that Nationalists could be driven out altogether through terror. Luckily their apparent disinterest in politics (directly) had the effect of making the main Unionist parties of the north less tainted by association. The unionist parties were criticised for not curbing the violence, not for having members who were actually guilty of it.

Billy Hutchinson.
David Ervine.

We'll start with these fine pair of gentlemen shall we.

RandomName2

SamHall wrote: »

Many were sentenced without a trial or jury in a diplock court, so this bit is complete tripe tbh.

But not so the person whom this thread is about.

SamHall wrote: »

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the cells were cleaned daily?

The prisoners were fed, clothed and provided basic sanitation. The prisoners forsook the food, the clothes, and the sanitation as they believed that accepting such would make them appear criminal prisoners rather than prisoners of war.